Author: VD

Stephen Kinsella summarizes the usual arguments in defense of intellectual property at the Economicon:

There are some decent arguments out there that argue in favor of a state, welfare rights, war, democracy, drug laws, and so on. They are all flawed, since libertarianism is right, but there are coherent, honest arguments that we libertarians have to grapple with. But it is striking that there are no decent arguments for IP…. One sees the same incoherent or insincere claims made over and over, such as:

1. It’s in the constitution (argument from authority; legal positivism)

2. Intellectual property is called property! (argument by definition?)

3. No movies would be made and kids would die without medicine (artworks and medicine have been produced for ages without IP law; and where’s the evidence?)

4. If you “create” something you own it (despite all the exceptions, and despite the fact that creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for ownership; despite the fact that you either limit these rights in scope or time arbitrarily, or you extent them to infinity, choking off rights in real things and forcing life and commerce to a screeching halt)

5. It generates net wealth–more value than its cost (no evidence, ever, for this contention–just assumptions; not to mention the problem of utilitarian summing of values)

6. IP infringement is “theft” (even though the owner still has his property and ideas, and even though IP infringement is just learning and emulating)

7. People “could” create variants of IP via private contracts… therefore artifical patent granting bureaucracies legislated by a criminal state are… justified?)

My only quibble here is that point 1 is somewhat incorrectly labled; to the extent that an appeal to the Constitution is an appeal to the law and therefore the government, it’s less argumentum ad verecundiam than argumentum ad baculum. A pure “appeal to authority” would be arguing that intellectual property is real property because Milton Friedman said it was.

To me, the most obvious flaw in the IP defenders’ arguments is the undeniable fact that very, very few authors of the tens of thousands of book published every year earn enough from their literary activities for it to be their primary means of support. The median SF/F advance is $13,750, and this doesn’t even account for the unpaid efforts of the much larger number of unpublished authors. This is the result of supply and demand; the supply of would-be authors far outstrips the demand. I theorize that if the median book advance was dropped to zero, the number of books being written would drop by a significant percentage, the number of books being published would increase, and the quality of books being published would also increase. The first two conclusions are obvious, while the rationale behind the third one rests on my belief that the new situation would disincentivize those who are writing primarily for pecuniary purposes and whose skills primarily lie in selling themselves to the publishing gatekeepers rather than in their writing talents.

There is empirical evidence supporting this notion, especially if one stops to consider the fact that most of the novels that are considered great were published prior to the modern IP era. People create things for a variety of reasons, and their primary motivation is very seldom financial reward. I’m pleased that five of my six books have sold well enough to be profitable and I hope my next book will do even better. But, like the countless legion of unknown writers whose works will never see print, I would write books even if I was not paid to do so. (On the other hand, I only not write for profit.) The mere existence of blog, and the existence of a million others like it, should suffice to conclusively prove that the prospect of financial gain is not an essential component of Man’s motivation to create.

It may be worth noting that even though copyright does not protect the titles of books or movies, one does not see quantities of publishers attempting to sell books entitled “Gone With the Wind” or “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone”. Now, I don’t actually have serious a problem with minor patent protection and reasonable copyright; this is mostly an intellectual exercise for me. But I do take serious issue with the current system, which is abusive of both the consumer and the creator alike, and abuses them in the interest of non-creative corporations.

The Other Renee writes:

I read a couple of you posts about feminism a while ago, and it left me thinking a lot about things. For one thing, if the feminism movement never took place, do you think that women would have as much rights and opportunities as they do today? Do you think that they even belong in the workplace? Also, how do you feel about unequal wages between men and women; do you think that women deserve equal pay? I understand and agree that men and women are not biologically the same and should not be treated as such, but idealy and under the law, they do deserve the same rights and privileges. Now I know feminism isn’t perfect, but I kind of feel that it’s more the people than the actual idea of it. Like religion (stick with me here). Many people think Christianity is bad, but it’s some of the followers that make it bad, the religion itself isn’t bad. I REEEAALLY hope that made sense.

If feminism had never existed, women would have more rights, fewer opportunities, and they would be better off by numerous objective measures including health, wealth, and de facto ability to choose how to live their lives. To ask if women “belong in the workplace” is a misleading question, as lower class women have always worked. Feminism is a middle class phenomenon; upper- and middle-class women do not belong in the full-time workplace if they are going to marry and have children as their contributions are far less important in the workplace than in the home. About a third of the female population have to work for one reason or another and traditional societies have always accommodated that. I understand your last point and there are certainly no shortage of evil feminists, but unlike some other religions and ideologies, the inherent problem is not with the ideologues but rather with the ideology itself.

In the end, I feel that I am an egalitarian when it comes to equality in political, economic, social, and civil rights.

You’re obviously mistaking me for someone who gives an airborne rodent’s posterior. Equality is an utter myth and does not exist except in the imaginations of those who are insufficiently rooted in material reality. I find Nzambi Mpungu and the Labor Theory of Value to be more credible.

In “A feminist throws in the towel” back in October 2, 2008, you said this: The truth is that “sexism” is merely one of the many excuses that the incompetent use to justify their failures. Nobody gets a fair shake, even those who have massive advantages usually know what it’s like to not get a chance…. If you’re a loser of either sex, you complain about how everyone else is responsible for your failures, you come up with a label to justify them, and you wallow in the unfairness of it all. If you’re not, you just shrug, assess the situation, and take your best shot where you can. Life isn’t fair. There probably isn’t a single genuinely fair individual to be found anywhere in the world. So what? That’s the situation – what are you going to do about it? Change the world by force and government fiat? Yeah, that’s worked so very well so often in the past!

I admit, I don’t know how they decided who was sexist and who wasn’t, but something bothers me. There’s a difference between blaming people for your failures, and being denied promotions, advancements, equal wage, etc. based on your sex despite doing your VERY BEST and doing excellent work on your job (even performing better than some of the men). Of course no one gets a fair shake in life. But if I’m in the workplace and I’m being denied equal wage and potential promotions, all because I’m a woman, I’m not supposed to do anything about it? I should just accept it? Even if the guy does excellent work, if he’s genuinely sexist, then disciplinary actions must be taken even if he is at the top. I know that life isn’t fair, but in certain situations like unequality and discrimination on the job, I’m not going to critize someone for bringing to light what’s going on at that particular workplace and trying to make a difference.

Here’s an example. After many years of women being denied equal pay in the workplace despite doing the exact same jobs as men in many instances, the Senate passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, and the President has promised to sign it into law. After endless protests and hardwork to end unequal pay (or at least decrease the frequency of such cases), this happened.

Renee’s attitude is all too typical of the inherent liberal fascism that afflicts so many women. First, on what planet does the person doing the VERY BEST job have an inalienable legal right to anything? Does Renee seriously believe that if I walk in the door and can prove that I can do a better job than she does, she should be immediately fired and her job should be given to me? If not, then what on Earth is she complaining about. It’s no business of hers what metric the employer chooses to use to evaluate employees. It’s amazing, but entirely predictable that she thinks the only two options are to either a) just accept it, or b) institute a massive Federal bureaucracy applying pseudo-objective measures to every job in the country and watching over how closely employers are abiding by those measures. And note this ominous declaration: “Even if the guy does excellent work, if he’s genuinely sexist, then disciplinary actions must be taken even if he is at the top.

So, it turns out that despite her concerns about excellence in the workplace that’s just a red herring to disguise Renee’s real goal, which is the forced imposition of her belief in her nonexistent god on everyone. While she means well, the only difference between Renee and an Islamic Jihadist is that the jihadist is willing to use personal force in imposing his will on the populace, Renee prefers to use politicians to do her dirty work for her.

Furthermore, the “Fair Pay Act” isn’t about equal pay for equal work, it’s about equal pay for less work. The main difference in male and female compensation is that on average, women in the same job as men work fewer hours per month than men and are more likely to quit than men. This makes them less valuable to employers, and therefore worth less pay. There’s nothing to prevent Renee and her fellow feminists from starting their own corporations and running them however they want. But then, that would involve taking personal responsibility, making decisions and doing actual work, rather than simply whining at politicians and benefiting parasitically from the effort of others.

I suspect that if Robert Byrd wasn’t a Democrat, that’s how the headlines would read:

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

Klansman or not, it does seem a bit rich for a Democratic senator to complain about imperial overreach out of Washington.

The increased availablilty of pre-natal customization is going to raise a number of interesting moral and legal questions, some which are going to be quite uncomfortable for those who still cling to the unscientific and illogical myth that an unborn child is a subhuman life form sans even the right to life:

The Fertility Institutes recently stunned the fertility community by being the first company to boldly offer couples the opportunity to screen their embryos not only for diseases and gender, but also for completely benign characteristics such as eye color, hair color, and complexion. The Fertility Institutes proudly claims this is just the tip of the iceberg, and plans to offer almost any conceivable customization as science makes them available. Even as couples from across the globe are flocking in droves to pay the company their life’s savings for a custom baby, opponents are vilifying the company for shattering moral and ethical boundaries. Like it or not, the era of designer babies is officially here and there is no going back.

As with the problem of inordinate inclination to abort female children in India and China, it should be morbidly amusing to witness the contortions of anti-modification abortion advocates as they attempt to simultaneously argue that it should be illegal to modify an unborn child to your liking, but legal to kill it.

To be a Japanese scientist:

Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission. Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

Is it too soon for me to call this one for the skeptics yet? Yeah, probably. Anyhow, I’m still enjoying my victory lap for the housing deal, as today’s press release from NAR will serve nicely to demonstrate: The median sales price in January plunged to $170,300, down 14.8 percent from $199,800 a year earlier. Yeah, I was a month early, (or, if you prefer, off by $400), but I do believe 170 meets the description of “$175k or less….”

Now, let’s refresh our memory of those “scientists” who are certain that one has to be wholly ignorant of “science” to doubt the “established fact” of anthropogenic global warmingclimate change. And what an amazing coincidence it is that so many AGW/CC cultists show precisely the same attitude toward those who express skepticism about another, equally dubious, branch of “science”.

“Dark Fossils and Dark Species… Dark Fossils and Dark Species…. Our two explanations are Dark Fossils and Dark Species… and vast quantities of time…. Our three explanations are Dark Fossils, and Dark Species, and vast quantities of time… and an almost fanatical devotion to Charles Darwin…. Our four…no… Amongst our explanations are such elements as Dark Fossils, Dark Species…. I’ll come in again.”

Just in case you still had a smidgeon of doubt that Obama’s administration is doomed to economic failure:

Obama vows to increase number of soldiers…
Obama vows to seek cure for cancer ‘in our time’…
Obama says bank bailout may cost more than expected…
Obama promises universal EDUCATION THROUGH COLLEGE…
Obama promises universal health care…

Of course, I am using the term “optimistic” in the sense of the English football commentator, who usually reserves it for a ridiculous shot taken from an absurdly long distance by the sort of player who only scores two or three goals in the best of seasons. What on Earth is the freaking point of sending a bunch of cretins who couldn’t learn to read in 12 years of high school to college? University degrees are already the virtual equivalent of high school degrees, by the time Obama is done, they may be the equivalent of finishing junior high. And a cure for cancer… why not just have done with it and promise everyone flying unicorns that smell of rainbows? I find it interesting that Obama is reduced to vowing that the USA will survive a “day of reckoning”. The mere fact that he has to say it tends to indicate that the issue is in doubt.

Meanwhile, Charles Murray is in awe: It looks very much as if the president is oblivious to everything we’ve learned about social programs and educational reforms in the last 40 years—and by “we” I include policy analysts on the left as well as right. The guy never indicates that he is aware that we’ve tried a whole bunch of the same stuff he wants to try and evaluated it repeatedly and—read my lips—it doesn’t work.

Come on, Charles, don’t player hate. Obaminate!

UPDATE – Ben Shalom stimulates more public confidence: “We’re not making it up,” Bernanke told the House Financial Services panel. “We’re working along a program that has been applied in various contexts,” he said. “We’re not completely in the dark.”

He’s right, the program has been applied in various contexts. The very small fact he left out is that it didn’t work then either.

I just received word today from a publisher that they have decided to publish my next book. It’s too soon to say anything official about it, but if you think about it, you’ll probably be able to figure out the subject matter.

SP emails word that other people with experience in both finance and computers have noticed the same problem with global warming that I have often described with regards to both global warming and evolution:

I have always been suspicious of climate models, in part because I spent some time in college trying to model chaotic dynamic systems, and in part because I have a substantial amount of experience with financial modeling. There are a number of common traps one can fall into when modeling any system, and it appears to me that climate modelers are falling into most of them.

Of course the underlying issue, in less mathematical terms, also tends to apply to the reliably unreliable evolutionary models. At least the global warming faithful appear to understand the basics of predictive modeling enough to try manipulating them; evolutionary biologists are so mathematically and/or computer illiterate that they often don’t understand that historical backtesting is not a dependable form of proof. For example, Richard Dawkins’s Weasel program really has to be seen to be believed; it’s an amazing demonstration of the completely obvious that not only misses the point, but exposes the crudity of the thought processes behind evolutionary theory.

And, as was pointed out in the New York Times today, no amount of hiding behind “science” will change the fact that what they’re actually doing is dogmatic politics and ideology, not actual hypothesize-test-and-observe science.

A scientist can enter the fray by becoming an advocate for certain policies, like limits on carbon emissions or subsidies for wind power. That’s a perfectly legitimate role for scientists, as long as they acknowledge that they’re promoting their own agendas. But too often, Dr. Pielke says, they pose as impartial experts pointing politicians to the only option that makes scientific sense. To bolster their case, they’re prone to exaggerate their expertise (like enumerating the catastrophes that would occur if their policies aren’t adopted), while denigrating their political opponents as “unqualified” or “unscientific.”

“Some scientists want to influence policy in a certain direction and still be able to claim to be above politics,” Dr. Pielke says. “So they engage in what I call ‘stealth issue advocacy’ by smuggling political arguments into putative scientific ones.”

This is sure to boost public confidence in the administration:

Barack Obama on Monday launched what he promised would be an enduring bipartisan process to bring down the fiscal deficits that have started to explode under his watch. Mr Obama, who called 130 lawmakers and members of think-tanks to the White House for what he described as a “fiscal sustainability summit”, added that by the end of his first term, he would halve the budget deficit he inherited from George W. Bush….

Although Lawrence Summers, head of the National Economic Council, fell asleep on the podium, most attendees, including Republicans, appear to have appreciated the exercise.

I’m really enjoying what passes for the Obama presidency. This economic crisis isn’t tragedy, it’s farce. And I, for one, am laughing. Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed expert on the Great Depression, Ben Bernanke, demonstrates that he didn’t learn anything pertinent from his much-ballyhooed studies of it:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Tuesday the economy is suffering through a “severe contraction” and pledged to use all available tools to lift the country out of the recession that already has cost millions of Americans their jobs…. Bernanke hoped that the current recession, now in its second year, will end this year.

If someone’s health is damaged from an overdose of steroids, giving them even more of the same steroids they previously injected isn’t going to make them better. And if an economy is contracting due to credit-inflated malinvestment, injecting more cheap money into the system to prop up the worthless investments isn’t going to cause it to grow again. The failure of the Fed to do the right thing may be a net positive in the long run, though. The credibility of central banking is rapidly being destroyed, and a failure to ward off a second Great Depression may have the capability of killing the concept for at least a few generations to come.

As I said in the AGD study, it really looks like 1930 right now. If I was in the market, I’d be watching out for an impressive bear market rally kicking off soon, then collapsing in the fall once it becomes clear that the contraction hasn’t ended, ala 1931.

Spengler cites observations that appear to contrast directly with the conventional wisdom:

Iran is dying. The collapse of Iran’s birth rate during the past 20 years is the fastest recorded in any country, ever. Demographers have sought in vain to explain Iran’s population implosion through family planning policies, or through social factors such as the rise of female literacy. But quantifiable factors do not explain the sudden collapse of fertility. It seems that a spiritual decay has overcome Iran, despite best efforts of a totalitarian theocracy….

Two indicators of Iranian morale are worth citing. First, prostitution has become a career of choice among educated Iranian women. On February 3, the Austrian daily Der Standard published the results of two investigations conducted by the Tehran police, suppressed by the Iranian media. “More than 90% of Tehran’s prostitutes have passed the university entrance exam, according to the results of one study, and more than 30% of them are registered at a university or studying,” reports Der Standard.”

Second, according to a recent report from the US Council on Foreign Relations, “Iran serves as the major transport hub for opiates produced by [Afghanistan], and the UN Office of Drugs and Crime estimates that Iran has as many as 1.7 million opiate addicts.” That is, 5% of Iran’s adult, non-elderly population of 35 million is addicted to opiates. That is an astonishing number, unseen since the peak of Chinese addiction during the 19th century.

This is interesting, although as Spengler notes, it’s also dangerous. Anomie is not reserved to the West; it may be that Western Islam has taken on an increasingly violent aspect due a sense of cultural weakness and desperation rather than cultural confidence. Spengler’s statistics are startling, but his conclusion doesn’t surprise me too much, as whenever the short-sighted intellectual herd starts babbling about the inevitable long-term consequences of the current trend, I take that as a sign to start looking around for signs of a peak. Longtime readers will recall my similar skepticism of all the “Permanent Majority” chatter on the part of the Republican commentariat upon hitting the party hitting its high-water mark in 2004.

This highly visible generation of European Muslims are only the second generation; remember it’s usually the third generation that is most susceptible to decadence and decline. If the Islamic Republic is overcome by this spiritual decay, I think it’s more likely than not that European Islam, which has tended to follow the radical arc of Khomeini’s Revolution, will eventually do so as well. This is especially true in light of the economic chaos that should dominate the next decade or two, as it will almost surely see the end of the continent-wide collection of multiculti-promoting governments.

Spengler previously commented upon these developments with a memorable aphorism: “A nation is never really beaten until it sells its women.”