Author: VD

Shrub repeats a common myth:

Intellectual property laws are put in place to maintain scarcity of the commodity and dominion & control and if the creator is not assured control over his creation then you stiffle creativity as there are no longer any meaningful incentives to create.

This is a common myth and a wildly silly one. First, the great majority of the greatest artistic works of mankind were produced prior to the existence of IP. The IP era has produced few great writers, few great musicians and almost no great painters, mostly because IP transfers power from the producers to the publishing corporations which always reduce things to the lowest common denominator.

Second, people do not create for primarily financial reasons. It is estimated that 100 books are written for every book that is published. Of those books that are published, only a small percentage provide the creator with an income above the poverty level. The elimination of IP might harm the Stephen Kings of the world but would counter-intuitively benefit those authors who are currently shut out by the IP-dependent gatekeepers.

Technological advances are also not dependent upon IP. Consider how quickly tech goods are reverse-engineered and cheap knockoffs are produced. Apple’s IPod sales are not dependent upon IP, they are dependent upon people’s desire to own an IPod from Apple. If anything, eliminating IP would speed up the pace of innovation, as companies could not depend on using the threat of government force to inhibit competition.

And before you ask how I’d feel about my books being distributed freely in electronic format, please understand that I asked the vice-publisher of Pocket Books to publicly announce the free download of my books from their web site two years ago. They declined, unfortunately, but I anticipate being able to convince them in the future.

Joe Carter of the Evangelical Outpost reflects on my answer to his question about blackmail:

How can blackmail be considered a sin that should not also be classified as a crime?

When I posed this question the first time I blackmailed these libertarians by threatening to expose their “dirty little secrets” unless they provided a quick response. Because they all answered the question, the compromising photos were returned to the safety deposit box. The following is a brief summation of their responses, though I recommend reading their posts in their entirety…

Vox’s response, contra Josh, is that to ban blackmail is to necessarily engage in “thought-policing” since it is the intentions, rather than the actions, which are being judged. Your intention is to buy my silence; you are operating under the assumption that I intend to inform others if you do not pay. Blackmail is therefore inherently a thought crime since if it occurs, no action has actually been taken by the blackmailer.

As for the Christian side of the equation, he argues that “exposure is a virtuous act under Biblical principles, it cannot and should not be viewed as something negative, much less as the basis for a crime.” Exposing HS would, under Vox’s view, be a virtuous act.

All three are intriguing, though I think they all ultimately fail to be convincing. Josh’s appeal to the “right” to be free from forced labor appears to stretch the definition of both “forced” and “labor” in an attempt to cover blackmail. Under this application, moral suasion could also be deemed as “forced labor” if I try to convince a person that they should change their mind about an issue. Also, as Vox argues, blackmail laws allow the State to step on a person’s rights of privacy and freedom from forced labor.

I don’t think that Vox’s reason, however, is any sounder than that provided by Josh. If blackmail should not be criminalized because it is simply a “thought crime”, then we should also decriminalize all other forms of threat. Using this logic we could not arrest anyone for simply threatening to commit murder, they would have to actually commit an actual “physical” act (as opposed to a mental one) first. Does libertarianism really argue that the strong have an inherent political right to intimidate the weak?

The underlying problem with all three defenses appears to be how we apply the libertarian conception of “freedom.” In his excellent rebuttal to these original posts, Jeremy Pierce includes this insightful paragraph:

This is a real conflict in libertarian political thought, because it seems that anyone’s freedom will almost certainly end up restricting someone else’s. So when you try to figure out which freedoms you’re going to restrict, you have to decide it based on some factor other than the pure value of freedom, because freedom is what’s creating the conflict. We need a choice between freedoms, in particular between the freedom of one person and the freedom of another. Libertarians argue against slavery on the grounds that it’s an uncontroversial case of one person’s freedom restricting another’s, but isn’t the same sort of thing going on in all kinds of other social relationships?

I will let Josh and John defend their own arguments; they’re certainly capable of doing so without my help. The answer to Joe’s first rhetorical question is simple: since there are no shortage of sins that are not crimes (adultery) and crimes that are not sins (downloading a pirate MP3), it is not difficult to theorize that blackmail COULD be sinful without being criminal.

The first problem with Joe’s critique is that he equates the threat of committing a legal and virtuous act – letting the truth be publicly known – with the threat of committing an illegal and immoral one. (Leave the question of gossip aside for now.) I should think that to argue that a “threat” to buy an apple is in any way equivalent to making a threat to murder someone is an obvious reductio ad absurdum, and therefore obviously erroneous.

More later.

New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court’s conservatives Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

Alito, handling his first case, sided with inmate Michael Taylor, who had won a stay from an appeals court earlier in the evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the stay, but Alito joined the remaining five members in turning down Missouri’s last-minute request to allow a midnight execution.

So that sound I heard last night was millions of Three Monkey Republicans gasping after being metaphorically punched in the stomach. Does this mean that Justice Alito has officially declared his Souterhood? No, not yet. But there’s no way conservatives can take it as a positive sign either.

I’m vaguely concerned by this myself, even though I’m opposed to the death penalty. (Don’t get sidetracked, everyone knows by now that I’m against it on the grounds of it being a terrible idea to give government a license to kill its citizens, based on the history of the 20th Century.)

But strike one has certainly been called. No doubt the abortionettes will be looking at each other this morning and thinking that perhaps Alito won’t be so bad after all.

“Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on [military] intelligence components collecting U.S. person information,” the U.S. Army’s top intelligence officer said in a 2001 memo that surfaced Tuesday. Not only that, military intelligence agencies are permitted to “receive” domestic intelligence information, even though they cannot legally “collect” it,” according to the Nov. 5, 2001, memo issued by Lt. Gen. Robert W. Noonan Jr., the deputy chief of staff for intelligence.

“MI [military intelligence] may receive information from anyone, anytime,” Noonan wrote in the memo, obtained by Secrecy News, a newsletter from the non-profit Federation of American Scientists in Washington.

Defense Department and Army regulations “allow collection about U.S. persons reasonably believed to be engaged, or about to engage, in international terrorist activities,” Noonan continued.

“Remember, merely receiving information does not constitute ‘collection’ under AR [Army Regulation] 381-10; collection entails receiving ‘for use,’ ” he added. (Army Regulation 381-10, “U.S. Army Intelligence Activities,” was reissued on Nov. 22, 2005, but had not previously been disclosed publicly.) “Army intelligence may always receive information, if only to determine its intelligence value and whether it can be collected, retained, or disseminated in accordance with governing policy,”

The distinction between “receiving” and “collecting” seems “to offer considerable leeway for domestic surveillance activities under the existing legal framework,” wrote editor Steven Aftergood in Tuesday’s edition of Secrecy News.

Oh, well, that’s okay then. There’s nothing like the creative use of a thesaurus to ensure national security and civil liberties. This sort of slow nibbling-away at limitations on central power isn’t going to end, indeed, the pace has quickened noticeably ever since George Delano came into power and there are no indications that it is going to slow down under any of his likely successors.

LL is back with a vengeance:

Like I care what your ass kissing, brainwashed cheerleaders think. You are the joke. I see you pick and choose which emails you post on your website. You don’t post the ones that reveal things about you that you don’t want people to know, but yo post emails of people that don’t know and don’t intend for them to be posted.

There is no joke on me. Knowing latin or greek or quoting from obscure books does not make you right. You are just a wise fool. You have knowledge (and you love to pat yourself on the back about in every sentence), but you have no wisdom

No matter how many misspellings or typos I have, that does not make me wrong and you right. You are wrong-about most things, and the more I see of your actions, writings and ideas, the more I am convinced that you are certainly no Christan. You are the one claiming to be a Christian. I never said I was, and I never said I wasn’

You would have done yourself a favor by not trying to make an example out of me You will be laughing out the other side of your ass now.

This latest missive certainly is amusing. I can’t help but wonder, though, if one finds it embarrassing to be quoted in public, is pouring more gasoline on the fire really the most reasonable response?

UPDATE: LL decides to get threatening in two subsequent emails.

You are the one pouring fuel of the fire. I couldn’t care less if I am quoted in public. You seem to be under the delusion your fan club is the world and you are God. You are the one that posts my emails. You don’t post emails with information about your past.

I am not a talker-I am a doer. Antone who knows me would tell you that it woud be better for you to not taunt me or laugh at me. I have my ways of making a point, and I have my ways of getting even.

Hey, you’re saying it, not me. Simply shutting your mouth is always an option, you know.

Veronique de Rugy answers her own question on NRO:

So which speech should we believe: The small-government or big-government speech? Do we believe the message of budget restraint from the White House or the calls for spending increases on the president’s favored programs? The track record does not leave much room for optimism. In the last five years, total spending has risen 40 percent — a figure larger than Clinton’s two terms combined. Moreover, real discretionary spending increases in FY2002, FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005 are 4 of the 10 biggest annual increases in the last 40 years.

The president may be a domestic disaster, but at least he’s bringing democracy to places like Iraq and Palestine. Because if Hamas and a new Shiite government doesn’t add up to a brave new world ahead, well, I don’t know what does.

Aren’t you excited that the Three Monkey’s Dear Leader harbors a desire to bring it to Zimbabwe as well now? It seems to be working so well in South Africa, after all.

The funny thing is that the ad headline on NRO said A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IS ESSENTIAL! For what, I ask. For what, exactly?

LL is a big fan:

I read Vox Day’s Commentary “Beating he War Drum”. I was discusted by it. I used to think this man was a Christian, and I linked to his commentary on the Narnia Chronicles” in my blog, but after reading “Beating The War Drum”. I have no use for this man!

I hope youu will drop him because he isnot a Christian and he doesn’t have a clue about the post 911 era we live in, nor does he have a clue about the iblical times we live in. He is very sophomoric.

I can’t believe this man could suggest we wait for Iran to nuke Israel before we do something or that we should wait for Iran to give nukes to terrorist cells in USA or Europe, or that we should allow Iran to destroy USA with a EMP weapon fired from a freighter off our coast.

He is still asleep in a pre 911 paradigm, he knows nothing about Bibilical prophecy nor the biblical times we live in, he is antisemitic, he is a Bush hater, he is stupid.

Why is he allowed on your website?

I laughed, I cried, much better than Cats. It seems the definition of anti-semitism has been broadened to include insufficient enthusiasm for unprovoked attacks on Israel’s enemies.

Here’s a simple question for you. If Iran making threats against Israel justifies the USA preemptively attacking Iran, aren’t the USA’s threats against Iran similar justification for anyone else who wishes to attack the USA? If not, do please explain your reasoning.

Brookhiser on NRO’s Corner:

Did anyone else think that W’s praise of Bill Clinton, which was all over my AOL startup menu yesterday, was sly sabotage of Hillary (grossing out the Kossacks)?

If you doubted the depths to which Three Monkeys would sink, doubt no more. First, note the telling confession… AO-freaking-L? NRO has crawled so far up the elephant’s posterior that I have no doubt that Goldberg will soon be cracking wise about the pachydermic stomach acid and Lowry will explain how funding Hamas is a clever Bush administration plan to bankrupt it.

As for the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton crack, indications are that Hillary has already been Anointed. If so, George Delano would surely know and is not tweaking the Kossacks, but the clueless electorate. I still don’t see how Hillary can possibly be considered electable, but it is early yet and it is not hard to envision various scenarios that would render her so.

1. Hillary becomes the Border Warrior. This would be the easiest move, especially if the Republicans continue to alienate their base.
2. Republicans nominate a pro-choice candidate. A major Republican runs as a pro-life third-party candidate and splits the Republican vote ala 1992.
3. War in Iran goes poorly, Hillary becomes the Mideast Peace Candidate.
4. No war in Iran, inflation in 2007, Hillary becomes the New New Dealist.

From Debka:

After a series of muddled statements and zigzags, wishful thinking prevailed in London and Brussels after all. The European Union, led by the Middle East Quartet, agreed to release financial aid to a Palestinian government taken over by a terrorist organization….

The EU gave the PA $615 million last year. The US had budgeted $234 [million] for 2006.

Let’s summarize. The various Western governments claim they need the ability to track everyone’s financial information lest someone send any of it to those loathesome terrorists. At the same time, they are providing $849 million dollars per year directly to terrorist organizations.

Who buys this nonsense? Seriously, is everyone THAT brain-dead? And why on Earth would you want to provide anyone who is capable of accepting this twisted reasoning with the ability to vote?

Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, on Monday reported a quarterly profit of $10.7 billion, capping a year of record earnings dominated by surging oil and gas prices.

The results pushed up Exxon’s profit for the year to a staggering $36.13 billion — bigger than the economies of 125 of the 184 countries ranked by the World Bank. Profit rose 42 percent from 2004.

The company and its peers have come under fire for posting billions in profit while consumers struggle with high gasoline prices. Exxon was quick to emphasize that such results would help it make long-term investments to meet energy demand.

The Irving, Texas company’s fourth-quarter net income rose 27 percent, to $10.71 billion, or $1.71 a share, from $8.42 billion, or $1.30 a share, a year earlier. Revenue was just shy of $100 billion.

Try to keep this little profit statement in mind the next time you run into one of the morons from the “No Blood For Oil” crowd. As I pointed out in an article two years ago, oil is paid for in dollars, which are nothing but debt. So, there’s no national incentive to wage war for oil unless you can’t pay for it in dollars. And if you want to theorize about global corporate conspiracies influencing politicians behind closed doors, you should probably know that the oil companies LOVE expensive oil, for as the quote above demonstrates, they make significantly more money. Nobody wants cheap oil except the masses, whose feelings are irrelevant no matter which way you look at it.

I am no fan of the Bush administration, the neocons or their World Democratic Revolution, for a myriad of reasons. But don’t ever make the mistake of lumping me in with those utterly clueless cretins on the Left.