2011 – Page 43 – The Libertarian Standard

“Chaotic lack of rules”

By Manuel Lora / February 10, 2011 / 1 minute of reading

Just when I thought I had heard/read it all, comes this gem out of NYC:

Efforts to tame a lawless bus industry that has left Chinatown like the “Wild West” have been introduced by neighborhood politicians.

The move, which would force buses traveling between New York and other cities to have a permit to operate, has teamed up State Sen. Daniel Squadron, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Council Member Margaret Chin.

They introduced a bill before the State Legislature Friday, designed to create a permit system for the first time ever and ease what they called a “chaotic lack of rules” which puts travelers and neighborhood residents at risk.

It seems that the main problem here is that companies often do not have a designated stop; opponents say this causes traffic problems. Granted, if this is true, then it is because of true, chaos-causing rules–the rules giving the state control of the roads.

“With no rules to regulate buses, the streets of Chinatown are like the Wild West, and that doesn’t work for bus companies or the community,” said Squadron. If only.

“Chaotic lack of rules” Read Post »

Rothbard’s Button

Anti-Statism, Humor, Technology

By Isaac Bergman / February 10, 2011 / 1 minute of reading

All this recent talk of legislating and implementing an internet “kill switch” is being hyped by statists in the name of national security. Oh, just imagine the horrors if some if some malicious internet terrorists hax0r open the Hoover Dam floodgates, possibly killing thousands!

I readily agree with this FUD; but I disagree with the implementation. In order to protect the “national security interest,” the correct solution is to put not private, but all government, resources behind an internet kill switch! This way when some script kiddies start launching NORAD missiles, Obama can blister his thumb pressing the government kill switch that Murray Rothbard could only dream about.

Rothbard’s Button Read Post »

What Libertarians Should Know When Debating Statists

(Austrian) Economics, Anti-Statism, Libertarian Theory, The Basics

By Manuel Lora / February 9, 2011 / 3 Comments / 2 minutes of reading

Anthony Gregory makes a quick list of “talking points” that libertarians should know rather well when engaging in argumentation with statists. Here it is:

The law of comparative advantage
Broken window
Socialism vs. universability
The state cannot be perfectly egalitarian — someone calls the shots
If EVEN the US government does X, is there any hope for a good govt?
The ratchet effect
History shows markets can handle health care and insurance
History shows markets can handle law
Govt. education = indoctrination by the power elite
Guns protect us from criminals, and the state
Free speech is the cornerstone of civilization
Without property rights, no other rights are possible
Libertarian property rights are, in the good sense, more “democratic” than socialist rights
The free market empowers the weak against the strong, who always grab political influence
If you don’t own your body, no liberties are possible
History shows corporations side with the regulatory state
History damns every war that has happened
Due process rights are important, because the state can never be trusted — it is that evil
You can’t have freedom without letting others have it
Political democracy is no better than any other form of govt., basically (hat tip, HHH!)
Relative freedom at home can mean more imperialism — look out! (hat tip, HHH!)
Illegal aliens are people just as much as we are
Tax victims have a right to reclaim stolen goods, it doesn’t make the stealing legitimate
Privatization is messy because socialization is the original sin
States can’t calculate without prices
Central planning fails due to information problems
Public choice theory
The butler effect (how drug wars make things worse)
Outlawing guns and drugs means only outlaws have them, and drives them underground
Blowback
Just war theory
The state as a monopoly on violence
Libertarian class analysis
Thou shalt not steal
Taxation is theft
War is murder
War is the health of the state
All states are born unjustly
All states commit aggression
Either you’re for aggression, or not

What Libertarians Should Know When Debating Statists Read Post »

Objectivists Hsieh and Perkins on IP and Pirating Music

IP Law, Libertarian Theory

By Stephan Kinsella / February 9, 2011 / 6 minutes of reading

I’ve previously discussed and criticized Objectivist views on IP, including those of Diana Hsieh, Greg Perkins, and Adam Mossoff.¹

In a recent Noodlecast, Hsieh and Perkins have about a 10 minute segment discussing music piracy and IP:

Question 4: The Morality of Pirating Music (34:37)

Is pirating music immoral? Why or why not? In one way I think it must be immoral because it involves gaining the unearned, but there have been (granted I know little of the music industry) many claims that illegal file sharing has actually been good for the music industry in a number of ways. There have also been arguments that it is not technically theft because it involves copying information instead of physically taking it from the owner i.e. the original owner (and creator) has not lost the music even after you have copied it, but this argument seems shoddy by its concrete bound concept of theft and ownership. Simply put, to me, it feels immoral, but I have trouble conceptualizing exactly why.

Links: Adam Mossoff’s Webcast on Intellectual Property, Don’t Steal This Article by Greg Perkins

My Answer, In Brief: As Adam Mossoff persuasively argues, all property is fundamentally intellectual property. So, contrary to the spurious arguments found in the question, the reason to respect intellectual property is the same as the reason to respect tangible property, namely that the mind is the source of all value.

Perkins’s and Hsieh’s attempts to answer the piracy question help to highlight several flaws in Objectivist thinking. First, they admit the importance of the economic concept of scarcity as it applies to rationing scarce resources; but then they flippantly dismiss emphasis on this for the field of rights as focusing on some incidental feature or “concrete bound.” Scarcity is incidental? But without scarcity we would not have the possibility of conflict. Hsieh says “good ideas are scarce,” thus conflating “not abundant” with “scarcity,” which ignores the precise economic concept of scarcity as being rivalrousness–this kind of confused use of terms leads to equivocation: Hsieh and Perkins both use “scarcity” in the “rivalrousness” sense when they are talking about material objects and “microeconomics,” but in the “not abundant” sense when saying “good ideas are scarce.” …

Objectivists Hsieh and Perkins on IP and Pirating MusicRead More »