On Decapitating the State

Anti-Statism, Libertarian Theory
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

In Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s writings on problems with democracy, he points out that one advantage of monarchy over democracy is that there is a clearer distinction between the ruler and the ruled; so that if the monarch starts to become despotic, he can at least in principle be killed or removed from power. At least the people know who to aim their ire at. In democracy, the state is bureaucratized and distributed, and the line between ruler and ruled is blurred–because citizens can vote, they accept the propaganda that “we are the government.”

Recent protests in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, and Yemen help illustrate this–there, the people are fed up with rule by brutal strongmen, thugs and dictators, so demand their ouster. Success is not guaranteed but the people at least have a target for their anger. In the western democracies, protests of this type are inconceivable. Half the country voted for Obama, so there would never be mass protests. And he’ll be out of office in 2 or 6 years in any case, so why bother protesting to kick him out a bit earlier. And even if he is somehow ousted, he’ll be replaced with another plastic man. While regicide is possible with a monarchy or even dictatorship, it’s not so easy to decapitate a democratic state; it’s more like a hydra. The most we can expect in a democracy are protests by special interest groups demanding more loot from the state (such as the pathetic protests by the state teachers’ unions in Wisconsin) or reform of a particular law (such as medical marijuana or gay marriage). And when 5% of the populace pays most of the income tax, don’t expect widespread protests against confiscatory tax rates.

This is not to say that rule by dictatorial thugs is preferable to modern democracy–Hoppe’s work compares modern democracy to limited, traditional monarchies, not to dictators and absolute emperors–but it does help highlight why it’s so difficult to reform a democratic state.

[LRC cross-post]

On Decapitating the State Read Post »

Rethinking Intellectual Property: Kinsella’s Mises Academy Online Course

Education, IP Law
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

My article, Rethinking IP, was published yesterday on Mises Daily. It details the content and purpose of my upcoming Mises Academy course, “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics,” Mises Academy (March 22, 2011 – April 29, 2011).

This is a 6-week course and will run starting March 22, 2011 (on Tuesday evenings, 9pm EST) and will provide an overview of current intellectual property law and the history and origins of IP. This is the second time I’ve offered this course (the first offering, during Fall 2010, being very successful), and my third Mises Academy course (I am currently teaching Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society). Click here to read my reflections on teaching the Rethinking IP class the first time.

Here is some feedback provided by past students of this course:

“The class (everything) was perfect. Content wasn’t too deep (nor too shallow) – the reviewed material was just brilliant and the “tuning” was great for someone like myself (engineering background – no profound legal/lawyer experience). It provided all the material to really “understand” (instead of “just knowing”) all that was covered which I find always very important in a class.”

“Instruction was very comprehensive and thought provoking. The instructor was fantastic and very knowledgeable and answered every question asked.”

“Learned more then i expected, the professor seemed to really enjoy teaching the class, and the readings provided were excellent. Overall for the cost I was extremely satisfied.”

“Very interesting ideas I was not exposed to. Inexpensive, convenient, good quality.”

“It is a very fascinating topic and I was quite eager to learn about what I.P. is all about. I thought that Professor Kinsella was able to convey complicated issues to us clearly.”

“Professor Kinsella’s enthusiasm and extra links posted showed his true knowledge and interest in the subject. Great to see.”

As noted, live online lectures will be Tuesdays at 9pm EST, with Office Hours later in the week, probably at 7pm London time.

Sign up!

Rethinking Intellectual Property: Kinsella’s Mises Academy Online Course Read Post »

Objectivists Hsieh and Perkins on IP and Pirating Music

IP Law, Libertarian Theory
By / / 6 minutes of reading
Share

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 »

  1. See Objectivist Greg Perkins on Intellectual Property; Objectivists: “All Property is Intellectual Property”. ↩

Objectivists Hsieh and Perkins on IP and Pirating Music Read Post »

Article: Intellectual Freedom and Learning Versus Patent and Copyright

Articles, IP Law
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

In my various publications and speeches about intellectual property (IP), I’ve approached it from a variety of angles. In this article, I consider the role of information and learning, and the role of property rights, in human action. I use a praxeological analysis to show that human action employs scarce resources or means, but that action is guided by non-scarce ideas and knowledge. Property rights are recognized in means because they are scarce; but ideas are not scarce things: they are infinitely reproducible.  The growing body of knowledge is a boon to mankind. Property rights are needed for scarce means so that they can be peacefully and productively used in action; property rights in ideas restrict, impair, and imped learning and the use of information to guide one’s actions. Copying information and ideas is not stealing.  Learning is not stealing.  Using information is not trespass. In this article, I urge young libertarians to stay on the vanguard of intellectual freedom, and to fight the shackles of patent and copyright.

Mises Academy: Stephan Kinsella teaches Libertarian Legal TheoryThis article is based on my speech of Nov. 6, 2010, at the 2010 Students for Liberty Texas Regional Conference, University of Texas, Austin (audio and video versions may be found here). A previous version was published today under the same title in Economic Notes No. 113 (Libertarian Alliance, 2011).

(Incidentally, my 6-week Mises Academy course “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” starts at the end of this month (Jan. 31-Mar. 11, 2011). I describe it in my article “Introduction to Libertarian Legal Theory,” Mises Daily (Jan. 3, 2011).)

Read the Full Article by Stephan Kinsella

Afterwards, discuss it below.

Article: Intellectual Freedom and Learning Versus Patent and Copyright Read Post »

Scroll to Top