Stephan Kinsella – Page 30 – The Libertarian Standard

Don’t Bet on China: Redux

Business Cycles, Democracy, IP Law, Mercantilism, Protectionism

By Stephan Kinsella / November 4, 2010 / 2 Comments / 2 minutes of reading

A Chinese libertarian, Nicolas Dong, who recently did a Mandarin translation of one of my IP articles, recently told me this in an email regarding my earlier post, Don’t Bet on China:

I agree most part of your point of view about China. I believe that after the bust of the current housing bubble and high inflation, there will be much more unrest. The costs to maintain a “stable” social order have exceeded the cost of maintaining the army. Great changes may occur after the Xi Jinpin administration. But democratization will probably make China more socialist, for reasons explained in Hoppe’s Democracy: The God that Failed. There are just too many mobs here. And many social democrats are controlling the media, preaching democracy and equality instead of liberty. Fortunately, some influential media have libertarian-leaning editors or columnists. We also have libertarian and classical liberal university professors. We are trying our best to have a greater influence.

Also, regarding the libertarian perspective on intellectual property and my anti-IP article that he translated, he said:

They [the Chinese libertarians] debated for a while, and now, most libertarians in China are anti-IP.

However its influence is limited since we are just circulating it in our circle, and posting it on websites. Most people in China don’t know what libertarianism is, and they may not capable of catching the idea in the article.

… You know, something nice is that those who control the internet here don’t know what libertarianism and the Austrian School are; thus, most of those sites are not prohibited. The Austrian School does have some influence in academia here, albeit mainly Hayekian.

Don’t Bet on China: Redux Read Post »

Don’t Vote

Anti-Statism, Statism

By Stephan Kinsella / November 2, 2010 / 2 Comments / 2 minutes of reading

A relative in Singapore called and said “Happy Election Day.” Somewhat in jest. I have relatives and friends begging me to vote this time–Republican of course–“to kick those Marxists out of office.” Yes, to replace them with the Republicans, who a few years ago started two wars, added Medicare Prescription socialism, and began the Bankster Bailouts. Yeah.

Last year I took my 6-year old with me to the polls and let him watch me cast a blank ballot. But a friend on Facebook recently admonished me:

Any participation in the voting process, even casting a blank ballot in protest, is acknowledging, perpetuating, and giving legitimacy to the state and its system.

Withdraw from the state. Don’t vote at all. Embrace agorism. Spread freedom like a virus.

And of course the anti-voting position is common among many anarchist libertarians.¹ I’m still not completely convinced that it’s immoral or unlibertarian to vote–especially just casting a blank ballot–but I’m leaning in that direction; and I certainly think there is no duty to vote. One libertarian I know thinks that while it’s problematic to vote for a candidate for a given office, it’s less problematic to vote on a ballot measure or law itself (like legalizing drugs or lowering taxes). Not sure, but I don’t think I’m going to vote today.

See Wendy McElroy’s various articles and resources, such as Why I Would Not Vote Against Hitler, The Good Intentions Paving Company, Act Responsibly: Don’t Vote!, Anti-voting Resources; also John Roscoe and Ned Roscoe, Don’t Vote: 20 Practical Reasons; Carl Watner, Non-Voting; George H. Smith, The Ethics of Voting; John Pugsley, Harry, Don’t Run!. But see R.W. Bradford, Voting Is No Sin. ↩

Don’t Vote Read Post »

The Vatican Speaks out on Intellectual Property

IP Law

By Stephan Kinsella / October 26, 2010 / 2 minutes of reading

By Michael Geist:

Monday October 25, 2010

The Vatican has spoken out against unduly aggressive intellectual property protection. In a statement at the World Intellectual Property Organization, it noted “on the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care.”

The Vatican is more honest and intelligent about this than IP advocates are, acknowledging that the

Economists recognize mechanisms through which Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) may stimulate economic development. These are interdependent so that a broad view of incentives associated with IPRs is appropriate. They devote much attention to this issue, but evidence to date is fragmented and somewhat contradictory, in part because many of the concepts involved have not yet been measured. A stronger system of protection could either enhance or limit economic growth. While strengthening IPRs has potential for enhancing growth and development in the proper circumstances, it might also raise difficult economic and social costs.

So the Vatican recognizes that (a) the economists have not proven their case with solid numbers;¹ and (b) that there are real and significant costs to an IP system that should not be ignored.²

Jeff Tucker has also written about the incompatibility of IP and the Church’s mission: see his “Why Catholics Don’t Understand Economics ” and “Why ICEL Needs To Put Its Texts Into the Commons.”

[Cross-posted at C4SIF]

See my post Yet Another Study Finds Patents Do Not Encourage Innovation ↩
See my article There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent, Mises Daily (Mar. 7, 2005). ↩

The Vatican Speaks out on Intellectual Property Read Post »

“The Social Network,” Entrepreneurship, and Intellectual Property

(Austrian) Economics, Business, IP Law

By Stephan Kinsella / October 26, 2010 / 2 minutes of reading

There are some good commentaries up on the superb Facebook movie, The Social Network: The Daily Caller’s ‘The Social Network’ and the case against intellectual property rights and Jeff Tucker’s A Movie That Gets It Right, as well as Robert Wenzel’s The Social Network: The Movie that Could Save Us All.

In my view, the movie fails in its apparent attempt to show the Zuckerberg character as an asshole (I don’t know how true to life the character is), other than the way he treated his girlfriend in the beginning. It’s also hard to tell if the movie intended to show how ridiculous some intellectual property claims are, but as argued very well in the Daily Caller post, the movie does show this. One part of the plot concerns twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, whose plans for an exclusive Harvard student network were upstaged by Zuckerberg, leading them to complain that he “stole” their idea. As the Daily Caller post notes:

“If you had invented Facebook, you would have invented Facebook,” Zuckerberg sneers, dismissing the Winklevoss twins’ contribution to the existence of Facebook. Yet it’s indisputable that the networking site the twins envisioned at least partly inspired Zuckerberg, who gave them the run around for weeks while quietly launching a rival site.

Dubious as Zuckerberg’s tactics may have been, “The Social Network” does not consider him a criminal. Audiences shouldn’t, either.

… In an age where websites like Facebook have made it easier than ever for people around the world to interact and share their ideas, laws shouldn’t stand in the way of the free flow of information and innovation.

During a legal hearing, Zuckerberg makes the ultimate statement against intellectual property rights, asking, “Does a guy who makes a really good chair owe money to anyone who ever made a chair?” If people value Facebook and the system that made its development possible, the answer should be a resounding no.

[Cross-posted at C4SIF]

“The Social Network,” Entrepreneurship, and Intellectual Property Read Post »