Article: Intent is Like Remorse

Articles, Libertarian Theory, Private Crime, Private Security & Law
Share

The argument of this article is that intent, like remorse, is irrelevant to restitution. By default, intent, like any other subjective value judgment,  should play the role of a restitution-discount variable determined by the victim of an aggressive act, not the arbitration company.

Jeremiah Dyke is an adjunct math professor and a libertarian writer. Feel free to contact him at jeremiahdyke@gmail.com or through his website http://jeremiahdyke.blogspot.com/.

Read the Full Article by Jeremiah Dyke

Afterwards, discuss it below.

Article: Intent is Like Remorse Read Post »

Progressive Egalitarians Should Be Anti-IP

(Austrian) Economics, Business, IP Law, Libertarian Theory, Pop Culture, The Left, Vulgar Politics
Share

The Obama Administration insists that “‘Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft,’ and it should be dealt with accordingly.” Nonsense, of course. Only scarce goods can be property and therefore only scarce goods can be stolen. Ideas or information patterns are nonscarce goods. If I take your bicycle, you don’t have it anymore. If I copy your idea, now we both have it. Copying, i.e., piracy, is not theft.

As the Left is wont to do in lieu of sound argument, US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke recently related what is meant to be a heartrending story:

Recently, I’ve had a chance to read letters from award winning writers and artists whose livelihoods have been destroyed by music piracy. One letter that stuck out for me was a guy who said the songwriting royalties he had depended on to ‘be a golden parachute to fund his retirement had turned out to be a lead balloon.’ This just isn’t right.

My first immediate thought was why isn’t it right? Shouldn’t a progressive egalitarian’s own values lead him to be against intellectual property?

Progressive Egalitarians Should Be Anti-IP Read Post »

Voting, Moral Hazard, and Like Buttons

Anti-Statism, Democracy, Libertarian Theory, Vulgar Politics
Share

I was reading Sarah Lacy’s “If You’ve Got Social Media Fatigue, UR DOIN IT WRONG” on TechCrunch and was reminded of a passage from Henry David Thoreau’s seminal essay “Civil Disobedience” that I discuss in chapter 6 of my dissertation.

First the passage from Lacy’s article:

Sometimes metrics can be a bad thing and beware of any so-called “social media consultant” who tells you otherwise. What’s the value of a Retweet or a Like? It’s roughly the equivalent to sitting next to someone during a keynote who nods his head at a salient point. Someone hitting a button in front of them is hardly a heady endorsement—nowhere near the impact of someone calling you to tell you about a story he read. That actually takes more than one-second of attention and work.

This reminded me of the moral hazards of voting in electoral politics and Thoreau’s likening it to a sort of gambling with morality:

All voting is a sort of gaming, like chequers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.

With this last sentence Thoreau is no longer really speaking of voting, as becomes clear later on when he writes “Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence.” He is advocating civil disobedience and participatory democracy.1


  1. For more on participatory democracy, see chapters 6 & 7 of my dissertation 

Voting, Moral Hazard, and Like Buttons Read Post »

Regarding Libertarian Strategy: A Reply to Ross Kenyon

Anti-Statism, Libertarian Theory, Statism
Share

Although I find Kenyon’s analysis of the radical socialists interesting, ultimately I disagree with his categorization of libertarianism’s 3 options:

  • Libertarians can allow themselves to be absorbed into the Republican Party and work to expand the Liberty caucus.
  • Libertarians can abandon the Republican Party to work exclusively through the Libertarian Party.
  • Libertarians can jettison electoral politics altogether and refuse to be governed by majoritarianism and statism.

The first one will happen to the Tea Party movement. The second one is not workable, as the author admits.  Nothing can be done about either.  As for the truly radical approach, we are not violent revolutionaries and are never going to be.

What’s missing from that article is something fundamental — people get the government they deserve.  We need to make this country deserve better.  If a choir chants “we” in chorus, it is still the individuals speaking.  Unless libertarians actively change individuals, society will not budge.

Regarding Libertarian Strategy: A Reply to Ross Kenyon Read Post »

A Critique of Frank van Dun’s “Against Libertarian Legalism”

Libertarian Theory
Share

The Belgian libertarian legal theorist Frank van Dun, author of the great “Argumentation Ethics and The Philosophy of Freedom,”1 in 2003 authored “Against Libertarian Legalism: A Comment on Kinsella and Block.” This generated Walter Block’s Reply to “Against Libertarian Legalism” by Frank van Dun and my Reply to van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer.

A fairly lengthy and critical comment on van Dun’s “Against Libertarian Legalism” was just posted at Answering Van Dun about the Non-Aggression Principle. The author would probably also disagree with some of van Dun’s “Freedom and Property: Where They Conflict.”

Update: See also Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement; and The Blockean Proviso.


  1. Libertarian Papers, 2009; see also my posts Van Dun on Argumentation Ethics and Revisiting Argumentation Ethics, and Walter Block, Reply to Frank van Dun’s “Natural Law and the Jurisprudence of Freedom” 

A Critique of Frank van Dun’s “Against Libertarian Legalism” Read Post »

Scroll to Top