|
GulMadred posted:If we're talking about Kinsella's work then more nuance is needed. It's a 60-page essay which addresses the topic from a number of perspectives (e.g. natural law, contractual obligations, the absolute supremacy of physical property rights, rejection of legal fictions, the possibility of independent discovery/invention by multiple parties, and the asynchonicity between the lifespan of IP rights and the physical objects in which they are embodied). It's fairly solid work; you can criticize it on utilitiarian grounds ("a world without new novels or symphonies or medicines would be lovely") but it adheres to libertarian principles and avoids self-contradiction. It wouldn't really be productive to nitpick the details here because Kinsella isn't around to answer questions. I don't remember Kinsella's argument. I really wouldn't say it's solid since it ignores some pretty key points. The one thing I remember, and it may be from one his articles, was that he was mentioning that IP basically restricts your property rights. I write a novel. You have paper. I am telling you that you cannot write my novel onto your pieces of paper. At first glance, it sounds logical. Especially when you're coming from a group of people who believe that possession is nine-ninths of the law. However, when you start to really think about what he's saying, it falls apart. Your paper has an intrinsic value - that is, a sheet of paper is worth a certain amount of money and you can sell that to people. However, by printing a novel onto that paper, you thereby increase the value by a large margin. You aren't paying for the sheets of papers contained within the book, but rather for the contents. For example - David Bowie released a greatest hits 2 LP set recently. The cost of the records could be about 5 dollars total, for both LPs in the set. And this is based off of a number of a pressing house that does lower volume presses than David Bowie would receive. When all is said and done, the record probably doesn't cost more than 10 dollars to produce, at least in terms of raw materials. But here's the thing - I'm not paying for the raw material. I'm paying for the quality of David Bowie's music. Now, we're not really talking about all the costs that go into producing an album like that. But the basic point still remains - you're paying for the content, not the materials. So, you take your sheets of paper and put my novel onto it. Your paper is now worth more, but it is worth more through my work and my effort. That's the basic thrust of IP. I did the work, increasing the value of your paper. Aren't I entitled to some of that money, since without my novel, you wouldn't be able to sell your paper for that value. The argument comes from an ignorance of the work that goes into things like books, movies, medicines, programs, and really instead come from some bizarre worship of property.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:The argument comes from an ignorance of ____________________, and really instead come from some bizarre worship of property. Now you can modify the post and apply it to literally any libertarian argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:The argument comes from an ignorance of the work that goes into things like books, movies, medicines, programs, and really instead come from some bizarre worship of property. He goes further than that - he insists that you don't actually "own" the ideas within your own brain. Yes, you have ownership of your body. But if someone invents a magical z-ray scanner which can read your brain without harming you, and copy your ideas without destroying the original engrams, and he uses it without trespass (e.g. when you're walking into his store or whatever) then he can turn your sex memories into porno tapes. He runs into trouble only if he actually tries to market the work as yours. He can publish "A Life of Awesome - The Story of Cemetery Gator", but if he tries to sell it as "I'm Awesome - An Autobiography of Cemetery Gator" then he has committed fraud against anyone who buys the book. Not against you, though. You haven't been harmed because "harm" is something that happens when scarce resources are taken away from an individual by force or guile. The book-buyer's money is scarce; your ideas aren't. Of course, the z-ray scanner is useless. Nobody would actually write and publish a mind-scan book, because as soon as it hits the "Bestseller" list it will simply be republished by some other jackass at a lower price. He wouldn't need to amortize the cost of building and operating the z-ray scanner; he simply needs to acquire a single copy of your book and a laser printer. It follows that no one will actually try to sell any creative content in Libertopia, and that the only thing available for purchase will be advertising and propaganda. So, yeah - the "no intellectual property" idea is ridiculous and has almost no bearing on the world we live in. Nonetheless, Kinsella has a set of principles (or "postulates" if you prefer), he sticks to them, and he gives reasonable consideration to opposing arguments. He's way too hasty in dismissing utilitarian assessments of the "value of ideas" to society, but that can be attributed to his libertarian worldview: "any complex externality which cannot be expressed as a 2-rational-actor microeconomic optimization problem DOES NOT EXIST." His essay actually demonstrates a reasonable level of rigour and scholarship. You might dismiss it as cargo-cult academics, but it's still a breath of fresh air compared to the usual mises.org "I'm right and you're evil" bloviating, or jrodefeld's ten-paragraphs-to-say-nothing-substantive-and-by-the-way-I-don't-want-to-talk-about-racism-but-let's-talk-about-racism approach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:So, yeah - the "no intellectual property" idea is ridiculous and has almost no bearing on the world we live in. Nonetheless, Kinsella has a set of principles (or "postulates" if you prefer), he sticks to them, and he gives reasonable consideration to opposing arguments. He's way too hasty in dismissing utilitarian assessments of the "value of ideas" to society, but that can be attributed to his libertarian worldview: "any complex externality which cannot be expressed as a 2-rational-actor microeconomic optimization problem DOES NOT EXIST." I guess I get caught at the underlying ideas behind Kinsella's writings that I can't appreciate the rigour and scholarship he puts into his work. His basic principals are just so wrong and miss such incredibly important points (such as the value of a book is increased by the contents of the book) that it just becomes an appreciation of the form and style over the substance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I guess I get caught at the underlying ideas behind Kinsella's writings that I can't appreciate the rigour and scholarship he puts into his work. His basic principals are just so wrong and miss such incredibly important points (such as the value of a book is increased by the contents of the book) that it just becomes an appreciation of the form and style over the substance. That's more a problem with Academic philosophy than Kinsella in particular.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
No need to specify philosophy there. After you've read enough academic papers in a given field (and perhaps written or worked on a few papers yourself) you start to realize the extent to which a lot of papers feel like they were written with some kind of mad libs formula. Some of it is necessary because you're trying to turn your knowledge into something that is accessible and legible to a specific community of scholars, and regularity of format obviously aids that. Nevertheless it can end up creating a situation where style trumps substance and you're basically just slotting in the relevant puzzle pieces, "just put in a literature review here, a regression analysis there, a quote from X trendy thinker here and voila! Tenure track here I come."
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:This is probably the most bizarre thing I've heard in this libertarian (!!) thread. How the hell do people who value property rights above all else not care about intellectual property? Libertarians are manchildren who want free stuff without paying for it, like games without paying the developers, or a functioning civil society without paying taxes, and they think by abolishing the payments they can still get the stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Libertarians are manchildren who want free stuff without paying for it, like games without paying the developers, or a functioning civil society without paying taxes, and they think by abolishing the payments they can still get the stuff. I think more basically IP rights are basically by their nature utilitarian. They're limited in scope and exist because of a consequentialist analysis of the situation. They can't fit into the absolutist framework libertarians prefer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Honestly I get that we need to subsidize artistic and technological innovation and intellectual property laws allowing you to control the reproduction of your work are certainly one way of accomplishing that, but why do so many people in this thread seem so bullish on intellectual property laws? As an abstraction IP laws are OK but as they currently exist they are fairly ridiculous. I'm a bit surprised to see how vociferously people are defending them, unless I'm somehow misunderstanding what people here are saying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Honestly I get that we need to subsidize artistic and technological innovation and intellectual property laws allowing you to control the reproduction of your work are certainly one way of accomplishing that, but why do so many people in this thread seem so bullish on intellectual property laws? Well, being against abolishing IP laws altogether is not really the same as supporting Congress' seemingly endless extension of copyright law because big companies are paying them to ensure they have an eternal monopoly on something created by a man now long dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
I tried explaining to a libertarian how abolishing IP laws was anti-intellectual, but he didn't have any clue how trademarks, copywrite and patents work anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Honestly I get that we need to subsidize artistic and technological innovation and intellectual property laws allowing you to control the reproduction of your work are certainly one way of accomplishing that, but why do so many people in this thread seem so bullish on intellectual property laws? Yes, as they currently exist they are fairly ridiculous. But no one is defending IP laws as they currently exist. I believe in the concept of intellectual property, but I don't necessarily like the current system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:...but if he tries to sell it as "I'm Awesome - An Autobiography of Cemetery Gator" then he has committed fraud against anyone who buys the book. Not against you, though. You haven't been harmed because "harm" is something that happens when scarce resources are taken away from an individual by force or guile. I was wondering about this, actually. How does fraud violate the NAP? Lying to someone can't be classed as aggression, surely? Doesn't the cautious buyer have the responsibility for determining who is telling the truth?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
bokkibear posted:I was wondering about this, actually. How does fraud violate the NAP? Lying to someone can't be classed as aggression, surely? Doesn't the cautious buyer have the responsibility for determining who is telling the truth? I'm ambivalent. I think that the libertarian position vis-a-vis fraud is reasonable. For instance, commerce would grind to a halt if everyone had to assay the metallic purity of every single coin they received! Since division of labour is vital to human survival and productivity, we require men to deal honestly with each other. However, I must admit that this is inherently a "compromise" position which lacks firmly-demarcated boundaries. After all - if I can sue you for tricking me about the author of your book... then shouldn't I also be able to sue you for the laudatory quotes on the dust jacket which exaggerate its entertainment value? How do we draw a bright-line distinction line between "marketing" and "fraud"? Or, more to the point, how do we draw such a line without building up a massive federal bureacracy and voluminous UCC rulebooks? Because some smart guy said that doing so would put us on the Road to Serfdom. And I don't even know how to serf 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
You could also ask what kind of transactions do and don't have fraud protections. Can I be sued for fraud if I tell my friend I can't hang out this weekend because I'm watching the neighbor's dog when that's not in fact true? What if in my wedding vows I promise to always stand by my wife, but one day I tell her that one of her goals in life is unrealistic and not worth pursuing? What if at work I tell someone 'I'll get right on that' when I know I'm not going to do anything about their issue because what they want is stupid and not my department anyway? I suppose you could say a reasonable person wouldn't treat friendships, wedding vows, or every little thing you say at work as binding oral contracts, but then we're back to "who is the arbiter of what is and is not reasonable?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:You could also ask what kind of transactions do and don't have fraud protections. Can I be sued for fraud if I tell my friend I can't hang out this weekend because I'm watching the neighbor's dog when that's not in fact true? What if in my wedding vows I promise to always stand by my wife, but one day I tell her that one of her goals in life is unrealistic and not worth pursuing? What if at work I tell someone 'I'll get right on that' when I know I'm not going to do anything about their issue because what they want is stupid and not my department anyway? I suppose you could say a reasonable person wouldn't treat friendships, wedding vows, or every little thing you say at work as binding oral contracts, but then we're back to "who is the arbiter of what is and is not reasonable?" If you really want your friend to commit to hanging out with you, you'll have to get ink and paper involved. And if they're really your friend, they won't mind a bit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
It seems that the solution to "what is fraud" in libertopia basically just comes down to whatever your DRO / the private court that your DRO uses negotiates with the other person's DRO / private court (or, if you share a DRO, it is up to the DRO to decide). There's no a priori answer, it just comes down to whatever the relevant private businesses decide. VitalSigns posted:Well, being against abolishing IP laws altogether is not really the same as supporting Congress' seemingly endless extension of copyright law because big companies are paying them to ensure they have an eternal monopoly on something created by a man now long dead. QuarkJets posted:Yes, as they currently exist they are fairly ridiculous. But no one is defending IP laws as they currently exist. I believe in the concept of intellectual property, but I don't necessarily like the current system. Fair enough. IP laws do seem rather out of date to me though. Obviously we have to reward artistic, technological or economic innovation somehow but creating artificial scarcity at a time when technology is capable of widely distributing ideas seems backwards to me. Of all the reasons to mock libertarians the fact they are uncomfortable with IP laws doesn't seem like one of them, even if it is sorta contradictory with some of their other ideas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Libertarian dislike of IP is strange to me because it seems like their promise of an endless frontier to homestead kind of relies on it. I mean, if I want to Mix my Labor with the Soil, I can't exactly travel west and build a cabin on some
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Libertarian dislike of IP is strange to me because it seems like their promise of an endless frontier to homestead kind of relies on it. I mean, if I want to Mix my Labor with the Soil, I can't exactly travel west and build a cabin on some The most hilarious reason for their dislike is that Marx' old "Property is theft" argument seems a lot more obvious with IP. So you end up with jrod quoting Marx in support of his arguments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Helsing posted:IP laws do seem rather out of date to me though. Obviously we have to reward artistic, technological or economic innovation somehow but creating artificial scarcity at a time when technology is capable of widely distributing ideas seems backwards to me. Of all the reasons to mock libertarians the fact they are uncomfortable with IP laws doesn't seem like one of them, even if it is sorta contradictory with some of their other ideas. Well, copyright laws are out of date. Patent and trademark laws may be abused by powerful interests, but the motivation for them remains the same as ever. Although personally I've sort of grown comfortable with the ludicrous extensions to copyright law, just because we live in an age in which individuals can flagrantly ignore them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:The most realistic reason is that most famous libertarian "philosophers" lived before copyright & co were rebranded as property.The just didn't think of it as property. Or it can't really exist without a state to enforce it. Therefore it must be bad/not necessary just like everything else the state does and post hoc arguments are created to try and explain why this is so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Or it can't really exist without a state to enforce it. Therefore it must be bad/not necessary just like everything else the state does and post hoc arguments are created to try and explain why this is so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:That is true of Marxian Property in general not only of IP. There are lots of ways to protect and maintain possession of physical goods without a state. Crime syndicates provide a pretty good model actually. The state makes it tolerable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:There are lots of ways to protect and maintain possession of physical goods without a state. Crime syndicates provide a pretty good model actually. The state makes it tolerable. Physical goods are generally not Property in the Marxist sense of the word. But there is an extra thread for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Libertarian dislike of IP is strange to me because it seems like their promise of an endless frontier to homestead kind of relies on it. I mean, if I want to Mix my Labor with the Soil, I can't exactly travel west and build a cabin on some Well there's always Galambosianism. Now that I've uttered "Galambosianism", the Galambosians probably want me to pay royalties.  E: I've gotten to the jrodefeld section of the thread now. If I had to live in this goodthinkers-bellyfeel-DRO libertopia, I'd join whatever terrorist movement is currently attempting to restore a democratic state. I'd probably not be too good with a gun but there would always be openings in the suicide bombers brigade--beats living in such a shithole! Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Libertarian dislike of IP is strange to me because it seems like their promise of an endless frontier to homestead kind of relies on it. I mean, if I want to Mix my Labor with the Soil, I can't exactly travel west and build a cabin on some A few of the libertarians here have thrown around the idea that you can claim unused or underutilized land for your own by properly utilizing it. Of course, when you press them on what they mean, "the free market will decide" is basically all that you'll get. I take this to mean that the people with vast wealth will own all of the land, since they have the economic means to fend off any would-be settlers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:A few of the libertarians here have thrown around the idea that you can claim unused or underutilized land for your own by properly utilizing it. Of course, when you press them on what they mean, "the free market will decide" is basically all that you'll get. I take this to mean that the people with vast wealth will own all of the land, since they have the economic means to fend off any would-be settlers. No the wealthy won't do that because they'd have to get a DRO to recognize it, and surely no rational self-interested DRO would prefer to court the small 1% of ultrawealthy people (who have the majority society's disposable money) as customers and thereby ignore 99% of the market 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Well there's always Galambosianism. Now that I've uttered "Galambosianism", the Galambosians probably want me to pay royalties. Oh man, have we got the organization for you!
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:A few of the libertarians here have thrown around the idea that you can claim unused or underutilized land for your own by properly utilizing it. Of course, when you press them on what they mean, "the free market will decide" is basically all that you'll get. I take this to mean that the people with vast wealth will own all of the land, since they have the economic means to fend off any would-be settlers. I think "property rights are absolute (unless you're owning it wrong)" is one of the better axiom-equivocations I've seen in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Libertarians are manchildren who want free stuff without paying for it, like games without paying the developers, or a functioning civil society without paying taxes, and they think by abolishing the payments they can still get the stuff. Because all libertarians share exactly the same philosophy. I believe completely in personal IP rights. I work as in an advertising creative where ideas are basically currency, and am a musician, so I know exactly why you need them respected. Similarly I think praxeology and Austrian economics is dumb, and subscribe more along the lines of the Chicago school.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Sorry, you do share the same tendency with the other Libertarians to disappear whenever tough questions are asked that you don't even have a poorly-thought-out one-liner in answer, so I guess I just kind of assumed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:Because all libertarians share exactly the same philosophy. I believe completely in personal IP rights. I work as in an advertising creative where ideas are basically currency, and am a musician, so I know exactly why you need them respected. Similarly I think praxeology and Austrian economics is dumb, and subscribe more along the lines of the Chicago school. So in what sense exactly are you a libertarian? Are you just "Grrr, darn Feds!"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:Because all libertarians share exactly the same philosophy. I believe completely in personal IP rights. I work as in an advertising creative where ideas are basically currency, and am a musician, so I know exactly why you need them respected. Similarly I think praxeology and Austrian economics is dumb, and subscribe more along the lines of the Chicago school. Couple of things though: Rothbard, Hoppe, Molyneux, et al, have done their best to brand Libertarianism as a belief in praxeology and Austrian school economics. There is a strong reason to suspect anyone who self-identifies as Libertarian as being at least sympathetic to these concepts. I actually believe that your position is less "defensible" than that based on praxeology. I know this might be offensive, but understand that I don't mean it that way. Plenty of people hold both good and bad positions that are not necessarily defensible because humans are not beep boop robots. What I mean by this is that at least those who follow praxeology have an (terrible) excuse as to why they reject empirical evidence, believe in purity of action over outcomes, and why they believe they can apply their rational analysis to any domain or discipline. If you don't have praxeology, then what do you use to support your ideology? Do you mean pre- or post-Keynesian Chicago school? What evidence do you have that market based solutions can tackle collective problems, at least more efficiently than actual collective action?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Helsing posted:IP laws do seem rather out of date to me though. Obviously we have to reward artistic, technological or economic innovation somehow but creating artificial scarcity at a time when technology is capable of widely distributing ideas seems backwards to me. Of all the reasons to mock libertarians the fact they are uncomfortable with IP laws doesn't seem like one of them, even if it is sorta contradictory with some of their other ideas. I wonder what you mean by out of date? Now, I'll start off and say that there are serious problems with our IP laws. The fact that they last so long is absurd, and in many ways, detrimental. Life of the author plus 70 years is just absurd. Think about it. I produce something today. I live another 70 years. I die. Then for 140 years, this work exists under Copyright. Not only that, it's dangerous. There's a lot of orphaned works out there. Stuff that can't be reasonably distributed legally because nobody actually knows who owns the work. There's concerns about patent trolls, and a ton of other things. So yes, our current implementation of copyright is flawed, but I don't think the whole idea is. The point about copyright is not to create scarcity, but rather, to ensure that the people who create works are given compensation for their efforts. I like to make music, so I know a bit about that angle. And I can tell you that composing music is a difficult job that takes a lot of effort from a variety of people. Here's an example from the tracking sessions for "Wouldn't It Be Nice." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofByti7A4uM They spend a lot time work on the opening of the song. Even focusing that drum intro. Something like this takes a lot of effort, and ultimately money. Now, just because it is easy to reproduce and distribute doesn't diminish the fact that this is the output of the effort of people. And one of the tenets of Libertarianism, and many other economic philosophies, is that people deserve to reap the fruits of their labors. The fact is, even today, a recording like this would still take a lot of time, and to be done professionally would cost money. Could someone organize this from volunteers, sure. It's possible. But it's not likely. And even so, could they spend their time working on this? I don't make as much music as I could because I have a full-time job, and then a life to lead. A 3 minute song can take me over 8 hours of work. And I'm not approaching anywhere near professional level quality. Let's put it this way - this work adds value to your services. Think about it. If you own a printing press but nothing to print, your printing press is worthless. You own a music distribution site, but you have no music to distribute, it's worthless. Content is what gives these things value. It's like the collapse of HD-DVD. There was just less movies being published on HD-DVD than Blu-ray, and so HD-DVD became worthless. So, why should someone else be allowed to profit at my expense without my agreement? You run a website that distributes my songs, my work adds value to your product, and it makes sense that I should be able to reap the benefits of that reward. Now, you might argue "Hey, I'm giving this poo poo away for free," but I would still argue that you are profiting off of my work. After all, you're creating a network for content to be delivered and shared. And even if you could argue that you weren't profiting off of my work, I would argue that you're taking away opportunities from me to profit from my work. After all, if you can give it away for free, why should I convince someone else to pay for it elsewhere. You now get to devalue my work by distributing it? A lot of this, though, is the copyright holder's own doing. They weren't responsible with the rights that they were given, and were initially slow to react to the innovation and changes that were going on around them. Napster proved their was a demand, and I remember reading a study that people were willing to pay for something like that. They hurt themselves by suing people for absurd amounts of money and allowing the press to create the story of the monolithic industry going after single-mothers and unknowing grandparents for distributing Bryan Adam songs from the 1980s. It doesn't matter how you cut it. It was bad and it was wrong. I mock libertarians for it because it shows how little they really know about IP and why it exists. It's also a contradiction of their beliefs. After all, they argue that I should be able to profit from the fruits of my labors. Well, since my labors can be put onto tape and copied, I guess gently caress me then? Also, it just shows an ignorance for how much work and money goes into this stuff. Also, their reasoning shows a lack of understanding in what goes on in producing medicine, new technologies, books, movies, you name it. It is just this, "Hey, let ideas be free man!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
I personally as a statist monster, find the Chicago school more repugnant than standard laissez-faire libertarianism because they're the ones responsible for Neo-Liberal bullshit like the pending Pacific Trade Agreement. The Chicago school of thought would be pro-slavery if they thought they could get away with it because their economic "principles" advocate for any and all trade they can manage, regardless of the harm to the populace or state. Wikipedia on the Chicago School of gently caress you Got mine: quote:Paul Douglas, who returned to teach economics at the University of Chicago after his military service in WW II, and in 1947 was elected president of the American Economic Association, was uncomfortable with the environment he found at the university. He stated that,” . . . I was disconcerted to find that the economic and political conservatives had acquired almost complete dominance over my department and taught that market decisions were always right and profit values the supreme ones . . . The opinions of my colleagues would have confined government to the eighteenth-century functions of justice, police, and arms, which I thought had been insufficient even for that time and were certainly so for ours. These men would neither use statistical data to develop economic theory nor accept critical analysis of the economic system . . . (Frank) Knight was now openly hostile, and his disciples seemed to be everywhere. If I stayed, it would be in an unfriendly environment.”[18] Gee that sure sounds a lot like the libertarianism we're constantly tearing down in this thread, it's almost as if the Chicago school exists as a blind for supply side economics or something.  I won't write the whole thing off wholesale, but generally speaking if someone says they follow the Chicago School of Economics I can pretty much count on them thinking Reagan was right, the government should be smaller and Profit before People.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Honestly copyright should revert to the older system where renewals have to be actively done at certain points or the work goes into the public domain early. Now of course Disney or whatever is always going to remember to do that, but it makes it much easier for true orphaned works to get into the clear early. Probably even make it a 7 or 14 year renewal requirement instead of the old 28 year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So in what sense exactly are you a libertarian? Are you just "Grrr, darn Feds!"? Confused exactly what you mean by that, I'm Australian so not completely with it on US domestic politics. But to answer your question, I believe that a completely free market is a better economic solution than one that is regulated by a state. I used to be a hardcore ancap but now I'm not sure what level of state is necessary, but the level it is at right now is definitely causing inefficiency and corruption on a huge scale. archangelwar posted:Couple of things though: I don't have the time nor investment into the debate like jrod to do a massive effortpost collecting evidence and writing up a giant argument, which is kind of a cop out, but I'll do my best to address you responses. I pretty much agree with David Friedman's viewpoints on most issues, so I guess that would qualify as post-Keynsian Chicago school? But to throw out one broad piece of evidence, the more economically free a country is, the higher the average income of its population (graph). RuanGacho posted:I personally as a statist monster, find the Chicago school more repugnant than standard laissez-faire libertarianism because they're the ones responsible for Neo-Liberal bullshit like the pending Pacific Trade Agreement. The Chicago school of thought would be pro-slavery if they thought they could get away with it because their economic "principles" advocate for any and all trade they can manage, regardless of the harm to the populace or state. Except Raegan's economic policies were not libertarian at all. The Mutato fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:I don't have the time nor investment into the debate like jrod to do a massive effortpost collecting evidence and writing up a giant argument, which is kind of a cop out, but I'll do my best to address you responses. I pretty much agree with David Friedman's viewpoints on most issues, so I guess that would qualify as post-Keynsian Chicago school? But to throw out one broad piece of evidence, the more economically free a country is, the higher the average income of its population (graph. I would love to see how that chart is derived. Median income in the US for individuals over the age of 25 is somewhere in the range of $28k. And is it adjusted for purchasing parity as well as QoL like healthcare? And what does "economically free" mean?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:I don't have the time nor investment into the debate like jrod to do a massive effortpost collecting evidence and writing up a giant argument, which is kind of a cop out, but I'll do my best to address you responses. I pretty much agree with David Friedman's viewpoints on most issues, so I guess that would qualify as post-Keynsian Chicago school? But to throw out one broad piece of evidence, the more economically free a country is, the higher the average income of its population (graph. Have you been reading jrod's post? There's no evidence to speak of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
The fact libertarians define "freedom" in such a way that Hong Kong and Signapore are the most "economically free" countries in the world should tell you something about the ideology itself. And that is without even getting into the questionable way that those statistics are aggregated into taxonomic categories or the fact they are confusing correlation and causation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 06:37
|
|