I’m finding it ever more difficult to describe to people the kind of world that the Mises Institute would like to see, with the type of political order that Mises and the entire classical-liberal tradition believed would be most beneficial for mankind.
It would appear that the more liberty we lose, the less people are able to imagine how liberty might work. It’s a fascinating thing to behold.
People can no longer imagine a world in which we could be secure without massive invasions of our privacy at every step, and even being strip searched before boarding airplanes, even though private institutions manage much greater security without any invasions of human rights. FULL ARTICLE BY LEW ROCKWELL
{ 58 comments }
Next Comments →
Absolutely magnificant.
I’d like to hear it read outloud by a professional orator.
This was my favorite speech from Houston. Lew’s definition of freedom, the importance of vision, and the most preposterous spectacle in the history of man kind… just a brilliant speech. Can’t wait for the video to get up!
Nicely done. I too have difficulty communicating this vision to people in my social community–thanks for a good distilled essence of this view of liberty.
Fantastic speech/article. I am surprised that such a thing would appear here, given the Mises Institute’s recent attempts to tear down every tenet of Classical Liberalism it can.
Nick, trying to think through here what you might be referring to. If I had one guess it would be: IP.
I’m going to ignore Nick…sorry dude.
Any way, I couldn’t help thinking of Elija Bailey the character from Azimov’s robots series. He had a horrible fear of “Outdoors” because he lived his days in the envelope of security that the dome cities afforded. I think of this because the people in the novel who lived this way became so accustomed to it that the alternative, going “Outside” was for them, frightening and unknown.
I believe that we are most comfortable with what we know, and are intimidated if not outright scared of the implications of “Outside”, which for us is freedom.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper. T.S. Elliot
What are we whimpering? “Someone should do something about that.” Someone, meaning the state.
Elliot was right.
Yes, I’m with Nick.
I agree, von Mises was a promoter of that grand and proud tradition of humanism and classical liberalism and that’s where my libertarianism and objectivism transect with him. At least I thought.
However, every anti-IP post on this blog, and every IP post is anti-IP, especially Mr Kinsella’s voluminous content, is not promoting classical liberalism at all, but a pure form of collectivist anarchism. I now view this as a fringe anarchist site, not a classical liberal site.
I find it appalling. I’m starting to reassess my view of von Mises: I’m heartened to see him here referred to as classical liberal, but how come such a weight of anti-classical liberal content here? I was thinking I’d misinterpreted Mises.
Anyway, I’m confused.
But despite the confusion, from my existing notion of Mises, I see what is happening in the anti-IP threads here under his name as cause for concern, and it’s turning businessmen such as myself completely off I’m afraid.
If this site can’t figure out ‘how liberty might work’, thinking liberty can be found in anarchism, then Mr Rockwell should start his wonderings on this topic by knocking on the doors of some of his fellow scholars here.
“It was to address this deep ignorance that the discipline of economics was born in Spain and Italy — the homes of the first industrial revolutions — in the 14th and 15th centuries,”
Industrial revolution in Spain – that’s a joke, right?
The Misesian vision is of a lawful, wealthy humanity.
The economics dispel the rejection of lawfulness and demonstrate how wealth is achieved.
I don’t believe that there is any political movement that is pro-wealth, or pro-law.
@Mark Hubbard
Mark, there are many many aspects to classical liberalism and expecting everyone who believes in freedom to agree on everything is a ludicrous notion. If you and I were to sit down with a beer and discuss what we think a free society would look like, we would find we agree on most things, at least in principal.
IP is being challenged here because of it’s necessary use of state force. Other ways of thinking about it have to come forward and with rigorous challenge, which is where you and Nick come in. Good arguments, good examples, and good discussion require that we disagree on some things, respectfully.
I have argued in favour of no Patent and Copyright, as currently practised. I have no intent to “thieve” any property from you or anybody else. I recognise that there is some kind of ownership of ideas in the unique expression of those ideas, and history has shown that this is the only lasting effect of ownership there is. Da Vinci is remembered as the one who created the Mona Lisa. That IP lives on to this day associated with him. Without him the painting would just be an old painting of unknown origin. Instead, it is an icon, a thought in the minds of most people, 500+ years after his death.
This is no accident. Should your novel get bought by Random House, I hope for your sake it isn’t orphaned in their warehouse. You will be forgotten if it is. But that is the price you will pay for your security.
This article has nothing to do with the IP disagreement. Put that aside my friend and remember we are much more than just a bunch of IP anarchists.
I’ll toast your hopeful success tonight with sincerity. Here’s to you’re becoming a wealthy author!
Now let’s talk!
Mark Hubbard wrote: “If this site can’t figure out ‘how liberty might work’, thinking liberty can be found in anarchism, then Mr Rockwell should start his wonderings on this topic by knocking on the doors of some of his fellow scholars here.”
The flirtation with anarchy was an invention of Rothbard that was as ill-fated as his flirtations with the left, the conservatives, and the Randians. In fact as scholarship into the production of justice has developed, what has been shown is that Austrian economics does not support anarchy but the very opposite, pluriarchy.
The anarchists want the destruction of all powers and authority within the state. The Austrians, starting with proto-Austrians such as de Molinari, want the multiplication of centers of power and authority within the state and the abolition of the monopoly over these held by government.
Just like within a republic there is a division of power between executive, legislative and judicial, then there is no credible reason why there cannot be more division of power with more sources of authority, unless of course one’s intent is to preserve power.
Unfortunately the flirtation with anarchists has attracted a lot of, well, anarchists to the Mises Institute, they have tried to push a communist agenda through, but unfortunately for them the economics of Mises are not on their side.
Wait, what?
Classical liberalism suddenly equates to the violence of IP in the eyes of those who support it?
Yet, those who do not support this coercive violence of state are now not classical liberals?
Gee, I guess there’s a new definition of “Classical Liberalism” out that has yet to corrupt my vocabulary. Not to mention the oxymoron of anarchic communism!
I just love labels. They can be utilized in so many ingenious ways by those who wish to battle over ideas, rather than make the attempt to understand them.
(coherence is your friend)
“there is no credible reason why there cannot be more division of power with more sources of authority, unless of course one’s intent is to preserve power.”
precisely.
@Stranger
“Unfortunately the flirtation with anarchists has attracted a lot of, well, anarchists to the Mises Institute, they have tried to push a communist agenda through, but unfortunately for them the economics of Mises are not on their side.”
What?
Look, there is no way to examine the problems without civil discourse. Lumping every Pro-IP person into the “State Totalitarian” camp and every Anti-IP person into the “communist Agenda” camp accomplishes nothing but division and leads to flame wars and mud-slinging.
What is the point? We have a problem with orphaned work due to copyright law and it hurts. We have a problem with access to information because of Copyright law, and it hurts. We have professors getting signatures on non-disclosure agreements to protect their IP in classrooms of paid up students, and this is a discusting abuse of both the classroom and the student’s purchace of “property and service” that an education is supposed to provide, due to copyright law.
We have a Patent system that grants ownership of our personal genetic make up, and that’s dangerous. There are definite flaws in the way things are currently done, and serious challenges to our freedom and physical property by these current methods.
There are new models of business that make a different value assessment of IP that are successful. Examination of why these models work, when traditional models are struggling requires at least the entertainment of alternative points of view and alternative methods of analysis.
Someone has to take the other side in a debate, or there is no discourse, no new methods, and no new thinking and understanding.
Why would you want to throw away everything because of a disagreement on one point?
Personally, If it weren’t for all the differing views here this place would be a bore. As it is, there are many flavours of mind here, all interested in alternate forms from the status quo, all interested in freedom, rational thought, objective analysis, and civil discourse. I wouldn’t presume to judge any one of them as being one thing or another, other than themselves.
To me, freedom is about being able to express myself without being shot, figuratively or literally.
Put the gun down, leave your weapons at the door, come in, sit down, make yourself comfortable, and discuss the issues with dignity and respect for yourself and the others around you. That is how freedom works in real life. It’s not a flag you wave, or an ideology you espouse. It is the way you behave and how you treat others who are different from you. It is practice and action, not soapbox, fire and brimstone. It is the manner you have and the methods you choose. It is not pushing yourself and others into some ideological jar. It is the practice of mutual respect. It is the allowance of differences. It is tolerance and compassion.
That is what freedom is. That is why we lose it so easily. It’s not easy to see when we have it, only when we don’t.
The only authority that libertarians support is the authority of the individual over himself. You know, The Constitution of No Authority.
[Just coincidental, on reading the literary press news over lunch.]
Ursula K Le Guin on trying to rightfully defeat the collectivist Google mind grab:
http://beattiesbookblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/ursula-le-guin-leads-revolt-against.html
Well said old girl!
Ursula K Le Guin, anarchist, and writer of that anarchist tome, The Dispossessed.
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2008031918105998
What a mixed up lot anarchists are.
So how do you “control” the dissemination of information? The only libertarian means you have at your disposal that does not infringe directly upon the rights of others is to keep it to yourself. After that, you need a gun.
No one is suggesting that Ursula K. Le Guin is not the owner of her work. It is a practiacal problem of control that is at issue. The reality, as unfortunate as it is to one who wishes to control is that there is no means of control that does not involve force.
The alternative is to forget control, utilise the nature of things to ones advantage, and market self and ability through the ownership of self. Hold on to the claim of authorship through Creative Commons, and market your self through the nature of modern technology. Get people familiar with your work, and follow up with sales of real tangible goods. CWF + RTB = $$$
That is a more reasonable and practical method of monetisation of intellectual property than selling self destructing copies, or utilising the courts to obtain damages and control.
Besides, who would you rather buy a physical copy of a book from? The author themselves or some fly-by-night opportunist? If I found your book on the internet and liked it, I would buy the book directly from you if I could. That way I know I’m getting the real deal, and if you sign it yourself it’s one for my collection.
But if you sold it to a publisher and they failed to market it well, I won’t even know it’s there, or you.
You see? It’s not as scary as it seems. No one here as far as I can tell, would do differently by you. As a classical liberal I have a great deal of respect for your authorship and I would be willing to pay you for your work. No one else can do what you did. That is your value to me. That is what we sell when we sell service. That is what we sell when we sell a show. That is what we sell when we sell our ability to create.
Would you buy a fake Rolex? No. Does Rolex have a case against the makers of such things? YES! Not because they appear to be copies, but because they have the Rolex name on them, and that makes them frauds. Not to mention that the fakes are garbage any way!
Do you see that we are not talking about anarchy? Do you see that we are not talking about theft?
Do you see that we are not talking about communistic communal expropriation?
We are not. We are examining alternatives that make more sense to a free people than control at the point of a gun, and the alternative has advantages to the author in marketing and monetisation of work if approached correctly and with an eye on the goal of making a living without infringing on the rights of others in the process of “protecting” our creations.
You deserve every dollar you can get for your work. But please don’t presume it is possible to control dissemination of information and then hit me over the head with it. That is what the RIAA has been doing and it is not a good business model, even if you think they are right in principal.
Classical liberalism, Deefburger, is possible only by a small state, a minarchy, the role of which is to protect the liberty of the individual, by protecting that individual from the initiation of force and fraud, and providing the framework for laissez-faire. Protecting liberty is to protect property rights, is to protect IP. A minarchist state protecting an individual’s IP is not a gun at your head, it’s just a protection of the individual who owns the IP, by putting a gun to the head of those bandits who would seek to thieve it. Just as the minarchist state is quite right to put a gun to the head of those that would seek to initiate force and fraud in all its guises.
Even anarchist Le Guin apparently recognises the need for IP. I posted it because it shows there is at least one anarchist who does believe in IP, though I don’t know how she thought she would have this without minarchy: perhaps via IP in private sector with self policing as I have conjectured – I’ve no problem with that. But liberty will not be possible in a world where property rights, including IP, and objective law, do not exist.
I would love to see a minarchy governed by a constitution of New Freeland:
http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/constitution/index.php
That’s classical liberalism, and a freedom loving, possible, libertarianism – note, it involves doing away also with our modern democratic tyrannies of the many. That’s an absolute for me.
Funnily enough, I reckon one of the best ways to acquaint oneself with the meaning of ‘classical liberalism’, and the humanism from which it comes, is, before delving into the economic texts (Hayek and Mises, rather than Rothbard), to read Clives James (now there’s a Renaissance man) collection of superb essays, Cultural Amnesia. And note the copyright on that collection.
http://www.clivejames.com/current-books
Great article. Thanks!
Hubbard might be hoping that if he just repeats his claim that ‘minarchy is necessary’ enough times that somehow it will make it true. Notice that he does not try to back it up with logic. That direction might mean acknowledging that Rand was wrong on something.
The difference between the voluntaryists frequenting Mises Blog and Hubbard is that Ludwig von Mises is completely revered by voluntaryists, and yet, criticized with the intent of advancing theory; whereas Hubbard treats Rand like an infallible goddess. How reactionary. Maybe Hubbard could use a little of that (however flawed) classic liberal whiggishness!
Didn’t Mises stand on the shoulders’ of giants and say as much?
Oh, another term and school of anarchists. There’s so many of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_anarchism
You can even take your pick from capitalist anarchism to Marxist anarchism.
I wonder which ‘gang’ would win should you get anarchism. With such different ideologies it could get pretty bloody sorting it all out, much to the consternation, no doubt, of the pacifist anarchists (who don’t unfortunately stand a chance of surviving the melee).
So, ‘voluntaryists’ – is that correct spelling?
How does a voluntaryist enforce a contract with another voluntaryist whose gone a bit, you know, anarchist marxist and has breached his part of the bargain because you’ve had the temerity to try and profit from transacting with him?
It would make you wish for a minarchy with a legal system and objective law surely to protect the right of the individual? Note that, individual: once you start reading deep into anarchism it’s a concept that starts to disappear pretty quickly. Whereas humanist, classical liberal libertarianism has its focus on one concept: an individual.
Oh by the way Fallon, you’re leaving yourself wide open to be deconstructed by the post-modern anarchists – yep, they’re another recognised gang of anarchists.
You said of me: Hubbard treats Rand like an infallible goddess.
Yet, look at your use of language: Ludwig von Mises is completely revered by voluntaryists …
‘Revered’ is he: mmm. I certainly respect him a lot, but as with Ayn, worship is a bit of a strong word.
You’re disingenuous, Mark, considering Le Guin is not an Austro-libertarian to begin with, so is likely unfamiliar with our arguments against IP. And sorry, but classical liberalism is at this stage an anathema to economic analysis, which requires that one apply it consistently to the state…
Lew,
Brilliant! Mises would be proud of you, I believe.
I have to wonder if Mark Hubbard has read anything regarding the free market’s provision of legal and security services. It would seem not.
“I wonder which ‘gang’ would win should you get anarchism…”
yep. better we chance it with the one-world gang. the one presided over by the good people.☺
Mr. Hubbard,
If history is to teach us anything, it should be apparent by now that the “American Experiment” has failed. A government bound by the chains of the constitution is but a dream. I can imagine a world where “government” would play a role only the protection of property and individual liberty. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen throughout history it is the very nature of the State to enlarge its sphere of control. This fact has pushed me to the realization that minarchy much akin to the “American Experiment” is but a dream. That minarchy dream may have different beginnings, but it sure seems to always have the same ending, tryranny.
I for one, am ready to give the Market its turn.
I think I’m done with Mr. Hubbard. It would seem by his comments that you are either with him, or the enemy. I don’t wish to be either one.
You got it Deefburger. There’s right and wrong. Period. File sharers are thieving shites: evil. Those who sanction their thief, are reprehensible.
I know you read the SOLO thread (that’s http://www.solopassion.co.nz, Sense of Life Objectivists – thanks for that, and the well wishes for the novel), but you should have understood me from that. This is not a cosy academic exercise, a matter of the cold intellect devoid of the human: the anti-IP lobby strike at the heart of property rights and individual liberty. Where you have looters, there can surely be no freedom. I am constantly stunned, on this site, at the cold immorality of the anarchists. von Mises would spin in his grave.
What this site does in his name on the anti-IP threads, is a travesty. And this perpetrated by a senior scholar of the Mises faculty, and the vice-president, editorial: what conclusions are honest people to draw from that? Why would the business sector, reliant for their profit and hence existence on property rights, and more and more so in the Internet age, IP, have anything to gain from what is preached on the anti-IP threads here?
But to the good guys here, I think particularly of the noble men such as George Reisman, continue the good fight (though why aren’t you looking for the vipers within?)
I’m disgusted by the way a few people have been allowed to crap in every recent discussion here, always bringing up the same topic, and to continually attack others with good-evil thinking little different than that of religious fanatics.
Mark,
Do you really think that you are fighting the “good” fight? I mean “good” in the sense of “effective”? After all, calling us copycats names such as “thieving shites” is probably not the best way to win us to your point of view, even if it is true. What is it you want to accomplish here? Do you want to convince us that you’re right and we’re wrong? Or do you just want to make yourself feel morally superior by denigrating us evil moochers? If you’re trying to convince people, you’re going about it completely the wrong way.
Or maybe you’re just a troll?
Don’t feed the trolls. It’s the only way to make them go away.
Note to self: Don’t read the comments on the more brilliant articles.
professor reisman studiously avoids shoving his ip views down throats on this site, and brings his other valuable insights to bear. in return, no one here is bad-mannered enough to raise the issue without provocation.
hubbard could learn from his etiquette, if nothing else.
I don’t think Hubbard’s a troll, just another all-too-common special-pleader (albeit a particularly over-hyped, ham-handed and overly emotional one). He is correct on one thing though, there is right and wrong, or more accurately, better and worse ways for people to get along. Voluntary exchange vs. coercion. It seems to be a permanent and sorry fact of the human condition that even most libertarians have a rice bowl or pet cause that they imagine gangsters can somehow be limited to protecting or enforcing. The State banks on it. That’s my take on the “banality of evil”, to try to bring it back to Lew’s awesome article here.
Mr. Hubbard is a passionate man with a Copyright and a book in the critical hands of a publishing house. He’s terribly afraid of being rejected by this house. He has chosen his method of IP “protection” in the hopes that some day, one publisher will give him a chance at fame and fortune.
If he was wise, and paid attention to the arguments, he would have used Creative Commons instead. By that “Anti-IP” method of protection he would be distributing his work for view and enjoyment by the market already, for free, and already be making a name for himself.
But unfortunately for him, he is convinced that the work is more valuable than his own ability to produce it, and so protected the work, instead of his authorship. As a result of this decision, he sits waiting for a rejection letter or a contract from a single person who will judge his work worthy or not, and his dreams hinge upon this event. If it were me, I wouldn’t be getting much sleep either.
Had he chosen the other path, Creative Commons, us “thieves” might be already reading some of his book, and at least getting to know his skill as a writer. He would be gaining the notoriety he needs to market physical copies of the work, and also a ready market to hand when the printed edition was ready. If the work was really good, he could sell autographed copies for a much higher price and get that price, and get a better deal on the next book, by pre-printing before release and an opportunity to pump up his market ahead of time.
And he could have done all of this with the help of any publishing house he wanted, at any time, just by financing the print runs himself.
But, no. It’s not authorship that is important to him for monetizing his ability, it’s the work itself that is important to him. That is why he chose Copyright.
Now, the only fame he has is as a poster here at Mises. I don’t think that that particular skill will pay the bills.
That is the difference between the two sides of this issue. Monetization and what part of the IP is valuable and in what way.
Copyright has the value on the content with the authorship secondary. Creative commons has the value on the Authorship with the content secondary. Copyright requires Positive rights enforcement in the market to protect the valued asset.
Creative Commons Protects the authorship and assumes the content AND the author’s name will be copied. Creative commons uses the market phenomenon of copying and enjoyment to market the author instead, who can’t be copied, ever, just his name.
Let’s see now, is it easier to become famous through the advertising done by a single publisher, or the advertising of hundreds of happy readers? One of these choices is expensive and requires financing, and contracts, just to get started. The other is free.
My apologies to the IP warriors; I intend to comment on Lew’s article. Gee, I hope that’s okay.
The article struck a strong chord with me. I’m seeing, in all sorts of little ways, how deeply the rot has sunk into our society. For instance, I always carried a pocket knife when I was a boy. Nobody, including the adults at my elementary school, considered this to be unusual. It was instead considered practical. Many of my coworkers nowadays are frightened to discover that I carry a pocket knife; it’s as if they don’t know what the word “practical” means.
I find that the idea of doing anything for myself is regarded as bizarre and dangerous by most other people.
I was just thinking this morning how inappropriate this argument is regarding the areas that it keeps surfacing in. But it keeps popping up and I can’t help but defend the position. I just wish we could keep this discussion in more appropriate areas that are dealing with the issue specifically.
My apologies to Lew Rockwell. This piece is excellent and thought provoking. Well done!
Creative Commons Protects the authorship and assumes the content AND the author’s name will be copied. Creative commons uses the market phenomenon of copying and enjoyment to market the author instead, who can’t be copied, ever, just his name.
Name the authors who have been able to earn their living writing under Creative Commons?
The only possibility I can think of might be Doctorow, but even he seems quiet lately, and makes most of his money – I suspect – out of everything other than selling his books. Because, of course, in the world of no-IP an author can make money from everything … other than selling books.
And other than him, none that I know of. Is that the brave new world we’re supposed to be aspiring to?
Again, IP enforcement is not a state ‘gun at the head’ of anybody, other than those who would steal IP, just as with tangible property. But I don’t care if you have IP handled in private sector, with self-policing: the base line is IP has to be recognised, otherwise modern capitalism is as doomed in any forseeable changed future, as our crony capitalist systems are now, with their base on unsound money.
[I was making a point when I made my initial post on this thread. But look at the new posts today: economic posts, yet pushing anarchism still. This is a fringe anarchist site, thus having determined that, you'll be pleased to learn I will be lessening my time here, greatly: there is no future-in-freedom that I'm interested in being spoken to on Mises.org.]
“Name the authors who have been able to earn their living writing under Creative Commons?”
Michele Boldrin, David K. Levine, Wes Bertrand, Leonard E. Read, …
Oh, you were trying to make a point about something?
All you had to do was look.
“This is a fringe anarchist site, thus having determined that, you’ll be pleased to learn I will be lessening my time here”
Bummer, I’m not pleased, you are hilarious with your constant verbal abuse, malapropisms, non-sequiturs, bizarre associations and all-around loopy propaganda. I’ll miss ya, say hi to the main stream for me.
“pushing anarchism”
Aggressive, unassailable ignorance to the end.
Michele Boldrin: No. Academic and economist is how she makes her living. (And yes, I see, she’s anti-IP. Don’t give up the day job.)
David K. Levine: No. Professor of economics at Washington University. That’s how he makes his living.)
Wes Bertrand: has only one book out, makes his living by counseling youth, according to his site.
Leonard E. Read: um, he’s dead. Died 1983, and before that didn’t make his living selling his books.
More …
No more? No authors actually making a living via Creative Commons?
And so with these four, you’re telling me making a living out of writing books is only possible if I join the faculty of a State funded university?
And all these (anarchist?) academics working on the State payroll?
(Is US the same as New Zealand: the government pays the wages of the academic staff)?
mpolzkill wrote:
“I don’t think Hubbard’s a troll, just another all-too-common special-pleader (albeit a particularly over-hyped, ham-handed and overly emotional one). He is correct on one thing though, there is right and wrong, or more accurately, better and worse ways for people to get along. Voluntary exchange vs. coercion. It seems to be a permanent and sorry fact of the human condition that even most libertarians have a rice bowl or pet cause that they imagine gangsters can somehow be limited to protecting or enforcing….”
Yeah, I was going to say something earlier to the effect that Mark shouldn’t let the anarchists rag on him too much for being impolite to anti-IP “thieves”. After all, the anarchists themselves can be complete a-holes to people that they think are ideologically incorrect, and chalk up their beliefs to some sort of personal failing (ancap psycho-epistemology?).
And of course, speaking of the Misesian vision, Mises was really an anarchist, he was just not sufficiently self-aware to know it. *rolling eyes* Mark’s also right about this: This site should really be renamed to rothbard.org.
Ah, I guess the visits won’t be so infrequent after all. Goodie.
Go ahead, Mr. Howland, tell this shrinking violet how every single thing in a society without economic dictators will operate. No, don’t bother, you can’t gaurantee him anything.
People shouldn’t be angry that Hubbard has taken his propaganda campaign to this forum; he is embodying the blinkered cowardice Lew described in his article. Well done. All statists are the same with different details. They crave personal security above all. The “libertarian” statists truly are despicable to all others as they want the State curtailed in just about every way *except* in the ways it calms their personal fears, benefits their prejudices or abets their unwise or wrong-headed career choices.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
New Zealand. This makes it a bit more sane, I guess. The other day when Hubbard was trying to duck out of an argument he said it was bed time “Down Under”. That was at 4:30 PM, Sydney-time. Weird I thought. So he’s in New Zealand and his bed-time is 6:30 apparently. I thought most New Zealanders were envious and rivalrous regarding Australians. Iritated when they are lumped together. I didn’t know one would lump himself in with them like that. Maybe he’s not a native?
So he’s in New Zealand and his bed-time is 6:30 apparently
I said I had work to do, then bed. Nice to see you’re obviously hanging onto my every word though.
Go ahead, Mr. Howland, tell this shrinking violet how every single thing in a society without economic dictators will operate. No, don’t bother, you can’t gaurantee him anything.
Well, you name me some authors able to make a living publishing under Creative Commons (ie, that don’t have university careers)?
In fact, name me some anarchists that aren’t actually on a State payroll? (I’ll at least give Kinsella that point for himself).
“libertarian” statists
A minarchy is the furthermost thing from statism (and also, fortunately, anarchism.) It is simply a properly stated classical liberalism.
In our modern democracies the State has utterly usurped its proper role: the answer to that is not to advocate gangster rule and dropping the rule of law, but to keep the state bound to its proper role:
Along this line, yes, we are well past the time when a Second Declaration of Independence is needed:
http://www.solopassion.com/node/7231
(Obliquely) speak of the devil and he appears (while you’re typing). Wow, you bruise easily and for a long time, don’t you? Only really hurts when it’s true, isn’t that right? Truly, Russ, I have no idea what made you so scared of Muslims that you want to steal my money. No psycho-babble here. No, it’s not just “ideology”, Russ; you call on the gangsters you happen to have been born under to steal my money because they trained you to be so irrationally frightened of other gangsters on the opposite side of the planet. Also, if you think people are “a-holes” for bringing up your very severe but common shortcomings, you should know better than to air them in public.
“Nice to see you’re obviously hanging onto my every word though”
I told you, your scribblings are very entertaining, and just the right price, too.
Not that it matters, your fundamental dishonesty is merely amusing as well. You said you had to *wrap up* work. It *was* strange. So’s the “Down Under”.
“name me some anarchists that aren’t actually on a State payroll?”
Now ask us if we drive on “public” roads. God.
“A minarchy is the furthermost thing from statism”
Had to help Russ out with this one to.
State=State
ist=advocate
Statist=you
Everyone wants the State to do for themselves. You *will* *not* get it. Go ahead and carry on with Russ attacking anti-statists as a hobby, neither of our groups will curb the State anyhow. I’m just having a larf.
“name me some anarchists that aren’t actually on a State payroll?” Now ask us if we drive on “public” roads. God.
Huh? There are basically only state funded roads, so what are you going to do?
But, are you telling me there is no private sector in the US for these academics/anarchists to work in? Don’t think so. The two scenarios are not on all fours at all.
Seems like a huge admission that anarchists apparently couldn’t live in (or support) a capitalist economy – so many of them seem to be living off the State. And then of course there’s the huge double standard involved …
So, authors making a living by publishing under Creative Commons please …. ?
(It’s starting to be a pretty good real world example for IP isn’t it.)
More ignorance and slow-wittedness, this is only amusing in very small doses. No one lives off the State, the State produces nothing it didn’t first steal. It provides no service that it doesn’t violently wrest from those who would do it far better.
You are obviously a genius, so by all means, please do come to America and wow us with your academic career in which you completely avoid all tax-payer funded institutions.
Well, I have to leave and wrap up my day for the next seven and a half hours and then off to bed.
Mike Hubbard
“So, authors making a living by publishing under Creative Commons please …. ?”
I was going to stay out of this, but your snide taunts were just too much. It’s difficult to find sales data of any kind from independent authors and artists, so your challenge isn’t as easy to answer as you think. I know of two authors who have released their books as free downloads in addition to traditional published books:
J. C. Hutchins
F. Scott Sigler
You can go to iTunes and download their books in audio format, or visit their websites for free a free pdf. Sigler hit the NYT Bestseller list last year with “Contagious”.
How about musicians? Off the top of my head:
Trent Reznor
Jonathan Coultan
The former made good money from his experiment with CC. The latter built his entire career on it and supports himself entirely from it. A new author can work for a year to write a book, but the typical advance on a first novel is less than $10,000, and that’s IF a publisher accepts it. Musicians working from home in their spare time, using Creative Commons and Magnatune as a vehicle for selling music typically make several thousand dollars in royalties a year.
Does that answer your question then, Mike?
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.