Month: January 2013

Opposing the Claim that Expensive Research Won’t Occur Without Intellectual Property

One of the issues many branches of libertarianism disagree on is intellectual property. Some branches of libertarianism, such as constitutional libertarianism, believe that intellectual property is just while others branches of libertarianism, such as anarchism, oppose the idea of intellectual property. Even anarcho-capitalists can’t agree entirely on the topic. Murray Rothbard believed certain forms of intellectual property, specifically copyrights, were valid if they took shape in the form of contractual agreements between a producer and a consumer. Objectivism is another school that generally advocates of very strong intellectual property rights.

I belong to the school that oppose intellectual property in all forms. It is my belief that enforcing property rights can only be justified in the case of scarce resources. If a resource is infinitely reproducible one has no justifiable claim to use force to protect it. Ideas by their very nature are infinite resources. Consider the difference between an idea and an apple. An apple is a scarce resource in as much as it can only be enjoyed by a fixed number of people. Once an apple has been consumed it is gone forever. Ideas are not scarce resources as they can be enjoyed by an infinite number of people. If I have an idea and tell you that idea I do not lose that idea, instead we both have that idea.

Many people support intellectual property for, what they believe to be, pragmatic reasons. One of the most common arguments I hear in favor of intellectual property involves the cost of developing new technologies. Advocates of intellectual property will claim that producers won’t risk the large expense involved in developing new technologies if they aren’t guaranteed some kind of exclusive period to recoup their costs. This argument is most often made in regards to intellectual property laws regarding medical technologies. If these advocates are correct pharmaceutical companies wouldn’t invest the resources necessary to develop new drugs without the monopoly guarantees patents offer. This argument is historically unprecedented.

Intellectual property is a fairly modern concept. If advocates of intellectual property were correct, if producers were entirely unwilling to invest resources to develop new technologies without the temporary monopoly granted by intellectual property laws, then the human race would never have developed the wheel. In fact many technologies we take for granted today were developed at a time when intellectual property laws didn’t exist. When I point this out advocates of intellectual property are quick to claim that such an argument is invalid because modern technologies, such as new pharmaceuticals, require many more resources to develop. Such refutations are the result of historical ignorance.

Students of viking history have likely heard of Ulfberht. Ulfberht was the name inscribe on many high quality viking age swords and is believed to be the name of the blacksmith who created them. Today one would believe that producing a sword is a rather simple affair, which is true. Back in the viking age producing a sword was a difficult task that required a great deal of time. There is a good video created by Google engineer Niels Provos that demonstrates how viking swords were created:

The primary difference between Provos’s method and the methods used during the viking age is that the blacksmiths of the viking age didn’t have access to powered tools. Instead of a power hammer blacksmiths of the viking age had to rely on manually operated hammers. What took Provos a few days to complete would have taken a viking age blacksmith far more time, even with several people under his employ. Producing swords was an extremely time and energy consuming affair. But Ulfberht’s swords weren’t merely swords, they were superior swords. Most swords of the era were made from an inferior steel:

Medieval blacksmiths in Europe didn’t make slag-free steel, because their fires weren’t hot enough to fully liquefy the iron. In modern times, metals are melted at temperatures over 3,000 degrees. This separates out the slag and allows more carbon to be mixed in evenly. But in the Viking era, carbon could only be introduced incidentally, mainly through the coal in the fire, and the only way to remove the slag from the metal was to try to hammer out the impurities with each strike.

Of the thousands of European swords from the Middle Ages that have been found, all were thought to have been made from this inferior steel, until Williams analyzed the Ulfberht.

One of the things that set the Ulfberht apart from other swords of the day was the use of superior metal, steel:

Produced only from about 800 to 1,000 A.D., this Viking sword was made from a pure steel, not seen again in Europe for nearly 1,000 years.

This high-tech weapon of its time was inscribed with the mysterious word “Ulfberht.” Carried by only a few elite warriors, the Ulfberht represented the perfect marriage of form and function in the chaos that was a Viking battle.

Medieval Europe did not have the ability to produce steel. The steel used to produce Ulfberht’s swords came from many thousands of miles away:

But the genuine ones were made from ingots of crucible steel, which the Vikings brought back from furnaces thousands of miles away in modern Afghanistan and Iran. The tests at Teddington proved the genuine Ulfberht swords had a phenomenally high carbon content, three times that of the fakes, and half again that of modern carbon steel.

Today it seems inconceivable that creating a sword could compare to creating new pharmaceuticals. With our modern technology creating swords is fairly trivial and the task has been mostly automated. Back in the viking age creating a sword was a difficult task that could only be performed by individuals with a great deal of knowledge and skill. The secret of Ulfberht’s swords lied in the material, which had to be imported from thousands of miles away. That metal, also created in a time when intellectual property laws didn’t exist, would have been expensive and likely difficult to work with. Shaping crucible steel into a sword would have required a great deal of time and specialized knowledge in working with that particular steel. Combining the expense of importing the steel, the time needed to gain the necessary knowledge to work with the steel, and the time and physical labor required to shape the raw steel into a sword lead to a product that only the wealthiest warriors could afford.

Writing off historical technological progresses as easily achieved when compared to modern technological progresses show a lack of historical knowledge. Crafting a better sword required a massive investment, one that was undertaken in spite of intellectual property laws not existing. When an advocate of intellectual property claims that technological advancements wouldn’t occur without intellectual property laws you can kindly inform them of their error by pointing out historical events that contradict their claims. If they claim that those historical events are irrelevant because modern technological advancements require far more resources than historical technological advancements did you can kindly inform them of their error by explaining the processes required to achieve those historical technological advancements.

An Anarchist’s Perspective on the Fiscal Cliff Fiasco

Both houses of Congress have voted in favor of the fiscal cliff deal. Many people, especially those who identify as conservatives, are in an uproar after it was announced that the House Republicans caved on the matter. For those who have been paying attention the deal involves both tax and spending increases. This may appear odd to people since the inclusion of both tax and spending increases seems to oppose to goal of stopping this country from falling off of the fiscal cliff. For those who understand the nature of the state this outcome was all but guaranteed. In order to understand the fiscal cliff deal one must first understand the function of the state.

People are raised to believe that the purpose of the state involves defending the people from foreign and domestic threats, building and maintaining infrastructure, caring for those who have nowhere else to turn, etc. As an anarchist I see the state differently. The true purpose of the state is to redistribute wealth from the general populace to the politically well-connected. Every supposed purpose of the state I listed is really a thinly veiled cover for wealth redistribution.

The true purpose of police officers is to act as direct state expropriators. Notice that a majority of offenses one can be punished for involve no victims. Speeding tickets, parking tickets, fines for possessing verboten drugs, etc. are victimless crimes that involve the payment of money from offenders to the state. Even the prison system is nothing more than a special form of subsidy in the form of slave labor. Federal prisoners are generally “employed” by Federal Prison Industries, more commonly known as UNICOR. UNICOR is a government owned corporation that produces goods and services for the federal government. All federal agencies, with the exception of the Department of Defense, are legally required to source all needed goods and services through UNICOR unless UNICOR is unable to provide it or gives permission to the federal agencie to seek an alternate provider. Private prisons are another form of subsidy. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison industry in the country, uses prisoners to provide goods and services to at extremely cheap prices. The police, through enforcing jailable offenses, provide both UNICOR and private companies like CCA with a source of extremely cheap labor. Both corporations enjoy a benefit over other domestic providers of goods and services since neither is obligated to follow labor laws such as paying workers a minimum wage. Effectively wealth, in the form of labor, is being transfered from prisoners to entities like UNICOR and CCA. The state’s courts have also ruled that the police are not obligate to provide protection, further invalidating any claim that their primary purpose is the defense of individuals from domestic threats.

What about the military? Isn’t the primary purpose of the military to defend the populace of a state from foreign threats? No. The primary purpose of the military is to expand the realm in which the state can expropriate from. Consider the Mexican-American War, which broke out when the United States annexed Texas. Even though the war was justified by the claim that Texas needed to be protected after annexation the results of the war demonstrate the true purpose. By the conclusion of the war the United States claimed ownership over previously held Mexican territories including New Mexico and California, which was a stated goal of then President James Polk. The Spanish-American War was another example of early American expansionism. During the Cuban Revolution the United States sent it’s battleship Maine to Havana Harbor under the guise of protecting American interests. After arriving in Havana Harbor the Maine sank after a mysterious explosion. Even though a board of inquiry was unable to determine the cause of the explosions it was blamed on Spain and used to justify the Spanish-American War. By the end of the war the United States held temporary control over Cuba and permanent control over Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. Today’s wars are no different. Under the guise of fighting terrorism the United States occupies a great deal of the Middle East, which has vast oil deposits. In addition to oil Afghanistan holds a great deal of lithium. Beyond natural resources the United States also hands out contracts to politically connect security and construction companies. The former is claimed to be necessary to protect people in the war-torn regions, even though the contractors have continuously harmed the people of those regions [PDF], and the former is claimed to be necessary to rebuild the countries after the initial invasions. Whether through expansion of territory, and thus an increase of tax victims, or through transfers of wealth from foreigners to domestic individuals and organizations the military exists primarily to expropriate wealth.

Infrastructure is another form of wealth redistribution. By claiming jurisdiction over the construction and maintenance of roads, power lines, water pipes, etc. the state grants itself the power to grant monopolies to entities involved in those respective utilities. Furthermore the cost of constructing and maintaining infrastructure can be socialized. Consider the power grid. If somebody wanted to provide power they would also be required to provide a mechanism to transfer power from their power production facilities to their customers. This means individual power companies would be required to not only build and maintain power production facilities but also build and maintain transference infrastructure such as power lines. In locations where the state lays claim over building and maintaining power lines they transfer associated costs from power providers to the general populace. Furthermore by claiming authority over power lines the state is able to protect politically connect power providers from competition. When the only allowed way to transfer power from a power production facility to customers is through state controlled power lines free competition cannot exist. Only power providers granted permission by the state to use the power lines are able to provide customers with electricity.

Roads and highways are yet another form of subsidy. What good is a business if either customers are unable to to get to the business’s location or the business is unable to deliver goods and services from its location to customers’? If the state didn’t build and maintain road infrastructure the costs would likely fall upon businesses as they have a vested interest in connecting their locations to the locations of their customers. Since businesses want to reduce costs they would likely find more innovative methods of connecting their locations to their customers’ locations. Easy methods of reducing connection costs may range from simply building their businesses closer to residential neighborhoods to constructing of more efficient delivery methods. During the early years of the United States the transportation method built and maintained by private entities was rail [PDF]. By granting the state power over the construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure the involved costs were socialized over the general populace. Another beneficial side-effect of granting transportation infrastructure authority to the state, at least for the politically connected, was protection from competition. When the state claimed authority over transportation infrastructure it also claimed authority over regulating what can be transported on that infrastructure. Many goods restricted from being transfered on roads and highways must be produced locally and those local producers enjoy protection from distant competitors. In the end the state’s claim in the realm of building and maintaining infrastructure is another redistribution of wealth, primarily from the general populace to private businesses.

What about caring for those who have nowhere else to turn? Surly that is one rightful duty of a state. How could redistribution occur under the guise of helping the sick or poor? Unfortunately the history of state welfare is a history of expropriation. Consider the voluntary mechanisms employed by societies to care for the sick and poor when the state is uninvolved in welfare. Before the United States government entered the welfare market the sick and poor were primarily cared for through charity and mutual aid. People, realizing the benefits of helping those in need, found efficient and effective methods of providing education, healthcare, and other desired services to those without means of obtaining them otherwise. Around the turn of the century the state created the American Medical Association (AMA) and demanded all medical schools be certified by the association. The AMA, being run by doctors, had a vested interest in creating an artificial shortage in the number of doctors. If there are less doctors the prices that can be asked by current doctors increases. By 1918 the number of medical schools dropped 51 percent from it’s highest point in 1904. This drop is attributable to the the AMA ruling so many medical schools as being insufficient to train medical personell. Wealth was expropriated by the state from the general populace to approved doctors by reducing competition in the medical field. From those apparently innocuous beginnings the state has continued to increase its power in the welfare market. The Affordable Care Act redistributes wealth from the general populace to health insurance companies by mandating every American buy health insurance. Since increased health coverage doesn’t increase health care nothing is improved in the overall healthcare market, wealth was merely redistributed from the general populace to health insurance companies.

Knowing this the fiscal cliff deal makes sense. While the state hid the fiscal cliff deal under the guise of saving an already weakened economy the truth is far more insidious. The actual purpose of the fiscal cliff deal was to increase the state’s rate of expropriation in a manner that ensured compliance from the general populace. If the state merely raised taxes the people would be less likely to comply. On the other hand if the state raises taxes after getting the general populace to believe the alternative would be much worse people are more likely to comply. It’s similar to plea deals offered to individuals accused of criminal offenses. Usually the accused is offered a far more lenient sentence if they forgo a jury trial by admitting guilt. For example, instead of paying a $10,000 fine and spending 10 years in prison the accused is offered a $5,000 fine and 2 years in prison followed by 3 years of parole. This offer is very appealing to somebody facing the state’s capacity for violence and they are apt to accept it whether they were guilty of the misdeed or not. Such a deal is also desirable to the state as they forgo the expensive of a court battle. Court battles not only require the state to pay lawyers and collect evidence, they also tie up the court, which would be more productively used threatening another accused individual. During this fiscal cliff fiasco we’ve been told that the alternative to any deal would be a completely destroyed economy. A completely destroyed economy, according to the state, would lead to another Great Depression. Since the people believe the alternative to the fiscal cliff deal, which includes tax increases, is starvation they are more willing to comply with the increased rate of expropriation. In the end, just like a plea deal, the fiscal cliff theatre allows the state to expropriate more wealth with less work since the populace is more apt to comply and the need for direct state force is reduced.

Blame for the fiscal cliff deal is being thrown everywhere. Self-described fiscal conservatives are blaming the Republicans for caving instead of demanding spending cuts. Blaming the Republicans or Democrats for the fiscal cliff deal fails to address the root of the problem, which is the state itself. The fiscal cliff deal, that is to say the redistribution of wealth through increased taxation and spending, is the entire purpose of the state. Both Republicans and Democrats are agents of the state and therefore have a vested interest in increasing state expropriation. With a proper understanding of the state this outcome was easily predicted. In fact the only way one could believe any actual fight was occurring between the Republicans and Democrats over this deal are those who don’t fully understand the nature and purpose of the state.

Illinois Gun Ban Stopped for Now

Apparently the gun control advocates of Illinois were unable to get the votes necessary to ram through the gun control amendments . They’ve been pushed back for now:

There’s not enough support in the Illinois Senate to impose tough new restrictions on semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

In a setback for gun-control advocates in the wake of the killings of school children in Connecticut, the Illinois Senate was poised to adjourn Thursday without voting on two pieces of legislation aimed at limiting access to certain kinds of weapons and bullets.

Hopefully things remain this way but we all know the politician’s mantra is “If at first you don’t succeed try again harder.” Although I doubt the proposed ban would hold up in court if passed it would still required resources to be invested in, what would likely be, a long drawn-out court battle.

Criminalizing the Act of Combining a Box and a Spring

It has begun. Carolyn McCarthy has introduced the The High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, which would outlaw boxes with inserted springs that are able to holder more than 10 rounds of ammunition:

As lawmakers return to Capitol Hill today to kick off the start of the 113th Congress, Democrats are already priming for a renewed battle over gun control, announcing the introduction of a bill banning high-capacity ammunition magazines before the first House session had been gaveled in.

The High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, which is being introduced by Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and is co-sponsored by Diana DeGette, D-Colo., would ban the sale or transfer of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. That standard was the federal mandate between 1994 and 2004 under the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

As can be expected from McCarthy, she is outright lying in order to justify this arbitrary creation of new criminals:

“These assault magazines help put the ‘mass’ in ‘mass shooting’ and anything we can do to stop their proliferation will save lives in America,” said McCarthy in a statement. “These devices are used to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible and we owe it to innocent Americans everywhere to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people. We don’t even allow hunters to use them – something’s deeply wrong if we’re protecting game more than we’re protecting innocent human beings.”

I’m not sure where McCarthy gets her information but in Wisconsin you can hunt with standard capacity magazines. If you go to Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) page you will see the proof:

Question 6: Is there a magazine size limit for hunting deer?

Answer: There is not a magazine capacity limit for deer hunting. Hunters may use any size magazine to hunt deer (3 round, 10 round, 30 round are common). Hunters in “shotgun only” areas are able to use as many slugs as their shotgun will hold (no plug needed).

Restrictions on magazine capacity for hunting use is a state-by-state issue, there is no blanket ban on the use of standard capacity magazines for hunting in this country. Once again we see Carolyn “Shoulder Thing That Goes Up” McCarthy making up malarkey in order to justify her blatant attacks against lawful individuals.

Now that you’ve heard what this legislation is purported to do let’s consider what will actually do. If passed this legislation would make the combination of a box and a spring illegal if that combination is able to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. That mean this bill would authorize state agents to kidnap, imprison, and even murder an individual who has that magical combination of extremely simple objects.

At the rate things are going merely having the knowledge of how firearms operate will be a punishable offense. I hope advocates of gun control are happy. In their zeal to prevent violence they managed to introduce legislation that will initiate violence against lawful individuals possessing simple mechanical devices.

Another Reason Why I’m an Anarchist

People are often surprised to hear that I’m a self-proclaimed anarchist. Society still seems to hold the stereotype of anarchists being molotov cocktail throwing, graffiti spraying, bomb making, angst-filled teenagers. Reality is far different. A vast majority of anarchists I know are extremely peaceful, in fact they are anarchists because of the state’s reliance on force to make others obey its commands. There are many reasons why I’m a proponent of anarchism, one of those reasons is the way lawful individuals can be redefined as unlawful individuals with the stroke of a politician’s pen. Look at the current fiasco happening in Illinois:

An Illinois Senate committee approved restrictions Wednesday on semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, despite criticism from gun-rights groups that the measures go too far and amount to an assault-weapons ban “on steroids.”

This entire fiasco in Illinois is insane. First of all the legislation in question isn’t coming in the form of separate bills, it’s coming in the forms of amendments to other bills. One of the amendments is attached to HB0815, which purports to:

Amends the Illinois Nuclear Safety Preparedness Act. Makes a technical change to a Section concerning the short title.

The other amendment is attached to HB1263, which purports to:

Amends the Unified Code of Corrections. Provides that for a person convicted of criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, criminal sexual abuse, or aggravated criminal sexual abuse when the victim of any such offense at the time of the commission of the offense was under 18 years of age and the person had within the previous 20 years been convicted of any of those offenses when the victim of the offense at the time of the commission of the offense was under 18 years of age, the sentence shall be a term of natural life imprisonment.

Why does an amendment restricting shooting ranges, semi-automatic rifles, and standard capacity magazines have to do with nuclear safety or sexual assault? Not a damned thing. But making these amendments to other bills increases the chances that the restrictions will pass, which is the sole goal of the gun control movement at the moment. Make no mistake the legislatures in Illinois are not concerned about what is best for the people living within that state. Their goal is to punish all gun owners and that punishment is coming in the form of changing the state’s status of gun owners from lawful to unlawful. With the simple stroke of a pen the lawful can be changed into the unlawful.

At no point did Illinois gun owners begin performing mass acts of violence. Nothing has changed between the time prior to the Connecticut shooting and after the Connecticut shooting that justifies labeling all gun owners as unlawful individuals. But the state claims the authority to turn anybody into a criminal at any time and for any reason. I can’t support such ideas. There is no way to justify changing somebody from a lawful individual to an unlawful individual without that person having done harm. This is one of the reasons I’m an anarchist. I believe somebody should only be labeled unlawful if they have brought actual harm against another. Somebody shouldn’t face punishment because somebody else did nothing more than sign a piece of paper.

It’s Over

I’m sorry to be the one to say this but when an organization built upon the idea of cars taking left turns for several hours receives a bailout there are too many special interests involved to ever fix the system:

Another entertainment industry break: $70 million for car racing, especially motor-heads who build raceways. Sorry, I mean “an extension of the 7-year cost recovery period for motorsports facilities.” I thought NASCAR was profitable.

How can one every hope to fix a system where an organization like NASCAR can become the receiver of stolen money? When so many people on the take there is no way that we’ll ever build up enough support to elect uncorrupt individuals into office. At this point the only sane option is to let the entire system collapse and build a stateless society on top of the rubble to prevent this kind of mess from happening again (at least until people lose their mind and start demanding a state again).

Speculating the Reason Behind Releasing the Addresses of New York Gun Owners

Last week there was a bit of an uproar over a New York newspaper creating maps that show the names and addresses of registered gun owners in that state. In an attempt to defend its actions the paper released the following justification:

“We knew publication of the database would be controversial, but we felt sharing as much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings,” said CynDee Royle, editor and vice president/news.

“People are concerned about who owns guns and how many of them there are in their neighborhoods,” she said. “Our Freedom of Information request also sought specifics on how many and what types of weapons people owned. That portion of the request was denied.”

The more I read articles from advocates of gun control the more I’m beginning to believe that the publishing of those maps was nothing more than an attempt to bring harm to gun owners. Consider the potential consequences of releasing the names and addresses of gun owners directly after a politically charged event like the shooting in Connecticut. People were extremely angry and wanted an outlet for their aggression. The most popular outlet became gun owners, who were collectively blamed for the actions of the Connecticut shooter. By releasing the names and addresses of gun owners the newspaper gave angry individuals physical targets. Furthermore guns are known high-value items from criminals. Releasing a map of known gun owners also notified criminals of locations where guns are all but guaranteed to be. In fact the newspaper’s attempt to also obtain the number of type of firearms further adds to the possibility that they were trying to bring harm to gun owners. A house with multiple firearms is a more valuable target to criminals than a house with one or two.

It’s not a stretch to believe the newspaper really wanted to say “Citizens of New York, here are the addresses of those who threaten your wellbeing. Rise up, form lynch mobs, and kill them before they kill you!” and “Criminals of New York, here are the addresses of gun owners. Strike their homes, kill those dwelling within, and take their guns!” but were prohibited from legally doing so. Our society is one where advocating direct violence is socially ostracized but issuing thinly veiled threats, especially threats that can be written off as misunderstandings, are generally acceptable. Openly advocating the murder of gun owners wouldn’t generally go over well but providing potentially violent individuals with the information needed to unleash their aggression against gun owners goes without much real criticism.

Gun control advocates, while claiming to want peace, are often violent authoritarians. They want to state to use its capacity for violence against gun owners. When gun control advocates demand new laws prohibiting the ownership of specific arms they are advocating for the state to kidnap or murder any gun owners who refuse to surrender their firearms. People who advocate the use of violence against nonviolent individuals generally have little quarrel with any initiation of force so long as it’s used to advance their idea of the greater good.

What’s the Big Deal

I’ve seen quite a few people complaining about the fact that the Senate only had three minutes between receiving the fiscal cliff bill and voting on it:

The U.S. Senate voted 89-8 to approve legislation to avoid the fiscal cliff despite having only 3 minutes to read the 154-page bill and budget score.

Multiple Senate sources have confirmed to CNSNews.com that senators received the bill at approximately 1:36 AM on Jan. 1, 2013 – a mere three minutes before they voted to approve it at 1:39 AM.

I don’t understand the outrage. Since so many people believe senators have the knowledge required to rule the lives of Americans, that is to say they believe senators know every need, want, and desire of every American, I don’t see why it’s outrageous to also believe that senators can also read 154 pages in three minutes. In fact I would go so far as to say the only way a senator could acquire the knowledge necessary to know what is best for every American is if they were capable of gather knowledge in a superhuman manner.