| |
The Libertarian Blog of Stephan Kinsella
Mises Random Quote:
• BLOG ARCHIVES
• THE DAILY APOLOGY
• KINSELLALAW BLOG
November 16, 2006
Omega-Chloride-Redford on my "Plagiarism":
Cross-posted at Daily Apology; go there if you want to comment (comments are not enabled here).
***
Over on the Mises blog, my post Don't worry--you don't exist: Or, why long-range planning is really impossible drew some comments from one James Redford. Now years ago he had written some good things about my theory of rights on some boards or groups. So we had some exchanges. I confess I had forgotten most of this.
In any event. On the Mises blog post he wrote in a comment that he was glad "that some of my teachings have had an effect on you." I had no idea what he was jabbering about but had a vague recollection that he was some kind of loon or nut. He was insinuating, I thought, that I was using in my arguments something he taught me... and vaguely implying I should have given him credit. I thought this ridiculous and said so; he escalated with attempts at "proving" how I had plagiarized him and was a liar.
So I have refreshed my memory. First, as to who this dude is. I remember now: he has gone in the past, on various boards, as Count Lithium von Chloride, Tetrachordine Omega, and Tetrahedron Omega. He has written before about his various experiences with drugs, and how this has given him insight into the universe, and the "omega point," some nonsense like this. See, e.g., my discussion of this stuff in this post and in this anti-state thread, where he talks about his "god-trips". In his article Jesus is an Anarchist, he signs off thus:
Born in Austin, Texas and raised in the Leander, Texas hill country, the native-born Augustinian James Redford is a young born again Christian who was converted from atheism by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. He is a scientific rationalist who considers that the Omega Point (i.e., the physicists' technical term for God) is an unavoidable result of the known laws of physics. His personal website can be found here: http://geocities.com/vonchloride
Uh, yeah--the Omega Point... direct revelation of Christ via drugs which incude various so-called Levels of so-called God-Trips. Like, wow, man. I think he actually believes this stuff. Another funny comment: in our email conversation in 2000, I jokingly used the term "jelly head" to refer to stoners or those who do drugs, after he started going on about all the revelations he'd gotten from doing drugs. He didn't know the term "jelly-head," so I explained:
Jelly head--slang for junkie, drug head, stoner. I guess the term implies that you do so many terms it turns the brain to sludge, jelly. His humble reply? "Well, my brain is still quite intact and functioning on an I.Q. level higher than almost all people." Uhhh, HOkay.
And in His website shows he's a 9/11 conspiracy nut, too. And let's not forget his various handles: Count Lithium von Chloride, Tetrachordine Omega, and Tetrahedron Omega. He reminds me a bit of Per Malloch, another smart young libertarian who also liked my estoppel theory and Hoppe's argumentation ethics, and who also liked drugs, unfortunately a bit too much--he OD'd in college a few years ago. I wonder how long Redford will be with us. Oh well, at least he's a "Christian," so if he OD's he'll just ascend to the Jesus Omega Point, I guess, where drugs will be free and plentiful.
Anyway, he wrote in the recent Mises thread:
I'm glad that some of my teachings have had an effect on you. Ergo, your somewhat recent statement of "an ought from an ought." (Your September 8, 2006 11:19 AM reply under "How We Come to Own Ourselves.") He was referring to my comment there to someone: "I agree you cannot get an ought from an is. I am not. I am getting an ought from an ought."
Redford is implying I got this from him. Why? Here is something he wrote me long ago (which I had of course forgotten). During one of those conversations he agreed with my Humean point that you can't derive an an ought from an is; and he said he liked my own theory because in it I derive an ought from an ought. He wrote (back in February of 2000):
One remarkable thing about your rights argument is that it seems to totally by-pass the is/ought dichotomy. Rather than simply derive an "ought" from an "is" (which alone is impossible), it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" which any objector to libertarian punishment necessarily already holds.
Note that he here was simply agreeing with what my own theory did: that it derived an ought from an ought. Therefore avoiding the ought from an is problem, which I was of course already aware of. (It permeates my arguments; and see also p. 1432 of my 1994 review essay on one of Hoppe's books (discussing how Hoppe's argumentation ethics overcomes the Humean is-ought dichotomy; and p. 136 (text at n. 13) of Hoppe's 1989 book TSC, which I had of course devoured by the time I wrote my estoppel theory: "In fact, one can readily subscribe to the almost generally accepted view that the gulf between “ought” and “is” is logically unbridgeable. .... On the problem of the deriveability of “ought” from “is” statements cf. W. D. Hudson (ed.), The Is-Ought Question, London, 1969; for the view that the fact-value dichotomy is an ill-conceived idea cf. the natural rights literature cited in note 4 above.")
Now. I have used "ought from an ought" on occasion, at least in the last couple of years, as I have explained and defended my views on rights, and the problem with the is-ought dichotomy. Did I get the phrase from Redmond? I have no idea. I suppose it is possible that a phrase he used to describe my own theory stuck in my head and bubbled to the surface years later. If so, I woudl have no problem "admitting" it, as he charges; why not? After all, it's just a natural way to describe what my own theory does, as he admitted way back in 2000. And although he seems proud that if you google the phrase "ought from an ought" in usenet groups his is the first one mentioned, as if he had some great achievement (in just finding a way to describe why my own "remarkable" rights argument!), as I showed him, if you google the phrase on the web, several uses of it show up, e.g. one in 1973. (Redford's emphasis on the fact that he has the first use of the phrase on usenet, and that there are only 13 or so in a web-wide google search, is also odd: there are no doubt various ways to word the idea that you can only get an ought from an ought, other than the literal phrase "ought from an ought", which his and my google search espicked out, so the basic insight or idea or way of putting it is probably out there many more times than that simple one search would show. Not to mention that there are tons of publications not yet searchable.)
Regarding my citing of the 1973 use of the phrase, of course I did not list that to imply that I got the phrase from that source rather than from Redford; but to show that it's probably a natural way for people to describe this, that many people can either independently come to, or that is floating around out there and occasionally used. I think it's likely I either read this phraseology in various places, or maybe independently came up with it myself. I mean if you say that an ought can't come from an is, so you have to start with a presupposed ought (as Hoppe and I both argue, in a sense; even Rand, as I noted before, with her hypothetical ethics), it's, um, natural to say that you can't get an ought from an is, but only from an ought. Redford's attempt grab fame for such an obvious insight is frankly bizarre. If the thought of using that simple phrase to describe my very own rights theory was put in my head by Redford's email to me back in 2000, whoop de doo. Fine. Who cares?
So, he lists part of our email conversation from 2000 (he, um, saved it, you see), to prove I'm a plagiarist and liar. Okay, so let's recap. I think his "ought from an ought" phrase is a kind of obvious way of stating one good thing about my own rights theory. That, er, I came up with. I think it's good Omega, er Redford, came up with it. I think many people have. I may have too; or may have remembered it from Redford's email to me, um, 6 years ago, or maybe from seeing others' writings on related subjects. I'm even grateful Redford was friendly to my rights theory, but I think it's frankly bizarre of him to keep score of such minute things and to try to take credit for such a thing, or to accuse me of plagiarism, or lying. On the other hand, I guess there are worse things than being insulted by a self-admitted drug-using conspiracy-theorizing born-again Chloride-Omega Christian with Direct Revelation to God. 
November 10, 2006
The Dem'Rat Victory:
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think this might put some responsiblity on Democrats to actually come up with something now... and then they can take part of the blame when Iraq or the economy fail. OTOH Bush might get more socialist stuff done now.
I fear however that the Republicans lost not because they are not "principled" or free market or even "Reaganite" enough, but simply because (a) Iraq is unpopular; and (b) people are basically socialistic.
So even if the Republicans can get out of the shadow of the Iraq debacle, maybe the right can make some gains, but you still have (b) as a problem. Only real solution to that is to use black and female and hispanic candidates. Not to become "more libertarian" or even more principled. That won't get more voters.
November 9, 2006
Sullum on Borat:
In Jacob Sullum's comments on the Borat movie, he writes:
Because I live in the U.S. rather than Russia, last night I had the opportunity to see Borat, which I highly recommend. In addition to making me laugh so hard I couldn't breathe (the look on former Georgia congressman Bob Barr's face during his brief encounter with Sacha Baron Cohen's Kazakh alter ego is by itself worth the price of admission), it made me sympathize a bit (a teeny-weeny bit) with the Anti-Defamation League's concern that people confronted by the outrageous anti-Semitism of Borat and his compatriots might not get the joke. During the Running of the Jew, a traditional festival in Cohen's version of Kazakhstan, the townspeople chase a giant papier-mache figure that looks like a Nazi (or Arab) caricature of a Jew down the street. The Jew is followed by the Jewess, who lays a huge Jew egg that the children of the village attack with gusto, smashing it to bits. It's pretty damned funny, but I couldn't help wondering if the rest of the audience at the theater in Dallas was laughing at it for the same reasons I was. [italics added]
It's this last sentence that bugs me. Just seems condescending--"I am laughing at it for the right reasons, of course--but these Southern rubes? I'm not so sure...."
Second Thoughts on Gay Marriage:
If Hillary Clinton can do it, why not me? I've pontificated before on this topic--"The" Libertarian View on Gay Marriage; On Gay Marriage. I haven't really changed my mind on any of my particular points... and maybe I'm being worn down... but it seems to me that gays ought to be able to get married. Why not. Let them do it, if they want. Who does it hurt, really?
There are many homosexuals who are lifelong partners; some even have kids. Many of them would like to get married. The state has monopolized what marriage is, however; and refuses to let them do it. I think they should be allowed to. It's senseless to hurt them by not letting them do it.
I agree that one danger is that it would make it harder to resist the idea of making gays a "suspect class" for purposes of antidiscrimination treatment. But you know what, screw it. All the morons out there who favor "normal" race and sex and religion-based antidiscrimination laws ... let them feel some more pain.
November 8, 2006
A collection of recent blogs about patent hypocrisy and "success" stories:
Recently had an email discussion with an inventor. He wanted to know why abolishing the patent system would be "in his interest". Edited comments:
I don't think it's relevant whether it's in "your interest," to be honest. If I were a beneficiary of a million dollars a year of government welfare, I would have "an interest" in not having the welfare program abolished. So what? Does my interest mean it should not be abolished?
In my view, the threat posed by patents to honest businessmen is atrocious. It is pure government socialism in that it takes away property rights from people and awards them to others, as in the NTP-RIM litigation.
Of course, most patent lawyers are in favor of the patent system, and repeat the tired old mantras that it's "necessary" to "stimulate" innovation, blah blah blah. Wow, big surprise. As I showed in There's No Such Thing As A Free Patent, none of them know what the hell they are jabbering about. They are disingenous advocates for a system that helps perpetuate their livelihood. IMHO.
You may find of interest these blog posts:
Other miscellaneous posts on IP:
- Patents v. Blackberry and Palm ... Enter: Google (November 7, 2006)
- Mor IP law "abuse": NFL Player Sends Mom Cease and Desist Letter for Using His Likeness (November 3, 2006)
- Britain's copyright laws, based on a 300-year-old statute, desperately need reshaping for the digital age (November 2, 2006)
- Some intimate details on the Google YouTube Deal (October 31, 2006)
- The "tolerated use" of copyrighted works (October 27, 2006)
- Richard Epstein on "The Structural Unity of Real and Intellectual Property" (October 4, 2006)
- Copyrights in Fashion Designs? (September 27, 2006)
- IP Imperialism (Russia, Intellectual Property , and the WTO) (September 22, 2006)
- Software Patents are not that harmful! (September 20, 2006)
- Patents and Utilitarian Thinking Redux: Stiglitz on using Prizes to Stimulate Innovation (September 19, 2006)
- Microsoft, Open Source Patents, and Incentives (September 15, 2006)
- Apple Pays Creative $100 Million To Settle Patent Suit (August 24, 2006)
- Patent Hypocrisy (August 2, 2006)
- Patent Rights Web Poll (July 31, 2006)
- Russian Free Trade and Patents (July 15, 2006)
- The Growing Anti-IP Movement (July 13, 2006)
- Intellectual Property: The New Backlash (July 11, 2006)
- Woops, sorry, Blackberry! (June 22, 2006)
- Battling the Copyright Monster (June 19, 2006)
- Heroic Pirates (June 12, 2006)
- Drug Patents and Welfare (May 31, 2006)
- Thoughts on Intellectual Property, Scarcity, Labor-ownership, Metaphors, and Lockean Homesteading (May 26, 2006)
- Objectivists on IP (May 3, 2006)
- Hope you don't like your DVR (April 14, 2006)
- Watch out, Gwyneth (Apple v. Apple) (March 29, 2006)
- Elaborations on Randian IP (January 5, 2006)
- The Quagmire of Intellectual Property (December 28, 2005)
- For Blackberry Users out there ... (December 1, 2005)
- Patents and Innovation (November 9, 2005)
- IP vs. Antitrust (September 8, 2005)
- Patents and Blood Cells (July 14, 2005)
- Copyright and Birthday Cakes (June 16, 2005)
- Heroic Google Fighting Copyright Morass (June 2, 2005)
- Copyright Gone Mad (April 14, 2005)
- Patents and Peanut Butter Sammiches (April 8, 2005)
- Big Blue Discovers New Way To Leverage Patents (April 8, 2005)
- There is No Such Thing As A Free Patent (March 6, 2005)
- Condemning Patents (February 27, 2005)
- Patents and Utilitarian Thinking (February 25, 2005)
- Copyright and Video Games (February 25, 2005)
- Improving Copyright Law: Baby Steps (February 24, 2005)
- Cato, Lessig, and Intellectual Property (January 31, 2005)
- Amazon and Poetic Justice (November 8, 2004)
- Copyright and Freedom of Speech (November 8, 2004)
- Intellectual Property at Mises.org (March 29, 2004)
November 7, 2006
Warning signs for tomorrow:
Current podcasts:
1. Battlestar Galactica
2. Galactica Watercooler
3. Dexter
4. Heroes
5. Mark Kermode Film Reviews
6. Ebert & Roeper Film Reviews
7. Slate daily podcast
8. MSNBC Tucker Carlson
9. The Laura Ingraham show
10. Cato daily podcast
11. Mises podcast
12. Stef Molyneux podcast (occasional)
13. TWIT -- very high
14. Cranky geeks--very high
15. Diggnation (very high)
16. 60-second silence
17. 43 folders
18. NPR story of the day (sometimes)
19. Ask a Ninja
November 6, 2006
Mozy.com Free Online Backup Service:
Just an FYI--for anyone who does not have a good backup service for their computer documents and files: there's a great service i've been using --I have struggled with good backup solutions for a long time. I have tried several. A few months back I stumbled across Mozy.com which I tried and love. It's an online backup service, and does 2GB of storage FREE. It is very cool; seems to work seemlessly, and without error. I set it to backup a few times a day. The first time it backs up, it might take a day or more; but after that, each backup is incremental so it's pretty fast. I use it at home, and also at work. For work I purchased the $4.95/month version which gives you like 30GB or something like that. For home I just use the free version. Actually you get an extra 250MB (a quarter of a GB) of space for every person you refer--I have done this and now have over 5GB of space. In fact if you sign up using someone else's referral link, you start out with 2.25GB instead of 2GB. If you want to try it for backup purposes, click on my referral link (https://mozy.com/?code=P52E8G) to get 2.25GB (instead of just 2.0GB) free space. I've done a few sample backups just to test it (and one time to recover a file I had accidentally deleted), and it worked great. Highly recommended.
November 2, 2006
Tom Palmer Does Amsterdam:
ha, funny post on Daily Apology (also on Palmer Periscope):
I just heard an interesting story about Tom Palmer. Apparently he was in Amsterdam recently for the Reason conference, and someone snapped a picture which is going around which shows Palmer splayed drunk on the floor in a quasi-sexy pose with a goofy look on his face. I won't post it here--it's too embarrassing for poor Tom.
Hmm, if someone--hypothetically--had sent that pic to me, would it be wrong to post it? Inquiring minds want to know!
|
|
