Stephan Kinsella 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (210)

• On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2013 @ 07:32am

  Slimy, but tax simplification is not good

  This is slimy, but there is no reason to be in favor of tax simplification. THe problem with taxes is not that they are complicated. It is that they are high. When they are high they always become complicated. Arguing for simplification is just distracting people who are overburdened from paying high taxes, by making them think "something is being done"--it's just a shell game because these changes are always "revenue neutral" or even worse.
  
  Meaningful tax reform is not simplification or changing from one type of tax to another. It is simply drastically lowering tax rates of whatever type of tax system is in place. And that is why the state does not propose this--it would lower their take--and instead keeps mooting cosmetic changes to keep the tax-sheeple docile. It's like the stupid marriage tax penalty. They've been promising for decades to get rid of it. Meanwhile, people keep paying it.

• On the post: Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com Forcefully From Ron Paul's Biggest Supporters

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2013 @ 05:48am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism

  My sentence they quoted was perhaps a bit mangled -- "There are also a growing number of IP critics who are artists, philosophers, techies, or journalists, most of them at least libertarian leaning, including artist Nina Paley, philosopher David Koepsell, tech blogger Mike Masnick, and reporter Joe Mullin." I meant mainly here to imply that Masnick is one of the tech/journalist types who were IP critics.
  
  I had just gotten done in the article talking about various types of libertarians (including Austrians and anarchists) who were increasingly against IP, and then I mentioned "a growing number of IP critics who are artists, philosophers, techies, or journalists" -- why? because most of the IP-critical ones I have seen do seem to be at least somewhat pro-free market, etc. David Koepsell is more or less an avowed libertarian but maybe not orthodox, Nina Paley is a lefty but anti-state and not opposed to profit and the free market.
  
  I probably should have written the sentence a bit more clearly. That said, Masnick seems to be pro free market and pro-civil liberties, which is libertarian leaning, it seems to me.

• On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 22 Jan, 2013 @ 04:52am

  Re: Re: bad actor?

  Richard, this is surely true; content companies like Fox are notorious for using copyright to legally bully people. But I don't think that is Coulton's complaint.

• On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2013 @ 08:39am

  bad actor?

  Agree as usual with most of Masnick's take, but don't see why Fox is a "bad actor"--I don't see that they did anything immoral or wrong whatsoever. Absent copyright, I don't think there would be anything wrong even with failing to give attribution credit to someone you are copying. I don't even think it's bad form. It depends on the context. It's like dropping footnotes--sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes it's overkill.

• On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2012 @ 08:55pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"

  Suzanne: "The environmental movement is broader than simply what we will use for energy. Therefore boiling it down to being for or against nuclear power is simplistic."
  
  Well, you have a point, but most greens yammer on about climate change, etc. solar etc. cannot solve this. Nor can geo or wind. Everyone knows this. The choice is simple: starve, or use some mass energy source: fossil fuels like oil, coal, or natural gas, or nuclear. A rational, non-malevolent person would choose to avoid humanity's energy-starvation; and among fossil fuels, if you think they really are leading to global warming etc. (I do not) you would be all for nuclear. But they are not. why?
  
  "One of the big issues with nuclear power as it is currently being used is centralized energy generation. Some of us prefer finding ways for as many people as possible to generate their own energy off the grid. There are proposals for small nuclear generators which can power individual houses or neighborhoods, which could be a vastly different approach than we have now. So it is entirely possible to view the current nuclear power industry as antiquated but to still be open to future developments depending on what they are. "
  
  But you do not hear greens talking about this. they are not even for exploring better nuclear. all they say is "maybe fusion" because they konw it's 50 or 70 years off. So they can hide their misanthropism and technophobia/illiteracy.
  
  My point is: if someone tells me they are an environemntalist, but they hate nuclear or don't even explore it as an alternatively, I konw that they are either stupid, ignorant, or a misanthrope.

• On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2012 @ 07:59pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"

  "If they were on the land first, and we know that they were, then they should be able to claim it was theirs. I don't buy the "I didn't know any better than this" argument. "
  
  That is not the argument. the argument is that they have a better claim than any other claimant.
  
  See the La. civil code stuff cited in notes 25 etc. of my http://mises.org/daily/3660#note25
  
  "'People opposed to nuclear power are, in my view, either not really environmentlists, or technologically illiterate. Anyone who is really in favor of environmentalism and knows a bit about science, would be in favor of nuclear power.'
  
  "For you to make a statement like that means that you see the world in more black-and-white terms than I do. I don't think we think in the same manner. The "if you don't agree with me, I discount what you are saying" approach is one I'll pass on, thanks.""
  
  No. It means that nuclear power is obviously better and safer for the environment than other serious competing sources; if you are really an environmentalist, you would be FOR nuclear power, unless you are ignorant--whcih is what I think is the case for most anti-nuke greens. But there are some who know nuclear is better but oppose it anyway, which means their real agenda is not environmentalism but something else. If you worried about "climate change" ( I am not) you should be for nuclear power.

• On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2012 @ 07:01pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"

  Suzanne: "But what about Native Americans? Do current land owners have a right to land that was once settled by others? If property has been taken by force from those who were there first, should it revert back to the original owners?"
  
  Of course. If they can prove it. I agree with rothbard: see http://libertarianstandard.com/2010/11/19/justice-and-property-rights-rothbard-on-scarcity-property-contracts/: "It might be charged that our theory of justice in property titles is deficient because in the real world most landed (and even other) property has a past history so tangled that it becomes impossible to identify who or what has committed coercion and therefore who the current just owner may be. But the point of the ?homestead principle? is that if we don?t know what crimes have been committed in acquiring the property in the past, or if we don?t know the victims or their heirs, then the current owner becomes the legitimate and just owner on homestead grounds. In short, if Jones owns a piece of land at the present time, and we don?t know what crimes were committed to arrive at the current title, then Jones, as the current owner, becomes as fully legitimate a property owner of this land as he does over his own person. Overthrow of existing property title only becomes legitimate if the victims or their heirs can present an authenticated, demonstrable, and specific claim to the property. Failing such conditions, existing landowners possess a fully moral right to their property."
  
  "My primary concern is how to deal with global environmental problems."
  
  My primary concern is justice and protecting indivdual human rights. I believe that the best outcome in environmental terms comes from private property rights strongly protected. There is a huge literature on this if you are really intersted. One test for me of someone who is a true environmentalist is whether they are pro-nuclear power or not. People opposed to nuclear power are, in my view, either not really environmentlists, or technologically illiterate. Anyone who is really in favor of environmentalism and knows a bit about science, would be in favor of nuclear power.

• On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2012 @ 06:12pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"

  Suzanne: "The emphasis is on commons rather than private property."
  
  I find such anodyne statements to masque or distract from the issue at hand, which is always: who has the right to use a particular contestable (scarce, rivalrous) resource? The libertarian answer, which I agree with, is that the person with the best claim to the resource is the one who was the first to use it or who acquired title to the resouce by contract from a previous owner. Any alternative property allocation rule always ends up taking property away from earlier or better claimants in favor of others; i.e., is a form of theft or wealth redistribution, and is thus immoral and wrong, and inefficient to boot.
  
  "Shareable: The Boom of Commons-Based Peer Production: "Physical production is impossible without natural resources."
  
  Yes. That is why property rights in such resources are establihsed; the question is what property allocation rule is society to have? If it's not the Lockean rule, that means at some point some stronger group wrests possession of already-owned property away from its previous owner. This is just naked theft, might makes right.

• On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2012 @ 10:07pm

  Re: Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"

  Last post sent on accident before editing done.
  
  Re-trying:
  
  Masnick writes: "While I still think this should be a non-partisan issue, rather than a strictly partisan one, it's interesting to see one side of the political spectrum popping up at this time to make the argument. Over the past few years, it's seemed like many of the arguments in favor of copyright reform came from the more liberal/progressive side of the spectrum anyway, so hopefully this "balances" out the calls for reform a bit ..."
  
  This implies that (a) the liberal/progressive side has been the main one calling for copyright reform, but now (b) the "right" is doing so too, as evidenced by the George Mason/Mercatus book.
  
  Both (a) and (b) seem wrong to me. The left is not against copyright, any more than the right is. And libertarians, a version of which is represented by the George Mason/Mercatus group, are not "the right." If anything they are closer to the "progressive" side of things, and the main intellectual source of serious criticism of the existing IP system.
  
  The problem is that aside from the chapter by Bell, the proposals in even the Brito book are too tepid, and not radical. Any true reform must be radical and based on recognizing that patent and copyright fundamentally and systematically undermine private property rights and free markets.

• On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2012 @ 10:02pm

  Progressives are not against IP; libertarians are not "the right"

  In his post
  
  s masnick talking about?
  his last paragraph implies (a) the left/progressive side has been the main one calling for copyright reform, but now (b) the "right" is doing so too, as evidenced by the George Mason/Brito book.
  
  Both (a) and (b) seem wrong to me. The left is not agianst copyright. And libertarians are not "the right." If anything they are lcoser to the left/progressives. The problem is that aside from bell this books seems tepid and half-assed, as do most leftist/progressive proposals for IP reform

• On the post: When Even Hilarious Web Comic Artists Are Mocking The Insanity Of The Patent System…

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2012 @ 07:12am

  Re: more dissembling by Masnick

  I've prosecuted hundreds of patents, am a EE, and have been listed as inventor on a few as well. Masnick is right. You are wrong. The patent system should be abolished. It is nothing but the leftover of mercantalism and protectionism. The state granting monopoly privileges to protect favored applicants from competition has nothing to do with the free market, capitalism, or property rights; in fact it is contrary thereto.
  
  The fact that the Constitution authorizes Congress to grant these horrible monopoly privileges does not mean Congress must do so, nor that it is justified. The Constitution has in the past and does not authorize (or permit) lots of unjust laws and policies, like chattel slavery, tariffs, a central bank, drug laws, war, income tax, prohibition, etc.
  
  See also this post about Jefferson's proposal to limit IP power: http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/12/01/thomas-jeffersons-proposal-to-limit-the-length-of-patent-and-copyright-in-the-bill-of-rights/

• On the post: Economist Combats 'Myths Of Piracy' With More Myths

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2012 @ 11:35am

  "We at Techdirt are among those constantly calling for a factual analysis of intellectual property and the laws that purport to rule it. "
  
  You cannot analyze policy from a purely "factual" point of view. Hume was right about the disinction between is and ought, fact and value. You have to import some norms in order to critique a given norm. This is not a factual endeavor; it is normative, value-laden. Not to say facts are irrelevant; but they are subsidiary to normative concerns.

• On the post: Why Do We Assume Patents Are Valid When Patent Office's Own Numbers Show They Get Things Wrong All The Time?

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2012 @ 09:27am

  It's not really a presumption

  It's just a way of stating who has the burden of proof: the person challenging the validity of the patent has the burden of proving that it should not have been issued by the PTO. The only way to change this burden, and get rid of the presumption of validity, is to move to some kind of petty patent system where patents are not examined by the PTO but are only reviewed for formal considerations. Then the patentee would have to establish its validity when it sues. This might be an improvement in the law; not sure. In any case, it's moot, since any such change to patent law is viewed as "radical" and would never happen.

• On the post: DailyDirt: Mars Missions

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2012 @ 08:51pm

  Waste of money

  Of course every cent spent by the state, including this schlock, is a waste of resources.

• On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2012 @ 09:57am

  Re: Economic advice

  Yes,t he only way to make taxes more fair is to lower them. Lower the rates. That is why the politicians distract us with talk of tax simplification, etc. THey don't want to lower revenues--or spending.

• On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 25 Jul, 2012 @ 01:24pm

  Re: Re: Re: Most of these ideas are bad

  Exactly Chris. Nicely done.
  
  Mudlock: "You mock faux-neutrality, and then trot out the most right-wing talking point; that no taxes should ever be increased."
  
  But I am not pretending to say it as an economist. Moreover, this is not a right wing view at all. The right wing is not opposed to taxes. How else will they fund their huge military spending or pay for the secret police and drug prisons?
  
  "This isn't *an* economist. This is a very *diverse group* of economist and the things they can agree on. There are economist who very much think government spending being as high as it is is not inherently bad."
  
  Still. Most economists are as socialist as the typical moron voter and product of public schools. The main ones we should listen to are adherents of the Austrian school of economics.

• On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 25 Jul, 2012 @ 12:18pm

  Most of these ideas are bad

  the problem is there is scientism at work here: economists pretending to be "neutral" and "scientific" in trotting out policy and normative proposals. You cannot do this as an economist; you have to base it on some other value or normative ideas (see Hume's is-ought dichotomy).
  
  No tax should be increased--not carbon taxes, and not by eliminating deductions. That is just a tax increase. The problem is state regulation and spending. That needs to be cut. The idea to "replace" the income tax with a consumption tax is ridiculous; the problem is not the form of tax: it is the amount. Just lower income tax rates. Cut them by half. Whatever. And cut spending to match.
  
  
  Yes,, marijjuanaa shouuld be legalized, but so should all druugs. And of course pateent and copyright shoulld be abolished.
  
  Pollitics haas always beenn brokeen: itt is corrruupt by itts nature.

• On the post: Can't We All Get Along: Principles Over Policy; Ideas Over Ideology

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2012 @ 06:19pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

  "A tax free society can't work, period."
  
  is this supposed to be an argument for theft? What exactly is it? If some random nym just asserts "An X-free society can't 'work'" then a law mandating X is justified? Wow, I must have missed that class in school.

• On the post: Can't We All Get Along: Principles Over Policy; Ideas Over Ideology

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 08 Jul, 2012 @ 09:46pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

  the house is a scarce resource. by its nature it can be used only by one person, without violent conflict over it; so property rights allocate an owner. How? by asking: who was the first person to use the previously unowned resources that constitute the house? And has he contractually given it to anyone else? That's how we determine who owns any particular scarce resource.
  
  Owning a song really means you can tell others how not to use their already-owned property. It's a negative servitude granted by the state, not by the owner. It's just theft of his property rights.

• On the post: Can't We All Get Along: Principles Over Policy; Ideas Over Ideology

  

  Stephan Kinsella ( profile ), 08 Jul, 2012 @ 09:34pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

  Yes, I realize bodies are not the same type of property as homesteaded objects; this implies bodies are inalienable but they are still scarce resouces owned by each person See http://archive.mises.org/18608/the-relation-between-the-non-aggression-principle-and-property-rights-a-response-to-division-by-zer0/ and http://mises.org/daily/2291
  
  IF you are really interested in why and how a tax free society could work, see http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html

Next >>