In 1996, Hurricane Fran hit Raleigh, knocking out power and trees. Duke Political Science Professor Michael Munger describes the response of several citizens from a neighboring town who decided to exploit the situation. These budding opportunist entrepreneurs rented some refrigerated trucks, filled them with ice and drove to Raleigh, where they sold the bags of ice for about $8 each. Raleigh police eventually arrived, arrested them for price gouging, and allowed the ice to melt with virtually none distributed to the locals.
How confident should we be? People tend to be overconfident. One way to figure out if our confidence levels are correct is to test our calibration levels by making predictions and seeing how many of them pan out. Inspired by Slate Star Codex’s predictions, here are my predictions and accompanying confidence levels. For the sake of convenience I will choose from confidence levels of 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95% or 99%. All predictions are by December 31, 2016 unless noted otherwise.
- Postlibertarian to have >10 additional posts by July 1, 2016: 70%
- Postlibertarian Twitter to have more than 240 followers: 70%
- Postlibertarian.com to have >10k page loads in 2016: 50%
- The predictions on this page will end up being underconfident: 60%
- Liberland will be recognized by <5 UN members: 99%
- Free State Project to reach 20,000 person goal in 2016: 50%
- ISIS to still exist: 80%
- ISIS to kill < 100 Americans 2016: 80%
- US will not get involved in any new major war with death toll of > 100 US soldiers: 80%
- No terrorist attack in the USA will kill > 100 people: 80%
- Donald Trump will not be Republican Nominee: 80%
- Hillary Clinton to be Democratic Nominee: 90%
- Republicans to hold Senate: 60%
- Republicans to hold House: 80%
- Republicans to win Presidential Election: 50%
- I will vote for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate: 70%
- S&P 500 level end of year < 2500: 70%
- Unemployment rate December 2016 < 6% : 70%
- WTI Crude Oil price < $50 : 80%
- Price of Bitcoin > $500: 60%
- Price of Bitcoin < $1000: 80%
- Sentient General AI will not be created this year: 99%
- Self-driving cars will not be available this year to purchase / legally operate for < $100k: 99%
- Customers will not be able to rent trips on self-driving cars from Uber/ Lyft: 90%
- Humans will not land on moon by end of 2016: 95%
- Edward Snowden will not be pardoned by end of Obama Administration: 80%
The point of intellectual property is to promote the creation of new content, but IP has become so cumbersome it actually thwarts creativity rather than promote it. However, restrictions do not just come in the form of laws, but also critiques of what society finds socially acceptable. Concerns about avant-garde art pushing boundaries would normally be considered the domain of traditional conservatives. Nonetheless, recent developments have made unlikely critics on the Left, concerned about new art “appropriating” the culture of minorities.
In a previous post, I made a strong argument that copyright has become too restrictive. Other forms of intellectual property, like patents, aren’t much better. Duke Law Professor James Boyle has written extensively on this issue: What Intellectual Property Should Learn From Software, A Manifesto on WIPO and the Future of Intellectual Property, and a free book, The Public Domain. Software patents are especially annoying, just ask Richard Stallman.
I had previously stated that IP is interesting because it has a utilitarian basis, not a moral one. Professor Boyle has more degrees than me and says it better:
Yet intellectual property rights are not ends in themselves. Their goal is to give us a decentralized system of innovation in science and culture: no government agency should pick which books are written or have the sole say over which technologies are developed. Instead, the creation of limited legal monopolies called intellectual property rights gives us a way of protecting and rewarding innovators in art and technology, encouraging firms to produce quality products, and allowing consumers to rely on the identity of the products they purchased.
While some academics, technology groups, and libertarian groups (like the Cato Institute) have talked about the problems with IP, mainstream politics has yet to really embrace the discussion, with one exception: the Left is not a fan of pharmaceutical patents. For example, ThinkProgress lauds the Vatican for speaking out against drug patents, and the Huffington Post bemoans the extension of drug patents in the TPP. Naturally, these articles do not have a great grasp of markets or how they work to benefit individuals, but they do bring forward some interesting points; ThinkProgress holds drug patent laws as more of a moral issue keeping lifesaving drugs away from the poor, while the Huffington Post piece (written by the founder of the CEPR) supplies alternative, more efficient ways to run the drug patent system. If you want a counterpoint, I’d recommend The Economist’s commentary on this topic.
I think this discussion is excellent, and more Republicans should start talking about the most obvious IP reforms, like reducing the amount of patents issued (especially in software), and making it easier for the FDA to approve more drugs at lower cost to companies. Unfortunately much of the discussion about cultural appropriation is decidedly less excellent. Continue reading Intellectual Property and Cultural Appropriation
The tension between the social justice movement and the liberal ideals of tolerance and free speech came crashing into the mainstream last week, as activists at the University of Missouri and Yale gained widespread attention for events occurring on their respective campuses. There has been a lot of coverage, so if you are not familiar with the situation, I would recommend (sorted by brevity) this video, reading Popehat’s two posts here and here, Robby Soave at Reason, Jonathan Chait in NY Magazine, and for a longer piece, Connor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic.
Having observed many events and effects of the social justice movement, I’d like to propose a way to think about the liberal value of tolerance, a value that social justice activists have generally disregarded. There are other issues with the movement’s methods, and for more on that, I would recommend some Slate Star Codex links in the first footnote (1).
Recent events have indicated that many social justice activists are not concerned about the movement’s chilling effects on free speech. I think the coverage of the events and general political sentiment recognize this is a dangerous situation, and that free speech must be defended, even for speakers with whom we disagree (2). But I’d like to submit a broader defense of tolerance, especially in light of what free speech does not defend. Randall Munroe of xkcd (3) presents the counter-thesis, essentially arguing for intolerance as long as it is allowed by law:
Although Munroe is correct in that it is totally legal to advocate for people who you disagree with to lose their jobs, I think it is a pretty disturbing, intolerant position. But I want to better understand what tolerance means by looking at a thought exercise I call the Tolerance Gradient. Continue reading On Tolerance
Unlike the cave painting above (which is no longer under copyright), you are reading an article whose copyright will expire in over a century. Given the life expectancy of an American born less than 30 years ago, I’m likely to just miss the next Cubs World Series win in 2070. But 70 years after I’m dead, my copyrights will expire, meaning you will be free to incorporate this article into a movie or perhaps a 3D hologram, sometime around 2140. Of course, that assumes copyright law won’t change in the intervening 130 years. History seems to indicate otherwise, as 130 years ago, my copyright would have only lasted 56 years, which suggests this article’s copyright might not expire until 2170, or maybe even 2200!
Hi, my name is Michael, and I bought this domain from Josh, since he’s been a bit too busy to have many updates. The blog will continue to function similarly, providing analysis of various topics from a libertarian-ish perspective. I have a similar approach to issues; I think markets do a pretty good job allocating resources. I also think the state should err on the side of letting people work out systems on their own, but I’m about pragmatic consequentialism, not rigid ideology.
Finally, please bear with me as I get the blog set up, and the formatting worked out. I’ve tried to set up the archives to keep as many backlinks as possible to Josh’s old posts. If there are any issues, definitely let me know on Twitter @postlibertarian (the Twitter account was transferred over as well) or in the comments.