Coolthin.gs

Thoughts and commentary from a young brash economist/philosopher.

The Legacy of William Jennings Bryan

From a Facebook comment of mine.

From my experience and observations the tea party is an extension of evangelical conservatism which is conflicting with its stated interest in small government. The only rally I've been to was dominated by Baptist preachers and Sarah Palin followers neither of which care about seeking smaller government. They are people who are only interesting in getting their own way and we have them to thank for the first 8 years of the 21st century. It is those people who have derailed the movement and will ultimately relegate it to the list of other has been populist movements like the ones championed by William Jennings Bryan who was a known exploiter of populist sentiments, much like Sarah Palin.

Support John Stagliano

I may not watch his films but I support John Stagliano and oppose this arbitrary case against him. For those who how no idea who or what I am talking about lets set some facts first. John Stagliano is a pornographic film producer and owner of the production studio Evil Angel and currently he is facing obscenity charges in Washington DC. For a great article written about the trail and it's proceedings check out this article by Reason Magazine. What is most striking about this case is the manner in which it is being held, mainly in that Judge Richard J. Leon is doing his best to make it as closed as possible. He has has denied both the prosecution and the defense request to have expert witnesses testify. He also opened by discussing the arbitrary "Miller Test" for deciding whether something constitutes obscenities. More information on the court proceedings in available here. Discloser, John Stagliano is also a libertarian and donates money to libertarian think-tanks which is where I would like to work some day.

The important part to take form this is that what is on trail is whether or not the films distributed by John Stagliano's company Evil Angel constitute obscenity. Excepts of three films will be shown in the court room on a tv that will only be facing the jury, they are Milk Nymphos and Storm Squirters 2, plus the trailer to Fetish Fanatic 5. Curiously absent is Back Door Sluts 9. These films weren't directed by John Stagliano and they all include legal age consenting adults and can only be sold to legal adults.


Now I honestly have no idea what constitutes obscenity and if our courts have an arbitrary definition then I have one more reason to be uneasy. But lets take a look at the definition...

Obscenity
noun, plural -ties for 2, 3.
1.the character or quality of being obscene; indecency;lewdness.
2.something obscene, as a picture or story.
3.an obscene word or expression, esp. when used as aninvective.

And because it requires knowing the definition of Obscene here is it.

Obscene
adjective
1. offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved:obscene language.
2. causing uncontrolled sexual desire.
3.abominable; disgusting; repulsive.

Firstly I'd like to point out that both of these words rely on a subjective interpretation of whatever is being called or considered obscene. I for one am scared of government subjectivity because it violates the principle of limited government which the United States was founded on. Some will say of course that this is about society's definition of what constitutes obscenity however, need I remind that it is the job of the government to protect individuals from society. We all no know examples of majority societies violating the rights of individuals. The showing of the female form in Muslim societies is often considered obscene and punishable by caning. The US may have a different view on what is obscene and may not cane people but it still support the notion of forcing people to comply with social norms. Only the firm support of the natural rights we all possess as individuals can differentiate the United States from societies that regularly violate them. If the US even stand by them for one instance then it again betrays everything it stands for.

Here is what I think this case is really about. Parents don't want to explain sex to their kids and anything that they don't like they don't want to have to explain, so they seek to have the producers of things they don't approve of punished. No one is forcing anyone to purchase or watch these films and if they did then that's a clear violation of and individual's rights which a case can be built on. The fact of the matter is, what may be obscene to one person probably isn't to others; in fact there are things out on the internet that are far more obscene then most people can even imagine (it most likely comes form Japan). If parents don't want their kids to have access to materials they consider obscene then they need to take precautions on their own computers and talk with their kids about it, not force their beliefs on others. Instead, sex is the single most avoided topic by parents and when kids inevitably, yes inevitably see something that wouldn't be approved of they have no context of what they are seeing, just ask Butters. Parents then seek to have the public schools explain this to their children which then places the sexual education of young people into the hands of the state which has no problem of using arbitrary definitions. Parents cannot hide their children for ever, and punishing a producer will not change that fact and worse sets further precedent for the state to violate the natural rights of us all.

Hey Auto Insurance Companies!

Here is an idea. Offer a optional insurance plan that has a really low rate but in order to be insured applicants are required to take a drivers test every three years. Should they fail the applicant would be put on a provisional plan with an expiration date and the full plan would not be reinstated until they complete 48 hours of a drivers education program, test again, and pass. You maintain a higher standard of driver competency which leads to a lower rate of at fault accidents by your customers. You profit from having to pay fewer claims thanks to few accidents and your customers have the benefit of lower rates in exchange for mandatory review periods. Now if all the car insurgence agencies were to compete with plans like this you would have even fewer accidents which makes a wining situation for everyone. 

And none of this would require government involvement. 

Patent Law and Smart Phones

I love smartphones. Every time I use my Motorola Droid in the back of my mind I still marvel at the technology and how portable it is. I have preferences in mobile OS operating systems. and manufacturers but I won't be discussing them here. Today I'd like to talk about one area where I have yet to fully form a concise opinion on but never the less I have many ideas about, the patent system.

My interest in discussing the subject of the patent system comes from reading a recent article from the Wall Street Journal talking about the fact that NTP Inc. (a patent holding company) has recently filed a suit against Apple, Google, HTC Corp, LG Electronics Inc, Microsoft Corp. and Motorola Inc  over patents held by NTP over the wireless delivery of email. If you look again at that list you'll notice that it includes pretty much every manufacturer of smartphone though RIM, and HP/Palm are noticeably absent because it's already brought suits against them. There is also a pending suit against AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless from 2007.

My issue with patents is that unlike physical property which they are often compared to, patents are ideas. The may be used  to create a physical product but they are not a product themselves just as ideas are not. How do you own ideas? How can you expect others to pay for an idea which is the way firms like NTP work. Patents are bestowed to companies and individuals for their ideas by governments which means the state has positive rights view over the right to thought, that I find to be incredibly dangerous and constitutes a violation of our natural rights. If I were to come up with a way to send email to my phone I don't have a right to that idea because NTP already has it. If you think that patents are about specific ways you doing things then I don't think you understand just how vague patents can be.

Here is where I run into one of my disagreements with a person who is one of the largest influences on my ideas Ayn Rand. She for all of her greatness she contradicts many of her own ideas with a surprisingly pro positive rights and anti free market position on on patents.....

"As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser's work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the potential with the actual. The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn't. Since the issue is one of commercial rights, the loser in a case of that kind has to accept the fact that in seeking to trade with others he must face the possibility of a competitor winning the race, which is true of all types of competition." - From Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (New York: New American Library, 1967), p. 133.

My problem with this statement is that patents are through their design, anti-competitive. Patents are government given monopolies for an idea and represent of intervention by the government in the markets, changing the nature of competition. It is often said that patents exist to entice inventors to create because they make the inventor stand to benefit more from their creation. However does that necessitate positive rights theory? The idea that the government creates rights and that conversely gives it the right to say what rights you do or do not have. 

What I'm basically hitting upon is the time honored debate of government being a necessary evil. Does patent law represent a necessary evil, even to those who support a free market? I'm still in the process of deciding my opinion on it, but I am always skeptical of evil being able to do good but even for those who believe it can then they usually believe it should be restrained. The belief in restraining government was held reverently by the founders of the United States but over two hundred years of history hove shown that it is no longer a common belief and the lack of it I fear will bring untold misery.

Katrina's Silver Lining: The School Choice Revolution in New Orleans


From Reason TV

Before hurricane Katrina ravaged the city in 2005, New Orleans had one of the worst performing public school districts in the nation. Katrina forced nearly a million people to leave their homes and caused almost $100 billion in damages. To an already failing public school system, the storm seemed to provide the final deathblow. But then something amazing happened. In the wake of Katrina, education reformers decided to seize the opportunity and start fresh with a system based on choice.

Today, New Orleans has the most market-based school system in the US. 60% of New Orleans students currently attend charter schools, test scores are up, and talented and passionate educators from around the country are flocking to New Orleans to be a part of the education revolution. It's too early to tell if the New Orleans experiment in school choice will succeed over the long term, but for the first time in decades people are optimistic about the future of New Orleans schools.

Approximately 10 minutes. Produced by Paul Feine; hosted by Nick Gillespie; shot by Alex Manning and Dan Hayes; edited by Alex Manning.

As someone who is only recently out of public schools I can say that what is happening for the children of New Orleans is something that will benefit them and others more then they can know. I hope that this can be the spark that lights a fire of education reform that is required to make sure future generations more intelligent then the current ones. They will have a hard future left to them but at least we can fight to give them an education that will help them survive it.