UNR Students for Liberty » Irrational

How Copyright Laws, a Judge, and a Bad Decision Have Crippled the World

Barry Belmont — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:58:18 +0000

Today, Judge Denny Chin ruled against Google‘s plans to make available some 12 million books in a digital library that could be accessed by anyone with an internet connection. “While the digitisation of books and the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many,” Chin wrote in his decision, Google “simply go[es] too far, [...] giv[ing] Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission.”

More depressing, however, was the fact that the judge rejected the agreement Google reached with the plaintiffs allowing them to continue the digitization and redistribution of books in exchange for an cool $125 million annually. Sounds like a fair deal. But the judge said ‘No’ citing that the ownership (copyrights) of many of the works scanned by Google could not be established.

If you didn’t catch that, I’m going to repeat it, because it is that awful: Since no one is sure who owns the copyright of a particular piece of work, no one is allowed to touch it. What!? Why? That’s like saying you can’t pick up a penny (or a dollar bill) from the street because you can’t properly trace its origins. That. does. not. make. any. sense.

And the judge was able to make this decision so easily because it is not he that will ultimately bear this cost. It’s the hundreds of millions of people who will lack access to tens of millions of books and the vast catalog of information associated with it. This judge’s decision doesn’t just minutely hurt every single human being, it damages the human condition.

What reason could their possibly be to prevent the access to free and open exchange of information? Is the world not better with the internet, with Wikipedia, with knowledge? Cloistering information such that it is not allowed into the hands of others has never been the path of progress and this will be no exception.

It is better to light the world one booklight at a time than to see it cast in darkness as the next chapter of humanity is written.

In God We Trust: A Case Study

Barry Belmont — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:58:21 +0000

Some people, as it turns out, see absolutely nothing wrong with the national motto of “In God We Trust” appearing on all sorts of things, including the money supply, schools, public universities, etc. This is because their cultural and cognitive biases are blinding them to the actual offensiveness of such a statement by merely reaffirming their own belief. [For instance, someone like me might not mind seeing "Taco Bell is the Best" on all our printed Federal Reserve notes, but fans of Del Taco would certainly have a gripe or two.]

So in order to make it that much more apparent, please enjoy a few samples of how the motto could appear, and see if you’re still 100% A-OK with “In God We Trust” being on everything.

How do you feel when it's not 'your' god? This image by itself should reveal how highly cultural the belief is anyway.

Who says that we even need to trust in a god?

What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Is he not a god you would like to see everywhere?

How about straight godless?

...I was kinda hoping for Dog the Bounty Hunter...but this'll do.

It's Peanut Butter & Jelly Time.

Do you get it yet?

Hopefully this gives something to think about. The endorsement of a particular religious doctrine has absolutely no place within the political sphere. Nor should the actions of a few simple-minded and marginally selected troglodytes with the hots for the beautiful simplicity of the the Church-mandated Dark Ages have any bearing on what we as free individuals believe with our own brains and think through with our own thoughts.

But there is a simple solution here: get rid of the public sphere. Privatize money, schools, courthouses. Then you can put whatever motto you would like on anything. Hand out gold bars with ‘Allah is Merciful’ scrawled all over them or straps of leather with “Thor is a douche” and do so with consenting people and I could not begin to care less. The problem stems ultimately from public goods, not from religious ideology. And unfortunately, very few people realize this.

Intellectual Property, Insomnia, and Lulz

Barry Belmont — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:06:55 +0000

What happens when you combine eclectic, off-the-wall musical tastes, a healthy sense of mockery for intellectual property, and an unceasing bout of insomnia? Well…a post like this.

Some of you may recall from our (three?) intellectual property meetings that things can get awful tricky when trying to parse out copying ideas, borrowing themes, being influenced, and converging tracts of thought. How do you tell which is which? Where do you draw the line? By what criteria? What each of these rhetorical questions is meant to emphasize is the utter arbitrariness involved in such disputes.

So consider these two rather odd songs. The first is “Skah of Iran” by Canadian ska band, The Planet Smashers. The thing I want you to take away is the chorus/chant “Skah of Iran!” at 0:33.

Now, stomach as much as you can of the next song, “Trollhammeren” by the Finnish folk metal band, Finntroll. The important part for your consideration is the chorus/chant “Trollhammeren!” at 0:45.

The astute among you will notice that the dah.da.da.dan! in both is exactly the same. And that’s okay. However, if this were a Lady Gaga, Justin Beiber (sp?), or Kanye West (is he still popular?) song, people would recognize it immediately and no doubt a lawsuit would be drawn up by the record company to ‘protect’ the intellectual property of their artists. After all this is what happens all too often in the “real world.” But since these are two no-name bands, there is nothing that could be strong-armed out of either of them and hence, they are free to have the same chorus.

If this isn’t the hallmark of the arbitrary, I don’t know what is.

And there you have it, the absurdity of intellectual property summarized through Iran and trolls.

Wouldn’t it be absurd?

Barry Belmont — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:34:52 +0000

…to say that because the treatment of women (and their right to wear pants) within a society is wholly determined by the subjectivity of the members of that society that we can’t say there is anything wrong with this?

Clearly we can say this is wrong. Lock, stock, and barrel. It’s time to stop pretending like objective moral, ethical, and philosophical truths don’t exist.

–

In fact, I would love to hear how anyone favoring subjectivity in such fields would justify this video. Beating a woman for wearing trousers = Good? Let’s see your proof.

Wanna Learn to Make Botulinum Toxin Kids?!

Barry Belmont — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 04:04:52 +0000

Well, thanks to the freedom of speech, the internet, and a guy with both, you can learn how to make some of the deadliest creations in all of human history.

To put this in some kind of perspective, it is speculated that a few grams of this stuff could kill hundreds of thousands of people, in essence, leveling cities. The death toll and hysteria involved in the release of this stuff within a city would be massive and the effects catastrophic. And really all it would take is one super crazy person with a super crazy agenda and the ability to Google the phrases “Uncle Fester” and “Silent Death” (or they could simply read our blog and find a link to it right over —-> here).

To put it in another kind of perspective, realize that no one has ever done this. I know, I know, that’s not a really persuasive argument, but consider also the vast number of opportunities people have nearly every minute of every day to harm one another juxtaposed to the vast number of instances they don’t. I’m not saying this is because people are morally upstanding nor because they have any real desire to help others, rather it is evidence in favor of the position that people are on the whole completely indifferent to others. No one cares enough about most people to hate them. To be actively malice requires a level of connection with others which is nearly impossible for most people most of the time in most situations.

The hatred that is required to sustain someone while they work at cooking up their bacterias and viruses and plagues is inconceivable to most people in general. And this is because we just don’t care about one another enough to hate others. Sure, that waitress might have been a bitch, but she wasn’t so bad that I want poison her.

So keep this fact of the human condition ever before your mind when discussing issues with anyone: the sheer indifference of most people to most other people is ultimately what protects us from them and them from us. And conversely, it’s when they start to care about us too much (beyond that certain limit of ambivalence) and when we start to care about them too much that we ultimately run into problems.

A Difference of Ethical Systems

Barry Belmont — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 03:04:53 +0000

I had a teacher today claim, with a straight face, that there is no such thing as right and wrong answers to questions of morality.

She purported that there is no significant difference in the overall well-being of people in Sweden as opposed to those of Rwanda.
She claimed that a suicide bomber is morally on par with a doctor who gives regularly to charities.
She said Jeffrey Dahmer and the Dalai Lama have the same ethical merit.
She actually believes that a precept like “do not rape children” is culturally specific and cannot legitimately be claimed as a universally correct moral opinion.
She feels men should be allowed to treat women like property if they are in the right part of the globe.

I have never been more disgusted by the pseudo-intellectual tradition of relativism.

It’s one of those things that should put it all in perspective.

Barry Belmont — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:30:52 +0000

When Governments Fail: The Right to Die

Barry Belmont — Mon, 24 May 2010 18:22:24 +0000

A French high court has just decided that a 52 year-old disfigured woman (seen at right) who has suffered unimaginable physical and psychological pain due to a rare disease is not allowed to have her qualified (and willing) doctor administer a lethal dose of drugs to end her suffering and kill her. Law should exist only insofar as it seeks to limit human suffering — all laws, after all, should be negative laws (do not kill, do not steal) — and yet this is not what laws seek to do under governments. Laws under governments are almost worse than arbitrary as are too often left in the hands of those who would rather play semantic games than use those codifications to the reasonable purpose of reducing human suffering. Hence, under “law”, this lady must continue to suffer.

Chantal Sebire (the woman) has said she won’t appeal the courts decision but she intends to find life-terminating drugs through other means. “I now know how to get my hands on what I need, and if I don’t get it in France, I will get it elsewhere,” she said.

Can anyone really believe in the benevolence of the State anymore? I’m sorry Ms. Sebire has suffered and I can only hope through her own efforts and those around her willing to help, she will end it once and for all.

Dear Turtle, Or; Just Because You Think, Doesn’t Make It So

Barry Belmont — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:55:41 +0000

Recently, John and I participated in a tri-partisan debate wherein we debated our view of libertarian philosophy with two other political clubs, the Young Democrats and the College Republicans. We talked about this and we talked about that (perhaps we’ll even post a blog or two about our feelings about the debate itself), but it wasn’t until after the debate that the heat (due mostly to the increasing level of ignorance) got really turned up.

One of the debaters, who I’m sure is an otherwise decent person, came up to me after the debate and tried to make the magnanimous gesture of shaking my hand and something-something about “respecting me.” It should be noted that this gesture was done only in the presence of others and never while either of us was alone, but I digress. I retorted back that I didn’t respect his opinions at all. I am sure that he took it as an affront to his character and realizing my curtness I tried to explain that I found his opinions on many things to be fundamentally flawed, and since they were incorrect, not deserving of respect.

He then said something like “well that’s just your opinion,” which we should recognize as one of the weakest forms of reasoning that can ever be undertaken, claiming that even if you don’t agree with something you should still respect the person proclaiming the idea. I, quite hardily, disagreed, holding that we should not respect the incorrect opinions of others as they cause unnecessary harm.

He returned the volley as “Ideas don’t hurt people, actions do.” Now, I can see why one might like to hide behind this sort of reasoning, but this is almost patently absurd. It’s absurd in that it proposes that ideas and actions are two separate and distinct sorts of things, as if one were somehow independent of the other. Without getting into the nuanced relationship between how ideas influence actions, actions influence ideas, ideas influencing themselves and so forth, it still stands as obvious that there is at least some sort of causal relationship involved. If I think it giving a candy bar to every person on my college campus will lead directly to my eternal happiness, then is it really any sort of leap to predict that I would probably give out candy bars? Similarly if someone feels that increasing the well-being of everyone (especially those who are perhaps unable to increase their well-being themselves), their support of welfare (for instance) can be explained quite easily.

It’s almost embarrassing that I have to tell someone who has made it through college but here it goes: ideas are causally connected to actions. Since this is true, and since certain actions can be wrong (killing or raping a child for instance), then the motivations behind those actions can also be wrong. If I think beating my disobedient child is right, then I am wrong. This is because what I believe can be wrong. It isn’t “true for me” or “just my opinion,” it is most certainly wrong.

To quote my recent Sagebrush article: “The idea that something could be “true for me” as a matter of opinion is one of the single most flawed principles of belief that has ever existed. It entails that no truths exist about the world that are unalterable by a single human mind.

Let me be clear about what I am refuting here.

I am not saying that there are no subjective truths (for instance, my hunger is an actual case of a truth that is relevant only for me.)

But I am claiming that anyone who would contend that our perceptions of the world are unimpeachable simply because they are opinions is completely and unequivocally wrong.

There are true and false opinions.

This may come as quite a shock to some who have come to believe that all ideas and opinions are equally worth respecting.

If I believe that the moon does not exist, that it is merely an optical illusion caused by light from the sun bouncing in a certain way, I would be wrong. The moon is there whether or not any of us believe it is there. Nature does not care what we think.

Granted, the moon is a simple example of right and wrong beliefs, but why shouldn’t this logic apply to all beliefs?

Is it really any different to claim that the moon exists and that Zeus does not? Or that the belief in the efficacy of publicly humiliating children by beating them in front of their classmates (as is allowed in 20 states) is reprehensible and incorrect?

Beliefs held in all areas are important because they inform how people act. Holding incorrect opinions means holding false assumptions or incorrect interpretations of reality. If this isn’t a colossal problem facing our species right now, then I don’t know what is.

The dismissive claim that everyone is entitled to their own opinion misses the point of holding opinions entirely.

This assertion is often the refuge of those who have recognized their beliefs to be incorrect and yet refuse to repudiate them.

Why should anyone be satisfied in believing in something for which there is no reason or evidence?

There is nothing to respect about incorrect opinions. There is nothing noble in believing a proposition that is most certainly false or denying one that is most certainly true.

Reality is independent of nation or conviction; truth cannot be limited by anyone. What is “true for me” must be true for the world and thus true for you, too.

Obviously no matter how much I disagree with you, I am not going to drill into your head to let those bad ideas out.

I am not suggesting that violence or force is the means to correct incorrect opinions, but I do suggest we change the way we discuss right and wrong in our society.

Namely, I suggest that we, Turtle, realize they exist and stop pretending they don’t.”

From,
Barry

The Ennui of Attending a State-Funded School

Barry Belmont — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:58:14 +0000

Having found myself with about ten minutes of free time in between studying for my state-funded classes (Principles of Animal Behavior and Mechatronics) at my state-funded school (the University of Nevada, Reno), I decided I’d use it to address what has to be one of the most often repeated criticisms of we libertarians over here at UNR. The complaint, in a nutshell, comes to, You’re all hypocrites, Look, you attend a public school and you feel their shouldn’t be public schools, Why is okay for you to attend and not for others, You are hypocrites and thus your opinions are wrong.

Not only is it parroted constantly by those with the political insight of a wool sock, but it’s about as relevant to any discussion on political philosophy as what one eats for breakfast.

Briefly, You’re all hypocrites because you attend a public school. Now, before we begin, I’d like to just point out that even if we were “hypocrites” (or “fascists” or “nazis” or “stupid-faces”) this would in no way effect the claims which we make. Claims are independent of the claimant. This is equivalent to saying we shouldn’t listen to X talk about evolutionary biology because X is a fundamentalist Christian. But it doesn’t matter what X is, only what X claims. Our claim that public schools shouldn’t exist is independent of the fact that we, unfortunately, attend them.

That said, one of the largest criticisms for state-sponsored schools is that they horribly mismanage funds and send contradictory signals to the market. By lowering the price of tuition they send two messages: demanders, demand more; suppliers, supply less. What are we as students but demanders of education? By artificially lowering the price, there is little that prevents us as partakers in a market, from seeking the biggest bang for our buck. Thus, we’re not so much as hypocrites as we are two entities: 1) People who know how markets work (and would love to see them work properly) and 2) People who are in the market. If a college cost a dollar a year, I’d attend it. Granted, I would know that such a system couldn’t sustain itself, but that is not my primary concern. Can I really be held responsible if I go to Bob’s Paint-a-Pet store only when he’s offering $1 paintings and no other times? No. I know that what I’m doing by participating isn’t helping the state-supplied system, but I don’t care. Why should I? I don’t care about my purchases at Wal-Mart or Taco Bell, why should I suddenly give a damn about the State?

Why is okay for you to attend and not others? I can’t recall anyone of us urging anyone else not to come to UNR or any other state institution. I don’t recall us ever saying it was okay for us and not for others to come. Strawmen of the world unite. But more to point, what is this criticism really driving at? I think it wants to force libertarians in general to be somehow HolierThanThou about everything, as if we weren’t normal people with normal desires. We’re against a State for a number of reasons, one of which is its rampant inefficiency. We believe it’s too easy to exploit it for money. The fact that we ourselves do this does not diminish our claim, but only furthers it: We stand and we say, look at how easy this is to exploit. I fail to see the point of this criticism.

Thus, to wrap this all up: the You’re-Hypocrites criticism is nothing more than an ad hominem attack directed at no one in particular that proves absolutely nothing. Anyone who squawks this line enough may come to believe it has some effect as all arguments from one side seem to die down — silence as interpreted as victory. And if this is what it takes for these pathetically sad individuals to feel good about themselves, then fine, let them chirp and sing and dance around proclaiming Hip-O-Cray-SEE and feeling they’ve done something. Who are we to say what they should do? We just don’t care.

Chirp and flutter and make all the noise you want, what does it compare to the absurdity of pooping in a cage all of your life…