Apr 24, 2018 | Politics
The statement below is from Professor Adam Mossoff, whose law review articles (here and here) were heavily cited in Justice Gorsuch’s dissent (joined by Chief Justice Roberts) in today’s opinion in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy:
For the first time, the Supreme Court holds that patents for new inventions are regulatory grants similar to monopoly grants for bridges or toll roads. The decision ignores the Supreme Court’s own substantial case law over the past two centuries that patents are private property rights that secure the fruits of productive labors under the Constitution—like all other property rights in homes, farms, and animals. Instead, the Court rules that the U.S. follows the original practice by English Kings and Queens who bestowed royal privileges on their subjects as “patent” grants, applying to U.S. patent owners the historical dictum that “what the government giveth, the government can taketh away.”
As the dissenting Justices point out, this turns the Constitution and the U.S. patent system on their heads. It perverts the function of the constitutional protections afforded to the property rights of all U.S. citizens, an increasingly commonplace occurrence today under the growing and all-encompassing administrative state. It also undermines the foundation that patents provide to the U.S. innovation economy, as stable and effective property rights are the necessary platform from which inventors, venture capitalists, and companies create the new products and services that have made life a modern miracle. – Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Apr 23, 2018 | Sci-Tech
Former astronaut Chris Hadfield helps debunk (and confirm!) some common myths about space. Is there any sound in space? Does space smell like burnt steak? Is NASA working on warp speed?
Mar 27, 2018 | Business, Politics
From A Conversation With John Allison, the CEO Who Led BB&T Through the Financial Crisis:
The Fool: In your opinion, what caused the crisis?
Allison: I view the crisis differently than a lot of people. I was a long-serving CEO when the crisis struck and I think the whole thing was caused by regulatory policy.
Yes, some big banks made mistakes. But it was a combination of government housing policy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in particular, which had $5 trillion in liabilities and $2 trillion in subprime mortgages when they failed, and the Federal Reserve, which held interest rates below inflation, that contributed to the bubble in the housing market, along with bubbles in other markets.
I don’t believe the whole industry was failing. I think that’s ridiculous. It was a relatively small number of large institutions that were in trouble. Banks like Citigroup. I think they should have been allowed to fail and the world would be a better place today.
The whole idea that everybody would have gone broke if one of the big banks failed was absurd. We had been doing business with investment banks like Bear Stearns andGoldman Sachs, but we controlled our risk with those companies just like we did with any borrower. If they had gone broke, we would have lost money, but not nearly as much as we lost to residential builders in the marketplace.
It was a relatively small number of large banks and a handful of small banks that were in trouble. It was not an industrywide crisis, except to the degree that the regulators created a crisis by choosing to fail Wachovia, save Citigroup, fail Lehman Brothers, save Bear Stearns. The uncertainty caused by that response took what was going to be a normal correction and transformed it into a crisis, making everything worse than it had to be.
The Fool: How did regulators’ response to the financial crisis differ from their responses in past crises that you witnessed?
Allison: I went through the financial correction in the early 1980s, which should have been more severe because we were in bad trouble economically after the inflation of the 1970s. I also went through the correction in the early 1990s. In neither case did we have a panic. And the reason we didn’t have a panic was because at least you knew what to expect.
Thousands of banks and thrifts failed in the 1980s and 1990s. The unwillingness to let banks fail in the latest crisis — they were effectively bailing out everybody — prevented the natural correction process from happening.
We had rule of law in the past. In this crisis, we had no rule of law. When Washington Mutual failed, instead of taking the losses out of the FDIC fund, they took it from bondholders. That crashed the capital markets, which then caused Wachovia to fail. That was a regulatory decision.
The entire interview is definitely worth a read.
Link: A Conversation With John Allison, the CEO Who Led BB&T Through the Financial Crisis.
Mar 24, 2018 | Politics
Yaron Brook (Executive Chairman, Ayn Rand Institute) delivers the Adam Smith Institute’s fifth annual Ayn Rand Lecture arguing that the public are wrong to demonise financiers and bankers.
Mar 24, 2018 | Philosophy, Politics
Reading Glenn Woiceshyn’s 1998 article The Lewinsky Sex Allegations Against Clinton are Totally Believable draws some interesting parallels to President Trump:
Clinton became president not because he is a deft man of principle, but because he is a deft pragmatist, one who skillfully monitors (and manipulates) public opinion, and alters his “principles” accordingly.
Pragmatism, the philosophy dominating modern politics, involves eschewing principles in the name of “doing what will work.” The classic example of a pragmatist was Britain’s then Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, who abandoned principles to appease Hitler’s power lust by giving him Czechoslovakia, all in the name of peace. The result was war. Without principles, one cannot identify what will and won’t work.
Pragmatism eschews valid moral principles, such as honesty, integrity and justice, which leads to a policy of “doing whatever I can get away with.” If elections can be won by making promises one knows one can’t keep, or deliberately generating false hope about disastrous and wasteful schemes like Medicare and Social Security, or accepting financial contributions from Chinese dictators, or lying about adulterous affairs (such as with Gennifer Flowers), then do it. Clinton’s latest big lie was his claim in his recent State of the Union speech that “We have the smallest government in 35 years.”
How does one know if one will get away with lying or adultery? Ultimately, by feelings. Pragmatism sinks to: “Do I feel that I will get away with it this time?” If one is impulsively driven by strong adulterous urges and gets away with satisfying them once, that builds “confidence” to try again. “Success” at fooling others breeds recklessness, and a perverted feeling of triumph over others and over reality. According to Gennifer Flowers, Clinton once asked her to have sex in a bathroom at the Arkansas’ governor’s mansion while his wife and 50 guests were outside on the lawn. (CNN — Larry King Live, Jan. 23, 1998.) Imagine the “triumphant” feeling of getting away with that!
Read: The Lewinsky Sex Allegations Against Clinton are Totally Believable over at Capitalism Magazine.
Mar 24, 2018 | Politics
Writes Dr. George Reisman in a moving tribute to his wife Edith Packer:
Edith was born on October 27, 1924. At this point, I don’t think she can hold it against me for revealing her age. So when she died this last Sunday she was over 93 years old. I had always expected her, and ardently desired her, to live to be at least 105. The fact that she didn’t, has devastated me. For over 48 years her presence filled my life, and now it’s simply gone. I feel a great void.
[…]
As I’ve said, Edith’s passing has left a great void in me. And my knowledge and commitment to reality and rationality have only made it worse. I know that Edith no longer exists as any kind of actual being. All that physically remains of her is a small pile of ashes. She no longer has eyes and so she cannot see me. She no longer has ears and so she cannot hear me. There just is no longer any “she.” But nevertheless, I pretend that in some way, she still exists and that she can still see and hear me, and so I still talk to her every day. And when I’m alone, out of anyone else’s hearing, I talk to her out loud. So I now need Edith more than ever—as my psychotherapist, in addition to everything else. But you know what. Until just this last Sunday, I did talk to Edith out loud, in reality, practically every day, for almost half a century. And so it feels much more normal to go on talking to her, even if only in pretense, than to slam into the brick wall of the fact that she simply is no more. So what I think I’m doing is trying to tap the brakes gently, so to speak, and come to a smooth stop, if that’s possible. I don’t think that’s actually unreasonable. [“Obituary and Eulogy for My Wife Edith Packer“]
The entire tribute is worth a read.
***
Dr. Packers’ Lectures on Psychology: A Guide to Understanding Your Emotions include some invaluable articles on understanding your own psychology including: The Art of Introspection, Toward a Lasting Romantic Relationship and Happiness Skills.
Mar 23, 2018 | Politics
Writes Gena Gorlin in A Passionate Call for a Commitment to the Truth | Psychology Today:
Indeed, people of all political persuasions seem increasingly willing to uphold their “principles” at any price—including the price of bending or disregarding reality. A recent meta-analysis (link is external) of 41 studies on partisan bias revealed that liberal and conservative participants show equally strong tendencies to distort factual information in line with their respective ideologies. For instance, participants rated the same scientific study as being more methodologically rigorous when told that the results supported versus opposed their political views. Similarly, participants evaluated the same policy proposal more favorably when told it had been endorsed by members of their party, and vice versa. Levels of bias were near-identical among liberal and conservative participants.
Perhaps, then, the one moral concern that most desperately needs defending is the one that would lend credibility to all the rest: loyalty to the truth. Without a commitment to grounding beliefs in what is true, we lack a fundamental motivation to check and validate (and, if need be, abandon or revise) whatever principles we happen to ingest from parents, peers, and professors. As a result, our “moral concerns”—rather than guiding us in the pursuit of a noble vision—may instead urge us blindly down the path of least emotional resistance.
The entire article is a must-read.
Mar 22, 2018 | Politics
Ayn Rand Institute fellow and foreign policy expert Elan Journo has just written a book that examines the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the goal of answering: what does justice demand in this conflict? In What Justice Demands: America and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict…
….Elan Journo explains the essential nature of the conflict, and what has fueled it for so long. What justice demands, he shows, is that we evaluate both adversaries—and America’s approach to the conflict—according to a universal moral ideal: individual liberty.
From that secular moral framework, the book analyzes the conflict, examines major Palestinian grievances and Israel’s character as a nation, and explains what’s at stake for everyone who values human life, freedom, and progress.
What Justice Demands shows us why America should be strongly supportive of freedom and freedom-seekers—but, in this conflict and across the Middle East, it hasn’t been, much to our detriment.
BOOK: What Justice Demands: America and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Mar 22, 2018 | Philosophy, Politics
The Atlas Project is an online, chapter-by-chapter discussion of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, exploring the novel’s intricate plot and abstract themes through online discussion and live interactive video with philosophers Dr. Greg Salmieri and Dr. Ben Bayer.
This week’s discussion is on Part III, Chapter 7: “This Is John Galt Speaking” which contains “Galt’s Speech” where Rand first presented the fundamentals of her philosophy: Objectivism. For a list of study questions visit this link: https://campus.aynrand.org/
Mar 22, 2018 | Politics, Sci-Tech
Jason Crawford has written an positive summary of Steven Pinker’s new book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress over at his blog Roots of Progress:
Enlightenment Now is just what the world needs right now. It is a defense of the ideas and values that have created the modern world, and a defense of that world itself. I don’t agree with every word of it, but I agree with its theme and essence. The weakest aspect of the book, to me, is its morality. “Humanism” is a great start, because it sets the right standard: human life and everything that helps people thrive and prosper. But Pinker largely ignores issues of individualism vs. collectivism, and egoism vs. altruism, that I see as core to the ideological struggles of the modern world. And closely related, Pinker falls short of painting a truly inspiring, motivating picture, a heroic ideal to strive for. He himself indicates this in the final pages of the book, when he writes: “The case for Enlightenment Now is not just a matter of debunking fallacies or disseminating data. It may be cast as a stirring narrative, and I hope that people with more artistic flair and rhetorical power than I can tell it better and spread it farther.” I hope they do, as well. But overall, this is a great book, full of profound truths, meticulously researched, lucidly argued, and entertainingly written. Everyone who cares about the big issues of human life, society, politics and culture should read it. [Enlightenment Now: A summary]
One problem with Pinker’s book, according to energy expert Alex Epstein — author of the Moral Case For Fossil Fuels, is his analysis of climate and energy. Writes Epstein:
I am generally very excited about Steven Pinker’s new book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Unfortunately, the book’s treatment of climate and energy is deeply problematic. A few nights ago I recorded a 20 minute analysis of the climate section of the book. You don’t need a copy of the book to follow along since the text of the book is in the video. I hope you find my analysis useful. I think the principles involved apply to many smart people who get this issue wrong. Bonus: At the end of the video I defend “the Koch Brothers” from Pinker’s smearing. I haven’t spoken much about them publicly so I was glad to get the opportunity. [What’s wrong with Steven Pinker’s analysis of climate and energy | Center for Industrial Progress]
Epstein’s particular analysis and Crawford’s overall review are both important reading on this vital topic.
Mar 2, 2018 | Politics, Sci-Tech
Dr. Edwin Locke has just released a new book defending volition, called “The Illusion of Determinism: Why Free Will is Real and Causal.”
According to Dr. Locke, “Determinism is the doctrine that everything we think, feel, believe, and do is caused by factors outside our control—that we have no choice regarding our character, our thoughts, our actions, our lives. There have been many forms of determinism but the one that is most popular today is based on neuroscience, with the enthusiastic support of many psychologists, philosophers, and physical scientists (e.g., physicists). This version argues that we are controlled by our physical brains with the brain being which are set in motion by environmental factors. The debate continues because many people disagree with determinism and assert that they have, in some form, free will. Determinists insist that such a belief represents “folk psychology,” an illusion held by people who are ignorant of what science has allegedly proved.”
“Determinists typically believe that:
- Consciousness is the same thing as brain activity (as opposed to requiring a brain)
- The conscious mind, though real, plays no significant role in human life
- The human mind is not significantly different from that of the lower animals such as chimpanzees
- All causes are material (or mechanical)
- Goal-directed action applies equally to people and machines
- The concept of a self or the self as a causal agent has no intelligible meaning
- Key neuroscience experiments have proven that the intention to act appears after the brain has already decided what to do
- Determinism is not only compatible with objective knowledge but is also the only guarantee of objective knowledge, because it is based on scientific truth
- Determinism has to be either proved or disproved based on philosophical and/or scientific arguments
- Free will, at best, is a necessary illusion
“On the other side of the coin, various free will advocates typically believe that:
- Elementary particles which make up our brain act at random, thus refuting causal necessity
- Free will and determinism are compatible
- Religion validates free will
In The Illusion of Determinism: Why Free Will is Real and Causal, Dr. Locke shows that all of the above beliefs are mistaken, and that free will is, as many have claimed, self-evident, even though most people have not validated it or correctly identified what it consists of—what it is, and what it isn’t.”
Mar 2, 2018 | Politics, Sci-Tech
Dr. Edwin Locke has just released a new book defending volition, called “The Illusion of Determinism: Why Free Will is Real and Causal.”
According to Dr. Locke, “Determinism is the doctrine that everything we think, feel, believe, and do is caused by factors outside our control—that we have no choice regarding our character, our thoughts, our actions, our lives. There have been many forms of determinism but the one that is most popular today is based on neuroscience, with the enthusiastic support of many psychologists, philosophers, and physical scientists (e.g., physicists). This version argues that we are controlled by our physical brains with the brain being which are set in motion by environmental factors. The debate continues because many people disagree with determinism and assert that they have, in some form, free will. Determinists insist that such a belief represents “folk psychology,” an illusion held by people who are ignorant of what science has allegedly proved.”
“Determinists typically believe that:
- Consciousness is the same thing as brain activity (as opposed to requiring a brain)
- The conscious mind, though real, plays no significant role in human life
- The human mind is not significantly different from that of the lower animals such as chimpanzees
- All causes are material (or mechanical)
- Goal-directed action applies equally to people and machines
- The concept of a self or the self as a causal agent has no intelligible meaning
- Key neuroscience experiments have proven that the intention to act appears after the brain has already decided what to do
- Determinism is not only compatible with objective knowledge but is also the only guarantee of objective knowledge, because it is based on scientific truth
- Determinism has to be either proved or disproved based on philosophical and/or scientific arguments
- Free will, at best, is a necessary illusion
“On the other side of the coin, various free will advocates typically believe that:
- Elementary particles which make up our brain act at random, thus refuting causal necessity
- Free will and determinism are compatible
- Religion validates free will
In The Illusion of Determinism: Why Free Will is Real and Causal, Dr. Locke shows that all of the above beliefs are mistaken, and that free will is, as many have claimed, self-evident, even though most people have not validated it or correctly identified what it consists of—what it is, and what it isn’t.”
Jan 19, 2018 | Culture
Terence Corcoran, gives a little history lesson on how “Net Neutrality” worked in the 20th century over at the Financial Post:
Our freeways and highways are working models of road neutrality. At any time, anywhere, drivers are free to stream onto highways, free of any of the blocking, throttling and paid prioritization that private road tolls might bring. The result of road neutrality is constant congestion, with drivers dependent on politicians to determine whether new roads are built as a public utility, with no regard to price and cost.
Postal neutrality dominated for centuries, until key parts of the business were liberated from neutrality by allowing competitors to travel the same routes to deliver parcels. Today, UPS and FedEx compete with government postal services on quality and price. Recently, UPS announced another break with postal-neutrality principles, saying it would impose a surcharge on U.S. packages shipped the week before Christmas. The objective, says UPS, is to end congestion by prompting shippers and consumers to postpone deliveries that are non-essential holiday items until after the Christmas rush.
Promoters of net neutrality might learn from the history of public utilities and the experience in de-neutralized sectors such as postal services. Under deregulation, telcos in competition with one another would have more incentive to innovate and supply the infrastructure for the promised technological miracles than they would under the centuries-old utility model. [We tried ‘neutrality’ before the net came along. It’s always terrible.]
Jan 19, 2018 | Politics
In this lecture Randy E. Barnett speaks on the topic of his latest book, “Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People”: The Constitution of the United States begins with the words: “We the People.” But from the earliest days of the American republic, there have been two competing notions of “the People,” which lead to two very different versions of the Constitution. Those who view “We the People” collectively think popular sovereignty resides in the people as a group, which leads them to favor a “democratic” constitution that allows the “will of the people” to be expressed by majority rule. In contrast, those who think popular sovereignty resides in the people as individuals contend that a “republican” constitution is needed to secure the pre-existing inalienable rights of “We the People,” each and every one, against abuses by the majority.
Jan 19, 2018 | Culture
The lecture “Why Marxism?”, is an examination of why so many people are still attracted to Marxism despite the history of totalitarianism and genocide. Professor C. Bradley Thompson is the BB&T Research Professor at Clemson University and the Executive Director of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism. He has also been a visiting fellow at Princeton and Harvard universities and at the University of London.
Dec 21, 2017 | Politics
Writes David Gulbraa at NEW ROMANTICIST:
The US Justice Department announced today that it will file an antitrust suit against Santa Claus. “He’s got a monopoly on delivering presents on Christmas Eve,” said Justice Department spokesperson Ben Scrudge. “Plus he’s giving those presents away for free. Who can compete with that?”
Read the rest of The Government Against Santa Claus.
Dec 20, 2017 | Business, Philosophy, Politics
From Is Ayn Rand Affecting Trump’s America? An Interview with Steve Simpson | Merion West.
[Alex:] To what degree do you think Ayn Rand’s philosophy is influencing the modern Republican Party?
Steve: I would say very little honestly. It’s really hard to say that she’s influencing the Republican party. She’s definitely influenced the right, generally speaking, in a huge way, but that does not mean necessarily that conservatives are interpreting her ideas correctly.
I would put it this way: the right is just as afraid of Rand’s ideas as the left is; the right disagrees with her important ideas just as much as the left does. But what Atlas Shrugged has done is give people who are in favor of business, in favor of the free market, in favor of capitalism an ideal to aspire to. Atlas Shrugged is the only novel I’ve ever heard of that portrays businessmen as heroes. I think if you’re on the right and you think there is something good about capitalism, Rand gave the most ringing endorsement to that view that anybody could have given. So it makes really good sense that people on the right, who are sympathetic to capitalism, would like her novel, but that’s a very different thing from them saying they agree with her.
I think she’s influenced the right in general, but the caveat is that it does not mean those on the right necessarily agree with her. When you get to things like “Trump is the Ayn Rand presidency,” that’s nonsense. She’s influenced the right, but there’s still a big gap between Objectivism and what many conservatives believe.
Read the rest: Is Ayn Rand Affecting Trump’s America? An Interview with Steve Simpson | Merion West.
Dec 14, 2017 | Politics
Founder Stories has a great interview with Blake Scholl,founder and CEO of Boom Technology, where he talks about: Deciding to Start a Supersonic Airplane Company; Innovation in Aviation; Blake’s Career Before Boom; Deciding Whether or Not to Do YC; Being a Hard Tech Company in YC; Meeting with Richard Branson; Demo Day; advice for Other Hard Tech Companies, and his favorite book:
I mean, far and away my favorite book is Atlas Shrugged, and it’s probably not an accident that all the heroes in Atlas Shrugged are also pilots. Not an accident for me, personally, anyway.
The entire interview is an inspiring read.
Link: Founder Stories: Blake Scholl of Boom Technology
Dr. Edwin Locke has just released a new book defending volition, called “
