Intellectual Property Rights Are Not Exclusive

Posted: 10/28/2014

Preamble

Anyone, who follows my blog is aware that I have a very critical disposition towards IP rights. I have addressed IP in several, previous blogs.

One Of Several Flaws Of The U.S. Constitution

There are a number of serious flaws to be found in the U.S. Constitution (in no particular order and the list is certainly not exhaustive):

1. The silly establishment of a postal service
2. The omission of strict limits on taxation
3. The missing prohibition of public sector deficits and indebtedness unless under extraordinary circumstances and only with the approval of a supermajority of elected member of Congress
4. The omission of strict term limits for everyone in public service, i.e. elected representatives, federal government employees, judges and so on
5. The inclusion of intellectual property rights and the omission of well defined short time limits on such rights

An Invention Or Innovation Is
Often Not The Product Of A Single Human

Nearly all inventors or innovators (including the arts and literature) had predecessors or contemporaries from whom they borrowed ideas etc. Just because someone raced to be the first to the patent office or to published a work of art  should not establish a right like intellectual property.

Many Inventions Were Discovered Multiple Times About The Same Time

Here is a short, and very incomplete list:

1. Telephone
2. Transistor
3. Incandescent bulb
4. Balloons to transport humans (e.g. hot air balloon)

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to research in more depth the details of these roughly synchronous, parallel developments.

Again, the question is should only the first one who secures government enforced legal rights to such discoveries be protected and enjoy monopoly rights to exploit a discovery?

Intellectual Property Rights Stymie Progress

I am convinced and I would argue any time that IP rights have probably slowed down human progress by decades if not centuries.

We Would Still Be Living In Caves

Had intellectual property rights been developed before or at the time of cavemen, we would still be living in those caves.

Had not discoveries preceding the establishment of enforceable IP righs been shared, traded, and reverse engineered among humans, we would indeed be living in a very different time.

What Is Wrong With Mandated Quarantine For Health Care Staff?

Posted: 10/27/2014

Trigger

Just saw an excerpt of an interview with the director of the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases). He is a physician. He was very unconvincing.

A Bunch Of Morons In The Obama Administration

The president is the chief moron!

We have recently learnt a lot about nonsensical, partially absurd, arguments against mandated quarantine for returning health care staff from West Africa coming from the Obama Administration.

We still do not fully understand how Ebola is contracted. Even doctors and nurses get infected. Thus, a mandated brief quarantine of 20 or 30 days for returning medical staff makes a lot of sense. I would also venture to guess it would be accepted and understood by most of the returning medical staff.

It is quite absurd for administration officials to argue that such a reasonable measure would discourage medical staff to go to West Africa or other similar arguments.

Private Air Traffic Control For Civilian Drones

Posted: 10/27/2014

Trigger

Just read “Air Traffic Control for Drones - MIT Technology Review”

Keep Big Government Out

Don’t make the mistake with this disruptive technology to authorize a big government agency with air traffic control of civilian drones.

Have the private sector and the 50 states seek for solutions before an inflexible, bureaucratic, one size fits all is imposed by an agency like the FDA.

I trust the private sector to come up with much better solutions than a federal agency!

Future Of Cyber Consciousness

Posted: 10/26/2014

Trigger

Just read this interview at MIT Technology Review “Q&A with Futurist Martine Rothblatt If computers think for themselves, should they have human rights?” Wherein Ms. Rothblatt “... makes legal and ethical arguments for why intelligent software might eventually deserve all the rights of flesh-and-blood people.”

What Is A Futurist Anyway?

Is this someone who had a late in life a sex reassignment surgery?

Is this someone, who believes in an esoteric Terasem movement?

Totally Tethered To The Past

What surprised me most was that this so called futurist repeatedly stated that cyber consciousness should be approved by a Soviet style/era big government agency, i.e. the FDA. To quote “I think this software will be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, as a prosthesis that safely and effectively creates human consciousness. ” (emphasis added). Had a good laugh about this futurist.

One can only hope that by the time we reach cyber consciousness the FDA will long be forgotten and remain only as a footnote reminder of how foolish humans were in a bygone era.

She also stated in the above interview “I propose that these [software cyber] minds will need to spend a year in interviews with psychiatrists, in which they would talk to it just as you and I are talking back and forth.” (emphasis added). I had another good laugh about this so called futurist. Could it be that psychologists or psychiatrists were more like charlatans, a blind alley and human folly.

Software Or Cyber Consciousness

Ms. Rothblatt may have a point that one day a human being could live immortal through software in cyberspace or whatever will be. This is a distinct possibility.

Kenneth Rogoff - A Dismal Economist

Posted: 10/19/2014  Updated: 6/25/2016

Update Of 6/25/2016

Just read his Britain’s Democratic Failure in response to the historic popular vote of the British people to exit the European Union. Kenneth Rogoff did it again, see below. Very revealing how a leading economists actually thinks!

I would now add, Kenneth Rogoff is not only a dismal economist, but a socialist and authoritarian economist. Beware!

It also shows that the economist is basically clueless about British history of individual and entrepreneurial freedom.

Quotes and comments about the above, new paper (Emphasis added):

1. “The real lunacy of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union was not that British leaders dared to ask their populace to weigh the benefits of membership against the immigration pressures it presents.” (This is the first, opening sentence of his article)
   [What a lunatic argument by this economist! The British people had several months to discuss the pros and cons. Obviously, Kenneth Rogoff does not trust We the People to make decisions he does not like.]
2. “... it is Russian roulette for republics ...”
   [Kenneth Rogoff’s arguments are getting more and more desperate and lunatic!]
3. “A decision of enormous consequence … has been made without any appropriate checks and balances.”
   [Kenneth Rogoff appears to know something about the U.S. Constitution! Good that Kenneth Rogoff had no say in what the “appropriate” checks and balances should have been.]
4. “Did the UK’s population really know what they were voting on? Absolutely not.”
   [As long as the economist Kenneth Rogoff understands what the citizens were voting on!]
5. “But what, exactly, is a fair, democratic process for making irreversible, nation-defining decisions? Is it really enough to get 52% to vote for breakup on a rainy day?”
   [Rogoff’s desperation continues! Irreversible, that is so laughable! As a student of Rogoff, I would now ask for my money back.]
6. “In terms of durability and conviction of preferences, most societies place greater hurdles in the way of a couple seeking a divorce than Prime Minister David Cameron’s government did on the decision to leave the EU.”
   [Is this man really a professor at an elite university (Harvard University) in the U.S. to make such foolish comparisons?]
7. “Modern democracies have evolved systems of checks and balances to protect the interests of minorities and to avoid making uninformed decisions with catastrophic consequences.”
   [Without comment!]
8. “A country should not be making fundamental, irreversible changes based on a razor-thin minority that might prevail only during a brief window of emotion.”
   [Whether 1 million votes out of about 34 million total votes at 72% participation is “razor-thin” is arguable. Rogoff the rationalist vs. the emotional citizens.]
9. “There is no universal figure like 60% [for a supermajority], but the general principle is that, at a bare minimum, the majority ought to be demonstrably stable.”
   [Rogoff is arguing here for a quorum of required votes and perhaps for minimum turnout of votes for popular votes on fundamental decisions. Nice try! However, had these rules in place before the referendum, it is quite possible that the result would have been the same.]

Trigger

Just read economic professor Kenneth Rogoff’s piece on project syndicate “Rethinking the Growth Imperative”. The only good thing, I have to say about his article is that it is short, less than four pages and it is not written in economic lingo.

Project Syndicate, I said this here before, has become very annoying. You have to register to see an article.

This is another blog post in a series of blog posts about incompetent, contemporary economists. We have to thank these many incompetent economists for the Great Recession.

What Did He Say?

Salient excerpts and comments (emphasis added):

1. “Modern macroeconomics often seems to treat rapid and stable economic growth as the be-all and end-all of policy.”
   [This is the first sentence and it is already a false premise! Only Keynesians think that way. E.g. Austrian macroeconomists see it differently.]
2. “But there might be a problem even deeper than statistical narrowness: the failure of modern growth theory to emphasize adequately that people are fundamentally social creatures.”
   [Why is he limiting himself artificially to examining economic growth theory?]
3. “There is a certain absurdity to the obsession with maximizing long-term average income growth in perpetuity, to the neglect of other risks and considerations. Consider a simple thought experiment. Imagine that per capita national income (or some broader measure of welfare) is set to rise by 1% per year over the next couple of centuries. .... Now suppose that we lived in a much faster-growing economy, with per capita income rising at 2% annually. In that case, per capita income would double after only 35 years, and an eight-fold increase would take only a century. Finally, ask yourself how much you really care if it takes 100, 200, or even 1,000 years for welfare to increase eight-fold.”
   [This is a par excellence blunder committed by an what seems to be a Keynesian economist. How did this man manage to become professor? Rogoff never understood that economic growth is an abstraction and to many economists, a meaningless aggregation. What really counts is the underlying economic activity that produces among other things better medical treatments, more life conveniences and so much more. Yes, it matters a lot if there is only sub par economic growth.]
4. “Wouldn’t it make more sense to worry about the long-term sustainability and durability of global growth? Wouldn’t it make more sense to worry whether conflict or global warming might produce a catastrophe that derails society for centuries or more?”
5. [Durability of economic growth?? Economic activity goes in business cycles, economic growth is not constant and it can be negative. In essence, this economist buys into the Global Warming hoax.]
6. “Perhaps a deeper rationale underlying the growth imperative in many countries stems from concerns about national prestige and national security.”
   [Economics is not concerned with national prestige nor national security professor Rogoff!]

Student Beware

I would not spend too much money on studying economics from professor Kenneth Rogoff!

Shut Down The NHTSA

Posted: 10/19/2014

Trigger

Just read “Misguided Regulations Threaten Automated Vehicle Innovation”.

Unfortunately, for lack of time I am not able to more thoroughly expose what the NHTSA is and what it does.

A Retarder Of Progress

Like the FDA, the NHTSA is one other big, soviet style federal bureaucracy that does more to stymie human progress than anything else. Like the infamous stagnation of progress of the old fashioned land line telephone that survived several decades without major changes thanks to a big government granted monopoly to ATT.

The NHTSA is probably largely superfluous. If cars a produced and sold with defects causing harm or death, then this is primarily a job for a prosecutor or for tort lawyers.

The private sector is probably quite capable to come up with its own and, quite possibly, better solutions to increase motor vehicle safety etc.

Most Americans Probably Clueless

I would bet that most Americans have no or little clue that this agency even exists or what extensive power it wields to interfere with almost anything related to motor vehicles in this country.

Thanks to public education and due to other reasons most Americans are left in the dark about NHTSA.

Example Rearview Camera

Recently, more manufacturers install by default rearview cameras in their vehicles. This is great!

However, from what I read again the NHTSA wants to be a bully and regulate the rearview camera to become a mandated feature etc. Once the NHTSA regulates this, new and better technologies will be delayed or even not introduced.

Why Can We Not Buy Indian Cars In The U.S.?

I would bet you one of the reasons is the NHTSA!

Why Are There Not More Smaller Automobile Manufacturers In The U.S.

Why are there only three big national automobile manufacturers in the U.S. and not also some succesful medium sized or smaller vehicle manufacturers? Don’t believe that it was solely the three big national manufacturers that eliminated the competition.

I bet you it has something to do with big government and the NHTSA!

Libertarian Anti-Militarism And Non-Intervention Is Naive

Posted: 10/19/2014

Violence Still Rules!

In a world, where violence and authoritarianism still dominates large geographical areas and 100s of millions of people, it is downright foolish and simply naive to think by staying out you accomplish anything.

On the contrary, violent people will try to rule wherever they can.

Allies Help Each Other

In a world full of threats from violent people, peaceful, freedom loving people have to voluntarily join together to defeat them whenever and wherever necessary (e.g. coalition of the willing).

This is not Realpolitik, but common sense! That the mighty U.S. military is especially qualified to play a prime role is normal.

This is probably the strongest argument against any libertarian arguments pro anti-militarism or isolationism etc.

Military Readiness Of Allies

Not every ally will always be ready to engage in military campaigns when peaceful, freedom loving people are threatened. But allies should insist that everyone do their best to maintain a capable military force.

That e.g. the Western European plus Turkey allies of NATO have irresponsibly neglected to maintain their military readiness for several decades is inexcusable. Diplomacy has to be backed up by military strength. Paper tigers are not to be feared by violent people.

Unconvincing Examples

Yes, you can argue that U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt was an imperialist and should not have intervened in Cuba, Panama etc.

Yes, you can argue that U.S. President Woodrow Wilson had no business to intervene in Europe and World War II would likely not have happened without this professor’s ill conceived engagement.

Yes, you can argue that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was too eager to get involved in World War II.

Some libertarians are strenuously arguing about the U.S. interventions in Iran or Chile. This so laughable! It is almost as if these libertarians are being paid by someone (e.g. Iran, Russia) to spread such arguments. These interventions happened during the Cold War when the U.S.S.R was aggressively taking over or destabilizing any country possible for their purposes.

However, these bad examples and other like that are ultimately not convincing to defend a strict non-interventionist posture!

Anthropocene Is Obscene

Posted: 10/19/2014  Updated: 7/11/2015, 10/27/2014

Update As Of 7/11/2015

Just read this article “It’s Too Soon to Call This the Anthropocene Era  We humans can cause earth a lot of damage, but we don’t hold the whip hand” published by IEEE Spectrum.

Basically, the author argues as long as humans are not capable of controlling any of the natural catastrophes or weather we should not be changing the name of the current geological era since it is also fairly young (we are only 12,000 years into Holocene).

Original

This fairly new term to name the current geological chronological epoch seems to gain momentum from what I am reading.

This term seems to be seriously flawed in many respects:

1. One of the main promoters of this term, Paul J. Crutzen (Nobel laureate in chemistry), seems to have quite an ideologically biased view
2. This term suggests humans are habitual environmental sinners like the Christian bible suggests we are all sinners and need salvation
3. To use such a term is another sign of the pretense of knowledge displayed by so many scientists
4. As long as humans are not controlling weather or earthquakes or volcanoes or are able to permanently eliminate mosquitoes it would be quite preposterous to suggest humans are ruling nature

Nicotine Prohibition

Posted: 10/19/2014

Irrational & Shrill

The irrational discussions about the new e-cigarettes or vaporizers to inhale nicotine suggest that the fear of nicotine addiction is clouding the mind even of many so called highly educated experts.

Nicotine Addiction

How bad is actually a nicotine addiction to an adult? How unhealthy is it? Unfortunately, I do not have the time to investigate this further, but my hunch is that if nicotine is used in moderation then the health risks are negligible.

What are the benefits of nicotine consumption? From what I have read there are some benefits to certain people.

It Is Neither Tobacco Nor Smoking

There is a deliberate and constantly repeated confusion going on in public discussion between tobacco, smoking and these new forms of nicotine consumption. Latter has nothing to do with tobacco or smoking other than being a means of consuming nicotine.

Calls to ban these new forms of nicotine consumption in public spaces are to be rejected. Why don’t we ban coffee drinking in public?

Nicotine And Minors

This is, most likely, the only sticking point in this public discussion! Probably, we can all agree that Nicotine should not be sold to minors.

It is foremost the responsibility of parents to keep their children away from things like Nicotine. It is not necessarily a government responsibility.

Why Prohibition?

I suspect that similar motivations that brought the infamous U.S. alcohol prohibition about are operating in this case too.