JayB

I'd imagine that the effect of revoking patent protection would be directly proportional to the capital intensity required to develop or exploit a particular innovation. Not much effect on TruckNutz or the next hippie jam-band, significantly more on optical switching technology, medical devices, etc. I think that others have covered this before, but in the absence of patent protection, those who put their assets at risk developing new innovations will use various other means to protect them that would likely exact a much higher cost than that associated with the profits that accrue to the innovator under existing patent protections.

Not even close. I think that there are quite a few folks in their 50s and 60s who have taken up climbing and/or mountaineering and learned the ropes just as quickly, or perhaps even more quickly, than they would have if they'd started when they were in their 20s.

This is the last post I read on this thread; but it prompted me to speak up. When I posted my photo online during that one thread and got a zillion negative and belittling comments, I requested that it be removed. I've never done that before and never would have expected it. But then again, I've never been at the receiving end of so many horrible, objectifying, judgmental comments directly related to my appearance. I can empathize with the woman whose picture was put up here. Hell, she didn't even put her own up and had to weather all that bullshit. Heckling each other is one thing, but treating each other like shit when we can see their faces on our forum is unnacceptable. I have pretty low standards, but at least I can agree to this one. Minx--good on you or on whatever mod removed the gal's pic. Seriously? They all seemed pretty positive to me. I thought you looked mighty attractive in the photos that I saw. I was actually disappointed in the level of abuse I got. Weak stuff.

Ditto. Wife is ~3 months from the end of residency. Congradolences.

Don't be coy there, Matt....

you seem to know enough of the cuban people to speak for them? wow. same to all you armchair qb's who are so intimately knowledgeable about another country. Is someone channeling the "If you aren't a Muslim..." argument? One can formulate an opinion on a particular regime without presuming to speak for the inhabitants living under the regime, no? Any ideas why it may be more difficult to discern the true sentiments of Cubans on this topic than it would be for say, the Dutch?

One more for the Schumpeter fan: "Patent legislation is one of the few instances of legal recognition of the social functions of profit in capitalist society. "

General Ochoa is unavailable for comment.

Hey - read through the original thread and found a photo that someone posted from April '04 (I think): The snow ramp ends at the same height as the first belay, which was pretty much a full 60M lead in early season. Pretty amazing accumulation up there.

I think the Hourglass is to the left of that route, which is between Hell's Highway and The Hourglass. Route photo below. I suspect that most of the exposed rock at the base of the route gets buried pretty early, and it turns into a WI2ish snow-ramp by this time of year.

beastforum link? The question concerning the bunny-eggs made me think of a particular thread for some reason or another. Interesting stuff about the corrupt judges that I missed when the story broke. Probably explains why the individual in question got out in a couple of years, despite the quantities involved.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/233793_bust23.html

"So far we've got jazz, advertising, bourbon, truck nutz, and the ability to consume endless amounts of cheap plastic crap without regard for anything, provided we can pay for it. I'm not so sure 2, 4, or 5 actually belong in the "good things" category, but we'll let them stand to enlarge the sample. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of social life in 21st century America. Even Kojak lays on the hates when given the opportunity. Why wouldn't someone just seek a better life elsewhere, like the immigrants crossing our borders?" Doubtless, some do this very thing. I think that for you, losing the entrenched and assiduously cultivated sense of grievance and contempt for the society that you inhabit would be like depriving a plant of its soil and sunshine. What would be left of you, what would sustain you if you were deprived of the psychosocial niche that you inhabit in this society? I think that this factor alone will keep you here for the remainder of your life. BTW - was reading the passage from Schumpeter an experience eerily like being agent Sparrow being read by Hannibal Lector? Once you finish Aron, continue with Schumpeter. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edited to add that I will also chip in for your voluntary and permanent exile from this country. Let us know where you end up, and I will gladly chip in once the paperwork needs to be filed. This will of course have to include the permanent revocation of your citizenship. Right now I put my pledge at $50, but may increase it if necessary. I think that if you include a profile of yourself, your beliefs, and a sample of your writings on a website, and troll conservative blogs soliciting donations for the funds required to seek another life in a country of your choosing, you may well find yourself astounded by the generosity of your fellow countrymen. Another voluntary win-win interaction, brought to you by the free-market.

Do you really believe that statement? The best statement of the liberal moral code is that nothing that transpires between consenting mentally competent adults, or that adults who meet the same qualifications do to themselves can properly be called immoral. Protecting individuals from being forcibly deprived of their rights or liberties by the actions of others is thus the prime end of the state in a liberal society. This is not moral? Using force to compel people who are not harming anyone else to abide by a particular standard of conduct defined by a particular moral code represents a higher moral standard? tell that to the conservative party. you know the party of the moral majority? by the way, i didn't say "The liberal society doesn't have a sound moral basis?". I'm not sure what you mean by the term "liberal" here since it has been perverted into a negative meaning by a certain segment of society. i think there is a basis, i'm also surprised at times how narrow it can be. Classical liberalism. Quite a bit different than the modern set of beliefs that has the same name. See above.

it does beg the question: how does morality fit in with your undying commitment to the open market? does it have a price like everything else? It's derived from the same principles that define personal morality in a liberal society. "When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends. It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal. In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others." From Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative." I think that this is one of the more elegant and concise defenses of (classical) liberalism out there. Read it and you will have a substantial answer to your question. http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

my problem with this statement is that the claim that "nobody else is harmed" by a certain behavior is often completely false, but posited as incontrovertibly true. True. It's often more complicated. This is why the legislature drafts laws rather than maxims.

What scares you so much? I'm not trying to compel you to do anything, Jay. We're just talking here. I don't pretend to know what any "ideal" society looks like. But I think it's fair to attempt to observe what it does not look like. And again, why do you insist that merely talking about such things equates to a desire by the speaker to see government impose the solution? I see government, and our relationship to it, as one of our many problems . Discussion, dialogue, observations, questions...what else is there? There you go again- assuming an external entity (i.e. government, etc.) must be the speaker's solution! Beyond a suggestion- through dialogue- that our human problems are largely borne from a lack of self understanding and that an earnest effort by each individual to undertake that in themselves- if they so choose- may have far more value than creating new systems and organizations or GOVERNMENTS to solve our problems for us. In short: Personal initiative and responsibility, if that wasn't clear. Ditch the ideals and utopias or assumptions of such. They have no basis in reality. Okay. I see where you are coming from. I agree with the proposed treatment if not the diagnosis of the supposed ills. Foster-Wallace and Hayek's essay should still make it onto your reading list. Now I am off to order a set of Trucknutz.

That's what my wife and I wondered after listening to a Bill Maher book on tape when he said something along the lines of: "Fraternities aren't about friendship. They're about binge-drinking, paddling, and tea-bagging." A quick consultation with Dr. Google cleared that matter up and horrified my wife.

The liberal society doesn't have a sound moral basis? Do you really believe that statement? The best statement of the liberal moral code is that nothing that transpires between consenting mentally competent adults, or that adults who meet the same qualifications do to themselves can properly be called immoral. Protecting individuals from being forcibly deprived of their rights or liberties by the actions of others is thus the prime end of the state in a liberal society. This is not moral? Using force to compel people who are not harming anyone else to abide by a particular standard of conduct defined by a particular moral code represents a higher moral standard?

Consider the above critique in context with one of the most lucrative industries in this country, arguably in the world: Porn. Substantial energy from religious and social conservatives worldwide goes into fighting this industry on the basis of "morality". One could further apply some personal version of morality to, say, alcohol...cigarettes...appliances...music...cars (Amish for example)...anything that intrudes on someone's version of simplicity, morality, what have you. So it seems that marketing is a big business because IT WORKS. It's a business of persuasion, of convincing people they need something, of altering their perspectives and values. When someone overindulges we blame the person who was persuaded for not being responsible. Unless, of course, the marketing was for something deemed "immoral" or unnecessary- but the latter qualities are more often than not matters of personal opinion. Comments? What's wrong with porn so long as the participants and the observers are all consenting adults? Ditto for gambling, prostitution, tea-bagging, sodomy, stamp-collecting, hang-gliding, rock-climbing, etc, etc, etc? You should really read Von Hayek's "Why I am Not a Conservative" for a strong defense of the liberal order if these questions are troubling you.

Morality as defined by whom? Imposed by what authority?

now there's an oxymoron! Have you gone over to the darkside?

One of the more frightening notions I've heard voiced on this site in quite some time. Boundless compulsion in an effort to contrive utopias has also been tried with widely noted downsides that seem to exceed a general policy of making the protection of personal liberty the prime end of government. What do you have in mind? What kind of entity should constrain the deplorable excess of personal liberty that we are suffering from, and what vision of a perfect society should its revocation be be in service of? Or is this just a misreading of your point?

Pretty concise summary of the angst-laden voices on this thread...,

Wanting a comfortable home, a reliable car, a nice toaster, to spend less of your time doing dishes or laundry, to spend less of your total income on food and clothing, etc are "base desires?" Certainly not representative of mankind's highest aspirations, but that indictment includes virtually every human that's ever lived, and is far from a defect that's unique to any particular subset of humanity. Moreover, whether someone's desires are base or not per anyone else's standards is a moot point so long as they don't directly harm anyone else. It's also worth noting that highbrow and lowbrow pursuits are hardly mutually exclusive. There's plenty of profs in the stands with brews in their hands at the average Husky home game. And finally, how would anything that I've said in either this thread or this post qualify as a contradiction of liberal ideals?