Ira Brodsky.com

In a presentation to the annual meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, UK biochemist Dr. Terence Kealey asserted that government science is wasteful. He based that conclusion on data showing that private R&D contributes more to economic growth and his theory that science is not a "public good." He attempts to prove the latter by showing that most scientific research is inaccessible to those who don't have the appropriate specialized knowledge. (As if its value to the public hinges on the public's ability to understand it.)

I agree that government science is generally inefficient and, when it becomes too big, crowds out private research. However, there are historical examples of government and government-funded research yielding big returns. Plus, the argument I hear most often isn't that science is a public good--a rather abstract notion--but that most "pure research" would never get private funding. The problem with that claim is that there are also many historical examples of companies and private universities funding successful pure research.

It turns out that Kealey and Stephan Kinsella (who posted the video at the Ludwig von Mises Institute website) don't believe in intellectual property. They apparently feel that trademarks, copyrights, and patents serve mainly as an excuse for state intervention in the free market. To me, this makes about as much sense as anarchism, and at the end of the day there's little difference between this view and the Marxist dream of abolishing all private property. Presumably, Kealey and Kinsella accept state intervention to protect material private property. The real problem, I suspect, is that they are philosophical materialists who can't conceive of anything other than physical items being property.

A more common sense view is that government science is not always a bad thing, but government science and government in general should be carefully limited. If we stuck to that view it would prevent government from crowding out private research. In fact, the people would be better served if government focused more on encouraging private research and protecting intellectual property.

Colleges and universities are supposed to be centers for the free exchange of ideas. In the U.S., many have become centers for sorting ideas into two bins. The approved ideas are inculcated; the disapproved ideas are censored.

I found the story Students, Alumni Rally Behind Illinois Professor Fired for Expressing Catholic Beliefs oddly inspiring. According to the report, Assistant Professor Kenneth Howell was fired after a student accused him of “hate speech” for saying he agreed with the Catholic Church’s view that homosexual sex is immoral.

There’s no indication that Howell did anything other than express an opinion. According to the Facebook page Save Dr. Ken, “His teaching what the Catholic Church teaches in a course on Catholicism was deemed to violate University rules of inclusivity…”

I can't say whether I agree or disagree with Howell, because it's not something I've given much thought. But I don't know how a university can have "rules of inclusivity" concerning opinions. (Actually, I do know how: by applying them selectively.)

It turns out that Howell is popular among students—and not just Catholic students. Even the student group Atheists, Agnostics & Freethinkers has rallied to his side. (I think it’s a safe bet that they aren’t defending his opinion—just his right to express it.) Howell apparently has a reputation for promoting open, honest, and civil debate. And that’s exactly the sort of thing that’s supposed to take place at universities.

Esther Dyson always brings a unique and nuanced perspective to issues. Speaking at the Health 2.0 Goes to DC conference, Esther proposed that the health ecosystem consists of three markets: Health Care 1.0, Bad Health, and Health Care 2.0. I'm glad she emphasized some of the challenges faced by the nascent Health 2.0 market. But lumping drug abuse, processed foods, and lack of exercise together and calling it the "Market for Bad Health" is a bad idea.



Whether she intended it or not, Esther implies that to varying extents the tobacco, processed foods, automobile, alcoholic beverage, and television industries all make at least some of their money by damaging people's health. I don't think that's true. For example, some processed foods contain added vitamins; others remove natural ingredients that are harmful to people with specific allergies or medical conditions. There is also a legitimate place for foods offering benefits such as convenience or long shelf life.

You could certainly argue that the tobacco industry makes money by damaging people's health--though some smokers live long lives. But there is nothing inherently wrong with food processing (or automobiles and even alcoholic beverages). Some processed foods contain potentially harmful ingredients, just as some natural foods may be improperly handled or stored. For most people, it's probably fine to eat foods containing additives or preservatives once or twice a week. Can the same be said about eating contaminated natural foods?

But what worries me most is that calling a range of products and services the "Market for Bad Health" is an invitation for excessive government intervention and perhaps even social regimentation. We have to accept that some people will choose unhealthy lifestyles regardless of how many educational programs and regulations are created. Plus, many government programs and regulations have unintended consequences. Some things are harmful in ways that are obvious, but beneficial in ways that are not well recognized.

Because if we want to empower individuals to manage their own health and health care--and that to me is the primary virtue of Health Care 2.0--we need to let them make real choices.

New York federal judge Louis Stanton ruled that Google's YouTube did not violate Viacom's copyrights. It was a technical decision based on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's safe harbor provision for service providers. To wit, service providers such as YouTube are not liable for the actions of their users as long as they follow certain rules, such as promptly removing copyright-infringing material in response to complaints filed by the copyright holders.

I'm not a legal expert, so I don't claim to know whether the problem is with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act or the judge's interpretation. But there is a problem here, because the ruling clearly favors those who provide a platform for displaying copyrighted videos without permission over those who produce video content for compensation.

I strongly suspect that Google's ultimate goal is to profit from others' copyrighted material by selling more advertising, and the way they are pursuing that goal is extremely clever. By slowly enlarging the scope of permissible copyright violations, Google is putting tremendous pressure on content publishers to cut a deal. It's revealing that judge Stanton said in his decision that YouTube and Google "not only were generally aware of, but welcomed, copyright-infringing material being placed on their website."

Here is the dilemma: digital technology and the Web make it easy to copy and redistribute content. Some activists argue that traditional copyright rules are obsolete and threaten the Web's ongoing success. Copyright holders fear that they will not receive fair compensation for their creative works because they will no longer be able to maintain exclusive control over those works.

The problem with the ruling is that it places too much of the enforcement burden on copyright holders in a game they can't possibly win over the long term. Should everyone who produces videos and films be forced to hire full-time people to monitor the Web and file complaints every time one of their copyright-protected videos is posted? Even if the service provider promptly removes the material, considerable damage can be done in a short period, and the material can always be reposted. And if it's OK to host copyrighted material without permission for 2 days, on what principle would it be wrong to extend that to 2 weeks?

The other extreme would be to place too great of a burden on service providers. For example, asking Internet service providers (ISPs) to inspect all of their traffic and block uploads before they are completed is clearly unworkable. It also wouldn't make sense to treat a Website that hosts user-uploaded videos the same as a site that knowingly distributes pirated material--as long as the user-uploaded video Website takes reasonable precautions to block and remove pirated material.

My understanding is that Viacom wants YouTube to make a reasonable effort to detect and block copyrighted material before it is posted. That makes sense to me, because it says that a Website that hosts user-uploaded videos should at least share the burden of identifying copyright-infringing videos. To say YouTube only has to remove copyright infringing material after it has been posted is tantamount to saying that it's perfectly OK to ignore copyrights until the owner complains.

Gazing into my crystal ball, I see weekends filled with stolen content uploaded on Fridays.


UPDATE: Scott Cleland explains why Judge Stanton's ruling is likely to be overturned.

I am somewhat dismayed that less than 50% of Americans recognize that big government endangers individual rights. The good news is that 15% are undecided. These are the results of the Rasmussen Poll announced today.

You only need to study history or visit a cross section of the world's countries to know that wherever there is a lack of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of assembly there is sure to be big, despotic government.

Sadly, young people today are rarely taught that the Founders of our country were the first to approach the design of government from a scientific perspective. The Founders examined forms of government past and present with the purpose of architecting a government that recognized the people's unalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It was the brilliantly conceived system of checks and balances that made it work and, for the most part, endure.

It's also sad that 37% of adults believe that big government is a protector of individual rights. Though it's not surprising: even police states have supporters. We've seen this recently in Iran, where a brutally oppressive theocratic government still manages to stage mass rallies in its support and has no trouble finding people willing to beat and kill peaceful protesters. I doubt that 37% of Americans would support a police state, but I'm fairly sure they would be willing to trade some of their individual freedoms for the illusion of government-guaranteed financial security.

The real question is: how determined are the 48% to fix things?

Yesterday President Obama said we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and produce more "clean energy." That may be so, but what are the chances that the federal government can cause a major shift to renewable energy by the end of the President’s second term—assuming he is reelected?

Consider these facts. The federal government has been pushing energy conservation and a shift to renewable energy since the OPEC oil embargo in 1973. There has been some progress, but it doesn’t amount to much. According to Wikipedia, renewable sources account for just 3.4% of electricity generated worldwide.

It gets worse. The vast majority of today’s renewable energy comes from hydroelectric plants—a technology that wreaks havoc with the environment—and biomass—a scientific euphemism for wood-burning stoves. Solar, wind, and geothermal energy barely register a blip on the global energy radar screen.

Having done some work in the solar energy field in the early 1990s, I am baffled by those who think we can switch to solar energy by decree. Today, solar energy is simply too inefficient, unreliable and expensive to meet our energy needs. People have been working on solutions to these problems for decades with only meager results. And contrary to reports in some science magazines, there’s little evidence that we are on the verge of a breakthrough. Today’s research could bear fruit in five years or fifty years. Or something unexpected might intervene, causing us to change course entirely.

I did some consulting work for a solar energy company called Midway Labs. The company’s founder, the late Paul Collard, wisely focused on developing a solution for small villages in Africa and Asia. Collard’s unique solution employed light concentrating optics and solar cells designed to withstand high temperatures. The system could generate enough electricity to meet a small village’s basic requirements, but it required a mechanical system for tracking the sun as it traveled across the sky. It also required a large bank of storage batteries to take over at night and on cloudy days. The cold, hard fact is that a gasoline-fueled generator is more efficient, more reliable, and less expensive.

What’s almost completely missing from the public debate about renewable energy is informed discussion about the manufacturing, distribution and maintenance challenges. We can build wind farms all across the U.S., but what’s the cost to build and maintain enough of them? How much energy will be lost transporting electricity from rural areas to population centers? What's the environmental impact of large-scale deployment? Similarly tough questions apply to solar electricity and rechargeable batteries.

As one skeptic observed, renewable energy sources must be subsidized to create demand, while the fossil fuel industry is profitable despite being heavily taxed.

Like the fiber-to-the-home technology in telecom, expect several impressive showcase deployments. But the mass market evolves according to its own timetable and logic.


UPDATE June 17, 2010: Today's IEEE Spectrum Tech Alert was dominated by bad news about renewable energy and CO2 emissions reduction. Both stories (California's Geothermal Plans in Trouble and Why Carbon Capture Won't Work) concern projects that depend on access to scarce water supplies.

All politicians believe they know what to do about the high cost of health care. There's just one problem: most of them are not qualified to solve the problem.

During the 1990s, we had the failed Health Security Act. The key elements of this plan were to increase government regulation and decrease the number of doctors--particularly specialists.

Now we have the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The crux of this plan is to increase both government regulation and the number of doctors. However, there's strong evidence that the Obama Administration believes we should shift the emphasis of health care from aggressive, high-tech treatment to lifestyle management and hospice.

I admit that these plans have the potential to reduce costs. But I fear it will be by returning medicine (as experienced by the average consumer) to the 19th century.

The following is a transcript of Benjamin Netanyahu's statement regarding the attempt to create an unrestricted supply line to the Hamas terrorists:

Once again, Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment. I'm afraid this isn't the first time.

Last year, Israel acted to stop Hamas from firing thousands of rockets into Israel's towns and cities. Hamas was firing on our civilians while hiding behind civilians. And Israel went to unprecedented lengths to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. Yet it was Israel, and not Hamas, that was accused by the UN of war crimes.

Now regrettably, the same thing appears to be happening now.

But here are the facts. Hamas is smuggling thousands of Iranian rockets, missiles and other weaponry - smuggling it into Gaza in order to fire on Israel's cities. These missiles can reach Ashdod and Beer Sheva - these are major Israeli cities. And I regret to say that some of them can reach now Tel Aviv, and very soon, the outskirts of Jerusalem. From the information we have, the planned shipments include weapons that can reach farther, even farther and deeper into Israel.

Under international law, and under common sense and common decency, Israel has every right to interdict this weaponry and to inspect the ships that might be transporting them.

This is not a theoretical challenge or a theoretical threat. We have already interdicted vessels bound for Hizbullah, and for Hamas from Iran, containing hundreds of tons of weapons. In one ship, the Francop, we found hundreds of tons of war materiel and weapons destined for Hizbullah. In another celebrated case, the Karine A, dozens of tons of weapons were destined for Hamas by Iran via a shipment to Gaza. Israel simply cannot permit the free flow of weapons and war materials to Hamas from the sea.

I will go further than that. Israel cannot permit Iran to establish a Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv and from Jerusalem. And I would go beyond that too. I say to the responsible leaders of all the nations: The international community cannot afford an Iranian port in the Mediterranean. Fifteen years ago I cautioned about an Iranian development that has come to pass - people now recognize that danger. Today I warn of this impending willingness to enable Iran to establish a naval port right next to Israel, right next to Europe. The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow.

For this and for many other reasons, we have a right to inspect cargo heading into Gaza.

And here's our policy. It's very simple: Humanitarian and other goods can go in and weapons and war materiel cannot. And we do let civilian goods into Gaza. There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Each week, an average of ten thousand tons of goods enter Gaza. There's no shortage of food. There's no shortage of medicine. There's no shortage of other goods.

On this occasion too, we made several offers - offers to deliver the goods on board the flotilla to Gaza after a security inspection. Egypt made similar offers. And these offers were rejected time and again.

So our naval personnel had no choice but to board these vessels. Now, on five of the vessels, our seamen were not met by any serious violence and as a result, there were no serious injuries aboard those ships. But on the largest ship, something very different happened.

Our naval personnel, just as they landed on the ship - you can see this in the videos - the first soldier - they were met with a vicious mob. They were stabbed, they were clubbed, they were fired upon. I talked to some of these soldiers. One was shot in the stomach, one was shot in the knee. They were going to be killed and they had to act in self-defense.

It is very clear to us that the attackers had prepared their violent action in advance. They were members of an extremist group that has supported international terrorist organizations and today support the terrorist organization called Hamas. They brought with them in advance knives, steel rods, other weapons. They chanted battle cries against the Jews. You can hear this on the tapes that have been released.

This was not a love boat. This was a hate boat. These weren't pacifists. These weren't peace activists. These were violent supporters of terrorism.

I think that the evidence that the lives of the Israeli seamen were in danger is crystal clear. If you're a fair-minded observer and you look at those videos, you know this simple truth. But I regret to say that for many in the international community, no evidence is needed. Israel is guilty until proven guilty.

Once again, Israel is told that it has a right to defend itself but is condemned every time it exercises that right. Now you know that a right that you cannot exercise is meaningless. And you know that the way we exercise it - under these conditions of duress, under the rocketing of our cities, under the impending killing of our soldiers - you know that we exercise it in a way that is commensurate with any international standard. I have spoken to leading leaders of the world, and I say the same thing today to the international community: What would you do? How would you stop thousands of rockets that are destined to attack your cities, your civilians, your children? How would your soldiers behave under similar circumstances? I think in your hearts, you all know the truth.

Israel regrets the loss of life. But we will never apologize for defending ourselves. Israel has every right to prevent deadly weapons from entering into hostile territory. And Israeli soldiers have every right to defend their lives and their country.

This may sound like an impossible plea, or an impossible request, or an impossible demand, but I make it anyway: Israel should not be held to a double standard. The Jewish state has a right to defend itself just like any other state.

Thank you.

Collectivists have been with us since the beginning of recorded history, and will probably be with us for as long as the human race exists. But the popularity of collectivism ebbs and flows.

My theory is that the more prosperous a civilization becomes, the more its idle rich (and just plain idle) are able to indulge in Utopian dreams of a more egalitarian (and necessarily regimented) society. It’s only after the dead bodies are counted that most people recoil from collectivism.

Sadly, we seem to be experiencing another rising tide of collectivism. We are confronted at every turn by exhortations to be good team players, to serve others, and to “give back to the community.” We are asked, as individuals, to make sacrifices to save the planet, reduce the cost of health care, and support an ever-expanding roster of government programs. If you act in your own self-interest, you are bad. If you serve the faceless crowd, you are good.

But questions continue to nag me. If it is better to give than to receive, shouldn’t we do more to ensure that only those truly in need receive? With so much giving going on, it’s hard to imagine there isn’t a great deal of illicit receiving. Personally, I wonder about politicians whose wealth cannot be explained by their comfortable (but hardly extravagant) salaries.

One of the most important indicators of the success of a false ideology is how people frame the issues. You know you are in trouble when the ideology’s language and assumptions are built into almost every discussion. False ideologies are often draped in “fairness” and “the common good,” while anyone who disagrees is labeled “greedy” or “an extremist.”

It never ceases to amaze me how collectivists invent new theories, lexica, and excuses whenever they need them. During the 1930s, it was the workers versus the bosses. During the 1960s, it was the students versus The Establishment. Now it is members of the community versus anyone who believes in limited government.

You know it’s time to worry when collectivists start rewriting (or worse, inventing) history to prop up their ideas. In fact, I was prompted to write this post by Matt Ridley’s essay in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal: Humans: Why They Triumphed.

Ridley claims the reason humans have been so successful (compared to other species) is “collective intelligence.” That phrase is no doubt music to the ears of collectivists. To individualists, however, it is (like “the wisdom of crowds”) an oxymoron. Worse, it leads Ridley to conclude that “innovation is a collective enterprise.”

Ridley conflates the accumulation and exchange of knowledge with collective action. Here is my illustration of how this gets it all wrong. Danish scientist Hans Christian Oersted noticed in 1820 that a compass needle was deflected when an electric current in a nearby wire was switched on or off. British experimenter Michael Faraday followed up that finding and made a series of discoveries of his own about electromagnetism. While it’s fair to say that Faraday built on Oersted’s work, it would be quite a stretch to say they were engaged in collaborative research.

When you boil it all down, Ridley claims that printing, communicating, trading, and even specialization all show that innovation is a group activity. He’s right when he asserts that most of today’s products—whether a computer or a simple pencil—are too complex to be made by an individual. (Sure, manufacturing is generally a group activity.) But he appears blind to the fact that most products result from innovations made by individuals—often in the face of collective resistance.

In 2007, Gary Kasparov published How Life Imitates Chess, a book drawing parallels between success on the chessboard and success in the boardroom. I’ve gotten glimpses of how he operates in both realms.

In 1999, Kasparov played an online chess match titled “Kasparov versus the World.” The game provided a great opportunity to observe a creative individual battling against the wisdom of the crowd (in this case, with a panel of experts on their side). As you might expect, the world played a very safe and sound game. Kasparov employed just enough subtlety and surprise to score a victory. He understood who he was up against and fine-tuned his strategy for a very smart but ultimately predictable opponent.

The contest reminded me of the difference between a standards committee and an inventor. A standards committee is good for dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. But if you want to do something that has never been done before, you need imagination and daring.

I had my next encounter with Kasparov ten years later. In 2009, my son entered the U.S. Chess Federation SuperNationals chess tournament in Nashville, Tennessee. Kasparov was the keynote speaker at the opening ceremony. But first, we had to listen (for what seemed an eternity) to USCF dignitaries thanking the many people who put the event together. Finally, Gary Kasparov was introduced, and his words immediately resonated with the predominantly young audience. He talked about how, during his youth, he hated opening ceremonies because of the boring speeches—he couldn’t wait to start competing. The audience roared with delight.

There is much wisdom in How Life Imitates Chess. My favorite line is “Better decision-making can’t be taught, but it can be self-taught.” Modern educators either don’t believe it or won’t admit it, but most learning is an individual activity.