Friday Hodgepodge

Notable Commentary

"The altruistic theory of entitlement through need cuts the ground out from under the popular notion that the issue is whether or not charitable acts should be forced on us by law." -- Harry Binswanger, in "Don't Blame the Republicans" at The Jacksonville Daily Record.

"[A trademark] is not a possessory estate like a fee simple, but rather it is a use-right secured to its owner by reference to the goodwill created and sustained by a commercial enterprise." -- Adam Mossoff, in "Trademark as a Property Right" (PDF, April) at George Mason Law & Economics Research Papers, no. 17-15.

Image courtesy of Pixabay.

"As citizens, we must start demanding responsible thought leaders who will give us the whole picture that life-and-death energy and climate decisions require." -- Alex Epstein, in "Al Gore Can't Deny That His Climate Crusade Involves Great Suffering" at The Financial Post.

"[Bitcoin] does not have a real bid at all, only the ever-changing bid of the fickle speculator." -- Keith Weiner, in "Bitcoin, Gold and Silver" at SNB & CHF.

From the Blogs

(1) "ICouldAndDid" opens a multi-part critique of Sam Harris's 2012 best-seller, Free Will. Here is how he summarizes Harris's central argument:

With phrases like "atom for atom," "physical events giving rise to thoughts and actions," "in precisely the same state," and "brain-induced causes are fully effective," Harris paints a picture of mental activity as being fully explained by the brain and its chemistry/physiology. The main assumption here is that a physical state of being is equivalent to a deterministic cause. That is, if every atom or neuron is in some definite physical state, has some particular describable identity, then every action of the mind must be fully necessitated. In short, identity invalidates volition.

Nowhere, however, does Harris even attempt to support this claim, let alone prove it. He assumes it is true without question, and he brings this assumption to his interpretation of everything related to free will. It is apparent that Harris views this point as so obvious as not to need any validation or even discussion.

ICouldAndDid continues, in part, with the following observation: "A being that could choose would also have a physical identity, a describable physical state. How could it not?" Read the whole thing and stay tuned for more. On that score, note that ICouldAndDid publishes infrequently. Links to his posts automatically appear here on the blogroll, but there is an option to subscribe to You Can and Did Build It via email.

(2) Over at Objectively Houston, J.P. Miller examines civil asset forfeiture in two posts. He concludes:

We should eliminate civil asset forfeiture as now constituted. Asset forfeiture is proper only from a convicted criminal. Just as we protect a few innocent people with due process of law that requires proof of criminality beyond a reasonable doubt, we should protect the "few" innocent people from the horrors of civil asset forfeiture by requiring that they first be convicted of a crime and then take only the assets shown to be acquired by that crime.

His reasoning is sound, and I urge my readers to see so for themselves.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Added stock photo.