Darren Comment Carnival, Edition #1
I haven’t been posting as much lately, but I have been commenting more than usual. Some of the comments were long enough to be blog posts, themselves. Because I don’t think I’m going to be able to write a blog post until next week, I’m going to do something different. Here’s the first Darren Comment Carnival!
#1.) If you want an example how blogging can make a difference, you should check out Rational Jenn’s posts on the “American Community Survey.” On one of those posts, a ACS supporter (and someone with a personal stake in it, too) came on post a comment in defense of the ACS, partially based on the fact that the ACS data is reported in “non-aggregate” form. That’s supposed to make us think that our data (and the ACS stores a LOT of data) is safe with those nice ACS employees, but I disagreed. This comment is a little too close to being a rant, but here it is anyway:
Patricia Becker said that the data collected was only be used in “AGGREGATE FORM ONLY.” This may be how it’s sent out for consumption by politicians, but that doesn’t change the fact that the data is still kept on an individual level. If you were to fill this survey out, there will be some database with a record just about you. Think of it like a big Excel document with a column for your first name, next to the column for your last name, next to the column for your salary, next to the column for your SSN, etc.. There are probably few with access to that non-aggregate data, but still… that’s data in NON-AGGREGATE FORM.
And what about the paper copies of the surveys? And what about the memory of the government employee who typed in the survey information into the computer? And what about the memory of the government employee who asks the questions over the phone or in-person? More data in NON-AGGREGATE FORM held by individuals who don’t have right to know.
I wouldn’t trust any government employee with my data any farther than I could throw an ACS survey taker off my front porch, and neither should you. They can say that they prevent “unnecessary” access, but can we know? We can’t. And if the fact that they’re willing to resort to government force to make people fill this out this survey says anything, it says this: They don’t really care about the privacy of your data, or you.
The question of how the ACS data is kept, used, etc. is not the essential issue, but I would just like to suggest that we not forget who we are dealing with. Or better yet, let’s not forget *what* they’re dealing with. Imagine passing by your local ACS survey taker and her boyfriend at the grocery store, and then imagine her whispering something to her boyfriend as they both look at you and giggle. Imagine reading a story about an ACS employee reporting her laptop (with a hard-drive full of data) as “stolen.” Or read Patty Becker’s comment above and think about whether you want to take her word for it.
#2.) Valzhalla wrote a blog post titled “Life, and other kinds of existence” in which she commented on the British GMC’s actions against a doctor who *almost* helped a severely-sick woman commit suicide. I posted a comment here:
I agree with you. I’m not able to contemplate what it would take for someone like “Patient A” to say that non-existence is better than living under those conditions, but that’s exactly the reason why I — and groups like the GMC — need to be kept out of the matter. Only one individual had to suffer through the circumstances that Patient A had to endure, and that’s she. On what grounds can another person interfere with her decision to stop living under those circumstances? Not someone who respects Patient A’s right to her life.
[…]
I think that the way the GMC is punishing this doctor is a horrible, back-handed way for them to dictate to others how they should live their lives. Apparently they have a problem with the right of a patient to end their lives, but they can’t make suicide illegal. And even if they could, there would be no way to enforce it. So instead, the GMC punishes a doctor for holding a contrary position than theirs. They point to his role in the suicide, but that’s just an excuse to punish him — not a reason to punish him. They’ll let their arbitrary rules on doctors and let the effects trickle-down to the patients.
#3.) I use a RSS reader to quickly filter and group all types of content. It’s so efficient, I’ve even been able to keep up on blogs that I don’t agree with. One of those blogs is a blog titled “Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature,” which is written who has a bone to pick with Objectivists. It’s not a site that I would normally comment on, but I saw an incorrect statement about Ayn Rand that I thought deserved to be challenged.
What was it? The blogger said that Ayn Rand liked “religious emotion.” I asked for a reference, and he brought out the following part in the Fountainhead:
‘You’re a profoundly religious man, Mr. Roark—in your own way. I can see that in your buildings.’
‘That’s true,’ said Roark.
Which prompted me to post the following reply:
Without opening The Fountainhead to check that quote, I can already see a problem with your interpretation. When the man told Roark that he was “profoundly religious,” he also said “in your own way.” Given the type of character Howard Roark was and given the fact that he agreed with the man, I think that’s context enough to know that the statement was not an “appreciation” of religious emotion.
But in this case, we don’t have to interpret anything. Ayn Rand explained exactly what she meant in the quote you picked in her introduction to the 25th anniversary edition to The Fountainhead. There, Ayn Rand wrote:
[quote]
The same meaning and considerations were intended and are applicable to another passage of the book, a brief dialogue between Roark and Hopton Stoddard, which may be misunderstood if taken out of context:
” ‘You’re a profoundly religious man, Mr. Roark—in your own way. I can see that in your buildings.’
” ‘That’s true,’ said Roark.”
In the context of that scene, however, the meaning is clear: it is Roark’s profound dedication to values, to the highest and best, to the ideal, that Stoddard is referring to (see his explanation of the nature of the proposed temple). The erection of the Stoddard Temple and the subsequent trial state the issue explicitly.”
[end quote][…]
I’ll just add one more thing to this: It’s one thing to disagree with something (even Objectivism), but it’s another thing to make incorrect statements about it.
#4.) And to finish it off, I’ll go back to the same… old… subject: Internet radio royalty rates! On an article about a music artist who agrees with the webcasters, I posted this comment:
Tags: [comments, internet radio]If Michael White wants webcasters to play his music, all he has to do is give them permission. What’s missing in in practically all of the talk over internet radio royalty rates is the fact that musicians have the right to negotiate their own rates. If they want, they can even offer their music for free. So if Michael White wants his music to be played on internet radio, he can do it — no matter how high SoundExchange wants to charge.
Open Objectivism
I’ve been busy, busy, busy, but I made the time to respond to a blog article titled “The Atlas Society and ‘Open Objectivism’ : A wrong choice of words.” The author went to an Atlas Society (previously The Objectivist Center) summer seminar recently, where he heard that TAS was going to use the phrase “Open Objectivism” to describe what they were about. He disagreed with their decision to use the phrase, but his reasons seem centered on the old “Why do the two groups (the Ayn Rand Institute and TAS) *have* to disagree?” argument. Also, he suggested the phrases “Individualist Objectivism” or “New Individualism” as alternatives to “Open Objectivism.” After reading the article, I think that he’s more offended that they use the word “open,” which implies that everybody else must be closed-minded, than he was about their choice to use the word “Objectivism.”
I disagree with their choice to use “Objectivism” to describe what they do, especially when they openly advocate for ideas that are not compatible with Objectivism. My short comment is reprinted below:
——-
I think it’s dishonest for TAS to use the term “Objectivism” at all, no matter what adjectives they attach to it. Objectivism is a word that identifies something very specific: Ayn Rand’s philosophy. It is Ayn Rand’s creation, nothing more, and nothing less. When groups like TAS use “Objectivism” to denote something that Ayn Rand did not include in her philosophy, they *at best* confuse the matter for individuals who may not be able to distinguish Ayn Rand’s work from theirs. At worst, they intentionally steal Ayn Rand’s work for their own gain.
So, it’s not really a question of “closed” or “open.” It’s a matter of proper identification. If they think they can add to Objectivism, good for them. They just shouldn’t call their creation “Objectivism.”
Tags: [atlas society, objectivism, open objectivism]Radio royalty rates jumped? In comes the free market!
Last year, I raised a fuss by arguing against webcasters in the internet royalty rate debate. For those that don’t remember it, the government raised the royalty rates that webcasters pay to play music on the internet. Practically everybody was against it, some talked of the end of internet radio, and some tried to petition the Congress to step in and stop the new rates. Something didn’t smell right to me, though, so I looked a little deeper. And what I found was the exact opposite of what I was being told. The government wasn’t forcing anything on webcasters. Rather, the government was actually forcing music artists into a system that favored webcasters. Webcasters were angry because the government was making it harder for them to use their government-backed advantage over musicians!
That’s when I became the first blogger (that I know of) to openly and completely condemn the “free internet radio” movement. Or, at least, the blogger who has written the most against it. 
My stance is that musicians should have the right to control their creative works, including who plays their works over the internet. Period. Therefore, I totally disagree with the government-backed SoundExchange arrangement that forces all music artists into an deal with webcasters — whether they like it or not. I like the new, higher rates only because they make it harder for webcasters to use their advantage over music artists. But most of all, I want a free market where individual rights are respected.
I’m only one out of a handful of people that I know that hold this position, though. Many thousands of people agree with the webcasters (or think they agree, I don’t think they were told the whole story), and they all clicked the “Contact your Congressman” links in their emails. But alas, Congress did nothing, and the higher rates stayed.
Fast-forward to today. Is internet radio dead? No. In fact, I read an interesting story today that shows how some are reacting to the higher rates. From the “Who Needs Music Labels? Last.fm Starts Paying Royalties To Unsigned Artists” by Erick Schonfeld in the Washington Post (emphasis mine):
Music-streaming service Last.fm is now paying unsigned artists royalties for every song played on its service. Since the company announced the program last January, 170,000 artists and small music labels have signed up for it and uploaded 450,000 tracks.
What Last.fm is doing here is creating an alternative to the official royalty-collecting organization for musicians (i.e., SoundExchange). […] And for any song owned by a label or artist who participates in SoundExchange, Last.fm continues to pay the going Internet radio royalty rate. But it is beginning to bypass Sound Exchange by giving new, unsigned artists an alternative.
Since Last.fm’s offering is only for artists and labels that don’t participate in SoundExchange, it’s obviously not a complete alternative to the government-backed SoundExchange option webcasters currently enjoy. It is a step in the right direction, though. This is an example as to the types of arrangements that are possible when webcasters and musicians are able to negotiate voluntarily. They both have something that each other want, so if they’re just left alone they’ll work it out.
And if there’s any doubt as to whether the internet radio royalty rate issue is one of those messy “mixed economy” cases where it might be ok to support lowering the government rate, I have one question: What will happen to offers like this if the government mandated a low royalty rate?
Tags: [internet radio, royalty rates, soundexchange]Everybody can be an “evil” speculator
Things are busy, busy, busy, but I had to stop and check out a site I heard on the news this morning. The site is MyGallons.com, and it lets you pre-purchase gas at today’s price. You can fill-up with your pre-purchased gasoline at certain gas stations without having to worry about any price hikes. So, for example, if your purchased 100 gallons of gas at $4.00 today and the price jumps to $5, you can still go to participating gas stations and pick up 100 gallons.
There are a few catches, though. There is an annual fee of $30-$40, and I think there are some small fees on transactions. I don’t know enough about how prices fluctuate to know if it’s worth the investment, and I especially don’t know if it’s worth the time to find out. Still, I like the fact that there some people are able to find creative solutions for today’s situation. If anything, this company should be an example as to the possible alternative ideas that could come about if individuals were free to find them and act on their ideas.
Tags: [gas prices, speculation]