Comment: feel the same..need to take shower after listening to it in full

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: My God... (see in situ)

feel the same..need to take shower after listening to it in full

Initially, I was neutral. And I do 'get' that Wenzel's heavy accent, slightly accusatory interview style, ie. vs. Rand, Molyneux, et al, can be a turn off. But after listening to the whole interview, I truly cannot believe how intellectually childish he is! It was like watching O' Reilly press someone with non-sequiturs for 2+ hrs!

First of all, he could not define what IP, or at least his own understanding of it, what it is, can be, or even should be.

He couldn't parse rivalry/competition vs. scarcity.

He couldn't parse Rothbard's description of mousetrap (a patent) erroneously described in general as a "copyright." Nor his "perpetuity" in context of the discussion.

I LOVE Murray N. Rothbard! But even so, for one to be correct about IP, or discuss a new way forward, there is no galactic dictate that we MUST adhere to the Church/Synagogue of Rothbard for one to press forth in intellectually challenging, amending, or evolving the notion of IP: Wenzel's whole argument was based on the fact that Kinsella 'seemed' to be 'denigrating' Wenzel's understanding of what Murray said about IP, not what the definition of IP is or is not, or why Kinsella believes it goes against private property.

I was initially kinda ticked off that, indeed, as far as childish name-calling goes, Kinsella never denied initiating calling Wenzel "a weasel, a clown," etc. And he CLEARLY evaded admitting that for the 1st 10minutes. And resorted to instead of admitting calling Wenzel a "weasel" he tried revisionism and proceeded to put it in the context of "oh I thought you would've weaseled out of the debate," which is even more obnoxious as that statement assumes that Wenzel lacks the intellectual capacity to debate him on merits of IP, and is assuming someone wouldn't debate him, without ever inviting the would be debate opponent to a debate, to begin with.

That said, beyond the spat over personal ego, emotional sensitivity of being called names, on the meat, merit and content of the IP discussion itself, Kinsella cleaned his clock.

Wenzel almost had me with his "Drudge Traffic Formula" example. But lost me completely when he couldn't answer the reality of lack of a formula's scarcity and originality: his formula WOULD have to be based on previous and similar formulae as all algorithms are based on mathematical and functional construct based on known variables, or unknown extrapolated variable related to the sphere of a given problem to solve; ALL formulas are evolutions of previous ones, as one can only solve a 'problem' if the veracity of the existence of A problem's existence must first be acknowledged, and previous attempts MUST have been made to resolve that said problem with previous paradigm/status quo before moving on to attempt to resolve it, with a 'new' solution.

If they agree that for a patent to be a patent, even in the current paradigm, that something MUST BE "scarce," the fact your solution maybe considered a "novel" one, but not wholly original, and the fact that anyone observant watching it can copy/reverse engineer and come up with even a SIMILAR solution to call it their own, themselves, ironically makes it not 'scarce.'

If Wenzel could have described his own case for patent/IP to be protected (by the State!) at least with that intellectual rational, he'd have a point. But all he could do is quote Rothbard in and out of context, as if reciting a previously known author/intellectual no matter how highly regarded automatically makes reality, definition, and truth go away.

And, Wenzel repeatedly used the erroneous example of lending car to a friend, and then having that friend come around and claiming it as his as a violation of IP, even though he knows now he's talking patented item (A physical car) and violation of what was an initially voluntary contractual arrangement (letting the friend use it with the understanding it will be returned).

Gotta say, after listening to it all, I'd say Kinsella's initial unfair a-priori childish name-calling is somewhat fitting; Wenzel frankly lived up to the ridicule.

It was so sad listening to Wenzel lose it, after having read the speech he made to the NY Fed. that utterly destroyed the central bankers on their own turf.

Yikes. Hope they make up, at the next Mises conference. Or suppose we'd get to see the not so NAP Austrian on Austrian fisticuffs.o(

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul