Uncategorized – Bleeding Heart Libertarians http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com Free Markets and Social Justice Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:16:21 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.8.3 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/cropped-site-icon-BHL-32x32.png Uncategorized – Bleeding Heart Libertarians http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com 32 32 22756168 Truthiness and the Problems of Knowing, REALLY Knowing http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/11/truthiness-problems-knowing-really-knowing/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/11/truthiness-problems-knowing-really-knowing/#comments Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:16:21 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=12071 Ten years ago, I published a piece in Public Choice. I wish I had been wrong. My claim was that we are pretty good at exposing falsehoods, but terrible and...

The post Truthiness and the Problems of Knowing, REALLY Knowing appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
Ten years ago, I published a piece in Public Choice.

I wish I had been wrong. My claim was that we are pretty good at exposing falsehoods, but terrible and in fact progressively more terrible at having a consensus on things that are real.

Here are my thoughts now.

The post Truthiness and the Problems of Knowing, REALLY Knowing appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/11/truthiness-problems-knowing-really-knowing/feed/ 5 12071
Black Liberty Matters http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/09/black-liberty-matters/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/09/black-liberty-matters/#comments Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:37:34 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=12037 My new essay at Niskanen continues a lot of my longstanding themes from BHL posts.

The post Black Liberty Matters appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
My new essay at Niskanen continues a lot of my longstanding themes from BHL posts.

The post Black Liberty Matters appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/09/black-liberty-matters/feed/ 162 12037
It’s not nice to stair, especially in Canada…. http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/09/not-nice-stair-especially-canada/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/09/not-nice-stair-especially-canada/#comments Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:56:12 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=12011 So, there was this slippery, muddy slope. But it was much faster as a way down to the gardens, or the soccer fields. The city thought about building a stairway....

The post It’s not nice to stair, especially in Canada…. appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
So, there was this slippery, muddy slope. But it was much faster as a way down to the gardens, or the soccer fields.

The city thought about building a stairway.  But it was expensive to obey all the rules the city council had imposed on public structures.

So a social entrepreneur built a stairway for $550.

But the city tore it down. And the city was quite right to do so.  Because rules.

Or so say I….

The post It’s not nice to stair, especially in Canada…. appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/09/not-nice-stair-especially-canada/feed/ 11 12011
A few links http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/08/a-few-links/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/08/a-few-links/#comments Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:00:16 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=12007 John Holbo at Crooked Timber on Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom: “Thinking About Groups” Eric Schliesser on Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom: “On the role of Systematicity in an Impure Theory of...

The post A few links appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
John Holbo at Crooked Timber on Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom: “Thinking About Groups”

Eric Schliesser on Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom: “On the role of Systematicity in an Impure Theory of a (Pluralistic) Liberalism worth Having” (try saying that three times fast).

Posts on freedom of speech on campus from Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, both making some use of this old BHL post of mine. See also Sigal Ben-Porath’s excellent new book Free Speech on Campus

The European Journal of Political Theory is promoting my “Contra Politanism” by making it available ungated and free for three months.

The Economist, “The misplaced arguments against Black Lives Matter”

John Quiggin at Crooked Timber, “What’s Left of Libertarianism” on liberaltarianism. He mentions Niskanen but I think BHL is obviously part of the shift he’s describing. I obviously think that the BHL/ Niskanen direction is the right one, and I’m happy to see its distinctiveness noted. And in addition to my general criticisms of right-fusionism I’ve been critical of something like what he refers to as “propertarianism.” That said, I want to concur-in-part, dissent-in-part, because think he’s genuinely unfair to Cato in particular, which is more liberal and more diverse than he recognizes. I’m happily affiliated with both Niskanen and Cato, and while I do a lot more at Niskanen, Cato invited me to speak at its 40th anniversary conference and gave me a chance to talk about some of my running themes: the need to break market liberal politics away from association with white supremacy and nationalism, the particular priority of making progress against the police-and-prison complex of mass incarceration, the sense of market liberalism as being allied with the institutions of constitutional democracy and open global trade, not a “smash everything” anti-institutionalism that easily morphs into nasty kinds of populism.

On the couple of issues where Niskanen and Cato genuinely differ not just on emphasis, tactics, or presentation but on real substance– crucially, climate change and progressive redistribution/ fiscal policy– I’m with Niskanen. And I think those are genuinely important differences. But Niskanen can emphasize those issues partly because the much larger Cato is still out there advancing market-liberal and classical liberal arguments across so much of the policy landscape, from privacy and civil liberties to free trade to immigration and refugees. David Boaz, Cato’s Vice-President and longest-standing public voice, has been a forceful opponent of the racism and nationalism on the right for a very long time, and wasn’t at all shy about naming Trump’s association with it: “Not since George Wallace has there been a presidential candidate who made racial and religious scapegoating so central to his campaign.” Tom Palmer has been documenting and criticizing the “fever swamp” where paleolibertarianism melds with populism, Russophilia, and racism not only since before Trump but since before BHL was a glimmer in Matt Zwolinski’s eye. Yes, I very much want to see Niskanen’s project of taking libertarian ideas in the direction Quiggin notes succeed; but the point of that is not at all to become a rhetorical club with which to whack Cato.

The post A few links appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/08/a-few-links/feed/ 106 12007
Immigration Points and the Fatal Conceit of Central Planning http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/08/immigration-points-fatal-conceit-central-planning/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/08/immigration-points-fatal-conceit-central-planning/#comments Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:02:50 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11991 (Please excuse the improper spacing in this piece. Weird glitch. Don’t know how to fix it.) If you think Trump’s (or Canada’s or whatnot’s) points system for immigration is a...

The post Immigration Points and the Fatal Conceit of Central Planning appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>

(Please excuse the improper spacing in this piece. Weird glitch. Don’t know how to fix it.)

If you think Trump’s (or Canada’s or whatnot’s) points system for immigration is a good idea, you seem awfully confident in the government’s ability to engage in central planning.

 

Now, Trump is a mercantilist with little understanding of economics. But to my surprise, quite a few libertarians and supposed “free market economic conservatives” seem on board with his points plan. But here’s the problem:
Most of you recognize government is too stupid to plan shoe production. You need price signals and competitive mechanisms to tell you what, where, and how to produce. You can’t make a five-year plan for the whole economy because the economic problem constantly changes.

But many people who recognize that flip around say, “Oh, but no worries. We can figure out exactly how many and what kind of laborers the economy needs for the next five years using this artificial points scale.”

 

The best way to know whether “the economy needs an immigrant” is simple: If we allow people to hire the immigrant, do they choose to do so? If we allow people to rent houses or apartments to the immigrant, do they choose to do so? Let them do it, sit back, and let the market do its thing.

Now, granted, the government may have a legitimate worry about being able to afford certain kinds of welfare programs and publicly provided goods which immigrants might consume. But if that’s a worry, then find a keyhole solution. We don’t nationalize guitar production just because we worry about affording public schools for luthiers’ kids; similarly, we shouldn’t nationalize laborer production because of that worry.
Now, if you think the system improves upon the status quo, that’s fine. That’s not an argument that the system is good, just that’s better than what we had before.

The post Immigration Points and the Fatal Conceit of Central Planning appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/08/immigration-points-fatal-conceit-central-planning/feed/ 23 11991
The Rhetoric of Libertarians and the Unfortunate Appeal to the Alt-Right http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/08/rhetoric-libertarians-unfortunate-appeal-alt-right/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/08/rhetoric-libertarians-unfortunate-appeal-alt-right/#comments Fri, 04 Aug 2017 15:48:39 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11976 One of my most clicked-on posts here at BHL was this one on Ron Paul’s newsletters and why they still mattered 20 years after they were published. In that piece,...

The post The Rhetoric of Libertarians and the Unfortunate Appeal to the Alt-Right appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
One of my most clicked-on posts here at BHL was this one on Ron Paul’s newsletters and why they still mattered 20 years after they were published. In that piece, I asked the following questions about the way in which racist organizations like Stormfront found Paul worthy of their support:

Even if Ron had never intentionally courted them, isn’t it a huge problem that they think he is a good candidate?  Doesn’t that say something really bad about the way Ron Paul is communicating his message?  Doesn’t it suggest that years of the paleo strategy of courting folks like that actually resonated with the worst of the right?

That was 2011, before the term “alt-right” was in currency and certainly well before the Trump candidacy dramatically reduced the stigma associated with public expressions of nativism, racism, and anti-Semitism.

The paleo-libertarian seed that Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, and Lew Rockwell planted in the 1990s has come to bear some really ugly fruit in the last couple of years as elements of the alt-right have made appearances in various libertarian organizations and venues. Back in February, alt-right hero Richard Spencer stirred up a fuss at the International Students for Liberty Conference in DC after being invited to hang out by a group of students calling themselves the “Hoppe Caucus.” Hans-Hermann Hoppe, long associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute as well as a panoply of racists and anti-Semites, is perhaps the most popular gateway drug for the alt-right incursion into libertarianism.

And within the last couple of weeks, Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute delivered a talk to students at Mises University entitled “For a New Libertarian.” In that talk, he knocks down an extended strawman of what he thinks constitutes the libertarianism he wants them to reject – what many might call “left-libertarianism,” including, I suspect, many of us here at BHL. For example:

Because while libertarians enthusiastically embrace markets, they have for decades made the disastrous mistake of appearing hostile to family, to religion, to tradition, to culture, and to civic or social institution — in other words, hostile to civil society itself.

Most controversially, Deist, after continuing to argue that family, faith, and the like are the cultural glue that humans need and that libertarians should focus on, decided to end with:

In other words, blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance.

For those who know something about the history of the 20th century, the invocation of “blood and soil” as something that libertarians should recognize as a valid concern and should appeal to should be chilling. That phrase, which has a history going back at least to the 19th century, was central to the Nazi movement and was at the core of their justification for eliminating those people who did not have connections to the German homeland. It remains a watchword of the nastiest elements on the right, as a quick visit to bloodandsoil.org will demonstrate, if your stomach can handle it. That phrase, whatever Deist’s intent, would be very attractive to many among the alt-right, including neo-Nazis and other racists and anti-Semites. One click on the Blood and Soil website above will make that appeal abundantly clear.

Perhaps Deist didn’t know all of that. If so, one would expect a decent person to immediately apologize for using that phrase that way in that context. To my knowledge, no such apology has appeared. On the assumption that he is not, in fact, a Nazi, the explanation left standing is that he and his defenders have no problem using rhetoric that will attract those sympathetic to Nazi-like views about nativism and Jews. It’s that lack of concern about engaging in that sort of rhetoric, if not a positive willingness to do so, that is so troubling here, and it is eating away at the liberal roots of libertarianism.

If I may add a personal note for a moment: I have been in the middle of several Facebook debates over that phrase and Deist’s talk, and I’ve taken quite a bit of abuse from fans of the Mises Institute. Let me take this opportunity to clarify what I did and did not say. Contrary to the assertion many are making, I did not call Deist or people associated with the Institute “Nazis.” None of my Facebook posts did that, nor can I find a comment where I said as much. If I did, I will happily apologize as I do not think Deist is a Nazi.

What I did say is the same point I made about the Ron Paul newsletters: the problem with Deist’s talk, and the Mises Institute more generally, is not that they are Nazis, but that they appear to have no problem with making arguments that are appealing to neo-Nazis and the rest of the unsavory elements of the right. That’s the problem here. Why would supposed libertarians want to engage in a strategy and make use of rhetoric that is clearly a signal to those folks? That’s the same question I asked 6 years ago and matters have only become worse since then.

It’s also amusing that I have become the poster boy for the libertine, universalist libertarianism that they attack, for at least two reasons. First, name a libertarian who has written more about the family and its importance for a free society than I have. My book is explicitly a “non-conservative defense of the family.” For the kind of libertarian who is supposedly hostile to family, I sure spend a lot of time writing professionally about how great it is.

And second, again with apologies for the personal stuff, for the kind of libertarian who supposedly doesn’t care about religion or civil society, I sure do spend a lot of time doing volunteer work for synagogues and schools. I was on the board of my local synagogue in New York for a decade, most of which was as Treasurer. My ex-wife and I were heads of the parents group for the music department at the local school for several years. Sarah and I are deeply involved with our synagogue here in Indianapolis. I’m not about to put my tax returns up on the web, but I’m confident that I give at least as much of my time and money to family, religion, culture, and civil society as do any of the folks who nodded along with Deist’s argument.

As I pointed out with the Paul newsletters, all of this appeal to nativism, racism, and anti-Semitism and the like is in deep conflict with libertarianism’s liberalism. It’s particularly in conflict with the liberal cosmopolitanism of someone like Mises. And the use of Nazi language is especially galling as it was the very “blood and soil” crowd who drove the Jewish Mises out of Vienna.

Instead of this sort of nonsense, we need to recapture libertarianism’s progressive roots in the liberal movement of the 19th century. I put it this way in 2011:

What we need right now is Rothbard’s vision of a free society as sketched in For a New Liberty, but we need it defended better.  More carefully.  More richly.  More empirically.  More humanely. More progressively.  More tolerantly. With better scholarship.  And we have to do it in a way that’s immune to the charge that libertarians don’t care about making the world a better place, especially for the least well off and those historically victimized by the color of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation, or anything else that’s irrelevant to their moral status as human actors.

The writings of the paleolibertarians will continue to stain that project unless and until the rest of the libertarian movement stops trying to apologize for them…

Our history is one of liberal tolerance, universalism, and cosmopolitanism, putting the freedom and harmony of all people ahead of the supposed interests of any parochial sub-group, and especially ones defined by the artificial boundaries of nation-states and their subsets. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance.

Finally, one of the most disturbing side aspects of the controversy over Deist’s speech that it revealed how little so many young libertarians know about the Nazis and the Holocaust. I suppose I can understand ignorance of the “blood and soil” reference, but what troubled me more was when I made a joke involving the phrase “work shall set you free” and several commenters had no idea where that phrase came from or why any positive spin on it (as Deist did with “blood and soil”) should be so troubling. Holocaust ignorance is a real problem. And to the degree that young people are attracted to the alt-right out of ignorance rather than pure hatred, combating that ignorance can also serve the purpose of resisting the alt-right incursion into libertarianism.

Because I believe in education, religion, and the importance of the institutions of civil society, and because I believe in putting my money where my mouth is, Sarah and I recently made a donation to the Birmingham (AL) Holocaust Education Center. We made our donation as a tribute to Ludwig von Mises. I invite my fellow bloggers and all of our commenters who share my concerns to consider doing the same. You don’t have to list Professor Mises’s address as the address of the Mises Institute as we did, but you might also consider doing that as an additional touch.

The post The Rhetoric of Libertarians and the Unfortunate Appeal to the Alt-Right appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/08/rhetoric-libertarians-unfortunate-appeal-alt-right/feed/ 310 11976
On the Value of Being a Producer http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/08/on-the-value-of-being-a-producer/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/08/on-the-value-of-being-a-producer/#comments Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:37:58 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11958 Bas van der Vossen and I have a book, In Defense of Openness, forthcoming with Oxford University Press in 2018. Here’s a short excerpt from the penultimate chapter discussing the value...

The post On the Value of Being a Producer appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
Bas van der Vossen and I have a book, In Defense of Openness, forthcoming with Oxford University Press in 2018.

Here’s a short excerpt from the penultimate chapter discussing the value of being a producer.

…In the 1990s film version of Great Expectations, protagonist Finn, then a young boy, encounters an escaped convict. He decides to feed the convict and gives him tools to remove his bonds. Years later, Finn becomes an artist. Not only do his paintings sell, but he sells every painting he puts in gallery. In the end, Finn learns that his paintings were all purchased by one collector—who turns out to be the escaped convict, now rich. In fact, Finn’s entire career is just a façade created by the convict to, in a sense, repay a debt.

When Finn learns this, he isn’t delighted to discover that he lives in a world of communal reciprocity. He isn’t delighted to discover that this his good deeds have been rewarded. On the contrary, if anything, he’s devastated. When Finn discovers the convict has been buying his art, he thereby learns that he, Finn, is a failure.

Finn wants other people to want his art for their own selfish reasons. He hopes others will want to buy it with their hard-earned money not as a favor to him, but because they believe the art is excellent and will enhance their own lives. He doesn’t want his customers to think, “Well, Finn, we don’t care for your art, but we want you to feel good about yourself and your little hobby, so out of our concern for you as an end in yourself, we’re buying your art.” That attitude expresses respect for Finn as a stomach, but not as an artist. What Finn craves is recognition, and he can’t get that unless his art is selling because the customers want it for themselves.

Sure, Finn wants to eat. Perhaps given the choice between A) being utterly destitute, or B) being paid to make art for people who don’t actually like the art, he’d pick B. But Finn wants a good life, not just a life. For most of us, having a good life means making our own way in the world. We want to be able to produce for others such that, in the end, we can say the world was better off with us than without us.

That thought probably applies to professional plumbers, auto mechanics, nurses, and philosophers. We don’t just want people to consume what we make as a way of letting us play at being good at our jobs. We want to actually be good at our jobs. Doing so means that people are willing to buy what we offer for their sakes, not ours. In virtue of acting on such selfish motives, our buyers do us a different of favor: they thereby show we’re making a real contribution, not just being tricked into thinking we’re contributing.

We’re not invoking this point in order to argue against the welfare state, though it is a consideration against make-work projects. (Make-work projects are a kind of Truman Show; they trick workers into believing, falsely, that they’re mostly contributing rather than just mostly receiving.) Rather, our point is just that for most of us, part of what it means to live well is not only to be fed but to help feed others, to make the world better off rather than worse off by our presence.[i]

[i] In Why Not Socialism?, G. A. Cohen claims that utopian, if not realistic, socialism realizes what he calls the “the principle of communal reciprocity,” which is “the antimarket principle in which I serve you not because of what I can get in return by doing so, but because you need or want my service, and you, for the same reason, serve me.”(Cohen 2009, 39) Cohen doesn’t imagine utopian socialists to be selfless, so he means here a principle in which one person serves another not simply out of self-interest but also out of a desire to serve others. Cohen of course provides no philosophical argument that this principle is somehow incompatible with markets or capitalism, and he provides no empirical evidence that this attitude is found less in market society than in socialist or non-market societies. (On the contrary, as Jason has pointed out in a number of papers, it appears this attitude appears more in market societies than elsewhere. See Brennan 2014, Brennan 2015, Brennan 2016.) We invoke Cohen here to illustrate that the personal value of being a contributor is not a value unique to capitalist or market ideologies. Indeed, Cohen likes it so much he seems to think it’s incompatible with market ideologies.

The post On the Value of Being a Producer appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/08/on-the-value-of-being-a-producer/feed/ 53 11958
Contra politanism, Against solidarity, and other things http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/contra-politanism-solidarity-things/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/contra-politanism-solidarity-things/#comments Mon, 03 Jul 2017 15:31:45 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11911 Two of the major pieces of my new “Justice in Babylon” research project are now available. (Both links gated, I’m afraid.) “Contra politanism”, European Journal of Political Theory. “Against solidarity:...

The post Contra politanism, Against solidarity, and other things appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
Two of the major pieces of my new “Justice in Babylon” research project are now available. (Both links gated, I’m afraid.)

“Contra politanism”, European Journal of Political Theory.

“Against solidarity: Democracy without fraternity,” in Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka, eds., The Strains of Commitment: The Political Sources of Solidarity in Diverse Societies, Oxford, 2017

(See also There is no such thing as ideal theory, Social Philosophy and Policy, which is also a part of this project.)

———-
Some other promotional links while I’m at it.

The $30 paperback edition of Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom is coming out on July 13. To refresh your memory, the BHL symposium on the book can be found here, the Online Library of Liberty symposium here, and reviews are gathered here.

I’ve had a few opportunities to discuss the current crisis recently.

“Is Liberalism In Danger?”, a “Free Thoughts” podcast interview in Cato’s Libertarianism.org “Free Thoughts” series with Aaron Powell and Trevor Burrus.

“Brexit, Trump, and the Rise of Radical Right Populism in the West: Is Democracy Threatened?” Plenary roundtable at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, chaired by Dietlind Stolle, with Sheri Berman, Mark Blyth, Christopher Parker, and me.

The Intellectual Climate For Liberty, a roundtable at the 40th anniversary of the Cato Institute, chaired by David Boaz, with Emily Ekins, Charles Murray, and me.

The post Contra politanism, Against solidarity, and other things appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/contra-politanism-solidarity-things/feed/ 12 11911
Sharing Economy http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/sharing-economy/ Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:24:42 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11871 One of the reasons I have been worried about UBI or some process of accounting for the very least well off is that I think the middleman/sharing economy is going...

The post Sharing Economy appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
One of the reasons I have been worried about UBI or some process of accounting for the very least well off is that I think the middleman/sharing economy is going to be so disruptive.

My new book, TOMORROW 3.0, is (it appears likely) to be published by Cambridge Press. This rather optimistic preview was reprinted by my friends at FEE.

The post Sharing Economy appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
11871
Supreme Court responds to Matal v. Tam, regarding “The Slants” http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/supreme-court-responds-matal-v-tam-regarding-slants/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/supreme-court-responds-matal-v-tam-regarding-slants/#comments Thu, 22 Jun 2017 23:20:42 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11866 In 2011 a young musician and polymath, Simon Tam, got a suggestion from a lawyer friend. Simon’s band, “The Slants,” was blowing up quite a bit, and the lawyer friend...

The post Supreme Court responds to Matal v. Tam, regarding “The Slants” appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
In 2011 a young musician and polymath, Simon Tam, got a suggestion from a lawyer friend. Simon’s band, “The Slants,” was blowing up quite a bit, and the lawyer friend was pointing out that they had not trademarked their name. The lawyer said that it shouldn’t be a big deal, a couple of hundred dollars and some paperwork.

Mr. Tam was pretty busy, but since the lawyer said he could take care of it Tam said to go for it. They had already been using the name for a while; in fact, their album “Slants! Slants! Revolution” in 2009 had taken for granted that the ironic use of the slur, based on the imagined shape of Asian eyes, was something they could own and take back. (I should note that, if you are older than 40 or younger than about 25, there was this thing called “Dance! Dance! Revolution” in arcades…oh, never mind.)

The group wasn’t really worried much about their trademark application; it all seemed pro forma. But one day (according to the version told here:  Meredith Bragg (Interviewer), “The Slants: The Band Who Must Not Be Named,” Reason, April, 2017, http://reason.com/archives/2017/03/11/the-slants-the-band-who-must-n ) the lawyer friend called and said they had a problem. “They said your [band] is disparaging to persons of Asian descent….[meaning that] a substantial composite of the reference group has to find it disparaging.”  The reference given by the trademark office was that great legal authority Wikipedia, and a photo of Miley Cyrus pulling her eyebrows back and sticking her teeth out.

That was it. The trademark Nazis said, “No trademark for you!” To be fair, I can understand being offended by Miley Cyrus, but that’s hardly a problem for Mr. Tam’s band.  And offensive, “let’s own this!” band names have a long tradition in rock. Right off the top of your head, you can think of Courtney Love’s band, “Hole” (it was all women; OMG!); the “Butthole Surfers” (I don’t know if that’s offensive to surfers, but they still have a MySpace page, and that should offend anyone); and “The Dicks.” You might think that “The Dicks” would go on tour with “Hole,” but The Dicks did an album called “Dicks Live!  Hungry Butt,” so they might not really be on that team.

Yes, that was a really offensive paragraph. Rock music, punk music, hip hop if it’s real, all of it should be pretty upsetting and offensive. (I imagine that by this point my good friend Jacob Levy is clutching at his pearls and fanning himself with a copy of Spirit of Laws, muttering, “Wah, wah, ah NEVah!”)

Well, Mr. Tam and the other Slants went to court. They managed to take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.  The case was heard in January.  And it was decided on Monday.

And the Court was quite properly offended by the decision of the trademark office.  Here’s the decision (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/19/533514196/the-slants-win-supreme-court-battle-over-bands-name-in-trademark-dispute ), and here is Damon Root with some commentary. [ Damon Root, “In Major Free Speech Victory, SCOTUS Rules for ‘The Slants’ and Strikes Down Federal Trademark Restriction,” Reason, Jun. 19, 2017 11:18 am, http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/19/in-major-free-speech-victory-scotus-rule ]

Now why doesn’t somebody do something about Miley Cyrus?

The post Supreme Court responds to Matal v. Tam, regarding “The Slants” appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/supreme-court-responds-matal-v-tam-regarding-slants/feed/ 15 11866