Disqus - Latest Comments for WilsonF

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

WilsonF — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:30:01 -0000

If there is one thing we have learned about regulation, is that it is not very good at achieving its ends. This is what Will's piece is all about, but it's going to be even worse in other countries, especially when we start putting pressure on developing countries to cut back more. Those programs are likely to be a real mess. Even if we reduce the pace of our greenhouse gas output, we will do so in far less than an efficient fashion. In doing so we will destroy a lot of wealth, and I worry that we'll find ourselves with the same problems but we'll be a whole lot poorer and thus less prepared to deal with them.

Re: Small and/or Limited Government: Some Distinctions

WilsonF — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:20:52 -0000

As other commentators have implied, I think your comments, while valid, understate the extent to which 'large' government leads to unlimited government in practice. This is an empirical question, of course, and I could be wrong. However, I strongly suspect that by concentrating resources in the hands of politicians an oppressive predator state is the eventual outcome, regardless of your underlying rights principles. In this way, I believe that "small" government has rhetorical value.

Still a good post, and I agree with it.

Re: "Now the red man can get ahead, man"

WilsonF — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:57:42 -0000

http://www.willwilkinson.ne...

This is making the rounds, but it's pretty hilarious.

Re: "Now the red man can get ahead, man"

WilsonF — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:24:55 -0000

What the fuck? Is this still Erin's blog? Was she replaced with a random female undergraduate from Oberlin? Erin, where is your cynicism?

For myself, I'd like to see every inauguration end like William Henry Harrison's.

Just JOKING. I wish him the best...but this cult of personality that surrounds him, I cannot stand. I oppose the president on principle, because no one with so much power should be so popular and given such deference.

Re: I’m Back

WilsonF — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:19:10 -0000

Huge congratulations. Well done sir.

Re: Bee Happy!!

WilsonF — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:14:04 -0000

AWESOME

Re: Dean Baker on Libertarians and the Fight Against Corporatism

WilsonF — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:18:15 -0000

Richard Epstein put out a book in 2006 which discussed at length this question of pharmaceutical intellectual property rights. His general conclusion was "two thumbs up". Find a summary of his argument at the article he wrote below:

http://www.boston.com/news/...

Re: Surprise! I'm a Libertarian!

WilsonF — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:40:36 -0000

That's it, I'm not a libertarian anymore. I'm a Wilkinsonian.

Re: Against Fake Libertarian Clarity

WilsonF — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:40:06 -0000

Will,

This is a great followup, it helped me quite a bit. I suppose this is true, and all it is is a justification for libertarianism in the name of utilitarianism. I can get behind that.

I suppose my problem is that social and emotional coercion seem to be flexible and subjective. I think I need a more clear definition of what these mean, because it seems to me they necessarily must be tied to a baseline standard of freedom.

I would also say that the natural rights conception is useful in that it provides clear rules that also happen to mostly coincide with what is in the utilitarian best interests of society.

Re: Can I Write-In Boba Fett?

WilsonF — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:19:32 -0000

This is pure win. It's a trap!

Re: Yesterday’s NYC Economist Debate

WilsonF — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:00:39 -0000

I was really sorry I missed this. I assume it is podcasted somewhere...

Re: Freedom of Contract and Contract Costs

WilsonF — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:24:37 -0000

Tim;

Thanks for giving me a good take at what benefits can come from unlicensed software. It's something for me to chew on.

I still think it's possible that this type of offer and acceptance can be efficiency increasing. I wonder then if the small number of users who want to reverse engineer the product can't simply get together and sign separate agreements with the software companies? Clearly still we have a situation where the company derives a benefit from making a contract with all users that only a small number of users would have rejected. It's just a less obviously efficiency-enhancing provision. This reverse engineering issue is really interesting.

It's hard for my to deny the enormous benefits of open office. I will ponder...

Re: Freedom of Contract and Contract Costs

WilsonF — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:14:59 -0000

To clarify, I would say that it's OK to impose a reviewing cost in this situation since that cost is likely to be very very low--people won't review because they have no incentive to, and the benefits that construe to the software company are large.

Re: Freedom of Contract and Contract Costs

WilsonF — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:38:49 -0000

Tim, I have very much enjoyed this series of posts from both you and Alex. . .I'm not an expert on these matters, but I find this question really interesting. I basically still don't see the efficiency problem here.

"Rather, the goal should be to align incentives so that a party only offers a contract if its benefits to all parties outweigh its expected costs."

I think it's easy to imagine a world where this assumption leads to the conclusion that contracts should be this easy to form. The 'half-the-costs' analysis fails because the items at issue are very small probability, so to any individual consumer the benefits for negotiating on them are vanishingly small, but to a company that sells a million units, the benefits are large.

The terms do not apply to the vast majority of consumers; either they are uninterested because the terms relate to unlikely situations (forum selection clauses, like in Carnival Cruise) or they relate to conduct the user has no intention of engaging in (such as commercial exploitation, as in Pro-CD). If Pro-CD is not able to prevent Zeidenberg from using the software in a commercial fashion, he can do a lot of damage to their business. They'd just rather not sell it to consumers at all than be unable to impose this contract on Zeidenberg.

If the alternative is forcing Pro-CD to paste the necessarily complex agreement on the outside of the box, or to make people read it at the door of Best Buy, no one is going to buy their product. However, in a world with shrinkwrap contracts people can happily buy the Pro-CD software, and take it home and use it and never risk violating the license agreement.

I think (but don't know, an important distinction) that the reason other products aren't sold with special contractual attachments is that the potential benefits are rather small, and the market is keeping them in check rather than a theory of agreement. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the court has held them unenforceable, but I would think that between Carnival Cruise and Pro-CD if there was something there they'd exist. I could be totally wrong about this stuff, but those are my thoughts.

As you know, I love your stuff. Keep it coming.

http://people.hofstra.edu/p...

Re: Why Libertarians Should Oppose “Shrinkwrap” Contracts

WilsonF — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:47:02 -0000

I suppose my last comment on this is that I suppose you are right, that if the customer did not know that there were terms before the purchase, there is a good case for voiding the contract. Note, Gateway could fix this by saying over the phone "this purchase is subject to terms and conditions." I still think that practical concerns outweigh this, but I suppose I could be convinced otherwise.

If you do know, however, that there are likely to be some terms with the purchase of a computer, I don't think Gateway is 'imposing' upon you by requiring this form of acceptance. It's simply a part of an ongoing transaction, one which you subjectively may find bothersome, but not one that is out of out of order--especially given my argument above that the terms are not likely to be particularly burdensome in light of the marketplace.

Re: Why Libertarians Should Oppose “Shrinkwrap” Contracts

WilsonF — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:49:55 -0000

Well I think this is a good point and a defensible hard line to take that affirmative action is required to consent to a contract, but I think if the courts held that way the world would different in a bad way in terms of the availability and prices of goods and services. I admit I am no expert here though and perhaps this isn't true at all. I think markets protect consumers from bad adhesion contracts and good adhesion contracts are important to sellers, since explicit acceptance is very practically difficult, as mentioned above.

Yet, I don't think adhesion contracts are defenseless on a consent theory. Gateway is not dictating to you a contract you never asked to be a part of; presumably you knew there would be terms included along with the item you actively purchased when you purchased it, and when you cracked the box the terms made it clear what it takes to reject. In addition, I would imagine you can solicit Gateway for the terms of the purchase before delivery and receive them.

Re: Why Libertarians Should Oppose “Shrinkwrap” Contracts

WilsonF — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:34:45 -0000

This really seems to me to be solved by the idea that customers know that there ARE likely to be terms and they can return the product to reject the terms once they are aware of what they are.

Are you saying that if we spotted people a couple of bucks to send the product back that this whole issue would be solved? If not, what am I missing?

Re: Why Libertarians Should Oppose “Shrinkwrap” Contracts

WilsonF — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:25:04 -0000

We seem to be assuming that consumers can't or won't read these terms, because if they did read and understand the terms, they would be fully capable of rejecting them in the manner specified. I mean, maybe I'm not understanding, but I thought the argument was that the reason that shrinkwrap licenses are bad is because people are not reading them; implicit acceptance lets people enter into contracts the terms of which they are not aware of.

While this is true that in reality people don't usually read the licenses, contract law should not be built upon the idea that people aren't going to read what appears to be significant legal terms included with their purchase. That is the idea I think is paternalistic. If it is binding, we shouldn't assume that people are going to unilaterally ignore it. Again though, maybe I'm wrong about this. I still think the market is the right solution here.

If you are arguing that companies should not be able to require terms of use with their products, because you have a product in hand and you ought to be able to use it as you please, I think that this is troublesome for reasons I already mentioned.

Re: Why Libertarians Should Oppose “Shrinkwrap” Contracts

WilsonF — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:03:21 -0000

That's not what I meant to say anyway, simply that the costs would be increased. Gateway's clause at issue in Klocek was an arbitration clause--certainly Gateway believes that arbitration reduces their costs and presumably they pass that benefit on to consumers.

It seems clear to me that these licenses are perceived by the vendor as adding value to their products or they would not have them. In a free market, presumably a portion of that value is passed on to the consumer. Moreover, presumably the free market protects people from obviously unfair terms, beyond the unconscionably requirement.

I think requiring explicit acceptance and full understanding by all consumers is paternalistic, and overly skeptical of a functioning marketplace. In that way I don't see this as a very libertarian argument (not a good or bad thing, just saying).

Re: Why Libertarians Should Oppose “Shrinkwrap” Contracts

WilsonF — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:38:28 -0000

Surely the seller of software or hardware should be able to impose terms of use on the user. I don't think that returning the product is an excessive burden (maybe you have an argument that Gateway should pick up the cost of returning the product). A court can overturn unconscionable terms. I'm not exactly sure what the alternative is. If you disallow these type of contracts certain types of products are of course going to be more expensive or utterly unavailable to consumers. Gateway is not going to read you the terms over the telephone, and that wouldn't create any greater understanding than the present terms.

I think a non-paternalist has to recognize that people are going to agree to terms all the time that they don't read or don't understand. As long as those terms aren't unconscionable, and they can be rejected by the prudent consumer, I see no reason to deny firms the capability to impose terms on their products.

Re: Liberals Abandoning the First Amendment, Part 4: Banning Books in Virginia

WilsonF — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:50:38 -0000

I don't think a library--especially a school library--has an obligation, moral or otherwise to stock every book that is donated to them. Furthermore, I think it is perfectly reasonable to make content based decisions about what you should and shouldn't stock.

I think that if the American National Socialists Party made a donation of 100 Nazi themed books to a high school library, there is nothing wrong with that library choosing not to stock those books. Similarly, if Larry Flynt donated a complete library of Hustler Magazines.

This is not banning books. No one here is preventing the kids from READING the books in question. The library, a HIGH SCHOOL library, no less is making content based decisions about which books should occupy its shelf space.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Re: What Books Would You Ban?

WilsonF — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:44:37 -0000

Man what is with all the books i like being banned by people? I must have terrible taste. Battlefield Earth, The Singularity is Near, Atlas Shrugged...

Re: What Books Would You Ban?

WilsonF — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:15:39 -0000

Battlefield Earth? What do you have against pulpy science fiction novels?

I'd ban books that I think are plausibly dangerous. Turner Diaries and the Anarchist Cookbook. I think there is at least a weak case for the banning of those books, but a case at the very least. Banning books which contain ideas you think are stupid or you simply don't agree with is silly; I believe John Stuart Mill on that one at least. Books which actively encourage hatred, revolution and violence; I think there is a much better case for banning those.

Re: Today in Backwardsville

WilsonF — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:40:21 -0000

This response doesn't make any attempt to give an explanation as to why the minimum wage is a welfare-increasing proposition for low-income workers on the whole, much less a more welfare-increasing proposition than the proposals that Will talks about above.

Really what you do in this post is that you call Will out for what you believe is a misuse of the term ceteris paribus, and then you say he doesn't know what he's talking about because he argues that some important 'skills' come from on the job experience. If you're going to call someone a 'libertarian play-economist' you should have more to work with than that.

You obviously have some theory based in bounded rationality about how firms that hire low income workers are not profit maximizing and so the minimum wage can act as an effective transfer to low income workers. I would like to hear about it, I really don't know of good theories for the minimum wage beyond the C&K monopsony theory.

However, I tend to think that Will is right here and that you need to have some reason to throw out the law of demand if you don't think that the minimum wage increases unemployment for low-income workers.

Re: Today in Backwardsville

WilsonF — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:27:30 -0000

Will;

I am a huge fan of the original post, your replies in this thread, and then the older post you linked to. I wish I had started reading your blog sooner, it's really blowing me away lately.