Hayek’s published writing about Pinochet is an awful example of politically-motivated excuse-making. But it’s hard to know what in the world the out-of-left comparison to Robeson in the pull-quote here is supposed to be based on, other than wishful thinking about the people that the author would like to admire. Certainly if we are supposed to draw some kind of conclusion from what Robeson actually wrote and said about Stalin, it’s hard to imagine anything Hayek could possibly have published that would indicate a greater ”love” for Pinochet than what Robeson said in, say, ”To You Beloved Comrade” (1953):

”. . . Suddenly everyone stood—began to applaud—to cheer—and to smile. The children waved. In a box to the right—smiling and applauding the audience—as well as the artists on the stage—stood the great Stalin. I remember the tears began to quietly flow and I too smiled and waved. Here was clearly a man who seemed to embrace all. So kindly—I can never forget that warm feeling of kindliness and also a feeling of sureness. Here was one who was wise and good—the world and especially the socialist world was fortunate indeed to have his daily guidance. I lifted high my son Paul to wave to this world leader, and his leader. For Paul, Jr. had entered school in Moscow, in the land of the Soviets. . . .

. . . Colonial peoples today look to the Soviet Socialist Republics. They see how under the great Stalin millions like themselves have found a new life. They see that aided and guided by the example of the Soviet Union, led by their Mao Tse-tung, a new China adds its mighty power to the true and expanding socialist way of life. They see formerly semi-colonial Eastern European nations building new People’s Democracies, based upon the people’s power with the people shaping their own destinies. So much of this progress stems from the magnificent leadership, theoretical and practical, given by their friend Joseph Stalin. They have sung—sing now and will sing his praise—in song and story. Slava – slava – slava – Stalin, Glory to Stalin. Forever will his name be honored and beloved in all lands. In all spheres of modern life the influence of Stalin reaches wide and deep. From his last simply written but vastly discerning and comprehensive document, back through the years, his contributions to the science of our world society remain invaluable. One reverently speaks of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin—the shapers of humanity’s richest present and future. Yes, through his deep humanity, by his wise understanding, he leaves us a rich and monumental heritage. Most importantly—he has charted the direction of our present and future struggles. He has pointed the way to peace—to friendly co-existence—to the exchange of mutual scientific and cultural contributions—to the end of war and destruction. How consistently, how patiently, he labored for peace and ever increasing abundance, with what deep kindliness and wisdom. He leaves tens of millions all over the earth bowed in heart-aching grief. But, as he well knew, the struggle continues. So, inspired by his noble example, let us lift our heads slowly but proudly high and march forward in the fight for peace—for a rich and rewarding life for all. . . .”

Hayek wrote a lot of rubbish about Pinochet and about Chile. But as far as I can tell — and please feel free to tell me if there is something that I am missing — he never wrote anything that even comes within an order of magnitude of this.

You write: "Hayek loved Pinochet more than Paul Robeson ever loved Joseph Stalin."

Is this comparative judgment based on some evidence? Or on anything other than political loyalties and enmities? If so, on what?

I ask, because Hayek's published comments on Pinochet are really awful exercises in politically-motivated excuse-making. And Robeson was in many ways an admirable man and a great one. But admirable men can be dreadfully wrong, and if you are going to fling in an out-of-left-field comparative statement like this, then I have to wonder what it is supposed to be based on. If we are to look at his writing and his public statements, it is hard to think of what Hayek could possibly have said that would outstrip the kind of sycophancy that Robeson displayed in, say, "To You Beloved Comrade." A sample:

"Suddenly everyone stood—began to applaud—to cheer—and to smile. The children waved. In a box to the right—smiling and applauding the audience—as well as the artists on the stage—stood the great Stalin. I remember the tears began to quietly flow and I too smiled and waved. Here was clearly a man who seemed to embrace all. So kindly—I can never forget that warm feeling of kindliness and also a feeling of sureness. Here was one who was wise and good—the world and especially the socialist world was fortunate indeed to have his daily guidance. I lifted high my son Paul to wave to this world leader, and his leader. For Paul, Jr. had entered school in Moscow, in the land of the Soviets. . . .

". . . Colonial peoples today look to the Soviet Socialist Republics. They see how under the great Stalin millions like themselves have found a new life. They see that aided and guided by the example of the Soviet Union, led by their Mao Tse-tung, a new China adds its mighty power to the true and expanding socialist way of life. They see formerly semi-colonial Eastern European nations building new People’s Democracies, based upon the people’s power with the people shaping their own destinies. So much of this progress stems from the magnificent leadership, theoretical and practical, given by their friend Joseph Stalin. They have sung—sing now and will sing his praise—in song and story. Slava - slava - slava - Stalin, Glory to Stalin. Forever will his name be honored and beloved in all lands. In all spheres of modern life the influence of Stalin reaches wide and deep. From his last simply written but vastly discerning and comprehensive document, back through the years, his contributions to the science of our world society remain invaluable. One reverently speaks of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin—the shapers of humanity’s richest present and future. Yes, through his deep humanity, by his wise understanding, he leaves us a rich and monumental heritage. Most importantly—he has charted the direction of our present and future struggles. He has pointed the way to peace—to friendly co-existence—to the exchange of mutual scientific and cultural contributions—to the end of war and destruction. How consistently, how patiently, he labored for peace and ever increasing abundance, with what deep kindliness and wisdom. He leaves tens of millions all over the earth bowed in heart-aching grief. But, as he well knew, the struggle continues. So, inspired by his noble example, let us lift our heads slowly but proudly high and march forward in the fight for peace—for a rich and rewarding life for all. . . ."

In better news: there’s a mailing going out today. MA #31 includes essays on the corporate economy and state domination by Anthony Gregory and Anna O Morgenstern. ACS #18 includes an Introduction to libertarianism by Charles T. Sprading.

Every time I print out a monthly batch of booklets I discover new reasons to loathe Adobe and its products.

There are independent reasons why Palmer, or anyone else familiar with anarchocapitalist writing, would be, e.g., familiar with and citing Bruno Leoni, or dealing with a stock set of objections. I doubt that he’s “ripping off” anything from LvMI, just talking from within (whether he likes it or not) a common tradition.

is 11111.

I don’t know if it’s an “Austrian” thing exactly (a lot of anti-IP libertarians these days are also into Austrian economics, but not necessarily because of something distinctive in the Austrian tradition — the present strength of the Mises Institute party line against IP notwithstanding, prior to the 1990s nobody much working in Austrian economics was particularly closely associated with an anti-IP position. (Rothbard opposed patents but supported copyrights, Hayek and Mises didn’t take any strong stance either way, etc.) But in any case, if you’re curious about Roderick’s position, he lays it out in The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights.

Roderick is anti-copyright and anti-patent, so in his view more or less the entirety of Microsoft’s business model depends on more or less aggressive enforcement of a portfolio of government-granted monopolies. (Of course, other businesses also get, and also enforce, and also depend on, copyright monopolies. But the point is presumably that Microsoft is an especially egregious example because it is an especially large and especially hard-driving exploiter of the legal privileges it has. No doubt you could mention other companies in its place; I think if anything AAPL has become a more aggressive and more threatening company in that particular captive market over the course of the past few years.)

I'm sorry if the style made it hard to read. For what it's worth this version of the essay is an academic paper from a couple of academic conferences where there were some definite reasons for dwelling on getting clear on the finer points of some of the conceptual issues involved (since it is written for a number of different audiences, some of whom would be unfamiliar with some of the concepts under discussion, and some of whom would be unfamiliar with other of the concepts under discussion). If it helps you out, though, there is also a much shorter version of the essay that I posted on my blog back in the day: <http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/05/16/women_and/>.

It's certainly true that in any discussion of statistics on sexual violence, the details of the definition used can significantly change the results. But neither of the sources under discussion (Mary Koss's 1985 study or the CDCP/NIJ National Violence Against Women Survey in 1995-1996) uses a definition of coercion that depends on active, expressed consent, or that would include various forms of, e.g., economic coercion. (These are of course important things to talk about, and Koss's study in particular did also study many forms of emotional, social or economic coercion in sexual relationships other than sexual assault. But the results she found aren't included in the numbers discussing "rape." Koss counted as rape any unwanted sexual encounter where the victim was either forced into sex by the use or threat of violence, or by disabling her with drugs or drink to the point that she was unconscious or could not consent. The NVAWS actually used a more restrictive definition than that: they only counted nonconsensual sex involving penetration, where the victim was forced into sex by violence or by the threat of violence. (So they did not attempt to gather data on rapes committed by disabling the victim with drugs or alcohol.)

The major, order-of-magnitude difference between the numbers that Joe seems to have found in a quick skim, and the numbers that I cite and discuss in the paper, isn't due to different definitions of rape. If he's drawing from the FBI's UCR numbers (as I take it he is), the major, order-of-magnitude difference is due to two things. First, he is presenting numbers that have to do with incidence of rape within a single year, whereas I am presenting numbers that have to do with the prevalence of rape in any year over the course of a lifetime, which is obviously quite a different thing to measure. And second, he is presenting numbers that are based on the number of reports made to the police, whereas I am presenting numbers based on broad, random-sample surveys that don't require contact with the police. But of course there are many reasons why someone would choose not to report a crime to the police, even if the crime happened, and for a lot of reasons rape happens to be a really dramatically underreported crime.

My recent post National holidays