HarryLeaks

In this TED talk, Margaret Stewart, YouTube's head of User Experience, talks about how they deal with copyright issues by partnering with those who have a claim on intellectual property and, through a complex algorithm of locating possible matches, these partners are given the discretion if they'll allow the video to be posted or not. 

I've actually recently been notified of copyright infringement in one of my videos, as they detected I used the song New Soul by Yael Naim but have been allowed to keep it posted.

The era of Web 2.0 really changed the concept of copyright. Both entrepreneurs and policymakers have to liberalize their position on IPR. And I believe it will be inevitable as the internet develops and becomes more organic and free. We saw how the world reacted when the US congress wanted to pass SOPA (a bill intended to protect IPR).

I shall save my blog post about my meeting with the Republicans Abroad Philippines for another time. I'm sure it does stir intrigue and suspense among my readers; this desire to know more about what transpired within the walls of the Manila lodge of The Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks. Watch out for that soon.

So a fellow libertarian shares this link to the Shanghai Austrian Economics Summit and I am quite interested in going. The problem, of course, is the whopping minimum price of $758. This is the bare minimum. You get to share a room with a random guy (or someone I know if someone else is interested in coming), get free lodging for three days, with all meals paid for. This doesn't include the package that comes with a tour of China. The Great Wall and stuff like that, if I'm not mistaken. Oh, and this doesn't include airfare. If I don't get to pay before the 1st of May, I'll miss out on the early bird discount and it'll even be more expensive. 

Come to think of it though, some people would pay around the same price or even more for the new iPad where they'll just play Angry Birds or Fruit Ninja or whatever it is that's trending right now. Comparing it to that, the price for the summit slowly becomes more sensible. And don't even get me started on the price of schooling (there's really so much to streamline in the contemporary schooling curriculum and its methodologies; I've written on this a couple of times mostly in my other blogs).

And I love seminars and conferences. I actually love specifying them in my resume, for instance. I believe that, for many of the seminars/conferences I've attended, most of the time I actually learn more in just a day or two  (or more relevant to me, at least) as compared to more time spent in school. 

Take Graphika Manila 2010, for example. I didn't specifically learn any new skill or how to produce art/films. What I got was wisdom from those who actually have experience in the field. What I got was inspiration.

For example, during the 2011 one, there was this guy who was part of the creation of Avatar (I forgot his exact role).   I didn't really learn specifically how to make intense graphics and animations. But I learned that he actually never finished college. He was actually just a pizza delivery guy at one time. And it's just so inspiring to hear the stories and advice from these experienced artists.

So the keyword here is inspiration. Basically, if I choose to go, that's what I'm paying for. Aside from the networking with the most influential groups in the libertarian world, aside from the new lessons about the Austrian School of Economics and classical liberalism, these speakers: they will be there to inspire me.

Inspire me to excel in my writing. Inspire me to learn more about history and economics. Inspire me to think of solutions to our world's problems. Inspire me to think that my writing is actually, no matter how small an effect, helping in changing the minds of people toward a more libertarian perspective. The pen is mightier than the sword, they say. It'll add to my credibility — probably the most important aspect of all. 

I do hope, if I do get a chance to complete the funds needed in going there, that the visa application process isn't tedious. It probably isn't. I see people go to The Great Wall all the time. 

It is quite funny, the idea of having a libertarian summit in China of all places. It does sound a bit scary.

I don't really have the complete funds needed for this trip but I am thinking positive about it. May is quite far from now, even if I don't make it to the early bird discount, I should start with small steps. I gotta go knock at the doors of our bureaucrats over at DFA so they can help me out with my expired passport then get the China visa. No matter what, at least I would have been able to renew my passport and get a visa to China. If I don't make it to the conference, I'm sure China would be a fun place to video random things (I do enjoy that, if you're not familiar).

In this BBC documentary Amazon, Bruce Parry is able to expose the rustic and dangerous beginnings of cocaine production.

From what the media has been telling me, from literature to films, drinking really is a part of the culture in the UK. It's not uncommon for you to see people in pubs during lunchtime having a few drinks before continuing their day. And what's funny is that some of these people are their members of parliament:

The Iron Lady Trailer

And precisely that experience of having worked for her family's small business that gave her the insight of appreciating capitalism. His father was actually a statesman as well who seemed to be a staunch fiscal conservative. Her strict observance of prices came from the fact that she was a monetarist, a position advocated by libertarians like Milton Friedman who believed that the government may have the power to control inflation. Her passion for cutting spending and privatization roots from her influence from the works of F.A. Hayek and other classical liberals. I even remember in the PBS documentary Commanding Heights they showed that Thatcher and Hayek exchanged letters. 

Aside from being really hardcore like being able to dine with high officials of the Soviet Union (who then dubbed her the name "The Iron Lady") or tearing down the Berlin wall, what really stood out the most for me was her obsession with prices. I do not agree with many of her policies including monetarism or her fetish for war and militarism but I loved the fact that she had her finger on the pulse of the market—an important quality a poltician should have, I believe.

I remember in one of the debates during the 2010 Philippine presidential elections, candidate Jamby Madrigal was asked the price of galunggong (common fish in the Philippines) to which she humorously replied she wouldn't know because she is a vegetarian. Now I realize that it was such an important question. Inflation is one of the most important issues in politics and knowing prices of the typical daily commodities that the people buy is most definitely significant.

I remember when I lived in my house in Laguna for back when I was still in college, I really learned a lot about managing my budget for my daily needs. Many times I would buy my own food from the sari-sari store (a very common small time convenient store managed by families in their very own homes). Almost every place here has sari-sari store and this is mostly where many consumers would buy different things they need. If you've ever been to small barios, sari-sari stores are the more common venue for trade.

Changes in prices really affected me most especially since I had a very limited budget (granting that my mother already pays for my tuition, lodging; all in spite of my disdain for contemporary schooling—quality education takes time!). And when you're in college, you need a lot of budget allocated for booze and leisure, right? So when the price of daily needs like water or rice increase, for example, I might either have to cut on leisure expenditure or eat cheaper alternatives.

Tindahan ni Aling Nena by Eraserheads

But then that's just me. I was a lucky middle class kid in college who's blessed with a hardworking mom. All I worried about was having to drink less booze. But how about those aren't as fortunate as me? You can only imagine how inflation affects them. Ang presyo ng bigas (the price of rice). Cooking oil, milk for the baby, tuition for the kids, water and electric bills. These are all very important to them and has a drastic effect on their lives. I feel that it is irresponsible for statesmen to ignore it or not be aware of it.

It makes you reflect more on the red tapes on small businesses, huh? Should sari-sari stores need to have the redundant permits like barangay permit, mayor's permit, DTI business permit, BIR license, and the many different taxes? It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? It's funny though that technically most sari-sari stores are black market. Those people who are just trying to earn an honest living through voluntary exchange should ideally have to go through most of the red tapes. This is discouraging for small businesses and entrepreneurship in general. Most of all, it increases costs therefore increases prices. This goes out across the board for all business and the economy. 

Inflation is actually a direct result of increasing the money supply. Money isn't actually backed by any commodity like gold as everyone seems to believe up to now. We leave it up to the discretion of bureaucrats  in the central bank to decide the value of fiat currency or paper money. And inevitably, the value of paper money goes down when the supply increases therefore lowering the purchasing power of the money thus contributing to inflation.

At first glance, I know it might sound preposterous for many, the idea of going back to the gold standard. The concept though is that it doesn't have to be gold. It's just that the market dictates it and not the supposed expertise of bureaucrats. And no, Ron Paul doesn't want to instantly abolish fiat currency and central banking, he just wants, aside from wanting to audit the Federal Reserve, to be able have competing currencies. Competition will decide what is really a more effective means of preserving the value of one's earnings. This is an idea Hayek advocated, if I remember correctly, and so I do find it weird that Thatcher favored a different policy.

I guess one good indicator of who makes more sense is how back when Ron Paul and many others in the Austrian School of Economics like Peter Schiff were predicting the housing bubble and the recession, people like Bernanke, the keynesians, the monetarists: none of them listened. They totally marginalized those who were predicting the recession, some even finding their claims laughable. A simple search in YouTube of "Peter Schiff was right" or "Bernanke was wrong" are evidences of who had the right economic policies. Surely I should save the topic of Ron Paul's predictions for some another post.

One thing I love about libertarians in general, in spite of the differences in views as I have shown, is that they really have a grasp on simple commonsense economics as compared to the fancy macroeconomics of Keynesianism. The assumption of being smart enough to manage the economy, to always be acting in the public interest, to decide on arbitrary values, all of it is the pretense of knowledge.

Monetary policy is a key issue that decides the fate of our prosperity. Let us keep in mind that the power to devalue the money of people is theft. No small group of people, no matter their expertise, should ever have such a grand power. 

Hey, look what I found! It's one of the most influential books in my life that really contributed a lot to the political philosophy I have learned to love. It's an audiobook of Anthem by Ayn Rand. My ultimate favorite first line of it is a sin to write this.

Filipinos love parodies and spoofs. I am personally very entertained by the wittiness of many of them. In spite of the notion that it's not original or that it's gaya-gaya (copycat), I feel that it still takes a lot of wit and skill to come up with really funny spoofs and parodies.

I actually just watched The Iron Lady yesterday, a movie about the life of Margaret Thatcher. Naturally since I do earn a humble profit from my writings and since I was really moved by the movie, I was thinking I should write about it. But then I realized that there's a lot of problems with the labels and semantics involved in different political philosophies especially since Margaret Thatcher lead the UK Conservative party.

Nowadays, people throw around the words like "liberal" or "conservative" and many times it becomes so out of context because the terms are really so general and at different uses could mean different things. It's really more complex that in it is.

The problem also arises because the words are used differently in the context of US politics, for example, as compared to when we use it in everyday conversations. Especially here in the Philippines, the word conservative would usually equate to social conservatism, or those who would want to legislate based on their own definition of morality. I noticed people use this term often to refer to those who are hardcore religious or would want lifestyle to be regulated by government supposedly in order to preserve "traditional" values. This is as opposed to being "liberal" that is mostly used to describe civil libertarianism that seeks to expand and protect personal freedoms and civil liberties but not necessarily support reduction of the size or spending of the state in spite of the word "libertarianism" being attached to it. 

Ron Paul talks about history of being anti-war in the Republican Party
The problem is, especially in US politics, the word conservative may refer to fiscal conservatism or those who want to shrink the size of government and cut government spending. Yes, most of you now hate the US Republican party because of the warmongering and social conservatism of the Bush administration. You must remember though that, as Ron Paul reminds us, the Republican Party was traditionally both fiscal conservative and civil libertarian, essentially being almost entirely libertarian, as proposed by their founders and recommended by their constitution. This is why the Bush doctrine of warmongering and social conservatism is championed by the neoconservatives. 

This is also why the Democrats are, again in the US context of the term, referred to as liberals or progressives mainly because they prefer to stray from the recommendations of their founders of a constitutional limited government even when some of them are social conservatives or score low on civil liberties. A good example from the video below would be that Dennis Kucinich (who scores high on civil liberties) is a totally different kind of democrat/liberal as compared to Barrack Obama. That's actually what makes this all complex is, as I have said, the terms are so general.

In fact, the term "liberal" was initially used to describe a political philosophy that were actually closest to the recommendation of a limited government by the the US founders and this is why now the proponents of liberalism then are now referred to as classical liberals.

By avoiding the fallacy of composition and division, we can say that all social conservatives are conservatives but not all conservatives are social conservatives. The same follows with all the terms I have mentioned so far. This is why when Ron Paul argues in the debates that "I am the most conservative of all of the other candidates" he doesn't mean he is a social conservative but more of a fiscal conservative. In fact, he scores highest on being both fiscal conservative and shrinking the size of government at the same time protecting the liberties of individuals. Ideally, that's what libertarianism is all about. It becomes more complex though as there are different kinds of libertarianism as talked about in this video: