Mike Renzulli

I tend to agree short of not telling other countries what to do. My foreign policy candle is that if a country is mostly secular in its outlook among its elected leaders and populace along with a decent semblance of economic freedom along with insitutions to objectively and adequately protect private property rights and enforce contracts then I don't think the U.S. should interfere. In terms of places like the middle east I think U.S. involvement is appropriate not only because of the terrorism but also it is a way to protect the individual rights of the populace in said regions. I also agree to stop sending countries foreign aid as well. As far as Islam-bashing I tend to agree. My vantage point is more criticism rather than slander. I think there is value in listening and watching people like Robert Spencer but he is not the end all be all in terms of learning about Islam. I think the average Muslim, by and large, does not want to hurt anyone. However because of the internal culture and the specificity of the religious texts that tell Muslims how to live as well as the violence and calls for jihad outlined in the Quran, Sunnah and Sharia texts along with clerics openly calling Muslims to conduct it, I think it can make them prone to violence. Much more so than Christians or Jews. The books of the Bible were written by a variety of different people and there are numerous contradictory chapters and verses and incomplete books in it where Christian and Jewish scholars have to make sense out of it. In Islam, you have one man who wrote the Sunnah and Quran in which these 2 books and Sharia spell out not only what Islam is all about but how Muslims have to live with little room for clerics to reinterpret and Muslims to ignore.

I know and this is what sends chills up my spine. I have read up on the Salfis and the fact that they get direct backing from the Saudi monarchy and the sect is responsible for the radicalization of many Muslims. Their doing so leads me to conclude not only are the Saudis not our friends but I would dare to argue the Saudi's continued support of this school of thought constitutes an act of war. The U.S. should apply pressure to the Saudis to stop funding the Salafis. If they don't I say take them down.

My reason for posting this was not to convince Michael about Spencer's credibility. Rather it was mainly for educational purposes. I think there is value in reading Robert Spencer because of activities like this since he is so articulate and knowledgeable about Islam that Muslim groups (like CAIR) and gents like Zeyad back out from debates because of the knowledge Spencer has. Robert Spencer has never said that a reformation (in the Thomas Aquinas sense) can never happen in Islam and I think that's mainly where Libertarian Muslim comes from. However, as Spencer has pointed out, it will be VERY difficult when you have schools of jurisprudence (like the Salafis) articulating Islam from a literalist perspective while calling on their followers to conduct jihad. As a matter of fact, the Salafis (a.k.a. Wahhabis) are a kind of reformation movement in Islam since they use the life of Muhammad as told in the Sunnah and the actual texts of the Quran to articulate their message. This is why individual secular Muslims and groups are few and far between because schools of thought, like the Salafis, draw their logic directly from Muhammad and the Quran. As a result Muslims can be susceptible to violence. I have come to understand that the many scholars in the various schools of Islamic thought are in agreement that Muslims must make war on non-Muslims. The difference is that they can't agree on when is the appropriate time and how to go about it.

I came across this at JihadWatch. It is a debate between authors Robert Spencer and Moustafa Zayed. Zayed attempts to defend Mohammed while Spencer takes the opposite view. A very lively and excellent debate. I need not tell you the outcome as it is apparent as to whom will have the upper hand since Spencer tells the truth. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/zayed-spencer-debate-did-muhammad-teach-warfare-against-and-subjugation-of-unbelievers.html

Okay if you prefer not to believe it that's fine by me. I can't tell you what to believe or not. What I can do is point you in the direction of what Spencer has actually said. Like me he is not anti-Muslim, he is anti-jihadist: http://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert-spencer.html Q: Do you hate Muslims? Robert Spencer: Of course not. Islam is not a monolith, and never have I said or written anything that characterizes all Muslims as terrorist or given to violence. To call attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence within Islamic texts and teachings, and to show how jihadists use those texts and teachings, says nothing at all about what any given Muslim believes or how he acts. Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts. Any hate in my books comes from Muslim sources quoted, not from me. Cries of "hatred" and "bigotry" are effectively used by American Muslim advocacy groups to try to stifle the debate about the terrorist threat. But there is no substance to them. It is not an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology. It is a peculiar species of displacement and projection to accuse someone who exposes the hatred of one group of hatred himself: I believe in the equality of rights and dignity of all people, and that is why I oppose the global jihad. Those who make the charge use it as a tool to frighten the credulous and politically correct away from the truth. Some time ago here at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said: "I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc." Is all that "anti-Muslim"? My correspondent thought so. He responded: "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims." In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But it is not "anti-Muslim" to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world -- quite the contrary. P.S. I like Daniel Pipes but have not seen anything by Alan Dershowitz. If you have any links to articles or know of any titles of books by Dershowitz I would be interested in reading them. Mike, I ain't buying it. I just gave you a pristine example of Spencer's poor reasoning as presented by you. (Holding up exceptions as if they were the norm.) I don't need to look any further to find his real meaning, etc., etc., etc., unless you have something objective to look at. I won't place him in the same category with David Duke, but I will put him close. David Duke knows some scholarly things, too, but I won't be wasting my time reading them. Just like I don't intend to waste my time with Spencer. Bernard Lewis is a far better source. Hell, even Daniel Pipes. I really like Alan Dershowitz. Michael

Thanks Adam I will give them a look. In terms of the MB's recommendations are I must admit a certain amount of (for lack of a better term) skepticism on my part since the group not only has the vocal support of Iran but has funded military-oriented jihadist groups (such as Hamas) and the Islamic ethic of taqiyya. The Muslim Brotherhood may put on a moderate presentation but once in power will do all they can to seize it and make Egypt into a theocratic dictatorship like Iran.

I realize Robert Spencer comes across as anti-Muslim and agenda-driven but after reading his writings and understanding his outlook on Islam it's hard not to disagree with his point of view. Also, please keep in mind and let me stress I am talking in a general sense and am not wanting to paint all Muslims (in this case Sufis) with a broad brush. Instead my intent is to do it by being critical of Muslims (Sunni, Shi'ite and Sufi) who subscribe to the ethic of violent jihad. From an academic, evidence-based perspective, his knowledge of Islam and the factions/sects of the religion are nothing short of astounding if not outright fascinating. As near as I can tell Spencer's knowledge of Islamic theology and Islamic sects compliments Bernard Lewis's knowledge of Islam and Islamic/middle eastern culture. I also think it was Lewis himself who said that he and Spencer rarely disagree with each other. This being said and the prominence Lewis has in the academic world and my holding him in very high esteem leads me to conclude that Spencer has no reason to lie or twist the truth when it comes to his knowledge about Islam. I am not saying he doesn't but when you understand the contect or cruxt of his argument as well as his background and knowledge I better understand why people can construe Spencer to having ulterior motives.

Of course I know of the Sufis but that's not an indication that they are any different (doctrinally speaking) than the Sunnis or Shi'ites. For example, the Ground Zero Imam Faisal Rauf (who refuses to condemn Hamas) has been identified as a Sufi. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/opinion/17dalrymple.html Robert Spencer's analysis of Sufis is: The Sufi order offers a mystical perspective on Islam. There are Sufis found all over the Islamic world. The widespread assumption that Sufis are peaceful and eschew jihad violence and Islamic supremacism, however, is false. Sufis from al-Ghazali to the present day have taught the necessity of jihad warfare, and have participated in that warfare -- notably in Chechnya since the 18th century. Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas and Al-Qaeda, was strongly influenced by Sufism and prescribed Sufi spiritual exercises for the Brotherhood members. In January 2009, Iraqi representatives of the Naqshabandi Sufi order met with Khaled Mashaal of Hamas, praised his jihad, donated jewelry to him, and boasted of their own jihad attacks against Americans in Iraq. In terms of your disagreement I understand where you are coming from and I am sure you are correct in that regard. I am speaking in a general (not specific) sense while pointing out pointing out what Robert Spencer said about the conflict in Islam between modernity and the role of the religion in the lives of Muslims in the middle east. Mike, Are you kidding me? Ever heard of Sufi? That's the most blatant example. But even without that example, your statement implies that moral life in Syria is identical to moral life in Malaysia or Indonesia. That the interpretation of the Qur'an in Saudi Arabia is is identical to that in Iran. That the Taliban's understanding is identical to that of United Arab Emirates. Need I go on? I agree that the attitude toward modernity is a thorny problem in the Muslim world, but it is not as homogeneous as you make it sound. There are a lot of conflicting views. Michael

Yes but interpretations of the Bible and the Quran are 2 different things. A Jew or Christian and reinterpret the Bible. A Muslim does not have that kind of flexibility in terms of the Quran. Like most undeveloped regions of the world religion is a central part of most everyone's life. In the middle east the religion is the largest following is Islam. What makes Islam unique is the specific commands placed upon Muslims by the Quran, Sunnah and Sharia on how to act among themselves and toward non-Muslims. In Islam one debate or clash if you will is how much modernity should Muslims embrace before it conflicts with their religion. If a country becomes too westernized or embraces things that conflict with Islam then, by and large, many Muslims will object. According to Bernard Lewis, to this day Muslims have blamed their problems on Europeans or Jews and thus fed their sense of victimhood which results in their rejection of modernity. Hence the reason why the middle east and many Muslim-dominant countries reject U.S./western ideas and values such as capitalism and individual rights.

This is all well and good but doesn't tell the whole story. I also apologize if I am coming into this thread blind but hope to raise some points that may not have been taken into account. The main beneficiary of the revolutions (so-called) going on in the middle east is going to be Iran via their ally The Muslim Brotherhood. For example, in Egypt The MB is well known for operating charities and other services via zakat (i.e. tithing) that it provides to Egyptians. In exchange for this the MB is able to branch out and spread its fundamentalist form of Islam. The Brotherhood is very well financed and organized and would be in a prime position to attain power if Mubarak's government collapses as well as play a very large roll in the formation of new regimes coming up in middle eastern countries experiencing unrest. The Brotherhood is not exactly Wahabbi in it's orientation but it shares many similarities with the Saudi-backed sect. Despite many of Muslim Brotherhood consider themselves Sunnis yet a few Muslim Brotherhood scholars were able to inflience the theology and ideas of the infamous Shi'ite leader Ayatollah Khomeni. It's because of the above fact that is why Iran has supported the revolts in Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt since the Muslim Brotherhood is obviously playing a role in each of these uprisings. None the less, it is not a good thing for freedom in the middle east since the main beneficiary will be jihadist Islamism down the line. Once new leaders take power look for the implementation of Sharia Law and a growing trend to embrace societies that mirror Iran.

George I apologize if my comments got under your skin. However, until now, I had no idea about what happened to your wife. Since you put it that way it makes sense. Please understand that I do not paruse or read these boards often so I am coming at this blind. I made comments only based on what you had initially said in your earlier posts and have had little interaction with you on these boards and in real life. For me personally, when chatting on boards or discussion groups like this I deal with people on them with a VERY long fuse since it is difficult at times to understand what a person's intent or context is. When I do so I try to include as much information as possible so questions are not raised about the reason for posting comments or if I do answer questions I try to elaborate and answer with as much detail as possible so to clarify my intent. As for encouragement on my part: you have it. Like I said in my last post if she wronged you (it is looking very much like you were) Wendy McElroy should make amends by apologizing, compensating you or (better yet) both. I am also glad that your situation is improving and the issues with your wife have been resolved. I would not make any demands of you with regards to the choices you make. My reasons for raising the time lapse was due to the lack of information I had since, ultimately, I wanted to better understand your intent. You did/do not come across either in person or on these boards as someone who would bitch, whine and moan or play a victim but, until you elaborated with regards to your personal situation, you were coming across that way. My comments on legal action against Wendy were an opinion and nothing more. To be more precise I would not want you (or anyone else) to get screwed no matter what your principles are. While I think your pledge and unwillingness to resort to legal redress is, in my opinion, not realistic I also understand you are your own person and your life does not revolve around nor depend on the decisions or opinions of others. Including me.

I was at a Freedom Summit in Phoenix when you were a guest speaker and remember you mentioning this in I think it was 2002 or 2003. Having remembered this and when you brought this up here I thought to myself oh God he still hasn't resolved this issue?. I can only comment based on the information initally given on a thread like this and I appreciate the additional information you posted. I am sure you are aware and please understand that once someone divulges information or makes comments on boards like this ANYONE can make comments on them in reply. My statement regarding legal action and my criticisms of your position stem from your statement when you said earlier in this thread: If I don't believe in copyright laws, then I would hypocritical to pursue a course just because it is my ox that has been gored. Making comments like this could be tantamount to inviting more incidents like what has happened with you and Wendy McElroy. In other words, it could lead others with ulterior motives to think you can be easily manipulated or taken advantage of (which I am sure is not the case). If McElroy did committ this act against you that is clearly fraudulent and she should (at the very least) apologize. She is lucky not only to have had you help her with her writing career but that you are willing to accept an apology. She should also, if possible, at very least compensate you by splitting royalties on this book's sales. But, still, there is the amount of time that has gone by though. None the less, I will watch how things pan out and refrain from anymore criticisms after this.

My original post was (in my opinion) fairly even handed. I left open the possibility that Wendy McElroy may have plagiarized your work but also left open the possibility she may have not. I went based on the example you put up in this thread. I also just looked at your review at Amazon and I assume because Amazon does not want to be seen as a place getting involved in this dispute which is why it looks like your review has been edited. I will look over your articles. However, I do lack a copy of the book in which to do a more detailed analysis. None the less, I find it odd that it took you twelve years to attempt get this resolved. You have had plenty time to fix this on your own without having to involve people here in this matter. Admittedly Wendy did too but I think both of you are wrong for not having resolved this among yourselves over that period of time. I do stand by my statement that you should pursue legal options and not cop out of not filing a copyright lawsuit because it may conflict with your principles. Consistency should not be considered an intrinsic value yet you are taking your consistency to illogical conclusions (i.e. you are using consistency as an intrinsic value). Libertarianism and anarchism, like Objectivism, are PHILOSOPHIES not religions. The world will not come to an end because George H. Smith (who opposes the existence of copyright laws) decides to retain an attorney and file a lawsuit in a government court against Wendy McElroy because she may have plagiarized articles you wrote. I think waiting for an apology is fair and I agree with Brant that you should give her a week. If she does not you should pursue legal redress. By not doing so, the reality is that you are denying yourself of having an injustice committed against you corrected. No, most of what I posted so far is called plagiarism, not paraphrasing. You don't paraphrase by changing a few words. And you ain't seen nothing yet. Wendy's entire chapter on logic is copied, nearly word for word, from some articles that I published in 1986, twelve years before TRW. My articles are available here , so make the comparison for yourself, if you don't believe me. Oh, but Wendy did change he to she, him to her, and man to woman, so maybe she was paraphrasing. If you guys want to give Wendy a fair chance to respond to my offer, then I suggest that you back off for 24 hours. You have only a small fraction of the evidence. I am ready to to cut Wendy off at the knees right now, if I need to. I will post example after example of Wendy's plagiarism -- at least 200 pages -- immediately, if I need to. I don't owe her anything. I expected this kind of excuse making for Wendy, especially from men. It has happened before, and it drove Sharon Presley up the wall. Gosh, George, don't be so quick to condemn. Maybe Wendy just paraphrased everything you have ever written on the subject of reasoning. Maybe Wendy is so innocent and naive that she didn't understand that her paraphrasing would be taken by you as plagiarism. Maybe you don't understand what plagiarism really is -- not every word in every sentence is exactly the same, after all -- so maybe Wendy is right and you are wrong. I've met Wendy. She is cute, and she is bright, and she is funny, and she has a nice laugh, and I love the way she tosses her hair back when she speaks --it reminds me of Rita Hayworth in Gilda -- and I don't believe that someone with all these lovely and charming qualities would ever plagiarize. Have you considered the possibility that your feelings got hurt, that you were angry and overwrought, and that you lost your sense of perspective? Maybe you should think about this for another 12 years before you act on a snap judgment. Hey, Sharon. You were right once again about what would happen with some of the guys. Just wait till they hear Wendy's revolving door of excuses. I hope the "We had a contract" explanation will come up early -- you know, the one that, even if it were 100 percent correct, would mean that I wrote 50 percent of TRW? I love that argument. Ghs

If what George is saying is true then it's not surprising that she hasn't apologized. For Wendy McElroy (again, assuming that she did plagiarize George Smith's work) to do so might be percieved as an acknolwedgement of guilt in some way. However, based on the comparison with what George posted comparing his essay to Wendy's it looks more like she paraphrased his work. If she did resort to paraphrasing it is legal and might resort in a lawsuit being thrown out of court anyway. While I feel George's pain, if (that's a big IF) he was wronged then he should pursue his legal options and not cop out of not filing a copyright lawsuit because it may conflict with his principles. By not doing so, George is actually denying himself having an injustice righted.

Hi Stephen, Thanks for your reply and clarification. Do you think what McDonald said that: the post-Kantians Hegel, Heidegger, and Deleuze (for example) can be read in ways that enrich and support the tradition (if not the letter) of Locke and classical liberal individualism is accurate also?

I was reading over reviews of Dr.Stephen Hicks's book Explaining Postmodernism today and happened upon a thoughtful and interesting review responding to one reviewer condemning Immanuel Kant. The reviewer named Thomas McDonald states: For Kant, there is an empirically given and external aspect of the world, but our sensing, understanding, and reasoning about the world are not passively given to us, they are the fundamental activities by which (1) the world becomes intelligible to us in the first place (at all), and (2) by which we shape a specifically human relationship to the world. To investigate these fundamental (i.e. transcendental) grounds of the intelligence that people put into practice every day -- to think through the sensing in what we call sense, the understanding at work in what we understand, the reasoning in reason -- is what Kantian thinking does. In Kantian thought there are definite, logical, constraints determined as to how the world can be thought in the first place (i.e. space and time are not merely subjective but objective ideas the world requires of us), but the notion of the world without us as being the same as the world with us is both deluded and literally inhuman by ignoring the human condition. Kant's philosophy is a call to self-realization and the heightened sense of personal responsibility that comes with understanding his profound argument. Mr. Hicks is absolutely right that this philosophically revolutionary project of Kant's is what opened the door to many of the abuses of so-called 'post-modern' thinking. However, I implore any potential reader to get a better grasp of Kant's argument before judging either him or the others criticized in this volume. I even venture the claim that the post-Kantians Hegel, Heidegger, and Deleuze (for example) can be read in ways that enrich and support the tradition (if not the letter) of Locke and classical liberal individualism, if that be your political orientation. I find Mr. Hicks a very good scholar, and for an intellectual opponent he gives (in my estimation) a surprisingly fair reading to many of the 'post-modern' thinkers in the book. However, I'm giving only three stars because of what I perceive as an undue, erroneous prejudice against the core of the Kantian revolution in philosophy (which Mr. Hicks has benefited from) which I read as driven by Mr. Hick's commitment to Ayn Rand's politics more than a commitment to philosophy whatever it may reveal. He seems to be taking this cue from Any Rand's dislike for and mistaken interpretation of Kant. What piqued my interest is when McDonald said: I even venture the claim that the post-Kantians Hegel, Heidegger, and Deleuze (for example) can be read in ways that enrich and support the tradition (if not the letter) of Locke and classical liberal individualism, if that be your political orientation. I realize Kant was a classical liberal who supported free trade and property rights. However, I believe it was George Walsh who came to Kant's defense. Isn't what McDonald is saying a similar conclusion to what Walsh stated too? Also, if, as McDonald states, post-Kantians can be read in ways to enrich and support classical liberal/libertarian individualism I think it might be worth it to give them another look.

I never said nor do I believe Ayn Rand is God. When have I ever said or implied that she was infallible? Won't hear it from me. And I would be curious to know what (in your mind) makes my statements objecting and responding to yours subjectivism? By making a claim such as this you seem to be looking to argue just for the sake of argument or you may not really know what you are talking about. If that's the case consider this my last response. I am not afraid of finding out because (much to your surprise) I already know she was. If she was wrong I am sure (despite your claim to the contrary) that it was on minor points and not of any significance to have diluted her contributions to philsophy. Especially epistemology. In your view, are all vantage points to be considered equally? In terms of human discovery and seeking truth should people consider consulting psychic mediums to discover answers with problems they maybe having or in looking for how life began should what is written in the Bible be considered as a valid source equal to books by Richard Dawkins or Charles Darwin? I think not since to consider multiple vantage points means that the ones that are not just realistic but just plain stupid really being considered equal to information sources that discuss actual facts degenerates into people not knowing what the truth is. Your key statement is something very similar to Thomas Kuhn's writings regarding scientific and human knowledge. There has to be an objective method for people to differentiate good sources of information from the bad. That's what epistemology can assist people in doing. If there is none then the end result is nothing more than skepticism which results in people giving up the ability to think.

Okay but, in terms of IP, do you have any specific things to replace it? I tend to agree with your premise but the biggest hole in your argument is a lack of ideas which could be used as an alternative to the current IP method. If not, then don't look for IP to go away anytime soon since your writings could be useful as critiques but will not help to achieve the overall goal you seek to achive.

Well then I guess then your definition of property rights needs a little work since resources are not scarce. They are in controlled economies where governments interfere but in terms of free economies (like the U.S. and other western countries) resources are unlimited and can best be used since people are, for the most part, able to use their minds freely to come up with alternatives in order to not waste other resources (such as those found in nature). As long as human beings can use their capacity to think, resource scarity is not a problem.

Okay fine then how would you propose to do so? I have not seen anything from opponents of IP such as yourself outlining specific reforms or methods in which to do so. If you do have ideas, I would be interested in reading about them. What would help is one actually used and works better than in place now. I am not against abolition if it is in terms of certain policies and procedures. However, I am not sold on scraping it and starting over again. Like I said if you have any systems in place that are used in real life that work better I am all ears.

I am sure in George Smith and every other ancap libertarian's society there would be rules against such activity. However, hypothetically speaking, there would be little redress against a member of Marxist commune whose community would do their utmost to protect a member of their collective from such an activity since under Marxism no one would be allowed to keep the fruits of their labor and actions a libertarian society would deem as theft would not be deemed immoral in a Marxist one. Hence, in a society without government a Marxist commune would, essentially, have license to endorse the theft of another's property even outside their realm of influence and control. This would also include a not only a Marxist stealing IP but also a computer hacker or thief whose line of work is theft for profit and who has the latest technology and resources at their disposal (up to and including accomplices) to avoid capture and incarceration. Thus the fact that activities deemed illegal today (i.e. theft, fraud, etc.) would not be illegal in a state/government-less society makes the creation and usage of government a necessity if not by need certainly by default. The fact that hefty legal penalties and police agencies to enforce such statutes exist is reason enough for people to think twice about doing them.

Excellent posts by Ted critiquing Attorney Kinsella's point of view regarding intellectual property (IP). I would like to add that while he asks what system Objectivists and supporters of IP would enact since he uses his critique of the U.S.'s IP system as the standard to point out that it doesn't work, that (if he has not done so already) the onus is on Kinsella to draw up or outline a method or system (if you will) of how to protect intellectual property. I might be opening a can of worms but I will take a stab at this none the less. I think Kinsella's view (anarchist libertarianism) is indicative of a much large problem with his overall philosophy. The main problem with his conclusions seems to be grounded in Kantian skepticism which is really what anarchocapitalism is based on to begin with. Ancap starts or is based on the premise on the denial of objective reality. A case in point is an anarchocapitalist's claim that all governments are evil and anyone who works for, takes money from them or votes in their elections is participating in an illegitimate system and participating in evil in and of itself. By taking the method ancaps point out as their alternative if taken to its logical conclusions it becomes no different than the Marxist point of view about property overall which is that that a person's mind (in this case ideas) is a part of the collective, the property of one is the property of all and cannot be individual owned or used. Under ancap there would be private, voluntary institutions erected to preserve and protect a person's ideas. This sounds good in theory but falls flat on its face since, under the ancap method of IP protection (if any) there would be little redress to halt a hacker from hacking into an IP company or institution's computer to steal ideas and the hacker to use them himself. In terms of the system the U.S. has that is presently in place to protect IP I think Mr. Kinsella should use the criticisms as a means of influencing IP policy so it can change from within.

I think the term from The Little Rascals best sums this up: You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool mom.

AHEM! As far as the Civil War is concerned, its looking more like to me that the Civil War was the result of the philosophical debate about slavery and not necessarily state's rights. Unfortunately, it also looks like the war then degenerated into a conflict as to who controlled the country's finances. It just so happens the Union won. In terms of Tom DiLorenzo and the accuracy of his books and research, all I can say is, libertarians don't let libertarians (or anyone else) read Tom DiLorenzo. Here is why: http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=79 Despite its provocative insights and obvious rhetorical skill, however, The Real Lincoln is seriously compromised by careless errors of fact, misuse of sources, and faulty documentation. Although individually these flaws may seem trivial and inconsequential, taken together they constitute a near-fatal threat to DiLorenzo’s credibility as a historian. Ah, yes. I much prefer those legal civil wars. Well it wasn't really a civil war--the south did not want control of the whole country. it was just an invasion of the CSA. Actually I am not sure it was illegal, though maybe you could argue it was unconstitutional, or perhaps a breach of international law (if only pacta sunt servanda based on the implicit internationalized promise not to attack, based on the clear constitutional right to secede)--but in any case, it was murderous and aggression, and Lincoln violated the Constitution innumerable times. Tom DiLorenzo is good on this.

No one is saying you aren't or shouldn't be in charge of the way you form concepts. The devil is in the details as to how you do it. Besides, the manner in which you do doesn't mean you will be correct. So if you do form concepts based on your own method don't be surprised if your technique mirror's Ms. Rand's. If not, I would like to know what your method is once you come up with it (if you have not done so already). Also, if you follow your skepticism to its complete conclusions in developing your tecnique(s) be prepared to be mirred in empiricism.