Thursday, April 4, 2013

An Independent Review of the Wenzel-Kinsella Debate

Marc Clair emails:
Finally getting around to this interview, from all the comments I'd think you two were just equally ripping into each other.

After giving it a full listening, while I can't say I've completely defined my view on IP, I certainly have a perspective on IP that I never had before. I will give strong consideration to the points you've made.

What shocked me the most was how maniacal Kinsella got during parts of the interview.

Sure Bob, you got pushy at times and I'm not going to defend your interview style per se but anyone who is acting like Kinsella is some kind of genius that schooled you on libertarian ideas has not actually listened to this in a serious manner.

Again, I'm not sure of my view on IP, but you are the first libertarian to make me strongly consider the position in favor of it, meanwhile Kinsella has convinced me of only one thing...

Stephen Kinsella is maniacal., Simply maniacal.


  1. Replies
    1. I have no idea. That's what makes it really independent.

      Do you judge an argument over what is said or by who says it?

    2. If you don't know who she is, how are you certain she's independent?

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. I wasn't going to comment until Kurt Parker called me a she.

      I'm just a libertarian with an opinion.

      Who is John?

    5. My apologies Marc, I read Clair and only Clair apparently. You didn't really explain what exactly was maniacal about Stephen, only that he *was*, or how Bob was somehow any better.

    6. Correct.

      I wasn't writing a full blown analysis of the debate (that will come), rather I was dropping Bob a note since he's getting hammered left and right.

      I definitely had issues with the way Bob conducted the interview, but at the same time it kept me entertained.

      It wasn't meant to be a hard hitting analysis, but when I listened to this thing in full with Kinsella constantly creating the straw men of every evil the State has conducted in the IP realm -SOPA, CISPA, etc. - as if any of that is what Bob is discussing, "maniacal" is the word that popped into my head.

    7. I understand, Kinsella did take miles out of inches there in my opinion, but he was at least willing to spell out why he was doing so. Still sounded like small potatoes to Wenzel's shrieking and shirking to me.

    8. I didn't mean anything by the question. Just wanted to know who was commenting.

    9. Oh no offense taken, I'm just feeling a bit snarky today.

      I also operate and write for the website, where I plan to eventually write a review of this debate hopefully by next week.

      I promise that breakdown will contain some slightly deeper analysis than "Kinsella is maniacal", but that was my initial reaction and I thought Bob would enjoy it. Seems he did.

  2. I don't think anyone is defending Kinsella, they're just attacking Wenzel. Wenzel could not define IP when asked. I think that's all you really need to know.

  3. Dude, you're pathetic. You find one semi-positive comment for you - rather, a negative for Kinsella - among the mountain of comments the other direction, and somehow feel the need to post it as evidence of...?

    "This just in, some guy thinks Stephan Kinsella is 'maniacal'! I rest my case."

  4. This review is not helpful because it relies on an assertion that Kinsella is maniacal but offers no argument as to why this is the case.

    1. You guys are acting like i wrote a piece for the NY Times.,

      It was a note to Bob, not a grand treatise on the IP debate.

    2. You have a point, but also, I can only go by what I see. I'm sure your upcoming review will be much more helpful than this note.

    3. Marc, if you believe Kinsella was maniacal, THEN WENZEL WAS A VERITABLE LUNATIC.

      Did you not hear Wenzel being loud, interruptive, etc?

      You're full of BS.

  5. RW, if this IP debate and follow up is your attempt to be taken seriously as a thinker, I feel obliged to tell you it's having the opposite effect.

  6. Wenzel, you really need to stop. It's hard to believe that you can't see how foolish you are looking now. Truly, truly, pathetic.

  7. What number am I thinking of Wenzel?!?

    Come on! I'm gonna destroy you! I got you by the balls now!

    What number is in my head?!? Tell me!

    You don't know? AHA!!! That means the number 63 is scarce! I just copyrighted that number, and I declare that anyone who uses it in their activity, is going to be prosecuted by me, as Wenzel claims is justified.

    What simpleton logic in the pro-ip crowd.