Abu Hatem أبو حاتم

Abu Hatem is currently going through a break.  When I come back I hope to have a better more complete website under construction at my current host - AbuHatem.com

Much news has happened in the past week, whether in United States political news, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Syria and Lebanon affairs, and international economic relations.   Everything will be covered soon enough.

In the mean time, keep checking back until we are fully up.

Thanks,

Abu Hatem.

Share This

Never in the history of the United States has any candidate espoused Arab and Muslim American values like Ron Paul. A fervent follower of politics and international news for many years, I never believed I would actually vote in a Presidential election, not due to apathy, but due to the inherent flaws in both political parties and their candidates.

As Arab Americans we have found that no candidate truly serves us. Much of this changed in the Presidential campaign of 2000, when a young Governor named George W. Bush graced our television screens arguing for the repeal of the secret evidence law, free trade, free market economics, low tax rates, and the absence of nation building in foreign policy.  Arab Americans were shocked. This was indeed the ideal candidate for Arab American values, and the vast majority of Arab Americans voted for President Bush in 2000.

After Bush was elected however, everything changed. The passage of the PATRIOT Act, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the increase of spending and big government through the creation of the Department of Homeland Security made Arab Americans further disenchanted with the political process.

Then came 2004, a great proportion of Arab and Muslim Americans did not vote, and those that did end up switching to the Democratic party did so reluctantly. Democrats not only opposed withdrawal from Iraq - the one issue which Arab Americans looked towards them favorably - but they also stood for many values which Arab Americans stood against such as socialized medicine programs, big government spending, increasing taxes on Americans, and abortion. The Democratic party was also highly endorsed by pro-Israel organizations in the United States which in many cases perfered them to the Republican party.

Arab Muslim Americans such as myself, upset and discontent with the realities of contemporary American political culture, believed that there would never really come a candidate who supported our values and beliefs. And then came Ron Paul.

I first learned of Ron Paul watching CSPAN. I remember being excited that there was a free-market Republican against the war, however I was skeptical. Even if this was the case, I thought, Paul would probably be the same sugar coated package we have been so used to having as Arab Americans. I did not look Paul up at the time nor did I truly care to.

However, Ron Paul’s supporters had more in store. All over Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, and political blogs came images of Ron Paul. It seemed as if you could not click a page on the internet without seeing his face. So one day, reluctantly, I tuned into one of his videos - and then it came, I was hooked.

Paul’s message of non-interventionism in foreign policy and his discussion of blowback really struck me. His recommendations of the books of Robert Pape, Michael Scheuer, and others truly blew me away, as these were authors I had read consistently as well. I did more and more research and truly found that Ron Paul was the only candidate in the history of American politics who truly catered to the values of Arab Americans. I continued my research only to read dozens of Paul’s articles, and read many of his books, to truly find that he is the only candidate I could ever vote for. And now, i’m on board.

Arab Americans who are undecided on Paul should research his message, and they will no doubt be convinced. I have listed the following issues as central to the values of Arab Americans and reasons to support Ron Paul.

(1) Ron Paul is non-interventionist in his foreign policy

Ron Paul opposed the war in Iraq from the start. Paul argued that the reason that the terrorists attacked us on 9/11 was United States oppression of the peoples of the Middle East, a concept called blowback. He is the only candidate to ever run for President in modern times that has supported cutting off all foreign aid to Israel. He wants free-trade with Arab states, and opposes sanctions or war with Iran.

Paul, in his writings, has stated that the only just war is the defensive war. He opposes interventionism and aggression and meddling into the affairs of other nations. He has advocated returning to the views of the founding fathers such as Alexander Hamilton who wrote in the Federalist Papers that the United States would set an example being the first country who would not engage in aggressive wars.

(2) Ron Paul supports the free-market

Arab Americans have long been supporters of the free-market. Living under decades of socialist rule which only led them further into poverty, Arabs immigrated to the United States in search of economic opportunity. Such opportunity has made Arab Americans one of the most successful communities in modern American society. Arab Americans are known as engineers, doctors, lawyers, and businessmen. Paul opposes the tax-and-spend policies of big government. He believes that people have a natural right to the property they earn which the government cannot take away from you. He is the only candidate to have never voted for a tax increase, and he has even opposed taking the congressional pension. A doctor by trade, Paul has himself tasted success in the free-market, and thus opposes the unjust policies of the death tax which destroy the savings which parents work so hard to give to their children.

Paul supports the ideas of the well known Austrian school of economics which argued that the quality of life of all people increased in the free-market. The free-market is the only economic system which leads to products and services being created based upon the needs and desires of the people.

Muslim Americans have a long history supporting free commerce. Muslim scholars such as Ibn Khaldun - the great Muslim jurist, religious scholar, and sociologist - argued in the 14th century that cutting taxes gave the state more wealth, an idea which was propogated by Ronald Reagan who quoted Khaldun many times. Historians tell us that the first stock market existed in Egypt in medieval times - and that the economic situation in the medieval Muslim world could truly be described as a free market. The Prophet Muhammad being a merchant, Muslims have a long tradition supporting commerce and free trade.

(3) Paul supports civil liberties

Ron Paul opposed the PATRIOT act from the start. He has always argued for the importance of civil liberties in a democratic society. Paul is against the government spying on its citizens and the national ID card. He has worked his entire life to ensure liberty was protected in accordance with the American constitution.

(4) Paul supports sound money

Muslim Americans throughout the world have long supported a return to the gold standard. The gold standard, it has been argued, would provide sound money to combat inflation. Malaysia has been instrumental in this, advocating Muslim countries return to the gold standard and share a common currency. Muslims have used the gold standard for centuries - and the gold standard has its roots back in the times of the Prophet Muhammad himself.

(5) Paul has the best plan on health care

Another place where Paul supports the values of Arab and Muslim Americans - which include a large proportion of doctors and nurses - is health care. Ron Paul opposes the fallacy that people have a “right,” to health care - for this right infringes upon the natural right for one to own the property they earn or are given. Paul’s health care plan is actually the only one which will bring down the costs of health care and improve its quality through the vehicle of competition in the free market.

Dr. Paul advocates the return to the “pay per service,” system where everyone would pay out of pocket for all health care expenses. Doctors under this system used to find great advantage in keeping the prices low. Churches and charities would provide health care for the poor. Medicare is a great portion of our current budget, and by being gradually phased out it would decrease the taxes which hamper down American taxpayers. Eliminating government bureaucracy is the only way we can make health care more affordable. The fallacies of socialized medicine only bring up the cost of health care, decrease its quality, and eliminate innovation. It has been the free-market which has been the impetus in making health care better and better, and innovative medicine has saved the lives of millions of people. It is by enhancing such innovation, not decreasing it, that our health care system will continue to be the best in the world. Dr. Paul is the only candidate who has proposed such a plan, which is central to the values of a large portion of Arab Americans who work in medicine.

In conclusion, there has been no candidate who has ever - or perhaps will ever - run for President in the history of the United States who has supported the values of Arab and Muslim Americans so deeply. Ron Paul deserves our support. Major Arab Americans activists have already came out in their support of Dr. Paul, and I urge all of those reading this to spread the word and message to others and get out the vote!

Share This

ANALYSIS-Syria faces subsidy crunch as oil exports drop - Forbes.com

DAMASCUS,
Dec 14 (Reuters) - Syria runs on cheap gas oil but can no longer afford
to subsidise the fuel whose sulphurous fumes pervade the
traffic-clogged streets of Damascus.
State finances are already strained by depleting oil reserves that
turned Syria into a net oil importer this year.
Economists say delays in tackling the subsidy burden when the economy
was in better shape have made the problem worse.
“You cannot put it off indefinitely,” said Nabil Sukkar, managing
director of the Syrian Consulting Bureau. “And now we are losing the
stable macroeconomic framework, unfortunately.”

In the end free-trade and liberalization of markets benefits everybody. But in the beginning there are always hardships in the transition from a centralized and planned economy to free markets. Boris Yeltsin proved this when he attempted to carry out the transition from the USSR’s centrally planned model to the free market model. Such shock therapy as it was called created extreme poverty in Russia, and Russia’s economy still hasn’t reached its peak, however 10 years later there now exists a middle class and foreign direct investment in Russia’s markets.

Unfortunately, foreign direct investment in Syria is still very low. However, things are changing for the better as FDI has increased this year to approximately $600 million. A South African company bought a stake in the Syrian mobile telephone provider Areeba for example.

The liberalization plan seems to be well on its way, however the subsidy problem is going to cause some economic hard times for a period.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This

Arabs love to kill each other. The rest of the world has nothing on us! Or at least we can say Arabs love to bomb each other, when it comes to bombings Arabs excel par excellence. It is very ironic that the top three stories in world news yesterday were -suicide bombings in Algeria, suicide bombings in ‘Ammara in Iraq, and the suicide car bombing of Francois al-Hajj. All Arabs killing Arabs. Yet, at the same time we complain that the media is holding us to a double standard. Perhaps if we weren’t so marred by the mentality of “agree with me or I will bomb you,” the world would actually consider the Arab viewpoint.

I haven’t written anything about the assassination of General Francois al-Hajj of Lebanon because there hasn’t been enough time for analysis yet. However, the best article concerning the situation comes from Robert Fisk in yesterday’s Independent:

When I had dinner with Mr Jumblatt, I made the point that what was terrible about the assassinations was we are beginning to expect them, they are part of our daily life. Every day we are expected to endure an assassination or an attempted assassination, and what is it meant to mean?

Share This

I have blogged about this before, yet more thoughts…

Much of the media is biased, at least according to many definitions of the term. However, people are not as dumb as others give them credit. There are many types of media. The television media is extremely diverse. PBS, CSPAN, al-Jazeera International, and France24 (a new English language television news broadcast) all provide pro-Islamic viewpoints many times and it can often be excessive. On the internet one can easily find thousands of sources of media. There are many leftist sites, socialist sites, paleoconservative sites, and others which provide a pro-Islamic viewpoint. There are dozens of liberal newsmagazines in the United States which provide a viewpoint that is often favorable to Islam - The Nation, Harpers, and Mother Jones just to name a few. When it comes to radio, NPR - available all throughout the country - almost always includes a pro-Islamic speaker when giving an audience to critics. Intellectual journals, such as the New York Review of Books and the Harvard journal “International Security,” often provide pro-Islamic viewpoints that are anti-Israel. And foreign newspapers are available on the internet from every single country for anyone interested to read.

Even in terms of newspaper columnists who write weekly, there are many who are strongly anti-Israel. Pat Buchannan, an American conservative commentator, strongly criticizes Israel, the neoconservatives, and the term “Islamofascism,” in his weekly commentary. Buchanan is also a commentator on MSNBC news everyday and often lets his views be known. Robert Novak is also very anti-Israel. He has stated the fact numerous times whether on CNN’s old “Capitol Gang,” or CSPAN’s “Q&A,” or in his weekly column. Novak appeared weekly on CNN for over 20 years, and has one of the most highly respected newspaper columns in the nation. He is now a weekly pundit on Bloomberg TV.

There are more yet still. Reza Aslan, a Muslim himself who strongly rejects the notion of Muslims being terrorists, is actually the local “Islam expert,” on CNN. Keith Olberman has a daily TV series where he has been extremely critical of anti-Islamic sentiment, numerous times on the show he has called people bigots for supporting the term “Islamofascism,” and even chose David Horowtiz as his “Worst Person in the World,” in his daily “worst person,” segment. CSPAN often airs pro-Islamic and anti-Israel speakers alongside with anti-Islamic and pro-Israel speakers.

Many university professors, and high school educators, make it a point to teach students that there are moderate and good Muslims and that not all Muslims are terrorists. John Esposito, Robert Bulliet, and many others make this point clear. There are many books published in this regard - such as “The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization.”

All of these are cases against the thesis that it is the media’s fault for people’s attitudes towards Islam or the Palestinians. There is significant proof that there is ample media available to show the other side of the story, even in mainstream U.S. television media. Yes, there are channels such as FoxNews which give a conservative perspective - yet remember that the media in the United States was primarily left-leaning until the introduction of FoxNews.

America runs on the ingenious principle of free markets. The more media diversity the better. I think that it is a good thing that there are conservative networks such as Fox, although I highly disagree with their stances. The sheer amount of media which is available to the average American is so much so that they should be able to decide for themselves. I don’t believe people are so stupid so as to be influenced by certain television or radio commentators who say things about Islam. Many of these people only tell people things that they want to hear and are only listened to by people who have already formulated these views.

Although the media is not supposed to “praise or condemn,” people enjoy listening to the opinions of others in society. Plato defined the essence of society as discussion. Many of the people who appear on the media daily are unreasonable and even bigots in their assertions. However, many are not, and there is a wide variety of views represented in all the channels of the media - even the television media. People use discussion to persuade and convince others to support their cause, yet it is up to one to use their own intelligence and reason to support such causes. None are compelled.

We must be honest with ourselves. Not all of the media is FoxNews, and the Weekly Standard. The media I believe does a good job at representing many of the opinions held on many of the issues. However, the one place where diversity in the media, at least on the cable news networks, is the question of Israel - although as aforementioned, many anti-Israel pundits exist and are prominent. The reason why this is the case is not because of “control,” of the media by any one group - but because the Israel lobby attempts to get its point across. Read John Mearsheimer’s “The Israel Lobby,” book about this - he discusses the topic in depth, and concludes that “Jews controlling the media,” is an antisemetic assertion, but that people with pro-Israel opinions in a democracy have attempted to gain clout in much of the mass media. However, often the opposing view comes out as I mentioned previously.

And the pro-Israel crowd has a rights to their views as well. The myth of Jewish control only contributes to the backwordness of the Arab world and the defamation of an entire community. Are we so fearful that we cannot listen to the arguments of our critics? I support peace with Israel, and co-existence. I oppose the hatred and oppression of the Jewish people. Just as I support the rights of the Palestinian people, and oppose the hatred and oppression of them. Yet I shouldn’t force anyone to take my views, and I should support discussion and listening to the other side.

The media will be critical of Islam, and Christianity, and Judaism, and all other religions or ideologies or philosophies, in a free society. Yet, such criticism which we may respond to - and is often responded to within the media, cannot be confused for a “goal of defamation,” as the media often covers events in a positive light to Muslims - such as the Hajj, Eid, Ramadan, and many positive stories on Muslim Americans which exist. I read the newspaper, watch TV news, and read the major newsmagazines everyday and I always see such articles.

And although some of the news media may blatantly attempt to defame Islam - such as perhaps FoxNews and The Weekly Standard - they do it no more so than the Arab media blatantly and racistly attacks Jews. The defamation of the Jewish people on Arab media is atrocious and often full of blatant lies and antisemetic remarks. Anyone familiar with the Arab media knows this. It is also rampant in our communities. Before we tell Americans to be nice to Islam, we shouldn’t say extremely hateful names about Jews within our masjids when nobody is looking.

All I ask is to be fair and to look within. By changing our approach we can do nothing but help ourselves. It is self-criticism which always led to success, and self-righteouness which often led to failure. It was Ibn ‘Ata Allah, the great Muslim, who stated that every good came from being unpleased with oneself. And it was Robert Neihbur, the American protestat theologian, which stated that arrogance and self-righteousness if not coupled with a notion of responsibility to the Divine can lead to immense injustice in American foreign policy.

Until we remove the problems of ethnocentrism and the blame-game we cannot possibly succeed as societies.

Share This

Melancholy Liberalism

Mark Blitz, a professor of political theory and writer for The Weekly Standard the neoconservative weekly news magazine wrote an article published in yesterday’s issue titled Melancholy Liberalism: The virtues of democracy that knows its limitations.

Blitz’s argument is that unlike communism, fascism, and other ideologies - liberal democracy, or democratic capitalism, does not claim to have solved the political problem. Instead people in a democracy recognize it as an imperfect system, and thus he uses the term melancholy liberalism to praise American humbleness which he states is our strength.

[Anderson’s] greatest praise is for those who support democratic capitalism, but reflect on its limits: “It has been a virtue of the richest currents of liberal democratic thought, from James Madison and Alexis de Tocqueville to Irving Kristol and Pierre Manent, to explore bourgeois society’s inherent limitations and failings without losing sight of its basic decency and relative justness.”The modest awareness of imperfection that shapes this “melancholy liberalism” contrasts with “the hubris of the secular religions,” such as communism, that believed “they had solved the ‘political problem.’”

The article is interesting and very well done, and although in a newsmagazine I am strongly opposed to, had many very strong arguments. But I have a number of problems with it. First, Blitz’s listing of democracy’s imperfection are not the standard arguments made against democracy. Instead of egalitarianism, I would state that the lack of egalitarianism is an aspect of democracy many disagree with. Another the overall weakness of the article is that “perfect,” and “imperfect,” are subjective terms when dealing with political systems. Political theory being a normative discipline, that is concerned with how government should be it is subjective by nature. Secondly, the flaws of democracy which Blitz points out are very minor, and hardly strong enough to be called “melancholy.”

Yet I believe there is yet another issue. The overall weakness of this article defines neonconservatism at its core. It is almost oxymornic, and extremely ironic, that Blitz uses the weaknesses of liberal democracy as a case for American humbleness and thus further feeds into the myth of the superiority of the American democratic system. Although many have acknowledged that democracy is not a perfect system, it is still - according to the subjective views of a great majority of people at least - the best rational system constructed.

However, American arrogance is what can get the best of us. It was Athenian pride and self-righteousness of the same nature which eventually led to one of the greatest massacres of the Spartans at Melos. Robert Neihbur also writes of this - stating that the American assumption that it is carrying out God’s will must be checked by a concept of American accountability to God or it will create great injustice. While we may rightfully point out our strengths as a liberal democracy - humbleness is not one of them.

I do not buy this concept of melancholly liberalism. The United States does, just as Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany did, believe that its system is perfect or at least almost perfect, the best system in existence and superior to all others. The United States does believe that we have solved the political problem. One only has to look back to John Burgess, the founder of American political science, and a student of Hegel himself, who believed that no system was more superior to liberalism on the earth, and thus the era of political theory was over - although he did accept the Aristotelian proposition that monarchies and aristocracies which rule on behalf of the people were also good forms of government. We have already evolved to the level of the greatest system, was Hegel and Burgess’ arguments. Since the early American days of pastor John Winthrop have Americans coupled this concept with the belief that they were a people blessed by God and carrying out His mission.

Melancholly liberalism does not exist and is not our strength. Our weakness comes from our arrogance and self-righteousness which can lead to injustice. Yet our strength comes from liberalism itself. One of my main qualms with the neoconservatives is that like the American political theorists who came in the 20th century and attacked liberal democracy, I believe that many of them also hold the belief that democracy is in essence flawed. Irving Kristol once remarked “Do we have nothing higher to offer the world?” The tragedy of it all, to many neoconservatives, is that although liberalism is the best system in the world it has many flaws and thus the best we can do is very melancholly.

However, I do not believe this is the case with the vast majority of people who have enjoyed the blessings of freedom and natural rights which have been granted to us by God. John Locke based his arguments on natural rights from Biblical passages, however I would state that it could also be applied to Islam. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition grants one certain natural rights by God, and the success of the liberal democratic system is the implementation of such rights. Yes, it is not the perfect system, nor is it divinely inspires, nor a theocratic government. This is not what I am trying to imply. Yet, when the State protects the rights that God has granted humanity it will be rooted in strength.

I do believe in the greatness of liberalism, as well as the greatness of other systems which protect natural rights. Neoconservatives such as Blitz lead to our weakness when they ignore the most fundamental flaw of all in liberalism. The flaw which dampens our system the most is our hubris. The same hubris which can be a force for evil in our foreign policy. Our country is the greatest country in the world at the moment, yet our fall from grace may be from imposing our system. Political theory, being based in subjectivity, should not be subjectively imposed in a standard manner on others. Yes, we should support the preservation of God-given natural rights, yet not while violating the natural rights of others ourselves.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This

Some international relations scholars have been arguing for the past half decade that the world will soon see an end to the post-Cold War era’s unipolar international system. Many of these scholars have argued that a second bloc was forming which would probably consist of China - and argued that China’s liberalization would not lead to its integration with the international system. A good example of these arguments are in Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, and John J. Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Are they right? Only time will tell.

However, ecent years have seen a Iran-Venezuela-Syria axis form with economic and military aid, at least to Syria and Iran, from Russia. Now China is closing in on the deal with a two billion dollar oil contract with Iran. Economic liberalization and trading partners will make Iran wealthier, yet it remains to be seen whether this liberalization can pull it into the major Westernized democratic capitalist bloc. This differentiation of was termed the “core,” (or liberalized democracies) and the “gap,” (autocracies with centrally planned economies) by Thomas Barnett in his work The Pentagon’s New Map.

This is an interesting question to explore, whether liberalization will only lead to powers balancing against the strong - or will integrate them into the system.

Iran, China finalise two billion dollar oil contract - Yahoo! News

“The signing shows that there is no lack of investment in Iran and we are solidifying our economic relations with China more,” said Nozari.”The second message is that if other countries are willing to invest in the big oil and gas fields of Iran they should not lose the opportunity,” he added, in an apparent warning to any dithering Western firms.

The deal is one of the biggest foreign energy contracts ever signed by Iran, which holds the world’s second-largest oil and gas reserves and is seeking development of its oil fields.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This

The Kagan family is a very intellectual and influential family. Donald, Fredrick, Robert, and Kimberly Kagan — all related — are major academics in terms of U.S. foreign policy, international relations, and history. The Washington Post reported that it was one of the Kagan’s who created the surge strategy we are seeing in Iraq today. Although of a neoconservative persuasion which I strongly dislike and disagree with, the Kagan family is surely a source to be benefited from in terms of knowledge.

Thus, I was extremely pleased last night to see Kimberly Kagan on CSPAN’s Q&A. Kagan spoke of military policy, and history, the Iraq war, and many other topics. The transcript is worth a read.

Q & A

KIM KAGAN, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF WAR: I’m a military analyst and a military historian. I am the President of the Institute for the Study of War which is a non-partisan think tank here in Washington, D.C., that aims to educate civilians and civilian policymakers in particular about military affairs, military policy, and the ongoing operations that they have to encounter and wrestle with in their decision-making here in Washington.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This

Larry Kudlow, host of Kudlow and Company on CNBC, is a very intelligent man. He had a very well written blog entry on Tuesday concerning the failure of the spread of the centrally planned economic system throughout the world.

History has shown the opposite of what Karl Marx said to be true. Instead of “the peasants rising up against the exploiting rich,” the entire world has seen that - quite simply - the socialist planned market model does not work. Command economy has been an abysmal failure, and even in the sense of “social justice,” it fails - by making the populace poorer, with higher rates of inflation, and massive deficits.

Instead of peasants and “the working class,” rising up against the bourgeois, they have joined forces with them. The free-market economic model has spread throughout the world giving a rise in standards of living throughout the world. The more people see the benefits of free-trade, whether domestically or internationally, they participate more. Even those inclined to some sort of “social justice,” in the economy adopt Keynesian economic models, or mixed economy welfare states because of the failure of the socialist system.

Free trade gives more opportunity for all, it makes prices cheaper, and creates better and more innovative products - based upon the needs and wants of the populace - which improve the life of the entire populace. Ludwig von Mises made this point decades ago in Human Action, when he stated that free-market economics have improved the quality of life of the poor tremendously - just look at us now compared to 100 years ago.

The best system in helping the poor is not to force others to be taxed extensively, create extensive government bureaucracy, inflate money while curbing unemployment. And most of the world has understood this - whether democracies or autocracies. Free-market economies are growing, free-trade is increasing, product price is decreasing, innovation is increasing, and global economic opportunity is at its peak.

Kudlow’s Money Politic$: Twenty-Five Years of Prosperity (and more to come)

Across the globe, free market capitalism has been triumphant over the socialist-planning model. Karl Marx was wrong; Milton Friedman was right. Put another way, the central planning model did not work whereas the free market model did. Over the past two and a half decades, the capitalist model has spread like wildfire around the world, and it shows no sign of pulling back. In China, India, Eastern Europe, and Russia, however imperfectly, the newfound principles of free-market capitalism, economic opportunity, and “liberalism” in the traditional sense of that word are being applied and working beautifully.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This

Mises Blog: Answering a Highschooler’s Questions on Intellectual Property

I was reading the Mises blog today, from the Ludwig von Mises institute, a think-tank for the Austrian school of economics, as well as some Libertarian political ideas, and I came across this wonderful article by Stephen Kinsella. Kinsella is famous for his 2001 article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is a Libertarian lawyer from Arizona. While I don’t always see eye-to-eye with Libertarians, their views on foreign policy and economics are superb.

Kinsella shows the no. 1 tragedy with regards to so-called intellectual “property. He discusses John Locke’s argument of “first use,” which rationally establishes the right to private property, and in essence clarifies why intellectual “property,” cannot truly be defined as property in the truest sense. Defining it as property infringes on the property rights of others, as Kinsella explains:

So, in short, the problem with patent and copyright is that it amounts to theft of rights to scarce resources.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This