Is this Palmer?

Or just some other loser?

On the campaign to delete my entry on Wikipedia, one JStrummer--who as far as I can see logged on just a few days ago to Wiki and started vandalizing the entries for Lew Rockwell and the Mises Insitute--this dude says things that make me suspect he is either Palmer, or one of Palmer's cronies.  Here is the exchange so far:

• Delete My original vote was deleted from this page. This is a vanity page, and Kinsella admits he wrote it himself. If you delete it, he's going to repost it as Stephan Kinsella 3, anyway. But it should be deleted anyway. Also, nearly all of the "keep" votes are sockpuppetish, or, I suspect, people on mailing lists that Stephan Kinsella has urged to vote for him. Virtually no libertarian knows who this guy is, except for a small band of people in Alabama. He's not cited in any serious academic articles. He's not published in any serious academic journals. He's just some lawyer guy who has a gigantic ego and a lot of free time to play around on the internet. Look how many times he comments on others' votes. Does this seem like the work of a leading intellectual, or a crackpot looking for net.notoriety? Jstrummer.

• I am unaware of any delete of any votes; I certainly did not do this. There are not sockpuppets as far as I know. You are wrong about other libertarians not knowing me. This is just factually incorrect. You have not seen the correspondence I have gotten over the years from all over the states and increasingly, from around the world, as more of my articles get translated. I have published in serious academic journals. This is not boasting. It is just a fact and a correction of your misstatement. You are also wrong about my ego being gigantic. You are wrong, and do not know me. My ego is normal sized. Stephan Kinsella 02:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Stephan: I have been in the mainstream libertarian movement for 10 years. I've met every notable libertarian academic in the U.S., and many foreign ones. I have also met you. I have met and had discussions with nearly every important libertarian legal theorist from Epstein, to Posner, to Volokh, to Barnett, to Post, and so on. Not once has your name been mentioned by ANY one of them, even when we've talked about IP law. It's very likely that not ONE of them knows who you are, although I wouldn't know for sure since your name doesn't come up. You are not cited by them. You are not invited to conferences hosted by or attended by them. You haven't taught at any particularly impressive schools, or published in any respectable academic journals. You may be a fine practicing attorney - I would not know - but you do not qualify as a libertarian thinker, if by you mean "taken seriously by others." What's more, my vote was deleted. And that's annoying. Jstrummer.

Notice the dimwit-Serioso use of "respectable academic journals" and "serious academic journals," combined with citing, ummm, Richard Posner as a libertarian legal theorist. Richard Posner, ladies and gentleman. You know, the this one (2). Yeah. REAL libertarian.

And he modified Lew's blog to replace "libertarian" with "paleolibertarian," and deleted reference to Lew's site being "widely read". Gee, I wonder, who does this sound like? Ha ha. LOSER. Palmer or his cronies, I guess.

He also cites Epstein, Post, Volokh, and Barnett as libertarian legal theorists who have never heard of me. First--so what? Who claimed they did? Now, Epstein is brilliant and a fellow traveler, but if he is libertarian, it is only by a generous stretching of the definition.

What about Professors (David) Post and Eugene Volokh? As far as I know they are fine men and professors. But particularly well known as or productive in the field of libertarian scholarship? Browse their sites; where is there a real, hardcore libertarian analysis or theory? I am not asking this merely rhetorically; if there is one, I would be curious to see it. From skimming, e.g., this article by Post, he expresses sympathy with a (sort of) libertarianism, but does not seem to adopt it. Our Cato denizen making the charges does not seem to realize that a law-professor "libertarian" is not necessarily what we, ahh, real libertarians, mean by the word. But then I suppose our Jstrummer also takes, say, Bill Maher at his word that he "is a libertarian."

Now of the ones Jstrummer mentioned, Barnett is of course a libertarian, probably the most influential, productive, and best overall libertarian legal mind around. We have known each other. I respect him greatly.

Look, I have never claimed to be famous. Nor even notable. Nor is that my goal.  My goal is a humble one: to understand as much as I can, and to clarify and develop some issues and solutions in my own mind. And to write them down, when and if and to the extent I am able to do this. So I gradually add to my corpus of legal writings. I do not claim it to be revolutionary; nor do I think it is. In any event, that is for others to decide. I have gotten most attention for policy/theory writing on my field of legal specialty, intellectual property, though it is not my first love, nor even a serious interest. Rights theory interests me most. But it is not about me. The purpose of my Wiki entry was not for ego reasons, but for other reasons. It was more of an experiment than anything else. My websites are enough for me; they make my writing easily accessible to me, and to anyone who wants to read it. That's my main goal. People ask me to cross-link or tell me ways to increase traffic to my websites; but I don't care. So these charges of ego are silly. In fact I hate when these things become "about me", because it's not, and I don't care.

So it is not too damning to say that some legal theorists don't cite my work. Well, this is esepcially true of mainstreamers like Post and Volokh. They do not care (as far as I know) about radical, anarcho-capitalist, libertarian theory, e.g. on rights theory etc. Why would they cite a libertarian? I made a conscious choice to do what I have done, and don't regret it. I realize true, principled libertarian theory is marginalized. Sure.  What idiot would expect it to be cited in the mainstream press if he is doing such work? I recognize my lowly place in the pantheon. So what? I am happy to trudge along, making small advance (in my mind) for the benefit of just a few who are interested. I have never even hoped for more. This realism is perhaps one reason I have not been deluded by the incessant compromising to help win the current battle, in futile hopes of winning the war for liberty. Being a sell-out is not worth it. Better to just be a political agnostic.

Is