Stewart; I guess I just hope that anyone who calls himself a philosopher, and who doesn't have any vocation besides the pursuit of philosophy, would be familiar with at least a good amount of the literature relevant to his field.

NonEntity, I don't want to get "anarcho-capitalist" confused with "libertarian." Anarcho-capitalism, fully developed, involves a number of specific concepts about how a stateless society will likely function. For a paradigm example, the concept of a "protection agency" is one which is distinctively anarcho-capitalistic, and is visible in Stefan's thinking. There are ways in which a society can be voluntaristic and respectful of individuals' rights without having the features envisioned by the anarcho-capitalists. The fact that those features are present in Stefan's views suggests to me that his ideas come from past anarcho-capitalist thinkers.

I think Stef has a masters in philosophy. Not sure what subject though. His thesis was on religious thinkers in some way if memory serves me. I think it was comparing different religous philosophies and how they hmn hmn hmn.
I read it once. I think if you bought his novel he would throw in his thesis.

The comparisons between Stef and Rand are really spot on. His initial work is very general and somewhat vague. He starts with fiction and focuses on delivering an inspiring message rather than a rigorous philisophy. He then branches out into non-fiction but mostly attacks other systems of beliefs rather than building up his own. He focuses his attacks most on those groups he has the most in common with, thereby discouraging his followers from seeking other sources of information. Over time he patchworks together a comprehensive philosophy and uses ever more rigid interpretations of that philosophy to place more and more demands on his followers personal lives. This weeds out many of the free thinkers and leaves behind a close knit group that becomes an inner circle of sorts. The inner circle (and anyone desiring to join the inner circle) is encouraged to challenge all friends and family with their philosophy and if these people resist they are to be disowened for irrationality. If the followers do not do this (isolate themselves and put complete trust in the leader) they are chastized by leader and/or excommunicated.

Stef has recreated, almost exactly step by step, the path that objectivism took. That Stef acknowledges Rand as his main influence, leads me to belief that he could not be ignorant of the parallels. It almost seems to me that Stef must have actively modeled himself after Rand in order for the comparison to fit so perfectly.

I know that sounds like crazy conspiracy talk (which I despise) but all the evidence points me to that conclusion.

Interesting that I was led to believe his masters was in philosophy. I don't think I created that in my head. I think I was led to believe it. Its just a memory now and can't say.

I think he's tried to blur his credentials

"I've got a Masters in History"

"I've studied the History of Ideas"

"I've studied other peoples' philosophy"

"I've got a Master in the History of Philosophy"

"I've got a Masters in Philosophy"

"I am king shit of Fuck mountain! Fuck mountain being of course philosophy mountain!

I'm sure he's said all but the last one in order.

Yea...Stefan most certainly does not have a masters in philosophy, or even a bachelor's.

I agree that his lack of citations is a problem; I won't begin to defend him on that.

Static, I hope that you're wrong about Stefan wanting to be like Rand. I can understand why he would want to be like her, in that Stefan's stated goal is to move the world away from bad ideas and towards better ones -- a task that Ayn Rand was successful in achieving in spite of all of her shortcomings as a philosopher. But Stefan is no Ayn Rand, and attempting to follow her path would only make that painfully clear. Stefan's fiction has not inspired a generation of idealistic youths, and he is not living at a time in which the ideas he's advancing are still young and developing.

When Ayn Rand wrote her most important non-fiction works, the libertarian movement was still in its infancy. The Austrian thinkers had not yet made significant forays into the world of political philosophy, and Anarchy, State, and Utopia had not yet been conceived. Rand's ideas were flawed and underdeveloped, but the reasons that they were flawed and underdeveloped were not readily available to her [from people who shared her basic views]. Stefan does not have that excuse, and if he is simply ignoring what others have said and are saying now, then that's just ridiculous. I guess I can only hope that that isn't the truth of the matter.

Well if it's true that Stefan simply doesn't pay attention, then there's no excuse. I've been seriously studying philosophy for only about three years, and I think I've managed a decent enough grasp on things to be able to speak confidently on most subjects within the area of libertarian political philosophy. I certainly haven't read everything, and I probably never will. But I'm at least familiar with what many of the important figures have had to say. If I've been able to manage that in three years while taking a full college course load (admittedly, probably a third of my credits have been in areas that have strengthened my understanding of libertarian thought) and maintaining an active social life, then it's simply inexcusable that Stefan would not take it upon himself to do the same.

That's especially true in light of all the fantastic opportunities there are every summer to attend seminars across the country to learn about libertarian thought. I know I can't wait for the opportunity to attend the seminars at FEE this summer during my internship, and I fully expect to come out of the experience with a set of ideas that I had never even considered before. The sort of incestuousness of thought that comes with isolating oneself to one's own opinions is completely indefensible in today's learning environment. If Stefan doesn't see that, then that's his loss.

On the issue of graduate study in philosophy, I'd point out that most of the better programs don't offer a terminal masters degree; it's a pretty PhD-driven discipline. But I don't know that a masters would involve less study than an undergraduate degree; there aren't any general education requirements for masters students, and graduate-level courses are typically more difficult than undergraduate courses. I don't think I'd take any masters philosophy student lightly, even if she hadn't majored in philosophy as an undergrad.