Do you actively listen to FDR (Freedomain Radio, Stefan Molyneux) ?

[Reason]

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Podcasts.aspx

I can now say that Stefan Molyneux has contributed more to my understanding of the world than Ron Paul...

Stefan Molyneux was recently named one of the Top 10 Most Influential People in the Alternative Media:
"Stefan Molyneux may be perhaps the most eloquent "red pill" in the alternative media.

A self-described philosopher, Molyneux has a strong knowledge of history and a core compass reading of freedom and non-violence.

Who is Stefan Molyneux?

The John Galt of our generation?

He hosts a popular radio broadcast on his FreedomainRadio; his Youtube uploads have been viewed over 6 million times on his channel alone, and his site claims over 25 million downloads making his ideas the "largest and most popular philosophical conversation in the world."

His articles can be seen on mega-sites like Lew Rockwell and others; he has published several books on the philosophy of liberty and non-violence (many of which are offered FREE from his site) and how they apply in today's world, and he is a frequent guest on RT's Adam Vs. The Man and the Keiser Report.

Despite his overwhelming knowledge of the corrupt system, Molyneux always remains optimistic in his presentation, which is quite refreshing among all the doom-and-gloom.

We expect Molyneux to end up as one of the most important voices of our time."

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Podcasts.aspx

[FrankRep]

I don't agree with his "Don't Vote" and "Don't get politically active" views.

[Reason]

I don't agree with his "Don't Vote" and "Don't get politically active" views.

Do you understand why people take such a position?

[FrankRep]

I don't agree with his "Don't Vote" and "Don't get politically active" views.

Do you understand why people take such a position?
I wish more Liberals and Democrats would take that position. lol.

[Reason]

I wish more Liberals and Democrats would take that position. lol.

You didn't answer the question Frank :)

[PaulConventionWV]

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Podcasts.aspx

I can now say that Stefan Molyneux has contributed more to my understanding of the world than Ron Paul...

Stefan Molyneux was recently named one of the Top 10 Most Influential People in the Alternative Media:
"Stefan Molyneux may be perhaps the most eloquent "red pill" in the alternative media.

A self-described philosopher, Molyneux has a strong knowledge of history and a core compass reading of freedom and non-violence.

Who is Stefan Molyneux?

The John Galt of our generation?

He hosts a popular radio broadcast on his FreedomainRadio; his Youtube uploads have been viewed over 6 million times on his channel alone, and his site claims over 25 million downloads making his ideas the "largest and most popular philosophical conversation in the world."

His articles can be seen on mega-sites like Lew Rockwell and others; he has published several books on the philosophy of liberty and non-violence (many of which are offered FREE from his site) and how they apply in today's world, and he is a frequent guest on RT's Adam Vs. The Man and the Keiser Report.

Despite his overwhelming knowledge of the corrupt system, Molyneux always remains optimistic in his presentation, which is quite refreshing among all the doom-and-gloom.

We expect Molyneux to end up as one of the most important voices of our time."

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Podcasts.aspx

Stefan Molyneux is full of himself. He's a pompous ass. Also, some of his views are really quite questionable when you think about it. He is rabidly anti-religious and mistakenly believes it is the bane of a free society. Anyone who is at least a little open-minded doesn't collectivize religion like that and deny it can serve any good purpose. That's the hallmark of an arrogant, single-minded atheist: They think they are the most open-minded people because they shun those who view the world differently, ironically accusing them of being closed-minded bigots.

[I<3Liberty]

I listen to Stefan's videos... sometimes.

Yes, he's atheist and very upfront about it. I'm Christian and while I feel he makes a lot of generalizations about religion -- he has some thoughtful insight on other topics.

[bolil]

Stefan Molyneux is full of himself. He's a pompous ass. Also, some of his views are really quite questionable when you think about it. He is rabidly anti-religious and mistakenly believes it is the bane of a free society. Anyone who is at least a little open-minded doesn't collectivize religion like that and deny it can serve any good purpose. That's the hallmark of an arrogant, single-minded atheist: They think they are the most open-minded people because they shun those who view the world differently, ironically accusing them of being closed-minded bigots.

He might come off that way, but actually he is just linguistically brilliant. A pompous ass that released troves of information for free? I have not consumed all of his philosophy, but in what I have he has never come across as 'rabidly' anti religion. I don't know where you get single minded from, perhaps you should do some you tubing. From what I understand, Mr. Molyneux simply has an issue with any belief system dictating to society what is deviant and what is acceptable. Religion, hate to say it, is foremost in doing so.

[jclay2]

I like Stefan. He gets a little arrogant sometimes, but I have almost never not enjoyed listening to his rants about the state.

[Debbie Downer]

Hell no.

[BuddyRey]

No, I almost never listen to Molyneux. I'm a voluntaryist and everything, but I find his personality very abrasive and obnoxious (makes Kokesh seem almost cuddly by comparison, IMO).

[compromise]

He hates Ron Paul, 'nuff said.

[Reason]

He hates Ron Paul, 'nuff said.

Wow, not accurate at all...

[PaulConventionWV]

He might come off that way, but actually he is just linguistically brilliant. A pompous ass that released troves of information for free? I have not consumed all of his philosophy, but in what I have he has never come across as 'rabidly' anti religion. I don't know where you get single minded from, perhaps you should do some you tubing. From what I understand, Mr. Molyneux simply has an issue with any belief system dictating to society what is deviant and what is acceptable. Religion, hate to say it, is foremost in doing so.

That's the problem. This "anything goes" philosophy only applies to secularism in his view. He has an issue with any belief system dictating what is deviant and what is acceptable, and yet he holds such a view. He believes aggression is wrong, doesn't he? The non-aggression principle is part of a belief system dictating to society what is deviant and what is acceptable.

Yet, he shuns others who may have different moral belief systems just because they are based on the idea of a diety or an absolute moral standard. How can he criticize others when his own belief system is just as arbitrary as any other? He arbitrarily believes his belief system is superior simply because he has it ingrained in his head that he knows all the answers and takes no account of where the answers came from. Sure, maybe the NAP is the best, but denying that the NAP has any religious implications is to deny that there is any higher authority than man's mind, and he puts his mind over any man's, making him the sole moral authority in his own world.

It's not just his arrogance. He's a cultist who believes he is superior to others. He's a cultist just like Ayn Rand was.

[PaulConventionWV]

No, I almost never listen to Molyneux. I'm a voluntaryist and everything, but I find his personality very abrasive and obnoxious (makes Kokesh seem almost cuddly by comparison, IMO).

I wish people would stop saying voluntaryist. It's voluntarist.

[Reason]

That's the problem. This "anything goes" philosophy only applies to secularism in his view. He has an issue with any belief system dictating what is deviant and what is acceptable, and yet he holds such a view. He believes aggression is wrong, doesn't he? The non-aggression principle is part of a belief system dictating to society what is deviant and what is acceptable.

Yet, he shuns others who may have different moral belief systems just because they are based on the idea of a diety or an absolute moral standard. How can he criticize others when his own belief system is just as arbitrary as any other?

http://fdrurl.com/UPBAudio

[heavenlyboy34]

Once in a while. Sometimes he has some good insights, and he interviews interesting people without being rude to them. I notice people here have mentioned his hard atheism as a turn off. I agree, but to be fair he has also spoken favorably of the Catholic Scholastics and certain other religious philosophers. If he were more open-minded and thoughtful I would probably think more highly of him.

btw, I find much of his psycho-babble silly and not based in real psychology.

[heavenlyboy34]

I wish people would stop saying voluntaryist. It's voluntarist.
No, it's Voluntaryist. It's a political philosophy, whereas voluntarism refers to general voluntary behavior.

Here is a copy of The Voluntaryist newsletter (1997) http://www.voluntaryist.com/backissues/085.pdf

Wiki info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

[heavenlyboy34]

He hates Ron Paul, 'nuff said.
No he doesn't. He disagrees with RP on very specific things.

[Reason]

No he doesn't. He disagrees with RP on very specific things.

This is my understanding as well.

[ReasonableThinker]

I don't like the poll options ("yet") so I'm not voting. But no, I don't listen at all. Any anarcho-capitalist, or any stateless society for that matter, would easily be defeated through espionage, monopoly control of finite resources, or a foreign military force. No State is there to control society's morality, culture, or stop unfavorable business practices. Not sure what to think about his atheism, since he never really debates any serious theist philosophers.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't like the poll options ("yet") so I'm not voting. But no, I don't listen at all. Any anarcho-capitalist, or any stateless society for that matter, would easily be defeated through espionage, monopoly control of finite resources, or a foreign military force. No State is there to control society's morality, culture, or stop unfavorable business practices. Not sure what to think about his atheism, since he never really debates any serious theist philosophers.
This has already been addressed a million times on these forums and by Stef. Unless you have an original argument or counter-argument, posts like this are a waste of your (and everyone's) time.

[Reason]

I don't like the poll options ("yet") so I'm not voting. But no, I don't listen at all. Any anarcho-capitalist, or any stateless society for that matter, would easily be defeated through espionage, monopoly control of finite resources, or a foreign military force. No State is there to control society's morality, culture, or stop unfavorable business practices. Not sure what to think about his atheism, since he never really debates any serious theist philosophers.

What books have you read that explain how a stateless society would work?

[ReasonableThinker]

I've read Molyneux's books before, Spooner's material, and listened to anarchists on youtube (Xomniverse, Aaron, Fringe, Alex, etc..) for years now. I've heard of Molyneux's theories on how any new State would not originate, and how war would be prevented. They simply wouldn't work in real life, way too simplistic, way too many variable he hasn't even mentioned.

[Reason]

I've read Molyneux's books before, Spooner's material, and listened to anarchists on youtube (Xomniverse, Aaron, Fringe, Alex, etc..) for years now. I've heard of Molyneux's theories on how any new State would not originate, and how war would be prevented. They simply wouldn't work in real life, way too simplistic, way too many variable he hasn't even mentioned.



Life without government? Really? Here's how it works - and why it is so crucial!
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FreedomainRadio/~3/w9yFCze2aZY/stateless_society_take_2_320.mp3 (http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/FreedomainRadio/%7E3/w9yFCze2aZY/stateless_society_take_2_320.mp3)

I know all about Stateless political theory. The fact is the vast majority of human conquest has been centralized States over decentralized areas. Rome Vs. Gaul. Rome vs. Britons. Islamic conquests of Arabia and Berber Africa, European conquest of the amerindians. There's too much wrong with statelessness to get into all of it, but the military example is one of the crucial points. What is needed is authoritarian aristocracy. Such as Fascism or Monarchism.

You're on a Ron Paul forum advocating for Fascism or Monarchism? O.o

[FallOfTheWest]

I don't agree with his complete anarchy views, but he does explain things like free markets, religion, and history etc. very well and clear.

Also, his accent is pretty awesome. I don't know why. Sometimes it sounds more British-like and sometimes more American. Very unique

[heavenlyboy34]

You're on a Ron Paul forum advocating for Fascism or Monarchism? O.o
Hoppe would agree that Monarchism is less bad (as opposed to "good") than republicanism or democracy-and I do too.

[Debbie Downer]

Hoppe would agree that Monarchism is less bad (as opposed to "good") than republicanism or democracy-and I do too.

Hoppe argued that monarchism is less bad in the short and medium term than a democracy, but that in the end they are both shit. He didn't compare monarchism to republicanism.

[Reason]

//bump//

[Christian Liberty]

Regarding non-voting and such, if I understand correctly the idea is that to vote is to consent to the system. A position which Rothbard quite rationally debunks.

I don't say you should just vote for anyone who comes your way, but frankly, if you won't vote for Ron Paul, you're an idiot, period. IIRC Stephan Mollineux didn't support Ron at all, and IIRC one of his reasons was "He doesn't believe in evolution."

Apparently he also believes in "Peaceful Parenting." Personally, I don't think the non-aggression principle should apply to parents and their children, but that's just me. I don't see that as in any way similar to the relationship between the state and its subjects. One of my biggest problem with the State, other than that it kills people of course, is that it treats adults like they're children.

I'm not an anarchist either, but that's a lesser issue.

For all that, he probably says a lot of good things, but I'm not crazy about my first impression just from that.

[Reason]

Regarding non-voting and such, if I understand correctly the idea is that to vote is to consent to the system. A position which Rothbard quite rationally debunks.

My understanding is that his reasoning on why voting is not worthwhile is from more of an econ standpoint.

ie: If you're more likely to die in a car crash driving to a polling station than influence the outcome of the election...

I also don't think that he cares if you want to go vote for Ron Paul etc. He just doesn't see it as accomplishing anything...

ie: Why waste your time voting for your local libertarian candidate who WILL NOT WIN when you could spend your time with your children etc

An analysis of opportunity cost mostly.

[FrankRep]

My understanding is that his reasoning on why voting is not worthwhile is from more of an econ standpoint.

ie: If you're more likely to die in a car crash driving to a polling station than influence the outcome of the election.

If he had his way, Ron Paul and Rand Paul would not be in office.

[Reason]

If he had his way, Ron Paul and Rand Paul would not be in office.

If he had his way there wouldn't be an office to be in.

[heavenlyboy34]

Hoppe argued that monarchism is less bad in the short and medium term than a democracy, but that in the end they are both shit. He didn't compare monarchism to republicanism.
Republicanism falls under his definition of democracy. The election of representatives is, after all, democratic. Besides, most of the legal and theoretical safeguards against democracy are gone now. You really wouldn't want to live in a republic generally if you're concerned with liberty. Weimar and Soviet Russia were republics, after all.

[Occam's Banana]

If he had his way, Ron Paul and Rand Paul would not be in office.

If he had his way, no one else would, either ...

[FrankRep]

If he had his way there wouldn't be an office to be in.

Yet he only targets the liberty movement and tells them not to vote. Democrat/Progressives treat voting like a religious duty.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yet he only targets the liberty movement and tells them not to vote. Democrat/Progressives treat voting like a religious duty.
Since when? I've only heard him suggest not voting in the broadest sense. (that is, no one voting at all)

[Christian Liberty]

My understanding is that his reasoning on why voting is not worthwhile is from more of an econ standpoint.

ie: If you're more likely to die in a car crash driving to a polling station than influence the outcome of the election...

I also don't think that he cares if you want to go vote for Ron Paul etc. He just doesn't see it as accomplishing anything...

ie: Why waste your time voting for your local libertarian candidate who WILL NOT WIN when you could spend your time with your children etc

An analysis of opportunity cost mostly.

When you're talking about voting for crap over slightly worse crap, I agree.

But if you aren't voting for a real libertarian, you are part of the problem. The bottom line is that if enough people voted with conviction, Ron Paul would be President right now. I don't give a crap about his pathetic excuses for not doing so.

If you can't vote for someone on principle, that's one thing. I can understand why some people have issues with Rand Paul (Even though I would vote for him), and Ted Cruz actually is too much of a compromise for me. Everyone has their line in the sand. Its the unwillingness to vote under ANY circumstance that irks me. I'm fine with his anarcho-capitalism, I don't agree, but I can understand it. But to refuse to vote for a principled minarchist on miniscule issues or, worse, "Opportunity Cost" (The ethical system of utilitarians, not libertarians*) is just ridiculous. I can understand if you can't vote for an otherwise good candidate because of a substantial issue like foreign policy or the war on drugs, but on anarchist theory? I guess I just feel like that's ridiculous. I can't even imagine an anarcho-capitalist actually running the country any differently than Ron Paul, even if he did have a slightly different view as to the theoretical endgame.

In short, I'm sticking with my statement. If Ron Paul was the Republican candidate, and libertarians listened to this moron, Obama would be in office again. Now, I get that that sounds like the scaremongering used by Mitt drones, but a person who can't see the difference between Ron Paul and Romney in this regard isn't worth my time to begin with.

I consider the absolute "Lesser of two evils" people to be just as dumb as the "Don't vote ever" people...


If he had his way, Ron Paul and Rand Paul would not be in office.

I'm glad Rand is where he is, but I do have a few issues with him, and wouldn't absolutely discredit someone for not voting for Rand because of those substantial issues. His foreign policy isn't quite what Ron Paul's is, and he doesn't want to legalize drugs. That said, I still do support him, and I do think libertarians should support him, but as he's not a libertarian himself (At least not openly), I can understand having a strict enough line in the sand that counts Rand out. Even still, people who do that should still be glad that Rand has that particular senate seat rather than another Lindsey Graham or something.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a perfectly principled candidate, and the only things I disagree with him on are minor issues that really just aren't that big a deal. The biggest disagreement I have with him is the one we don't have real control over anyway, and that is how quickly to implement libertarianism (Ron Paul wants to phase things out, I want to get rid of the bad things as quickly as possible, but am aware of the ugly consequences of that stance). To not vote for a candiadate because of tiny issues I consider to be stupid, and the mark of an unintelligent strategist. To not trust Ron Paul I would also view as dumb.

If he had his way there wouldn't be an office to be in.

That's a great ideal, but let's live in the real world. I think roads should be privatized but I'm not going to refuse to pull over a reckless driver just because government shouldn't own the roads. I think schools should be privatized but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to put any effort into making the public schools contain as little indoctrination and as much good edcuation as I can just because my ideal is privatization. I think taxes should be at 5% or less but if there was a bill to set a flat tax rate of 10%, I'd still support it as long as there weren't any drawbacks, exc.

I'll admit I'm not an anarchist. So my end goal isn't a 100% stateless society. However, even if that is your goal, you should be willing to take steps to get closer to that. The reality is, the offices exist so getting good people into them is the best you can do.


Republicanism falls under his definition of democracy. The election of representatives is, after all, democratic. Besides, most of the legal and theoretical safeguards against democracy are gone now. You really wouldn't want to live in a republic generally if you're concerned with liberty. Weimar and Soviet Russia were republics, after all.

The American Republic =/= the Soviet one. I get that we're more of an empire now but we didn't start that way.


This has already been addressed a million times on these forums and by Stef. Unless you have an original argument or counter-argument, posts like this are a waste of your (and everyone's) time.

That its been answered doesn't necessarily mean we agree with the answers or that they are workable.


You're on a Ron Paul forum advocating for Fascism or Monarchism? O.o

Monarchism itself is actually decent in theory. I'd argue it breaks apaart in practice, but in theory, a monarchist minarchy could work. Not all of us are anarchists and neither is Ron.

Fascism, on the other hand... That I cannot justify.

Hoppe would agree that Monarchism is less bad (as opposed to "good") than republicanism or democracy-and I do too.

Why would you argue that, BTW? I'd argue that rapid decentralization is a better idea. Consolidating a lot of power in one man seems even worse than spreading it out amongst a congress. I guess I agree with Lew Rockwell on that one..

[heavenlyboy34]

Why would you argue that, BTW? I'd argue that rapid decentralization is a better idea. Consolidating a lot of power in one man seems even worse than spreading it out amongst a congress. I guess I agree with Lew Rockwell on that one..
A whole book could be written about that (and by golly, Hoppe did it! :) ). Fundamentally, a monarch/sovereign, as primary owner/executive of a given place, has all the incentive to make sure the place is taken care of (this includes keeping people in good condition, as they are necessary in the scheme of things). He also has incentive to not go to war, as this puts his resources at tremendous risk.
Democracies/republics, on the other hand, lack all these incentives to behave rationally and morally. Therefore, the power-holders in such societies satisfy their selfish desires at the expense of the governed and the land. They have everything to gain and shift the risk onto the governed classes.
Further, Total War is a product of democracy/republicanism. Before these heinous systems, soldiers fought other soldiers instead of mass murdering civilians.

These points and others are well-developed in Hoppe's book. I agree with his methodology and conclusions.

[FrankRep]

Since when? I've only heard him suggest not voting in the broadest sense. (that is, no one voting at all)

His target audience are liberty-type people. He tells the liberty-type people not to vote. That's dangerous when only the Big Government people vote.

[Christian Liberty]

@heavenlyboy34-

I'd be interested to read the whole book eventually, but just to comment on specifics:


A whole book could be written about that (and by golly, Hoppe did it! :) ). Fundamentally, a monarch/sovereign, as primary owner/executive of a given place, has all the incentive to make sure the place is taken care of (this includes keeping people in good condition, as they are necessary in the scheme of things).

I don't see why he has an incentive to keep the whole place in good condition. Only his own resources. The way I see it, he also has an incentive to take as much of our resources as he can, and for himself rather than to give us (naturally inferior to letting us keep the money ourselves, of course) services instead. I don't really see an incentive to let anyone else prosper.


He also has incentive to not go to war, as this puts his resources at tremendous risk.

This seems true, but does it bear out in history? Didn't kings go to war with each other all the time?

Democracies/republics, on the other hand, lack all these incentives to behave rationally and morally. Therefore, the power-holders in such societies satisfy their selfish desires at the expense of the governed and the land. They have everything to gain and shift the risk onto the governed classes.

Well, they can't personally keep the money they take from us, or at least most of it. That's a mitigating factor of sorts. They're also supposed to be accountable to the people, which sounds like a talking point but I feel like there might be some truth to it. Don't you at least sort of have to obey the will of the people if you want to remain in power? Or is that the problem? Personally, it seems to me like ruling by the will of the people at least would be better than ruling for your own selfish gain (Obviously supporting freedom regardless of what people think would be better). Am I missing something here?

Further, Total War is a product of democracy/republicanism. Before these heinous systems, soldiers fought other soldiers instead of mass murdering civilians.

I feel that was more an accident of technology. As Rothbard states, a bow and arrow, or even a rifle, can be pinpointed. A nuclear warhead cannot. Yet if one nation develops weaponry that can kill hundreds of thousands of innocents, every other state desires to do that as well. Democracy existed in ancient Greece as welll, did they really kill more innocent people than the Caesars? Again, I may be missing the point. And I don't support democracy either. I support whatever system leaves us alone the most, regardless of what that system is, and noting that I do believe we do need government to run the police, courts, and defense.


These points and others are well-developed in Hoppe's book. I agree with his methodology and conclusions.

I am definitely interested.

[Christian Liberty]

His target audience are liberty-type people. He tells the liberty-type people not to vote. That's dangerous when only the Big Government people vote.

Exactly...

[Occam's Banana]

Yet he only targets the liberty movement and tells them not to vote.

Of course he does. That's his audience. Who else is he supposed to tell?

But I'm sure he'd be delighted if any non-liberty people who heard what he had to say decided not to vote because of it, too.


Democrat/Progressives treat voting like a religious duty.

Because they worship the State. Molyneux doesn't.

[mczerone]

When you're talking about voting for crap over slightly worse crap, I agree.

But if you aren't voting for a real libertarian, you are part of the problem. The bottom line is that if enough people voted with conviction, Ron Paul would be President right now. I don't give a crap about his pathetic excuses for not doing so.

If you can't vote for someone on principle, that's one thing. I can understand why some people have issues with Rand Paul (Even though I would vote for him), and Ted Cruz actually is too much of a compromise for me. Everyone has their line in the sand. Its the unwillingness to vote under ANY circumstance that irks me. I'm fine with his anarcho-capitalism, I don't agree, but I can understand it. But to refuse to vote for a principled minarchist on miniscule issues or, worse, "Opportunity Cost" (The ethical system of utilitarians, not libertarians*) is just ridiculous. I can understand if you can't vote for an otherwise good candidate because of a substantial issue like foreign policy or the war on drugs, but on anarchist theory? I guess I just feel like that's ridiculous. I can't even imagine an anarcho-capitalist actually running the country any differently than Ron Paul, even if he did have a slightly different view as to the theoretical endgame.

In short, I'm sticking with my statement. If Ron Paul was the Republican candidate, and libertarians listened to this moron, Obama would be in office again. Now, I get that that sounds like the scaremongering used by Mitt drones, but a person who can't see the difference between Ron Paul and Romney in this regard isn't worth my time to begin with.

...

Let's try this argument, since you "don't buy" the personal economic reason to not vote.

Voting for liberty is either (1) unnecessary, or (2) useless.

If a "perfect liberty candidate" was running, and it looked like he would win - then we don't need him. We can all just refuse to pay allegiance to the State, personally nullify all bad laws, and successfully implement voluntary institutions to provide for social services. And since we already have the majority, we'd be successful.

OTOH, if the perfect liberty candidate wasn't likely to win on the "perfect liberty message" - then there isn't enough support/understanding/empathy in the population to make liberty work. If the candidate compromised the message or otherwise "stole" the election and tried to implement liberty solutions via politics, there would be a whole bunch of butt-hurt people that want to get their way, and see violence as a viable option (deduced from their support of the State).

Politics isn't a game for reformers by which they can affect change. Running a political campaign is at most an educational tool. Voting is at most a way to save face in your local social/business circles of Statists.

[green73]

I wish people would stop saying voluntaryist. It's voluntarist.

shaaadup.

[green73]

His target audience are liberty-type people. He tells the liberty-type people not to vote. That's dangerous when only the Big Government people vote.

When you vote you consent to the result.

[purplechoe]

When I first heard the guy I disliked him because of his "don't bother voting" stance. I have warmed up to him since and find him to be a valuable voice in the liberty movement. I don't actively listen to his show but do catch up every few months on his youtube channel...

[HigherVision]

Do you understand why people take such a position?

Narcissism, they think that government will actually stop just because they stopped voting.

I do like that he's against male genital mutilation ("circumcision") though.

[Occam's Banana]

Narcissism, they think that government will actually stop just because they stopped voting.

:rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

@ FFanatic-sorry I ran out of time to address your last post. I was short on time and didn't want to give a poor quality reply. I'll get back to you ASAP. For now, I'll leave you with this classic Hoppe piece to peruse at your leisure. (not that below is only a discussion of the book by Hoppe , not the entire book)
Democracy: The God That Failed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html)

[bolil]

Isn't any form of 'government' democratic? Even a monarch must appease most of its people. Then again, anyone with royal pretensions can go ahead and... fucking die.

[heavenlyboy34]

Isn't any form of 'government' democratic? Even a monarch must appease most of its people. Then again, anyone with royal pretensions can go ahead and... fucking die.
No. Democratic government, by definition, gives at least some part of the population a vote WRT certain policies and/or representatives.

[bolil]

No. Democratic government, by definition, gives at least some part of the population a vote WRT certain policies and/or representatives.

Yes, I understand that, but even a monarchy is implicitly democratic. That is what I was trying to say.

I guess the real hinge, the true pin, the honest truth is that any government that monopolizes the use of force is tyrannical, no matter their favored vernacular.

A king can be, and they have been, deposed. Such events are not entirely insulated to royal pretenders, rather the impetus lay with the people.

People, taken one at a time ever surprizing. Taken in groups... I'd rather talk to ants

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, I understand that, but even a monarchy is implicitly democratic. That is what I was trying to say.
How so? I am speaking of a traditional monarchy, not parliamentary monarchy.


I guess the real hinge, the true pin, the honest truth is that any government that monopolizes the use of force is tyrannical, no matter their favored vernacular.

A king can be, and they have been, deposed. Such events are not entirely insulated to royal pretenders, rather the impetus lay with the people.
And there you have it! Unlike the presidents and prime ministers of the world, kings can and have been overthrown. This is how it has to be done. Going through the motions of the democratic process doesn't change anything fundamentally, as we all know-and which RP acknowledged in a recording he made after the last election.


People, taken one at a time ever surprizing. Taken in groups... I'd rather talk to ants
Indeed.

[bolil]

How so? I am speaking of a traditional monarchy, not parliamentary monarchy.


And there you have it! Unlike the presidents and prime ministers of the world, kings can and have been overthrown. This is how it has to be done. Going through the motions of the democratic process doesn't change anything fundamentally, as we all know-and which RP acknowledged in a recording he made after the last election.


Indeed.

First point: Even an absolute traditional monarchy requires the consent of the governed. If a king loses favor with the masses it wont be long before he loses his head.

Second point: Violent civil war, so I believe, is a bad thing... too many innocent people would get killed. Violent revolution is by no means peculiar to monarchies of any kind.

Third point: indeed indeed!

[Sola_Fide]

I've listened to a few of his videos, but he does not have a sound philosophy. Way too many errors to take seriously.

[heavenlyboy34]

First point: Even an absolute traditional monarchy requires the consent of the governed. If a king loses favor with the masses it wont be long before he loses his head.
Indeed. This is one of the virtues of monarchy. The monarch has genuine reason to fear the wrath of pissed off subjects


Second point: Violent civil war, so I believe, is a bad thing... too many innocent people would get killed. Violent revolution is by no means peculiar to monarchies of any kind.
Yes, violent revolution is not pleasant, and should be a last resort should the king refuse to step down.



Third point: indeed indeed!
:D

[bolil]

Indeed. This is one of the virtues of monarchy. The monarch has genuine reason to fear the wrath of pissed off subjects


Yes, violent revolution is not pleasant, and should be a last resort should the king refuse to step down.



:D

I agree with you, and will take the liberty of introducing a new point. Any monarchy, indeed any -archy, must consider the issue of succession, and this is where it falls apart. For two main reasons. A. Their is no guarantee a son or daughter will be anything like their father or mother (history is replete with examples of this) and B. (I can only say for myself) I will NEVER bow to blood.

[noneedtoaggress]

First point: Even an absolute traditional monarchy requires the consent of the governed. If a king loses favor with the masses it wont be long before he loses his head.

Second point: Violent civil war, so I believe, is a bad thing... too many innocent people would get killed. Violent revolution is by no means peculiar to monarchies of any kind.

Third point: indeed indeed!

Consent of the governed is not the same thing as democracy. Democracy is an attempt to equalize political power through a voting mechanism.

Just because all governmental intstitutions require a level of consent to function doesn't make them all democratic in a similar sense that it also doesn't make them necessarily voluntary.

[bolil]

Consent of the governed is not the same thing as democracy. Democracy is an attempt to equalize political power through a voting mechanism.

Just because all governmental intstitutions require a level of consent to function doesn't make them all democratic in a similar sense that it also doesn't make them necessarily voluntary.

The differences between a monarchy and a democracy are specious. Then, I hold fast to my definition of government as a monopoly on the use of sanctioned force.

[PaulConventionWV]

This has already been addressed a million times on these forums and by Stef. Unless you have an original argument or counter-argument, posts like this are a waste of your (and everyone's) time.

I heard a while back on here someone who posted a hypothetical that Stefan gave where people could report un-registered gun owners to "private" corporations who control that kind of thing. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Because when I heard that, there was no question in my mind that Stefan was crazy. Who tries to replicate the kind of control of the state in a free society? A free society is not supposed to look like a police state at all.

[Christian Liberty]

When you vote you consent to the result.

That's ridiculous, and from what little Rothbard I've read, I know he rejects it as well.

As Rothbard says, picking overseer goody over overseer baddy doesn't mean you support slavery...

@ FFanatic-sorry I ran out of time to address your last post. I was short on time and didn't want to give a poor quality reply. I'll get back to you ASAP. For now, I'll leave you with this classic Hoppe piece to peruse at your leisure. (not that below is only a discussion of the book by Hoppe , not the entire book)
Democracy: The God That Failed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html)



Will look at it, thanks:)

[Reason]

I heard a while back on here someone who posted a hypothetical that Stefan gave where people could report un-registered gun owners to "private" corporations who control that kind of thing. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Because when I heard that, there was no question in my mind that Stefan was crazy. Who tries to replicate the kind of control of the state in a free society? A free society is not supposed to look like a police state at all.

I have listened to hundreds if not over a thousand of his podcasts and I have no idea what you're talking about, I would be careful with that accusation, definitely make sure you heard and interpreted everything correctly, certainly doesn't fit with my understanding of Stefan...

[heavenlyboy34]

The differences between a monarchy and a democracy are specious. Then, I hold fast to my definition of government as a monopoly on the use of sanctioned force.
Aside from the monopoly on the use of force, you really can't say the differences are specious. There wouldn't have been any democratic or republican-ish revolutions if your assertion were true. And even if they had happened, monarchy would've made a quick comeback. Transition to democratic type regimes are generally shaky-as you can see in Iraq, Afghanistan, 20th century Russia, etc.

[Occam's Banana]

I have listened to hundreds if not over a thousand of his podcasts and I have no idea what you're talking about, I would be careful with that accusation, definitely make sure you heard and interpreted everything correctly, certainly doesn't fit with my understanding of Stefan...

That's the problem with hearsay. It's based on what one imagines about what someone else imagines about what yet someone else (maybe) said or did.

How anyone can regard that as evidence of anything whatsoever (except - perhaps - of one's own personal biases & preferences) is beyond me.

[Mini-Me]

"Not yet" -> "NEVER."

The guy is a complete sociopathic narcissist running a therapeutic cult for disaffected young libertarians. He subtly, gradually, and insidiously convinces people in his "inner circle" to "defoo" their "abusive" families, and his show is just a gateway to draw people in. When I say "abusive" families, I should qualify that: The vast majority of families are "abusive" to him because they believe in force in any context, or because they've ever punished them (as children) by force without regret...i.e., anyone who isn't a perfect atheist an-cap is "abusive" to him. He doesn't come out and admit this directly, but he works on individuals with steadily escalating insistence, starting from thought experiments and ending with real-life alienation from their families after his emotional influence over them grows. Why? It's not because he genuinely cares about anyone's well-being, but because like any narcissistic cult leader, manipulating people makes him feel powerful and important, and convincing them to purge other influences from their lives magnifies that. "We're your family now" is pretty much standard fare among cults, and Molyneux is great at putting the "because you came to us by voluntary choice" spin on it.

Molyneux is extremely intelligent and logical and makes cogent political arguments, which makes his show alluring, but that's totally incidental to who and what he really is: He's not an anarcho-capitalist for its own sake, or for the sake of truth, but because he's a near-genius-level narcissist who saw a vulnerable and disaffected demographic he could exploit, and he perfected his craft. Young libertarians often feel alone, because they're smarter than the people around them, and their families don't understand them or their morality...and so despite their intelligence, they're vulnerable to emotional manipulation, especially considering the libertarian tendency toward being judgmental of anyone who condones force (e.g. family members). Still, if libertarianism were the majority view and young socialists felt the kind of isolation that teenage and early-twenties libertarians often do, Molyneux would likely have adopted and perfected socialist rhetoric instead. He speaks the language of libertarian ethics and morality, and his mind has an expert grasp of it, but his heart is devoid of all conscience...the guy is toxic.

You can probably learn a lot if you just listen to his show and nothing else, but there will be a degree of "honey, honey, poison" to everything he says. More importantly, engage with him personally at your own peril. He masks the dark side of FDR much better than he did a few years ago, and it's buried deeper...but it's still there, because that's the whole point to him.

[heavenlyboy34]

"Not yet" -> "NEVER."

The guy is a complete sociopathic narcissist running a therapeutic cult for disaffected young libertarians. He subtly, gradually, and insidiously convinces people in his "inner circle" to "defoo" their "abusive" families, and his show is just a gateway to draw people in. When I say "abusive" families, I should qualify that: The vast majority of families are "abusive" to him because they believe in force in any context, or because they've ever punished them (as children) by force without regret...i.e., anyone who isn't a perfect atheist an-cap is "abusive" to him. He doesn't come out and admit this directly, but he works on individuals with steadily escalating insistence, starting from thought experiments and ending with real-life alienation from their families after his emotional influence over them grows. Why? It's not because he genuinely cares about anyone's well-being, but because like any narcissistic cult leader, manipulating people makes him feel powerful and important, and convincing them to purge other influences from their lives magnifies that.

Molyneux is extremely intelligent and logical and makes cogent political arguments, which makes his show alluring, but that's totally incidental to who he really is: He's not an anarcho-capitalist for its own sake, or for the sake of truth, but because he's a near-genius-level narcissist who saw a vulnerable and disaffected demographic he could exploit, and he perfected his craft. Young libertarians often feel alone, because they're smarter than the people around them, and their families don't understand them or their morality...and so despite their intelligence, they're vulnerable to emotional manipulation. If libertarianism were the majority view and young socialists felt the kind of isolation that teenage and early-twenties libertarians often do, Molyneux would likely have adopted and perfected socialist rhetoric instead. He speaks the language of libertarian ethics and morality, and his mind has an expert grasp of it, but his heart is devoid of all conscience...the guy is toxic.
"Toxic" is a bit strong. "Unsound" (logically, morally, philosophically) is more accurate IMO. I haven't looked into the "defoo-ing" thing ("foo" being family of origin, IIRC), but it always sounded even more cultish and weird than the Ayn Rand cult. :eek:

He should be considered an opinion writer/speaker and rhetorician rather than a philosopher too, btw. JMHO.

[Reason]

"Not yet" -> "NEVER."

The guy is a complete sociopathic narcissist running a therapeutic cult for disaffected young libertarians. He subtly, gradually, and insidiously convinces people in his "inner circle" to "defoo" their "abusive" families, and his show is just a gateway to draw people in. When I say "abusive" families, I should qualify that: The vast majority of families are "abusive" to him because they believe in force in any context, or because they've ever punished them (as children) by force without regret...i.e., anyone who isn't a perfect atheist an-cap is "abusive" to him. He doesn't come out and admit this directly, but he works on individuals with steadily escalating insistence, starting from thought experiments and ending with real-life alienation from their families after his emotional influence over them grows. Why? It's not because he genuinely cares about anyone's well-being, but because like any narcissistic cult leader, manipulating people makes him feel powerful and important, and convincing them to purge other influences from their lives magnifies that. "We're your family now" is pretty much standard fare among cults, and Molyneux is great at putting the "because you came to us by voluntary choice" spin on it.

Molyneux is extremely intelligent and logical and makes cogent political arguments, which makes his show alluring, but that's totally incidental to who and what he really is: He's not an anarcho-capitalist for its own sake, or for the sake of truth, but because he's a near-genius-level narcissist who saw a vulnerable and disaffected demographic he could exploit, and he perfected his craft. Young libertarians often feel alone, because they're smarter than the people around them, and their families don't understand them or their morality...and so despite their intelligence, they're vulnerable to emotional manipulation, especially considering the libertarian tendency toward being judgmental of anyone who condones force (e.g. family members). Still, if libertarianism were the majority view and young socialists felt the kind of isolation that teenage and early-twenties libertarians often do, Molyneux would likely have adopted and perfected socialist rhetoric instead. He speaks the language of libertarian ethics and morality, and his mind has an expert grasp of it, but his heart is devoid of all conscience...the guy is toxic.

You can probably learn a lot if you just listen to his show and nothing else, but there will be a degree of "honey, honey, poison" to everything he says. More importantly, engage with him personally at your own peril. He masks the dark side of FDR much better than he did a few years ago, and it's buried deeper...but it's still there, because that's the whole point to him.

I don't understand where people get this opinion from...

He advocates cutting off ties with overtly abusive individuals no matter who they are. I agree with that.

He advocates for a stateless society, I agree with that.

He believe that peaceful parenting has massive potential for transforming our society, I agree with that.

[Mini-Me]

I don't understand where people get this opinion from...

He advocates cutting off ties with overtly abusive individuals no matter who they are. I agree with that.

He advocates for a stateless society, I agree with that.

He believe that peaceful parenting has massive potential for transforming our society, I agree with that.

If you want to know where people get this opinion from, look into him further. Search for things like "Stefan Molyneux therapeutic cult," etc. FDR is just his gateway, but his private forums (etc.) are where he does the real damage. He hides this stuff a lot better than he used to, so you have to dig into personal stories and such to get the full picture.

[mczerone]

...Molyneux is extremely intelligent and logical and makes cogent political arguments, which makes his show alluring, but that's totally incidental to who and what he really is: He's not an anarcho-capitalist for its own sake, or for the sake of truth, but because he's a near-genius-level narcissist who saw a vulnerable and disaffected demographic he could exploit, and he perfected his craft.
...


I found it interesting that he's made the claim that "ethics were invented to reduce criminal competition," yet expounds a system of ethics while constantly examining the nature of psychopaths...

I don't think he really intends to be a "cult leader" though - he seems to want to just explore the ideas of liberty and ethics philosophically. The conclusions he reaches he holds out as "ultimate truth" while also positing that they might be wrong, and that he'll change his mind given convincing evidence/logic. It's this nature of ultimate truth that turns his listeners into cult-members. Many of them, when making an argument, don't say "well the logically consistent argument leads us to X," but instead say "Molyneaux says X."

If you think he has problems, address the problems. There's no sense or argumentative force to use ad hominems. Refuse to donate to him; start a competing podcast/YouTube; directly critique his arguments (rather than voice your emotional reaction to them and your predicted results of them). There are better ways to refute a guy than say "he's a dangerous cult leader who's exploiting the weak." And if your claim is true, then it should be easy to "exploit" these people more efficiently and with less dangerous overtones.

[Mini-Me]

I found it interesting that he's made the claim that "ethics were invented to reduce criminal competition," yet expounds a system of ethics while constantly examining the nature of psychopaths...

I don't think he really intends to be a "cult leader" though - he seems to want to just explore the ideas of liberty and ethics philosophically. The conclusions he reaches he holds out as "ultimate truth" while also positing that they might be wrong, and that he'll change his mind given convincing evidence/logic. It's this nature of ultimate truth that turns his listeners into cult-members. Many of them, when making an argument, don't say "well the logically consistent argument leads us to X," but instead say "Molyneaux says X."

If you think he has problems, address the problems. There's no sense or argumentative force to use ad hominems. Refuse to donate to him; start a competing podcast/YouTube; directly critique his arguments (rather than voice your emotional reaction to them and your predicted results of them). There are better ways to refute a guy than say "he's a dangerous cult leader who's exploiting the weak." And if your claim is true, then it should be easy to "exploit" these people more efficiently and with less dangerous overtones.

I am not making an ad hominem attack as a substitute for adequately refuting his political views, because I don't WANT to refute his political views. I agree with many of them, which is why I haven't gotten involved in another circular debate about anarcho-capitalism, etc. He also makes a lot of interpersonal commentary in public that I agree with, e.g. that overtly abusive people sometimes need to be cut from your life, but then he interprets those same arguments much more broadly in private. His public arguments to that effect are the "weak" assertions that most reasonable people would agree with, which helps him build a passionate but distanced support base (evidence he's an upstanding guy). The problem comes with the way he gradually and deliberately expands those views in extremely manipulative and destructive directions in more private conversations with people who have come to trust him.

In other words, my problem with Molyneux is not about the arguments he makes publicly. My problem is specifically with him as a person, the nature of his organization, and the increasingly dangerous manipulation he pulls on people who become more deeply involved with FDR. He does this on his private forum and in private conversations, and he treats FDR as a gateway for drawing a small subset of fans into them. You can choose to believe that it's outlandish because there are "easier ways" to exploit people, but if you look into it, you'll realize that's exactly what he's doing. He and his organization are dangerous to people who become closely involved, which is why I'm trying to warn people away from him.

To give an analogy, it would be silly for me to say that a paleoconservative should debate against the CIA based on their openly stated goals: A paleoconservative might agree with the CIA's mission statement but know their true nature and secret actions are far more sinister. That's the thing about the CIA: We know the problem is endemic, but their actions are concealed and whitewashed enough to give them plausible deniability about almost anything, with the exception of a few "isolated incidents," and they're good at this because they're pathologically dishonest. Unfortunately, that kind of covertly abusive behavior is not unique to government agencies but shared by sociopathic narcissists everywhere...and Stefan Molyneux operates the same way.

Not only is his abusive behavior a problem in and of itself (for the unfortunate few who are sucked in), but his popularity also creates a long-term credibility problem for libertarianism if we continue helping him establish himself as a leading ideological/moral voice...because over time, more will come out about the dark underbelly of FDR, not less. You might find the latter point irrelevant, because only logic is relevant to truth, not the speaker, but that's not how most people actually think. TPTB seek to destroy movements by smearing the reputations of their leaders, because it works. It even works well enough when the smears are untrue (such as about Ron Paul), but it can be crippling when they're true...and a cult leader without a conscience is pretty much the last person we need to be seen as a leading libertarian, no matter how intelligent his public arguments may be.

[PaulConventionWV]

What books have you read that explain how a stateless society would work?

These books, they're all hypotheticals, right? Somebody's imagination?

[heavenlyboy34]

These books, they're all hypotheticals, right? Somebody's imagination?
Some are. Some deal with history and applied social science and such. None more or less hypothetical than constitutionalist/minarchist books. ;)

[PaulConventionWV]

My understanding is that his reasoning on why voting is not worthwhile is from more of an econ standpoint.

ie: If you're more likely to die in a car crash driving to a polling station than influence the outcome of the election...

I also don't think that he cares if you want to go vote for Ron Paul etc. He just doesn't see it as accomplishing anything...

ie: Why waste your time voting for your local libertarian candidate who WILL NOT WIN when you could spend your time with your children etc

An analysis of opportunity cost mostly.

You could use that argument about millions of small tasks that people feel like they have to do or just want to because it makes them feel good. If someone wants to do something, they're not going to weigh the infinitesimally small chance that they're going to die in a car crash because nobody thinks about stuff like that every day. Psychologically, it's just not possible to pay THAT much attention to detail. If he's basing all that on opportunity cost, he's forgetting the very intricate nature of the human mind in which there are so many small things to be weighed, and a few minutes away from your children isn't going to mean much. Voting may not help much, but there's really no solid argument against doing it if you think it might serve some good purpose, whatever that may be, or if it's just some kind of urge. Opportunity cost can never serve as an argument against someone doing something because only that person knows what their personal opportunity cost is.

[Christian Liberty]

Some are. Some deal with history and applied social science and such. None more or less hypothetical than constitutionalist/minarchist books. ;)

Here's the bottom line, I guess, as I see it. People are conditioned to accept statism, but most also don't have the motivation to be politically involved. A minarchy backed by an active minority can force these people not to aggress against others, and force any states the brainwashed masses might support that would violate the NAP with regularity out of the territorial area. Anarcho-capitalism, everyone votes with their wallet, which is normally great, but when it comes to other people's freedom and justice, things that shouldn't be left to a profit motive, I see it as problamatic.

[PaulConventionWV]

When you vote you consent to the result.

What a load of horse shit. That is the biggest non sequitur I have ever seen.

[heavenlyboy34]

Here's the bottom line, I guess, as I see it. People are conditioned to accept statism, but most also don't have the motivation to be politically involved. A minarchy backed by an active minority can force these people not to aggress against others, and force any states the brainwashed masses might support that would violate the NAP with regularity out of the territorial area. Anarcho-capitalism, everyone votes with their wallet, which is normally great, but when it comes to other people's freedom and justice, things that shouldn't be left to a profit motive, I see it as problamatic.
It can? Got any proof of that? Sounds even more wildly speculative than a Molyneux vid.

[PaulConventionWV]

"Not yet" -> "NEVER."

The guy is a complete sociopathic narcissist running a therapeutic cult for disaffected young libertarians. He subtly, gradually, and insidiously convinces people in his "inner circle" to "defoo" their "abusive" families, and his show is just a gateway to draw people in. When I say "abusive" families, I should qualify that: The vast majority of families are "abusive" to him because they believe in force in any context, or because they've ever punished them (as children) by force without regret...i.e., anyone who isn't a perfect atheist an-cap is "abusive" to him. He doesn't come out and admit this directly, but he works on individuals with steadily escalating insistence, starting from thought experiments and ending with real-life alienation from their families after his emotional influence over them grows. Why? It's not because he genuinely cares about anyone's well-being, but because like any narcissistic cult leader, manipulating people makes him feel powerful and important, and convincing them to purge other influences from their lives magnifies that. "We're your family now" is pretty much standard fare among cults, and Molyneux is great at putting the "because you came to us by voluntary choice" spin on it.

Molyneux is extremely intelligent and logical and makes cogent political arguments, which makes his show alluring, but that's totally incidental to who and what he really is: He's not an anarcho-capitalist for its own sake, or for the sake of truth, but because he's a near-genius-level narcissist who saw a vulnerable and disaffected demographic he could exploit, and he perfected his craft. Young libertarians often feel alone, because they're smarter than the people around them, and their families don't understand them or their morality...and so despite their intelligence, they're vulnerable to emotional manipulation, especially considering the libertarian tendency toward being judgmental of anyone who condones force (e.g. family members). Still, if libertarianism were the majority view and young socialists felt the kind of isolation that teenage and early-twenties libertarians often do, Molyneux would likely have adopted and perfected socialist rhetoric instead. He speaks the language of libertarian ethics and morality, and his mind has an expert grasp of it, but his heart is devoid of all conscience...the guy is toxic.

You can probably learn a lot if you just listen to his show and nothing else, but there will be a degree of "honey, honey, poison" to everything he says. More importantly, engage with him personally at your own peril. He masks the dark side of FDR much better than he did a few years ago, and it's buried deeper...but it's still there, because that's the whole point to him.

Wow... cogent. Couldn't have said it better myself. This is exactly what I have suspected about the guy all along but didn't know how to put it because I really haven't listened to him that much, but enough to know that what you say is true. He's full of himself and now I am starting to realize it's all part of his little cultist scheme.

[PaulConventionWV]

"Toxic" is a bit strong. "Unsound" (logically, morally, philosophically) is more accurate IMO. I haven't looked into the "defoo-ing" thing ("foo" being family of origin, IIRC), but it always sounded even more cultish and weird than the Ayn Rand cult. :eek:

He should be considered an opinion writer/speaker and rhetorician rather than a philosopher too, btw. JMHO.

What does IIRC mean?

[Christian Liberty]

It can? Got any proof of that? Sounds even more wildly speculative than a Molyneux vid.

Maybe the Articles of Confederation? For some reason I can't indent ATM... otherwise I would have put this in a new paragraph. But its 1 AM where I live so I'm not going to think too seriously on this right now. I'll try and get back to it later.

[PaulConventionWV]

I found it interesting that he's made the claim that "ethics were invented to reduce criminal competition," yet expounds a system of ethics while constantly examining the nature of psychopaths...

I don't think he really intends to be a "cult leader" though - he seems to want to just explore the ideas of liberty and ethics philosophically. The conclusions he reaches he holds out as "ultimate truth" while also positing that they might be wrong, and that he'll change his mind given convincing evidence/logic. It's this nature of ultimate truth that turns his listeners into cult-members. Many of them, when making an argument, don't say "well the logically consistent argument leads us to X," but instead say "Molyneaux says X."

If you think he has problems, address the problems. There's no sense or argumentative force to use ad hominems. Refuse to donate to him; start a competing podcast/YouTube; directly critique his arguments (rather than voice your emotional reaction to them and your predicted results of them). There are better ways to refute a guy than say "he's a dangerous cult leader who's exploiting the weak." And if your claim is true, then it should be easy to "exploit" these people more efficiently and with less dangerous overtones.

The "I could be wrong and will change my mind when presented with convincing evidence" line is really just a disclaimer for those who want to put on the appearance of legitimacy. I have learned to disregard this for the most part because the person who uses it usually is only doing so in order to appear as if logic were his strong suit. There's really no way of knowing if they really would change their minds, so the line is meaningless. You just have to look at it on an individual basis because saying that you could be wrong no longer gives you any more legitimacy than you already had. It's just an empty disclaimer now.

[brushfire]

Used to watch him, for years actually.

I stopped because of what some have said here, and also the fact that he's a Canadian. Not that his being a Canadian is a bad thing, I just think he'd spent a little too much time on the US soap box, and not enough on Canadian politics. Its just kind of weird, if you ask me... Especially considering the amount of time he puts into things... I recall seeing Jeff Tucker on his show, in the last handful that I'd watched...

Anyhow, that said, I have enjoyed a lot of his tubes (in fact, I still forward a few now and then). I do wish him and his family well. I'd heard that he's been fighting cancer.

[PaulConventionWV]

Some are. Some deal with history and applied social science and such. None more or less hypothetical than constitutionalist/minarchist books. ;)

I don't think so. Applied history means very little in this context for anarchy because there is really no applicable history except in the interpreter's logical framework, but that framework can be wrong. There is more applicable history for minarchy than there is for anarchy. Nonetheless, however, I don't think I need to read somebody's hypothetical book in order to understand that the writer is operating on the same knowledge that I am, so why would I need to listen to him in order to understand what anarchy is all about? He's making things up just as much as the next person. Sure, perspective is good, but these books aren't necessarily a better source than any other. The supposed "scholars" who write these books are just doing glorified thought experiments.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't think so. Applied history means very little in this context for anarchy because there is really no applicable history except in the interpreter's logical framework, but that framework can be wrong. There is more applicable history for minarchy than there is for anarchy. Nonetheless, however, I don't think I need to read somebody's hypothetical book in order to understand that the writer is operating on the same knowledge that I am, so why would I need to listen to him in order to understand what anarchy is all about? He's making things up just as much as the next person. Sure, perspective is good, but these books aren't necessarily a better source than any other. The supposed "scholars" who write these books are just doing glorified thought experiments.
No, both sides of this debate are mostly writing about thought experiments. We wouldn't be here today if minarchy "worked" as advertised. Even back when the Federalists were writing their essays, they relied on examples from antiquity and a bit from England to make the case for Federalism. Today Constitutionalists/neo-Federalists are just quoting the founders and the Federalists in an appeal to a hypothetical system that never truly was practiced.

[PaulConventionWV]

No, both sides of this debate are mostly writing about thought experiments. We wouldn't be here today if minarchy "worked" as advertised. Even back when the Federalists were writing their essays, they relied on examples from antiquity and a bit from England to make the case for Federalism. Today Constitutionalists/neo-Federalists are just quoting the founders and the Federalists in an appeal to a hypothetical system that never truly was practiced.

Rarely does anything work "as advertised". It's erroneous to say "we wouldn't be here" because arguments can always be made one way or the other. The founders had something to compare their government to. Anarchy hasn't got shit to compare to.

[heavenlyboy34]

Rarely does anything work "as advertised". It's erroneous to say "we wouldn't be here" because arguments can always be made one way or the other. The founders had something to compare their government to. Anarchy hasn't got shit to compare to.
The founders had plenty compare to. They even wrote about it extensively. (read the Federalist Papers and the Framers' correspondence) It may be true that many things don't work as advertised, but a whole system of organizing public life is a pretty damn big thing to fail to deliver. Not a ringing endorsement of a political philosophy.

Now I know you haven't read any significant amount of anarchist literature. There are a number of things to compare it to. Thousands of years of failed States and tyranny as well as well-known reasonably successful (considering context) Stateless societies like Iceland and the 19th century American frontier. Why do you argue against this stuff when you don't understand it? You're just wasting time. I disagree with anarchists on a number of things myself, but I took the time to read them before opining.

[PaulConventionWV]

The founders had plenty compare to. They even wrote about it extensively.

I know that was my point.


(read the Federalist Papers and the Framers' correspondence)

I did.


It may be true that many things don't work as advertised, but a whole system of organizing public life is a pretty damn big thing to fail to deliver. Not a ringing endorsement of a political philosophy.

The point is nothing is perfect, but we have a lot better idea of what a minarchist system looks like than we do an anarchist system.


Now I know you haven't read any significant amount of anarchist literature. There are a number of things to compare it to. Thousands of years of failed States and tyranny as well as well-known reasonably successful (considering context) Stateless societies like Iceland and the 19th century American frontier. Why do you argue against this stuff when you don't understand it? You're just wasting time. I disagree with anarchists on a number of things myself, but I took the time to read them before opining.

You can't compare anarchy to tyranny. If you want to show how anarchy can work, you need to compare it to other anarchy, not just what you think it should NOT be, but what it SHOULD look like. We don't have anything of the sort to compare it to. And no, those examples you gave are not good examples of how this could work. In fact, they show how anarchy has failed. Where are these societies today? I'll tell you where: nowhere. As the population grows, government is demanded at an increasingly higher rate. The only examples you have are from times and places where government was impractical because there were not enough people in one place, there was not enough technology to make it practical, and there was too much unoccupied space where there first had to be occupants before there could be government. Very small societies can sometimes work temporarily as you described, but in this day and age, there isn't a single place on the planet you can go that is inaccessible to the unfortunately large control mechanism that will undoubtedly follow around anyone who tries. Anarchy only works in very small numbers in very large spaces with extrmelely limited means of communication and travel.

[heavenlyboy34]

I know that was my point.



I did.



The point is nothing is perfect, but we have a lot better idea of what a minarchist system looks like than we do an anarchist system.



You can't compare anarchy to tyranny. If you want to show how anarchy can work, you need to compare it to other anarchy, not just what you think it should NOT be, but what it SHOULD look like. We don't have anything of the sort to compare it to. And no, those examples you gave are not good examples of how this could work. In fact, they show how anarchy has failed. Where are these societies today? I'll tell you where: nowhere. As the population grows, government is demanded at an increasingly higher rate. The only examples you have are from times and places where government was impractical because there were not enough people in one place, there was not enough technology to make it practical, and there was too much unoccupied space where there first had to be occupants before there could be government. Very small societies can sometimes work temporarily as you described, but in this day and age, there isn't a single place on the planet you can go that is inaccessible to the unfortunately large control mechanism that will undoubtedly follow around anyone who tries. Anarchy only works in very small numbers in very large spaces with extrmelely limited means of communication and travel.
So far. And Republicanism (as most Americans define it) only works in mostly agrarian societies with a few major cities. So far.

ETA: Perhaps I should be clear that I'm not here to argue for anarchism. I just stick up for anarchists on occasion when they aren't around to defend themselves. I am thoroughly anti-State, but not anarchist.

[NationalAnarchist]

No but I will starting now...I am an Atheist as well and I am interested in hearing what he has to say.

[NationalAnarchist]

Just started listening to his stateless society podcast.

[ClydeCoulter]

Stephan is a materialist, in the sense that if it can't be proven to him that some person says they have found a formula, and someone else agrees who has an equivalent degree, that shows that something is true, then it hasn't been proven.
The problem is, is that math and physics are predictive tools, like a truer crystal ball tool. If you can't predict behavior with the formula then it is said to be a false formula. But that has no bearing on the thing being tested, only on the method being used to predict the behavior of that being tested.

edit: It may be that some things which we wish to understand cannot be proven as true/false by use of the tools that we currently have.

[IDefendThePlatform]

I've become a big Molyneux fan. His arguments just make too much sense. I now subscribe and donate to his podcast.

[heavenlyboy34]

I've become a big Molyneux fan. His arguments just make too much sense. I now subscribe and donate to his podcast.
Do you suppose it's possible to overlook the psychobabble he posts sometimes, or is it inherently tied up with his arguments WRT other things? If these parts of his philosophy are necessarily part of his system of ideas, it takes away from his credibility IMO.

[Reason]

I've become a big Molyneux fan. His arguments just make too much sense. I now subscribe and donate to his podcast.

You are not alone good sir =)

[Murray N Rothbard]

He has some interesting videos for sure. And is great at mocking the absurdity of The State. I think he is a bit ahead of his time.

[Reason]

He has some interesting videos for sure. And is great at mocking the absurdity of The State. I think he is a bit ahead of his time.

I see great potential for him to do a lot of good for the liberty movement, it's frustrating to me that so many libertarians don't see that how your closest family interacts when you grow up has a huge impact on how you see the state and society once you're an adult.

[IDefendThePlatform]

Do you suppose it's possible to overlook the psychobabble he posts sometimes, or is it inherently tied up with his arguments WRT other things? If these parts of his philosophy are necessarily part of his system of ideas, it takes away from his credibility IMO.

My apologies, I must've missed this reply earlier.

Not entirely sure what you're referring to as psychobabble, but if you're asking me if I agree 100% with his interpersonal relationship advice I'd say no. The most interesting and informative parts of his podcasts for me are the observations he makes about the ridiculousness of the state. I also feel like I gain a better understanding of the process of political/agorist changemaking. Specifically, how political change and revolutions don't work and why.

He does a great job, IMO, of questioning EVERYTHING and relating it to his own personal moral compass. So, to answer your question(I think), if you believe in the non-aggression principle then I don't think it matters if you came to that belief in the same way that he has, you will still find his arguments useful and very compelling, IMO.

[heavenlyboy34]

My apologies, I must've missed this reply earlier.

Not entirely sure what you're referring to as psychobabble, but if you're asking me if I agree 100% with his interpersonal relationship advice I'd say no. The most interesting and informative parts of his podcasts for me are the observations he makes about the ridiculousness of the state. I also feel like I gain a better understanding of the process of political/agorist changemaking. Specifically, how political change and revolutions don't work and why.

He does a great job, IMO, of questioning EVERYTHING and relating it to his own personal moral compass. So, to answer your question(I think), if you believe in the non-aggression principle then I don't think it matters if you came to that belief in the same way that he has, you will still find his arguments useful and very compelling, IMO.
He tends to try to psycho-analyze people, events, and phenomena in ways that are very quackish. The whole "de-foo" thing is quite odd. It's like he finds these things in modern pop psychology books.

There are plenty of valid ways to compare the family and the State. A number of people of done this. All that said, he has done some good things. I occasionally listen to his podcasts for the modern anarchist's view of things and subscribe to his channel.