Stefan Molyneux will be a guest on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast 9/20

[Bastiat's The Law]

Stefan will record an appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast this Friday 9/20, followed by a debate with Peter Joseph on Monday 9/23.

**UPDATE**

Here it is!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Boihk2p8s&feature=player_embedded

DOWNLOAD THE PODCAST HERE (http://traffic.libsyn.com/joeroganexp/p396.mp3)

[BuddyRey]

This is going to be AWESOME! Two absolutely brilliant men with a great sense of humor going head-to-head. They're going to disagree a lot - especially on the topic of martial arts, but I hope there's no animosity between the two on that subject, and that they focus on their many areas of agreement. This could be a landmark episode.

Thanks for the heads-up, OP!

[NewRightLibertarian]

Awesome!

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not a fan of Molineux. He's too anti-family, anti-Christian, and anti-political for my taste.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not a fan of Molineux. He's too anti-family, anti-Christian, and anti-political for my taste.
How is he "anti-family"? He's spoken numerous times in his podcasts about the importance of family to child development. I think his anti-religion stance is extreme to the point of irrationality, though.

[BuddyRey]

I'm not a fan of Molineux. He's too anti-family, anti-Christian, and anti-political for my taste.

Yeah, his black-and-white conceptualization of rationality - the "if you're not an atheist, you're not a serious philosopher" argument for example - can be very unnerving, as is his tendency to instantly pathologize anything and everything negative in society as resulting from bad childhoods. Still, when he can keep on the subject of statism and coercion without straying into Randian anti-theist absolutism and dime-store psychology, he's a pretty fascinating cat.

[Cabal]

I'm not a fan of Molineux. He's too anti-family, anti-Christian, and anti-political for my taste.

It's Molyneux. I don't think it's at all fair to label him as anti-family, especially considering he has a wife and kid. He's simply anti-abusive family, AFAIK. And it's not so much that he's anti-Christian as it is that he's an atheist and an anarchist, two ideologies which are generally at odds with traditional and mainstream Christianity. As for being anti-political, I'm not really sure what you mean by that. I mean, on one hand, yeah... he's an anarchist. OTOH, he discusses politics regularly on his podcast and youtube channel.

[matt0611]

Yeah, his black-and-white conceptualization of rationality - the "if you're not an atheist, you're not a serious philosopher" argument for example - can be very unnerving, as is his tendency to instantly pathologize anything and everything negative in society as resulting from bad childhoods. Still, when he can keep on the subject of statism and coercion without straying into Randian anti-theist absolutism and dime-store psychology, he's a pretty fascinating cat.

Agree. I still enjoy a lot of his anti-statist rants though. He's pretty good at communicating them to others. I'll have to check this out when its up.

[jclay2]

Stefan went on Alex Jones a week or two ago. He was really good.

[randomname]

this should be good...

[ctiger2]

Stefan's brilliant. There's a reason Joe wants him on.

[Snew]

coolness. Two of my faves.

[green73]

Awesome!

http://www.db18.com/d/awesome/awesome_022.gif

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, his black-and-white conceptualization of rationality - the "if you're not an atheist, you're not a serious philosopher" argument for example - can be very unnerving, as is his tendency to instantly pathologize anything and everything negative in society as resulting from bad childhoods. Still, when he can keep on the subject of statism and coercion without straying into Randian anti-theist absolutism and dime-store psychology, he's a pretty fascinating cat.

He also fails to understand, IMO, that strong families and churches are the enemies of statism.

Plus his views on voting, I don't care too much if people vote or not, but trying to convince a libertarian audience that they shouldn't is just being stupid IMO.

All that said, I'm not a big fan. I feel like Walter Block understands these kinds of issues, and Rothbard understood them while he was still alive, far better than Molyneux.

[Christian Liberty]

It's Molyneux. I don't think it's at all fair to label him as anti-family, especially considering he has a wife and kid. He's simply anti-abusive family, AFAIK. And it's not so much that he's anti-Christian as it is that he's an atheist and an anarchist, two ideologies which are generally at odds with traditional and mainstream Christianity. As for being anti-political, I'm not really sure what you mean by that. I mean, on one hand, yeah... he's an anarchist. OTOH, he discusses politics regularly on his podcast and youtube channel.

He seems like he'd define "abusive" in a silly liberal sense though, like if you spank your kid you're abusive. And I don't see why Christianity is opposed to anarchy or freedom at all. Reformed Christianity in particular should logically lead to those types of conclusions even if some people don't follow through.

I support strong families, strong churches, and no State.

[Cabal]

He seems like he'd define "abusive" in a silly liberal sense though, like if you spank your kid you're abusive. And I don't see why Christianity is opposed to anarchy or freedom at all. Reformed Christianity in particular should logically lead to those types of conclusions even if some people don't follow through.

I support strong families, strong churches, and no State.

The philosophy of anarchism he ascribes to and advocates is one that emerges from NAP. He's anti-spanking because when you break it down, spanking is ultimately physical violence. Given how centrally important consistency is to him, his philosophy, and to logic in general, to say that a grown adult spanking a child that can't really defend themselves versus said adult is okay, but others forms of physical violence are not would be a problem. Moreover, he tends to link childhood abuses to other problems down the road, such as addiction and criminality--i.e. children that are abused are more likely to become abusive in some way as adults. Further still, given that he advocates a philosophy of peaceful, voluntary cooperation, as opposed to resorting to initiations of violence as a solution to problems, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense if he was for spanking. Ultimately, it parallels the moral inconsistencies of statism--i.e. murder is wrong, unless you're in uniform, then it's patriotic.

Christianity is historically and traditionally linked to statism, as are most religions. I think it's safe to say most Americans who identify as Christians tend to be republicans, and in many cases may also be neocons. The religious-right has been known to be heavily involved in the 'war on drugs' as well as discriminatory against homosexuality, further putting them at odds with libertarian ideals. They also have a tendency of being war/chicken hawks, and are all about supporting Israel at seemingly any expense. I think, more to the point, he tends to take issue with one's capacity to be a rational thinker when they associate themselves with a faith-based religion. At least, this is my understanding of his atheism.

So, while you may not agree with him, certainly you can at least appreciate where he's coming from. I'm not a huge fan of how he can harp on the religious stuff in and otherwise interesting and thoughtful discussion, and I'm not even Christian myself. But I understand where it comes from. And his position on spanking makes a lot of sense to me as well, personally.

[Christian Liberty]

The philosophy of anarchism he ascribes to and advocates is one that emerges from NAP. He's anti-spanking because when you break it down, spanking is ultimately physical violence. Given how centrally important consistency is to him, his philosophy, and to logic in general, to say that a grown adult spanking a child that can't really defend themselves versus said adult is okay, but others forms of physical violence are not would be a problem. Moreover, he tends to link childhood abuses to other problems down the road, such as addiction and criminality--i.e. children that are abused are more likely to become abusive in some way as adults. Further still, given that he advocates a philosophy of peaceful, voluntary cooperation, as opposed to resorting to initiations of violence as a solution to problems, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense if he was for spanking. Ultimately, it parallels the moral inconsistencies of statism--i.e. murder is wrong, unless you're in uniform, then it's patriotic.

Christianity is historically and traditionally linked to statism, as are most religions. I think it's safe to say most Americans who identify as Christians tend to be republicans, and in many cases may also be neocons. The religious-right has been known to be heavily involved in the 'war on drugs' as well as discriminatory against homosexuality, further putting them at odds with libertarian ideals. They also have a tendency of being war/chicken hawks, and are all about supporting Israel at seemingly any expense. I think, more to the point, he tends to take issue with one's capacity to be a rational thinker when they associate themselves with a faith-based religion. At least, this is my understanding of his atheism.

So, while you may not agree with him, certainly you can at least appreciate where he's coming from. I'm not a huge fan of how he can harp on the religious stuff in and otherwise interesting and thoughtful discussion, and I'm not even Christian myself. But I understand where it comes from. And his position on spanking makes a lot of sense to me as well, personally.

It seems to me that he would actually be OK with using force against parents that spank. That's the logical conclusion, and its obviously ridiculous.

I don't really care too much if parents spank or not but I respect the right of other parents to parent the way they want unless they are clearly abusive.

I believe the family, and the church, are God ordained. I don't believe the State is God-ordained. Mind you, there is a sense in which it is, because ultimately, God is in control of everything that happens, but I see no moral condoning of the State in the Bible the way I do the family or the church.

Now, as for politics, you're absolutely right that there are a lot of Republican neocons, and it drives me nuts. I hate that they still pledge the American flag in the children's ministry. I've talked to my dad about this (He's the pastor) and I'm hoping I can get him to not let them do it at some point. That said, I've seen churches that have far, far bigger problems than statism. I all but told someone who attends my church that I was an anarchist during a conversation on Romans 13, and while he didn't agree with me, he didn't seem to have any serious issues with my stance either (I didn't actually use the word "Anarchy" but I did say that all governments violate the 8th and 6th commandments.)

That said, I guess I'm making a distinction between Christianity as such, and Christians. Yes, many Christians are statists, but I don't see why Christianity HAS to lead to statism.

With regards to Israel, that's interesting. To my understanding, people who hold to Dispensational theology tend to be neocon/chickenhawks (Not ALWAYS, but more likely than not) but people who hold to Covenental theology can be all over the spectrum. I've said before that I think Palin could be a real ally for liberty (not necessarily an anarchist, but definitely a libertarian) if she got her theology in order.

Most of the conservatives I talk to can live with my views on drugs, they don't usually agree, but I can usually get them to support the 10th amendment. Gay marriage does get to a lot of them though. I don't support gay marriage either, but for different reasons than them. My opposition to SSM isn't really because I think homosexuality is immoral, even though I do. My reason is more not wanting government involvement in marriage.

[Cabal]

It seems to me that he would actually be OK with using force against parents that spank. That's the logical conclusion, and its obviously ridiculous.

I don't really care too much if parents spank or not but I respect the right of other parents to parent the way they want unless they are clearly abusive.

I believe the family, and the church, are God ordained. I don't believe the State is God-ordained. Mind you, there is a sense in which it is, because ultimately, God is in control of everything that happens, but I see no moral condoning of the State in the Bible the way I do the family or the church.

Now, as for politics, you're absolutely right that there are a lot of Republican neocons, and it drives me nuts. I hate that they still pledge the American flag in the children's ministry. I've talked to my dad about this (He's the pastor) and I'm hoping I can get him to not let them do it at some point. That said, I've seen churches that have far, far bigger problems than statism. I all but told someone who attends my church that I was an anarchist during a conversation on Romans 13, and while he didn't agree with me, he didn't seem to have any serious issues with my stance either (I didn't actually use the word "Anarchy" but I did say that all governments violate the 8th and 6th commandments.)

That said, I guess I'm making a distinction between Christianity as such, and Christians. Yes, many Christians are statists, but I don't see why Christianity HAS to lead to statism.

With regards to Israel, that's interesting. To my understanding, people who hold to Dispensational theology tend to be neocon/chickenhawks (Not ALWAYS, but more likely than not) but people who hold to Covenental theology can be all over the spectrum. I've said before that I think Palin could be a real ally for liberty (not necessarily an anarchist, but definitely a libertarian) if she got her theology in order.

Most of the conservatives I talk to can live with my views on drugs, they don't usually agree, but I can usually get them to support the 10th amendment. Gay marriage does get to a lot of them though. I don't support gay marriage either, but for different reasons than them. My opposition to SSM isn't really because I think homosexuality is immoral, even though I do. My reason is more not wanting government involvement in marriage.


Of course, he takes no issue with equitable and reasonable defensive force. Beyond that, I'm not aware of what his particular response to this would be, but I imagine it's not quite that simple.

The issue I'm seeing with your argument here is with what your definition of "clearly abusive" is, as it appears to not necessarily be about physical violence. So, I'd have to wonder what else might qualify as non-abusive. Spanking is essentially behavioral modification by way of violence. And, see, once you begin breaking things down to the barebones, this is where things can either become really consistent, or really inconsistent--theories of morality either stand to scrutiny, or crumble in the face of inconsistency. If you say that spanking is okay, you're thus essentially saying that physical violence for the sake of behavioral modification is okay. You're creating a specific moral standard for one situation that does not universally apply, and therein you have a rather glaring inconsistency in your theory of morality, which may also become quite a slippery slope.

I'm agnostic myself, so I can't really speak to his atheism beyond what I've already stated above. Obviously there are those who identify as Christians that do not fit into the more stereotypical characterization--there are Christian anarchists, Christian libertarians, and so on. I've generally learned to disregard his religious commentary for the most part, as that's not a topic I'm all that interested in discussing, or hearing from him--I find much more value in the other topics he discusses. Filtering out the religious commentary doesn't seem to detract from his voluntaryist message, so it works for me, but again, I'm not Christian, and I could see where this might be a problem for others who are Christian. However, I feel it's worth mentioning that my mother is a Christian and she tends to take the same approach as me--she lets the religious commentary go in favor of being receptive to his politics and voluntaryist philosophy.

[Sola_Fide]

You all need to be more discerning. You need to be more critical of things. To think "oh, he's for liberty, so everything he says is good" is something only an unthinking person would say.

This discussion is going to be full of fallacies and it will fly right over the heads of most here.

[Cabal]

You all need to be more discerning. You need to be more critical of things. To think "oh, he's for liberty, so everything he says is good" is something only an unthinking person would say.

This discussion is going to be full of fallacies and it will fly right over the heads of most here.

Why hello there, Mr. Straw man.

[thehungarian]

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Data-Star-Trek-Fist-Pump.gif

[thehungarian]

This is going to be AWESOME! Two absolutely brilliant men with a great sense of humor going head-to-head. They're going to disagree a lot - especially on the topic of martial arts, but I hope there's no animosity between the two on that subject, and that they focus on their many areas of agreement. This could be a landmark episode.

Thanks for the heads-up, OP!

Nah, I don't think there will be any animosity at all between them. They are both fairly open-minded and open to criticism, so Rogan can give him a different perspective on MMA and, almost assuredly, psychedelics. Also, Stef has a potty mouth sometimes so he should be comfortable in that atmosphere.

[Christian Liberty]

Of course, he takes no issue with equitable and reasonable defensive force. Beyond that, I'm not aware of what his particular response to this would be, but I imagine it's not quite that simple.

The issue I'm seeing with your argument here is with what your definition of "clearly abusive" is, as it appears to not necessarily be about physical violence. So, I'd have to wonder what else might qualify as non-abusive. Spanking is essentially behavioral modification by way of violence. And, see, once you begin breaking things down to the barebones, this is where things can either become really consistent, or really inconsistent--theories of morality either stand to scrutiny, or crumble in the face of inconsistency. If you say that spanking is okay, you're thus essentially saying that physical violence for the sake of behavioral modification is okay. You're creating a specific moral standard for one situation that does not universally apply, and therein you have a rather glaring inconsistency in your theory of morality, which may also become quite a slippery slope.

I'm agnostic myself, so I can't really speak to his atheism beyond what I've already stated above. Obviously there are those who identify as Christians that do not fit into the more stereotypical characterization--there are Christian anarchists, Christian libertarians, and so on. I've generally learned to disregard his religious commentary for the most part, as that's not a topic I'm all that interested in discussing, or hearing from him--I find much more value in the other topics he discusses. Filtering out the religious commentary doesn't seem to detract from his voluntaryist message, so it works for me, but again, I'm not Christian, and I could see where this might be a problem for others who are Christian. However, I feel it's worth mentioning that my mother is a Christian and she tends to take the same approach as me--she lets the religious commentary go in favor of being receptive to his politics and voluntaryist philosophy.

I guess where I differ from most other libertarian/anarcho-capitalists is that I also use the Bible to define my views, and God clearly ordains the family. I think its clear, both because God says so, and just from nature, that the family is natural and the State is not.

Someone who would punish parents for spanking their kids is not pro-liberty.

You all need to be more discerning. You need to be more critical of things. To think "oh, he's for liberty, so everything he says is good" is something only an unthinking person would say.

This discussion is going to be full of fallacies and it will fly right over the heads of most here.

I don't think anyone said ALL of what he says is good. But as a Bible-believing Christian, the more anti-theist elements of the liberty movement bother me more than it might bother someone like Cabal who, while not anti-religion, is agnostic. As a Christian, I take some of those attacks personally whereas Cabal understandably would not.

[thehungarian]

It seems to me that he would actually be OK with using force against parents that spank. That's the logical conclusion, and its obviously ridiculous.

I don't really care too much if parents spank or not but I respect the right of other parents to parent the way they want unless they are clearly abusive.



Why is it not OK to hit your kid in the face, but it is OK to hit them on the ass?

[BuddyRey]

You all need to be more discerning. You need to be more critical of things. To think "oh, he's for liberty, so everything he says is good" is something only an unthinking person would say.

This discussion is going to be full of fallacies and it will fly right over the heads of most here.

Two questions...First of all, has there been anyone in this thread who has said that everything Stefan Molyneux says is good? Almost everyone here has had at least one or two critiques of him.

Secondly, why do you presuppose that any fallacies you assume will be in the discussion will fly right over our heads? Do you think you're that much smarter than the rest of us?

[Christian Liberty]

Why is it not OK to hit your kid in the face, but it is OK to hit them on the ass?

Should people who hit their kids in the face be charged with child abuse? I don't think you can make an unqualified "Yes" answer to that.

Although, in most cases, a strike to the face would be out of anger, not discipline.


Two questions...First of all, has there been anyone in this thread who has said that everything Stefan Molyneux says is good? Almost everyone here has had at least one or two critiques of him.

This is true.



Secondly, why do you presuppose that any fallacies you assume will be in the discussion will fly right over our heads? Do you think you're that much smarter than the rest of us?

By definition you'd have to accept Christianity to accept his arguments. Without Christianity, his arguments for anarchism do not work. He would argue, and I'd tend to agree, that you can't have a fully coherent moral system without Christianity. That said, I'm not quite as combative about this as he is.

[fr33]

This isn't the religion forum jesusfreaks.

[fr33]

Anyways, neither Joe Rogan or Stefan Molyneux are Christians. That's why I griped above.

I look forward to this. Rogan is more like an everyday guy and is a statist but Molyneux is a philosopher. Should make for a good 3 hour discussion.

[fearthereaperx]

The title of this thread should be called Joe Rogan Vs. Stefan Molyneux

[noneedtoaggress]

Should people who hit their kids in the face be charged with child abuse? I don't think you can make an unqualified "Yes" answer to that.

Alright, so qualify it.

When is it okay to hit a child in the face and when isn't it?


Although, in most cases, a strike to the face would be out of anger, not discipline.

Spanking is also out of anger, though it might not be out of an uncontrollable rage. Anger that someone is disobedient or misbehaving.


We use our language in many different ways to trick ourselves into believing that our feelings result from what others do. The first step in the process of fully expressing our anger is to realize that what other people do is never the cause of how we feel. Anger is generated when we are finding fault –we choose to play God by judging or blaming the other person for being wrong or deserving of punishment. I would like to suggest that this is the cause of anger. Even if we are not initially conscious of it, the cause of anger is located in our own thinking.

It's also alienating, and sows the seeds for resentment and potential blowback. It may be a very minute and minor disruption or it may lead to rebellion and dissolution of bonds, but it doesn't help build positive relationships between family members. I'd consider it "anti-family".


Physical punishment, such as spanking, is one punitive use of force. My personal concern is that children’s fear of corporal punishment may obscure their awareness of the compassion that underlines parental demands.

I wonder whether people who proclaim the success of such punishment are aware of the countless instances of children who turn against what might be good for them simply because they choose to fight, rather to succumb, to coercion.

Second, the apparent success of corporal punishment in influencing a child doesn’t mean that other methods of influence wouldn’t have worked equally well.

Finally, I share the concerns of many parents about the social consequences of using physical punishment. When parents opt to use force, we may win the battle of getting children to do what we want, but in the process, are we not perpetuating a social norm that justifies violence as a means of resolving differences?

And ultimately it's to satisfy the person doing it, rather than to "rehabilitate" the "offender". The ultimate lesson you learn from punitive force is "don't get caught". If you really want to affect someone's behavior it has to come from within.


When our objective is to get somebody to stop doing something, punishment looks like an effective strategy. But if we ask ourselves two questions, we would never use punishment again. Punishment is a losing game.

• What do we want the other person to do?

We are not asking what we don’t want them to do. And second question:

• What do we want the other’s person reasons to be for doing what we want them to do?

[Cabal]

By definition you'd have to accept Christianity to accept his arguments. Without Christianity, his arguments for anarchism do not work. He would argue, and I'd tend to agree, that you can't have a fully coherent moral system without Christianity. That said, I'm not quite as combative about this as he is.

Of course, you realize "because god" is just a flagrant logical fallacy, right?

[Sola_Fide]

Of course, you realize "because god" is just a flagrant logical fallacy, right?

No it isn't.

[Cabal]

No it isn't.

How compelling.

[Sola_Fide]

How compelling.

Go ahead and try to show that it is, and I'll show you that you as an atheist appeal to final authorities as well. Everyone does.

[Cabal]

Go ahead and try to show that it is, and I'll show you that you as an atheist appeal to final authorities as well. Everyone does.

So you do understand, and yet you continue to do it anyway. Constantly.

[LibertyEagle]

The philosophy of anarchism he ascribes to and advocates is one that emerges from NAP. He's anti-spanking because when you break it down, spanking is ultimately physical violence. Given how centrally important consistency is to him, his philosophy, and to logic in general, to say that a grown adult spanking a child that can't really defend themselves versus said adult is okay, but others forms of physical violence are not would be a problem. Moreover, he tends to link childhood abuses to other problems down the road, such as addiction and criminality--i.e. children that are abused are more likely to become abusive in some way as adults. Further still, given that he advocates a philosophy of peaceful, voluntary cooperation, as opposed to resorting to initiations of violence as a solution to problems, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense if he was for spanking. Ultimately, it parallels the moral inconsistencies of statism--i.e. murder is wrong, unless you're in uniform, then it's patriotic.
Spanking is not abuse.


Christianity is historically and traditionally linked to statism, as are most religions. I think it's safe to say most Americans who identify as Christians tend to be republicans, and in many cases may also be neocons. The religious-right has been known to be heavily involved in the 'war on drugs' as well as discriminatory against homosexuality, further putting them at odds with libertarian ideals. They also have a tendency of being war/chicken hawks, and are all about supporting Israel at seemingly any expense. I think, more to the point, he tends to take issue with one's capacity to be a rational thinker when they associate themselves with a faith-based religion. At least, this is my understanding of his atheism.

Uh, NO.

"But it is to Christianity that we owe individual freedom and capitalism. It is no coincidence that capitalism developed in Christian Europe after the transnational church limited the state. In ancient Greece and Rome, the individual was merely part of the city state or the empire, unimportant in his own right. Christianity changed that by stressing the infinite worth of each individual soul." - Murray Rothbard


“Parenthetically, I am getting tired of the offhanded smearing of religion that has long been endemic to the libertarian movement. Religion is generally dismissed as imbecilic at best, inherently evil at worst. The greatest and most creative minds in the history of mankind have been deeply and profoundly religious, most of them Christian.” – Murray Rothbard



So, while you may not agree with him, certainly you can at least appreciate where he's coming from. I'm not a huge fan of how he can harp on the religious stuff in and otherwise interesting and thoughtful discussion, and I'm not even Christian myself. But I understand where it comes from. And his position on spanking makes a lot of sense to me as well, personally.

[noneedtoaggress]

Spanking is not abuse.

How do you define abuse?


Uh, NO.

That doesn't really negate what he said. There's truth to both perspectives. There's a lot being lumped together here into the term "Christianity" (principles, institutions, cultures of people who simply self-identify with the term).

[Cabal]

I wouldn't bother, noneed.

[Sola_Fide]

So you do understand, and yet you continue to do it anyway. Constantly.

So do you. Everyone does. It is an inescapable aspect of reasoning. Everyone, theist and atheist, reason from assumed axioms. We all have our ultimate authorities.

[Sola_Fide]

So you do understand, and yet you continue to do it anyway. Constantly.

So do you. Everyone does. It is an inescapable aspect of reasoning. Everyone, theist and atheist, reason from assumed axioms. We all have our ultimate authorities.

[jtstellar]

Stefan will record an appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast this Friday 9/20, followed by a debate with Peter Joseph on Monday 9/23.

Go Stefan!

http://25.media.tumblr.com/445e9e3e26ccdf8ce9380658f044e3fa/tumblr_mky23oiTiz1rblqp8o1_250.gif

...peter joseph is still around?

i have not heard that name since ~2010

[QuickZ06]

Tube?

[familydog]

Spanking is not abuse.

I don't understand the fetish for hitting a child's bare ass. Either people get off on the sexual pleasure of the situation or they get off on hitting a defenseless human being. Either way, try "spanking" an adult. You'll be locked away for assault.

[dannno]

They both have so much to teach each other.

[Bastiat's The Law]

...peter joseph is still around?

i have not heard that name since ~2010

He is surprisingly, still promoting new age marxism. Stefan did debate someone from their venus project. If I heard correctly the guy Stefan is debating with was formerly with us :confused:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjwBZjADiM

[Christian Liberty]

Of course, you realize "because god" is just a flagrant logical fallacy, right?

If we are wrong about the existence of God, you are clearly correct.

But if, on the other hand, we are correct about that issue, then logically what God says MUST be correct, because to even question him requires using the minds that he gave us. To use a created thing to question the creator is irrational.

I think there are enough OT prophecies that were fulfilled through Christ to prove that Christianity is the truth. And Christian doctrine says "Thou shall not steal" ,"Thou shall not murder" ,"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" "Strive not with a man without cause, if he has done ye no harm" etc. So while, yes, there were a few victimless crimes laws in the Old Testament, those only applied for Israel, and even then, it was the community that enforced those laws, not any "state." One thing I've learned from talking to my fellow Christians on this site, there's nothing Biblical whatsoever about elevating any group of people above the rest and giving them a monopoly on the right to use force, in the OT or the NT.

All that said, I don't believe there's only one argument for liberty. I agree with some of the flaws Sola_Fide points out in Hoppean logic, but they are nonetheless the strongest arguments you're going to get for anything with an atheistic view. I suppose simply preaching the gospel is more of a holistic approach, but I don't oppose using them in the right context. There's also the pragmatic arguments, and the whole "Do unto others" philosophy. So, I think there's more than one good argument for freedom.

[jtstellar]

They both have so much to teach each other.

??

[jtstellar]

He is surprisingly, still promoting new age marxism. Stefan did debate someone from their venus project. If I heard correctly the guy Stefan is debating with was formerly with us :confused:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjwBZjADiM

i remember there was a guy pushing zeitgeist systems hard in general forums when i was here newly registered around 2011

not sure if it is him. and i'm not even sure peter joseph is a real name.. feels more and more like a 'bob wenzel' the more i look at it.

[Reason]

He also fails to understand, IMO, that churches are the enemies of statism.


Negative. They are just replacements/alternatives to the state.

[Christian Liberty]

Fair enough, especially considering that most don't actively oppose the state. But they are an alternative to it, perform many of the same functions in many cases, but without coercion.

They are very important to the cause of abolishing the state, even if most of them won't help us directly, they are indirectly helpful.

At the same time, the more Christians we can get out of dispensationalism and Israel-first theology, the better. Even still, I'd say Christianity is doing more good for the cause than bad, in total.

[fearthereaperx]

What time does this come on?

[dannno]

??

Joe Rogan has a lot to teach Stefan about the healing, intellectual and potentially spiritual powers of cannabis and other psychedelic substances such as mushrooms and DMT.

Stefan has a lot to teach Joe about personal freedom and economics. Joe Rogan is usually pretty good about both of those things, but once in a while you get the whole, "wow, this is a real problem, what laws can we as a society make to prevent this?" kind of attitude when it is the laws that are creating the problem to begin with.

They are both on the same page when it comes to the war on drugs and overseas wars.

[dannno]

i remember there was a guy pushing zeitgeist systems hard in general forums when i was here newly registered around 2011

not sure if it is him. and i'm not even sure peter joseph is a real name.. feels more and more like a 'bob wenzel' the more i look at it.

The Zeitgeist Movement is a lot bigger than you think, but I would imagine the numbers have been going down since '10/'11. My old roommate used to head the Zeitgeist chapter in my town. He still supports it somewhat, but is not as active and he has been getting more into Stefan and some other freedom philosophers in the last year or so.

That said the guy who was pushing it here is probably just some random internet dude, and Peter Joseph lives in LA, my old roommate has met him a few times and even stayed at his house.

[Arion45]

I guess where I differ from most other libertarian/anarcho-capitalists is that I also use the Bible to define my views, and God clearly ordains the family. I think its clear, both because God says so, and just from nature, that the family is natural and the State is not.

Someone who would punish parents for spanking their kids is not pro-liberty.


I don't think anyone said ALL of what he says is good. But as a Bible-believing Christian, the more anti-theist elements of the liberty movement bother me more than it might bother someone like Cabal who, while not anti-religion, is agnostic. As a Christian, I take some of those attacks personally whereas Cabal understandably would not.

How do you use the bible? Do you just ignore all the evil in it? Like its slavery, murder etc.? How do you justify that religion is used as the state is used to conduct atrocities throughout history? Do you not think that if it had set in stone rules then people could come to a conclusion that waris immoral?

[Arion45]

Spanking is not abuse.



Uh, NO.

"But it is to Christianity that we owe individual freedom and capitalism. It is no coincidence that capitalism developed in Christian Europe after the transnational church limited the state. In ancient Greece and Rome, the individual was merely part of the city state or the empire, unimportant in his own right. Christianity changed that by stressing the infinite worth of each individual soul." - Murray Rothbard


“Parenthetically, I am getting tired of the offhanded smearing of religion that has long been endemic to the libertarian movement. Religion is generally dismissed as imbecilic at best, inherently evil at worst. The greatest and most creative minds in the history of mankind have been deeply and profoundly religious, most of them Christian.” – Murray Rothbard


Ok well then let someone go get a paddle and then let them hit your behind. This will occur when you make mistakes. Then after a week of this come back and tell us what you think about spanking. Oh and the Rock has to do the spanking to compensate for the size difference between child and adult.

[Bastiat's The Law]

What time does this come on?

I haven't seen anything from Rogan or Stefan on twitter, but it looks like it wasn't a live show, which sucks. I'm sure they recorded it and will either post it tonight or tomorrow.

[kcchiefs6465]

I haven't seen anything from Rogan or Stefan on twitter, but it looks like it wasn't a live show, which sucks. I'm sure they recorded it and will either post it tonight or tomorrow.
A bump with the tube would be appreciated.

[Bastiat's The Law]

http://s18.postimg.org/akslb6289/2013_09_20_2305.png

[jtstellar]

Joe Rogan has a lot to teach Stefan about the healing, intellectual and potentially spiritual powers of cannabis and other psychedelic substances such as mushrooms and DMT.

Stefan has a lot to teach Joe about personal freedom and economics. Joe Rogan is usually pretty good about both of those things, but once in a while you get the whole, "wow, this is a real problem, what laws can we as a society make to prevent this?" kind of attitude when it is the laws that are creating the problem to begin with.

They are both on the same page when it comes to the war on drugs and overseas wars.

i thought you meant peter joseph and molyneux..

i can see education going one way but not so much the other


My old roommate used to head the Zeitgeist chapter in my town. He still supports it somewhat, but is not as active and he has been getting more into Stefan and some other freedom philosophers in the last year or so.

that's good news

if through years of freedom philosophy sinking in the end result is more people crowding toward what some call as 'neo-marxism', the state of affairs would indeed be infinitely more despairing

and i don't get why people despise stefen molyneux despite being fellow anarchists..was it sola_fide? and it also gave me a kick knowing anarchists also don't like each other lol.. it's not limited to anarchist toward limited government people. steph puts together really nice research and statistics.. his parenting theories and such i just listen to on occasion but it's not the primary focus compared to some of his most popular presentations.

when he does serious work as it pertains to gun crime and a lot of other topics of major debates,

always decent timing as well right in the heat of moments, the results were usually extremely positive contributions to the liberty perspective by adding in desperately needed statistics to back up our claims, and you could tell from the detail of those research that it must have taken an amazing amount of time. his rant on other subjective topics is just a side show as far as i'm concerned. it's strange how some people dislike him so

[BuddyRey]

Still no sign of the podcast on Joe's site. Dangit, this wait is torturous!

[fearthereaperx]

Still no sign of the podcast on Joe's site. Dangit, this wait is torturous!

Redban is lazy.

[dannno]

Redban is lazy.


Why did't they stream it like usual?

[heavenlyboy34]

Negative. They are just replacements/alternatives to the state.
WTF? Care to explain the scores of people and martyrs who have been slaughtered for being Christians? Statists either hijack or crush religion historically.

[dannno]

WTF? Care to explain the scores of people and martyrs who have been slaughtered for being Christians? Statists either hijack or crush religion historically.

One theory is religion is like an old way of tagging, you can tell when cattle have crossed onto the wrong farm because they worship wrong.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Why did't they stream it like usual?
Because Joe is in Toronto to host the UFC not at his studio in LA.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Stefan Molyneux attended UFC 165 event? Wow.

http://s13.postimg.org/f2oa3q0af/2013_09_21_1941.png

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/12661_10152187262891679_950507340_n.jpg

[robert68]

WTF? Care to explain the scores of people and martyrs who have been slaughtered for being Christians? Statists either hijack or crush religion historically.

Not true. Starting in the early 4th century with Emperor Constantine, the hierarchs of Christianity used the empire/state to give Christianity privilege treatment over non-Christians. In fact the very definition of what Jesus was, was a matter of debate among Christians (the Arian debate), and decided politically at the first 2 Ecumenical Councils. Christian hierarchs received privileges from the state, and the first 7 or 8 Ecumenical Councils were arranged by Emperors.

Christianity was “introduced” into Russia by the dictatorship of Prince Vladimir (later made a Saint by the EOC), and the Russian Orthodox Church helped build and was a part of the Russian Empire. That may have been part of the reason Russian Jews like Ayn Rand were so anti-religious.

The Christian Church’s since, both east and west, never willingly gave up the privilege treatment they had with states in various places, and some still have it.

[Cutlerzzz]

Just wondering, does anyone know how he's doing with his cancer?

[BuddyRey]

Just wondering, does anyone know how he's doing with his cancer?

If I recall correctly, his treatments were successful and he's in remission now.

[Bastiat's The Law]

It's time you freaks!

DOWNLOAD THE PODCAST HERE (http://traffic.libsyn.com/joeroganexp/p396.mp3)

LISTEN TO THE AUDIO PODCAST ON STITCHER HERE (http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-joe-rogan-experience/episode/29332460?autoplay=true)

[fr33]

"Hello freak bitches!"

[kcchiefs6465]

Is there a place to actually download it?

BTL your first link just plays it on WMP for me. I'd like to listen to it in the car if possible.

[Cabal]

Is there a place to actually download it?

BTL your first link just plays it on WMP for me. I'd like to listen to it in the car if possible.

Try right-clicking first link and "Save link as..." you should be able to save the mp3 audio that way.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Is there a place to actually download it?

BTL your first link just plays it on WMP for me. I'd like to listen to it in the car if possible.
You should check your settings. The first link shouldn't automatically play, it should give you the option to save the mp3 file.

[kcchiefs6465]

Try right-clicking first link and "Save link as..." you should be able to save the mp3 audio that way.
Thanks. Probably could have [or should have] been able to figure that out myself.

Long day.

[pcgame]

............

[Cabal]

I'm about a quarter of the way through the show right now, and it's really very interesting so far.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Stefan has the video and said he will up load it soon. Rogan just got the audio.

[Cabal]

Stefan has the video and said he will up load it soon. Rogan just got the audio.

Nice, maybe I'll wait for the vid now.

[fearthereaperx]

Awesome podcast.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Awesome podcast.

Agreed, I hope they get together again soon. They only scratched the surface in some areas.

[Bastiat's The Law]

For those that missed it here's Stefan debating Peter Joseph.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vUtv5E6CkLE

[dannno]

"In America, more men get raped than women." Stefan Molyneux

Interesting.

[RabbitMan]

"In America, more men get raped than women." Stefan Molyneux

Interesting.

Likely related to the number of prisoners in this country.

[kcchiefs6465]

"In America, more men get raped than women." Stefan Molyneux

Interesting.
It would have been good for a background of what the quote was referring to. As I imagine it, this simple statement can be debunked by looking through the UCR.

What a dissuading quote. You do realize that with this chosen excerpt most every damn person in America will not give the entirety the time of day? Was that your point, or can you not help yourself?

[AlexAmore]

For those that missed it here's Stefan debating Peter Joseph.

There were a few times where I had to pause and laugh at Peter's vomit of words. I guess the lesson here is if you can't impress people with your intelligence, confuse them with your bullshit.

[robert68]

Joesph seems to be anti-competition in business period. His response to Molyneux's question on whether he sees a difference between someone like George Bush II who harmed and killed so many Iraqi’s, and a convenient store owner, captured his thinking well.

[Bastiat's The Law]

There were a few times where I had to pause and laugh at Peter's vomit of words. I guess the lesson here is if you can't impress people with your intelligence, confuse them with your bullshit.

He strikes me as the type of pseudo-intellectual that combs the dictionary for antiquated words to impress people at a dinner party. He manages to talk a lot, but say very little. As you said, it's quite the ballet of bullshit.

[sluggo]

Peter Joseph seems like the old guy who hangs around colleges in order to impress young women with his wisdom and worldliness.

[ctiger2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Boihk2p8s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Boihk2p8s

[Cabal]

It would have been good for a background of what the quote was referring to. As I imagine it, this simple statement can be debunked by looking through the UCR.

What a dissuading quote. You do realize that with this chosen excerpt most every damn person in America will not give the entirety the time of day? Was that your point, or can you not help yourself?

This is from a 2008 DOJ prison study. There's also allegedly a big issue with rape in the military for both men and women, with men coming out ahead there too. Of course, under-reporting is likely a big factor as well. The FBI doesn't account for prisons--not sure if they account for military or not--at least when compiling sexual abuse/assault stats, as I understand it.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Just listened to the whole podcast. Three hours of free-flowing conversation, and they didn't even touch on statelessness in any serious fashion. That alone would be worth at least three additional hours. They both have the ability to jump from topic to topic with ease. Pretty fun to ingest.