PDA

View Full Version : This is what a hypocrite looks like : Stefan Molyneux abusing DMCA to censor




PRB
10-29-2014, 01:28 PM
He opposed the state and also copyright protection, yet he uses DMCA to silence critics and trolls. This is different than reporting spam and harassment, it's deliberately using a fraudulent means of removing a person's videos knowing it didn't even violate copyright (which he doesn't believe in anyway).

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140821/18211228288/anarcho-capitalist-stefan-molyneux-who-doesnt-support-copyright-abuses-dmca-to-silence-critic.shtml

now he's being sued for it, luckily for him, he doesn't live in the US.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141025/06550928937/anarcho-capitalist-stefan-molyneux-sued-abusing-dmca.shtml

Does this type of "libertarian using the state" sound familiar to anybody at all?

dannno
10-29-2014, 01:32 PM
Stephan had videos taken down where private information was being released about people who were calling into his show.

He wasn't doing it to censor is critics, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard... do you have any idea how many critics he has had over the years?

PRB
10-29-2014, 01:41 PM
Stephan had videos taken down where private information was being released about people who were calling into his show.

He wasn't doing it to censor is critics, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard... do you have any idea how many critics he has had over the years?

that would still be DMCA abuse, DMCA is not for anything that's not copyright

dannno
10-29-2014, 01:47 PM
that would still be DMCA abuse, DMCA is not for anything that's not copyright

But the case that is being made by the author and others is that he is issuing notices to censor them for their opinion.

Do you know what that makes them? Dishonest pricks.

On top of stalking callers on his show, which is really fucked up because who is going to want to call into Stephan's show when they know people are going to start stalking them and releasing private information about them on youtube? On top of that, this person is making an intellectually dishonest case to try and attack him and his beliefs.

Whoever this guy is sounds like a complete scumbag.

PRB
10-29-2014, 01:59 PM
But the case that is being made by the author and others is that he is issuing notices to censor them for their opinion.


And I am willing to concede that may be wrong, however, DMCA abuse is anything that isn't copyright, including privacy. So if Stefan admitted to using DMCA takedown notices for ANYTHING other than copyright, he's guilty: abuse of DMCA law and fraud/perjury.

If we assume Stefan tells the truth, that he was protecting private information, how does HE believe it should be properly done? Short of using force and using copyright protection?



Do you know what that makes them? Dishonest pricks.

On top of stalking callers on his show, which is really fucked up because who is going to want to call into Stephan's show when they know people are going to start stalking them and releasing private information about them on youtube?


Stalking may be fucked up, but it's not illegal (or at least shouldn't be) until harm is done, go ahead and cite me those cyberstalking laws, you freaking Fascist!

How lovely to see that ancaps and libertarians want to justify use of force when it suits their own agenda?



On top of that, this person is making an intellectually dishonest case to try and attack him and his beliefs.

Whoever this guy is sounds like a complete scumbag.

He may be a scumbag and a liar, but he's not a criminal. Lying isn't illegal. Of all people Stefan and his supporters should know this.

idiom
10-29-2014, 03:08 PM
Your information isn't property, ergo nothing anyone does with it can violate the NAP.

Stalking, blackmail, slander, libel, they aren't force or coercion under the NAP.

Even using the DCMA to enforce copyright is a wee bit of a stretch for persons who disavow copyright.

Stefan is a guy whose ideal world involve blackboxes in every vehicle transmitting non-stop to insurance/marketing companies, and $10,000 rewards for reporting unregistered firearms to private defence organisations.

He is the epitome of the worldview that the problem with 'states' or state-like entities isn't coercion or injustice, but taxes. Take away taxes and everything is skittles and unicorns.

PRB
10-29-2014, 03:16 PM
Your information isn't property, ergo nothing anyone does with it can violate the NAP.

Stalking, blackmail, slander, libel, they aren't force or coercion under the NAP.


What about fraud or scamming?




Even using the DCMA to enforce copyright is a wee bit of a stretch for persons who disavow copyright.


If you disavow copyright, you can't use it, PERIOD.



Stefan is a guy whose ideal world involve blackboxes in every vehicle transmitting non-stop to insurance/marketing companies, and $10,000 rewards for reporting unregistered firearms to private defence organisations.

Private defenders against privacy!!

A Son of Liberty
10-29-2014, 04:39 PM
I bet he even uses public roads!!! HYPOCRITE!!

:roll:

LibForestPaul
10-29-2014, 05:17 PM
I am anarcho capitalist. If I can get free benies from the state, I am taking it. Don't give a damn.
So he could be a libertarian, who just doesn't give a damn.

PRB
10-29-2014, 05:40 PM
I bet he even uses public roads!!! HYPOCRITE!!

:roll:

Oh, there's a difference. Currently there is no legal choice BUT to use public roads, and he'll probably admit it'll take a while before private roads are a reality, much less norm.

However, as an ancap and a person who claims he's opposed to copyright protection, he has to first explain how he'd protect private information, then explain why he used a fraudulent means of protecting when he knows there's legal and private means available.

idiom
10-30-2014, 03:16 PM
Oh, there's a difference. Currently there is no legal choice BUT to use public roads, and he'll probably admit it'll take a while before private roads are a reality, much less norm.

However, as an ancap and a person who claims he's opposed to copyright protection, he has to first explain how he'd protect private information, then explain why he used a fraudulent means of protecting when he knows there's legal and private means available.

Private roads are an option in Australia. I opt out of them for privacy reasons, I don't like have the precise time I enter and exit a motorway logged and/or fined and stored in databases that are seriously insecure.

If you want privacy and/or freedom in travel that largely requires using public roads.

dannno
10-30-2014, 03:30 PM
Private roads are an option in Australia. I opt out of them for privacy reasons, I don't like have the precise time I enter and exit a motorway logged and/or fined and stored in databases that are seriously insecure.

If you want privacy and/or freedom in travel that largely requires using public roads.

Sounds like somebody in Australia needs to build some pro-privacy private roads.

PRB
01-04-2015, 07:15 PM
Sounds like somebody in Australia needs to build some pro-privacy private roads.

but there's no market for that, surprised?

juleswin
01-04-2015, 08:11 PM
Big for starting this thread anything to expose the fraud is good service to liberty.

Btw here are the videos the cult leader Stefan Molyneux doesn't want you to see. All the videos were archived and reposed in this youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXtp2ZZWZcRrhrR9ICWO71g

Personally, my best video of em all is this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-k-HmUHhCY

As you watch the videos, try and pick out anything that could be mistaken for harassment of his sheepish viewers. You would notice that you cannot find anything. The man sent govt agents i.e. introduced the gun into the room because someone is using his words to expose him. Anarchist my ass.

jmdrake
01-04-2015, 08:25 PM
Stephan had videos taken down where private information was being released about people who were calling into his show.

He wasn't doing it to censor is critics, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard... do you have any idea how many critics he has had over the years?

Except the private information he was complaining about was already available to the public through his show.

Christian Liberty
01-04-2015, 08:47 PM
I bet he even uses public roads!!! HYPOCRITE!!

:roll:

Molyneux also said Eric Garner wasn't a victimless criminal, which is the last straw for me. I agree using public roads isn't hypocritical, nor is using government IN ALL CASES, but I think Molyneux is kind of goofy. I'm not saying he's all bad, but he's definitely not the best guy on the libertarian team.

Oh, and I don't really go for "peaceful parenting." Unlike the State, parents actually do have God-given POSITIVELY ORDAINED authority.

heavenlyboy34
01-04-2015, 08:58 PM
Molyneux also said Eric Garner wasn't a victimless criminal, which is the last straw for me. I agree using public roads isn't hypocritical, nor is using government IN ALL CASES, but I think Molyneux is kind of goofy. I'm not saying he's all bad, but he's definitely not the best guy on the libertarian team.

Oh, and I don't really go for "peaceful parenting." Unlike the State, parents actually do have God-given POSITIVELY ORDAINED authority.

That's misrepresenting what his opinion is. He uses too much psycho-babble for my taste, but he does say that parents have a certain amount of responsibility and authority over their kids when the subject comes up.

juleswin
01-04-2015, 09:00 PM
Molyneux also said Eric Garner wasn't a victimless criminal, which is the last straw for me. I agree using public roads isn't hypocritical, nor is using government IN ALL CASES, but I think Molyneux is kind of goofy. I'm not saying he's all bad, but he's definitely not the best guy on the libertarian team.

Oh, and I don't really go for "peaceful parenting." Unlike the State, parents actually do have God-given POSITIVELY ORDAINED authority.

Yea, but not even Hitler is all bad. Every human being have some good quality about them, some redeeming attribute that will make them qualify as not "all bad". The man is a cult leader and a con artist who contradicts himself just about every time he opens him mouth and in my opinion does as much harm as any good he bring to the liberty movement. And for anyone who missed the Eric Garner controversy, here is the video of it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9UUQg2vkhA

I won't call him a racist but he somehow seems to get it right when it comes to the Cliven Bundy situation but for Garder, he had to do some serious mental gymnastic to paint him in the worst light possible and make justification for the cops and businesses that called the police. You cannot make this kind of thing up.

GunnyFreedom
01-04-2015, 09:08 PM
Your information isn't property, ergo nothing anyone does with it can violate the NAP.

Stalking, blackmail, slander, libel, they aren't force or coercion under the NAP.

Considering that such things can literally destroy/ruin a person's entire life; I could not possibly disagree more. Blackmail is more aggressive and harmful than a punch to the face. This position seems fit only for irrational beings who are not affected by reason. Rational beings ARE affected by reason, and information can be used to kill. I find the very notion that blackmail and slander are not aggression, absurd on it's face, and I cannot fathom how any rational person would agree with such a thing.


Even using the DCMA to enforce copyright is a wee bit of a stretch for persons who disavow copyright.

Stefan is a guy whose ideal world involve blackboxes in every vehicle transmitting non-stop to insurance/marketing companies, and $10,000 rewards for reporting unregistered firearms to private defence organisations.

He is the epitome of the worldview that the problem with 'states' or state-like entities isn't coercion or injustice, but taxes. Take away taxes and everything is skittles and unicorns.

Christian Liberty
01-04-2015, 09:19 PM
That's misrepresenting what his opinion is. He uses too much psycho-babble for my taste, but he does say that parents have a certain amount of responsibility and authority over their kids when the subject comes up.

I would say that that authority includes a right to spank, regardless of whether that's a good parenting choice or not.


Yea, but not even Hitler is all bad. Every human being have some good quality about them, some redeeming attribute that will make them qualify as not "all bad". The man is a cult leader and a con artist who contradicts himself just about every time he opens him mouth and in my opinion does as much harm as any good he bring to the liberty movement. And for anyone who missed the Eric Garner controversy, here is the video of it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9UUQg2vkhA

I won't call him a racist but he somehow seems to get it right when it comes to the Cliven Bundy situation but for Garder, he had to do some serious mental gymnastic to paint him in the worst light possible and make justification for the cops and businesses that called the police. You cannot make this kind of thing up.

I wouldn't put him in the same category as Hitler (lol) but we agree that his reasoning there was really freaking stupid. I honestly think I'm more intelligent than he is.

Considering that such things can literally destroy/ruin a person's entire life; I could not possibly disagree more. Blackmail is more aggressive and harmful than a punch to the face. This position seems fit only for irrational beings who are not affected by reason. Rational beings ARE affected by reason, and information can be used to kill. I find the very notion that blackmail and slander are not aggression, absurd on it's face, and I cannot fathom how any rational person would agree with such a thing.

Walter Block explains it really well.

GunnyFreedom
01-04-2015, 09:21 PM
I would say that that authority includes a right to spank, regardless of whether that's a good parenting choice or not.



I wouldn't put him in the same category as Hitler (lol) but we agree that his reasoning there was really freaking stupid. I honestly think I'm more intelligent than he is.


Walter Block explains it really well.

If Walter Block thinks blackmail and slander are not aggressive, then Walter Block is wrong.

William Tell
01-04-2015, 09:22 PM
Walter Block explains it really well.
Link?

juleswin
01-04-2015, 09:27 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3vQQBe_02s

William Tell
01-04-2015, 09:35 PM
If Walter Block thinks blackmail and slander are not aggressive, then Walter Block is wrong.

Walter Block is dead wrong.


Mises Daily



Defending the Blackmailer



http://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/slideshow/public/static-page/img/4576.jpg?itok=5l7LwF1x




July 28, 2010Walter Block (http://mises.org/profile/walter-block)
http://images.mises.org/DailyArticleBigImages/4576.jpg"This is my kid, Mr. T. He'll be blackmailing you from now on — I'm retiring to Florida."
At first glance it is not hard to answer the question, "Is blackmail really illegitimate?" The only problem it would seem to pose is, "Why is it being asked at all?"
Do not blackmailers, well, blackmail people? And what could be worse? Blackmailers prey on people's dark, hidden secrets. They threaten to expose and publicize them. They bleed their victims and often drive them to suicide.
We will find, however, that the case against the blackmailer cannot stand serious analysis; that it is based upon a tissue of unexamined shibboleths and deep philosophical misunderstandings.
What exactly is blackmail? Blackmail is the offer of trade. It is the offer to trade something, usually silence, for some other good, usually money. If the offer of the trade is accepted, the blackmailer then maintains his silence and the blackmailed pays the agreed-upon price.
If the blackmail offer is rejected, the blackmailer may exercise his rights of free speech and publicize the secret. There is nothing amiss here. All that is happening is that an offer to maintain silence is being made. If the offer is rejected, the blackmailer does no more than exercise his right of free speech.
The sole difference between a gossip and a blackmailer is that the blackmailer will refrain from speaking — for a price. In a sense, the gossip is much worse than the blackmailer, for the blackmailer has given the blackmailed a chance to silence him. The gossip exposes the secret without warning. Is not the person with a secret better off at the hands of a blackmailer than a gossip?
With the gossip, all is lost; with the blackmailer, one can only gain, or at least be no worse off. If the price requested by the blackmailer is lower than the secret is worth, the secret-keeper will pay the blackmailer — this being the lesser of the two evils. He thus gains the difference to him between the value of the secret and the price of the blackmail.
When the blackmailer demands more than the secret is worth, his demand will not be met and the information will become public. However, in this case the person is no worse off with the blackmailer than he would have been with the inveterate gossip. It is indeed difficult then to account for the vilification suffered by the blackmailer, at least compared to the gossip, who is usually dismissed with slight contempt and smugness.
Blackmail need not entail the offer of silence in return for money. This is only the best known form: it may be defined without reference to either. Defined in general terms, blackmail is the threat to do something — anything that is not in itself illegal — unless certain demands are met.
Many actions in the public arena qualify as acts of blackmail, but, instead of being vilified, they have often attained a status of respectability! For example, the recent lettuce boycott is a form of blackmail. Through the lettuce boycott (or any boycott), threats are made to retailers and wholesalers of fruits and vegetables. If they handle nonunion lettuce, the boycotters assert, people will be asked not to patronize their establishments. This conforms perfectly to the definition: a threat that something, not in itself illegal, will take place unless certain demands are met.
But what about the threats involved in blackmail? This perhaps more than anything else is the aspect of blackmail that is most misunderstood and feared. At first glance, one is inclined to agree that threats are immoral. The usual dictum against aggression, for example, warns not only against aggression per se but also against the threat of aggression. If a highwayman accosts a traveler, it is usually the threat of aggression alone that will compel obedience.
"The sole difference between a gossip and a blackmailer is that the blackmailer will refrain from speaking — for a price."Consider the nature of threats. When what is threatened is aggressive violence, the threat is condemnable. No individual has the right to initiate aggressive violence against another.
In blackmail, however, what is being "threatened" is something that the blackmailer does have a right to do — whether it be exercising the right of free speech, refusing to patronize certain stores, or persuading others to do likewise. What is being threatened is not in itself illegitimate; it is, therefore, not possible to call the "threat" an illegitimate threat.
Blackmail can only be illegitimate when there is a special foresworn relationship between the blackmailer and the blackmailed. A secret-keeper may take a lawyer or a private investigator into his confidence on the condition that the confidence be maintained in secrecy.
If the lawyer or private investigator attempts to blackmail the secret-keeper, that would be in violation of the contract and, therefore, illegitimate. However, if a stranger holds the secret without contractual obligations, then it is legitimate to offer to "sell" his silence.
In addition to being a legitimate activity, blackmail has some good effects, litanies to the contrary notwithstanding. Apart from some innocent victims who are caught in the net, who does the blackmailer usually prey upon?
In the main, there are two groups. One group is composed of criminals: murderers, thieves, swindlers, embezzlers, cheaters, rapists, etc. The other group consists of people who engage in activities, not illegitimate in themselves, that are contrary to the mores and habits of the majority: homosexuals, sadomasochists, sexual perverts, communists, adulterers, etc. The institution of blackmail has beneficial, but different, effects upon each of these groups.
In the case of criminals, blackmail and the threat of blackmail serve as deterrents. They add to the risks involved in criminal activity. How many of the anonymous tips received by the police — the value of which cannot be overestimated — can be traced, directly or indirectly, to blackmail? How many criminals are led to pursue crime on their own, eschewing the aid of fellow criminals in "jobs" that call for cooperation, out of the fear of possible blackmail?
Finally, there are those individuals who are on the verge of committing crimes, or at the "margin of criminality" (as the economist would say), where the least factor will propel them one way or another. The additional fear of blackmail may be enough, in some cases, to dissuade them from crime.
If blackmail itself were legalized, it would undoubtedly be an even more effective deterrent. Legalization would undoubtedly result in an increase in blackmail, with attendant depredations upon the criminal class.
It is sometimes said that what diminishes crime is not the penalty attached to the crime but the certainty of being caught. Although this controversy rages with great relevance in current debates on capital punishment, it will suffice to point out that the institution of blackmail does both. It increases the penalty associated with crime, as it forces criminals to share part of their loot with the blackmailer. It also raises the probability of being apprehended, as blackmailers are added to police forces, private citizen and vigilante groups, and other anticrime units.
Blackmailers, who are often members in good standing in the criminal world, are in an advantageous position to foil crimes. Their "inside" status surpasses even that of the spy or infiltrator, who is forced to play a role.
Legalizing blackmail would thus allow anticrime units to take advantage of two basic crime fighting adages at the same time: "divide and conquer," and "lack of honor among thieves." It is quite clear that one important effect of legalizing blackmail would be to diminish crime — real crime, that is.
The legalization of blackmail would also have a beneficial effect upon actions that do not involve aggression, but are at variance with the mores of society as a whole. On these actions, the legalization of blackmail would have a liberating effect. Even with blackmail still illegal, we are witnessing some of its beneficial effects.
Homosexuality, for instance, is technically illegal in some instances, but not really criminal, since it involves no aggression. For individual homosexuals, blackmail very often causes considerable harm and can hardly be considered beneficial. But for the group as a whole, that is, for each individual as a member of the group, blackmail has helped by making the public more aware and accustomed to homosexuality.


Forcing individual members of a socially oppressed group into the open, or "out of the closet," cannot, of course, be considered a service. The use of force is a violation of an individual's rights. But still, it does engender an awareness on the part of members of a group of one another's existence. In forcing this perception, blackmail can legitimately take some small share of the credit in liberating people whose only crime is a deviation from the norm in a noncriminal way.
In reflecting on the old aphorism, "the truth shall make you free," the only "weapon" at the disposal of the blackmailer is the truth. In using the truth to back up his threats (as on occasion he must), he sets the truth free, very often without intent, to do whatever good or bad it is capable of doing.
http://mises.org/library/defending-blackmailer

GunnyFreedom
01-04-2015, 09:45 PM
Walter Block is dead wrong.

Ayup. Blackmail and slander are more aggressive than a punch in the eye. Modern humans are thinking beings who deal in information. Information is only irrelevant to non-rational animals. If we were monkeys and dogs and such, then maybe I could say "blackmail is not aggression" because monkeys and dogs and such are non-rational animals. Human beings operate within the realm of reason. Rational aggression is as real as physical. In the case of blackmail and such, rational aggression can be more harmful than physical.

Walter Block is about as wrong on this subject as Juan McFake is wrong on the wars.

William Tell
01-04-2015, 09:49 PM
Blackmail is not a nice candyland free market voluntary trade. It is a threat to destroy someones life, marriage, or who knows what else depending on the circumstances. Blackmailers are without honor, and often times are not even just telling the truth. Someone may purposefully get in a compromising situation with someone. when you pay the blackmailer, there is zero reason to even think he will keep quiet. Paying a blackmailer is a desperate last gasp of someone to defend his life as he knows it.

Blackmailers are the lowest of the low, and should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

silverhandorder
01-04-2015, 09:59 PM
HA haters. Stefan is like a light in a dark room for finding crazies.

Anyways can we clarify something? If he used DCMA how is he committing fraud? His reasons for using it can be anything, as long as it was his material that got shut down.

As far as Eric Gardner goes. He has spoke about it for about 4 hours. You can't just take things he takes out of context. In context he thinks that laws banning cigarette selling will always lead to cases like Eric Gardner. He is against laws like these. Now he also believes that the cops did nothing wrong from the point of view of the law. If you show resistance 10 out of 10 times the cops will take you down. We can debate on the role of police and the role of laws. But that is not relevant to what happened.

Christian Liberty
01-04-2015, 10:03 PM
Sorry guys, I agree with Block.

But, if blackmail is so harmful because of social harms that come from it (which I agree that it is) why can't it be combated the same way? Through non-violent social ostracism?

heavenlyboy34
01-04-2015, 10:04 PM
Ayup. Blackmail and slander are more aggressive than a punch in the eye. Modern humans are thinking beings who deal in information. Information is only irrelevant to non-rational animals. If we were monkeys and dogs and such, then maybe I could say "blackmail is not aggression" because monkeys and dogs and such are non-rational animals. Human beings operate within the realm of reason. Rational aggression is as real as physical. In the case of blackmail and such, rational aggression can be more harmful than physical.

Walter Block is about as wrong on this subject as Juan McFake is wrong on the wars.

I'm still kind of undecided on this because it's not a pet issue I dwell on much and haven't thought it through. However, Block's argument is far more thoughtful than yours (and WT's). If you get around to refuting Block point-for-point, plz pm me because I'd like to read it. :) thnx.

heavenlyboy34
01-04-2015, 10:06 PM
Blackmail is not a nice candyland free market voluntary trade. It is a threat to destroy someones life, marriage, or who knows what else depending on the circumstances. Blackmailers are without honor, and often times are not even just telling the truth. Someone may purposefully get in a compromising situation with someone. when you pay the blackmailer, there is zero reason to even think he will keep quiet. Paying a blackmailer is a desperate last gasp of someone to defend his life as he knows it.

Blackmailers are the lowest of the low, and should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

I'd put child molesters and war pigs and lawyers and congressmen (just to name a few) below blackmailers.

Barrex
01-04-2015, 10:06 PM
Bored at work again so I had a 5 min. of my time to look at this.
1. Stefans wife is a psychologist and she was on Stefans show. People called in and she talked to them.
2. Some sick fuck used information in that conversation to track and stalk listeners that asked advice from psychologist (Stefans wife). They also used pictures/calls and videos of other people who called Stefans show to harass and stalk them online.
3. Listeners of Stefans show called in and informed Stefan that they were stalked and harassed and asked him to remove that content.
3. Stefans wife gets reprimanded and license suspended.
https://members.cpo.on.ca/public_register/show/19048?section=discipline#ui-tabs-12
4. Stefan takes only steps that government allows him to control damage created by sick stalking fucks.

"If you attack listeners you dont get to use any of our materials. Thats the line"- Stefan M. Show.

William Tell
01-04-2015, 10:07 PM
Blackmailers don't care about your cutesie "social ostracism" anymore than I do. You can't beat them by being a wuss. You have to beat them with a stick.

Christian Liberty
01-04-2015, 10:09 PM
I'm still kind of undecided on this because it's not a pet issue I dwell on much and haven't thought it through. However, Block's argument is far more thoughtful than yours (and WT's). If you get around to refuting Block point-for-point, plz pm me because I'd like to read it. :) thnx.

I think WT and Gunny are using a different basis for argumentation than Block. Block is using strict application of the NAP, while Will and Gunny are using a more generic "harm principle" (that is my best guess at what is happening. I am not sure.)

Its not a pet issue for me either. If the only "unjust" law was to prohibit blackmail, I probably wouldn't even bother with this movement. At the end of the day, though, I still agree with Block.

William Tell
01-04-2015, 10:10 PM
I'd put child molesters and war pigs and lawyers and congressmen (just to name a few) below blackmailers.

Well, since you're getting technical, I wouldn't put Ron Paul and Justin Amash below blackmailers. :rolleyes:

Christian Liberty
01-04-2015, 10:10 PM
I'd put child molesters and war pigs and lawyers and congressmen (just to name a few) below blackmailers.

Cops to.

Blackmailers don't care about your cutesie "social ostracism" anymore than I do. You can't beat them by being a wuss. You have to beat them with a stick.

I don't think non-violent action means "being a wuss".

Christian Liberty
01-04-2015, 10:11 PM
Well, since you're getting technical, I wouldn't put Ron Paul and Justin Amash below blackmailers. :rolleyes:

Neither would I. "Most politicians" though...

William Tell
01-04-2015, 10:12 PM
I think Gunny is using the NAP, and in a correct way. I myself don't personally care about the technical sacraments of the NAP people. So it wouldn't change my mind even if Gunny was not.

William Tell
01-04-2015, 10:14 PM
Neither would I. "Most politicians" though...

Most politicians are probably the types who would blackmail anyway. But they are scumbags because of who they are, not because they hold a title.

William Tell
01-04-2015, 10:18 PM
I don't think non-violent action means "being a wuss".

In the case of combating blackmail it does. Explain to me how you shame a shameless person into not being a complete scumbag?

GunnyFreedom
01-04-2015, 10:18 PM
I'm still kind of undecided on this because it's not a pet issue I dwell on much and haven't thought it through. However, Block's argument is far more thoughtful than yours (and WT's). If you get around to refuting Block point-for-point, plz pm me because I'd like to read it. :) thnx.

I don't see the point. I'm not stuck in the physical world. Blackmailers don't care about your arguments. Blackmail is not a business. Blackmail doesn't even have to be true, and it can kill. Slander, which is false by definition, can steal millions and impoverish extended families. That is aggression. What else do I need to know? They are aggressive, they cause harm.

Sometimes the simpler argument is simpler because it's true. You say Block's argument is more thoughtful, but what if it's just more elaborate?

It boils down to harm done. Aggression is not only that which is physical, aggression can be financial, emotional, psychological. Some chattel slaves were never hurt in their lives and yet they were still slaves. Were treated as slaves. Thought as slaves. I would say they were aggressed against merely by being owned. Ownership in this case is an ideological construct and not merely a physical one.

If slander can't be aggression just because it's words, then theft can't be aggression if a hacker does it by a computer from 1000 miles away. I reject the entire concept. All I need for aggression to take place is {doesharm}+{getsharmed}. Everything else is just dickering over price.

William Tell
01-04-2015, 10:22 PM
I don't see the point. I'm not stuck in the physical world. Blackmailers don't care about your arguments. Blackmail is not a business. Blackmail doesn't even have to be true, and it can kill. Slander, which is false by definition, can steal millions and impoverish extended families. That is aggression. What else do I need to know? They are aggressive, they cause harm.

Sometimes the simpler argument is simpler because it's true. You say Block's argument is more thoughtful, but what if it's just more elaborate?

It boils down to harm done. Aggression is not only that which is physical, aggression can be financial, emotional, psychological. Some chattel slaves were never hurt in their lives and yet they were still slaves. Were treated as slaves. Thought as slaves. I would say they were aggressed against merely by being owned. Ownership in this case is an ideological construct and not merely a physical one.

If slander can't be aggression just because it's words, then theft can't be aggression if a hacker does it by a computer from 1000 miles away. I reject the entire concept. All I need for aggression to take place is {doesharm}+{getsharmed}. Everything else is just dickering over price.

Yep, yup, yeah.

PRB
01-04-2015, 10:39 PM
Big for starting this thread anything to expose the fraud is good service to liberty.


I don't think Stefan is smart enough to be a "fraud", that's giving him too much credit. I don't think he's much of a liberty movement person, one thing for sure is he's never supporting using government to solve the government.



Btw here are the videos the cult leader Stefan Molyneux doesn't want you to see. All the videos were archived and reposed in this youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXtp2ZZWZcRrhrR9ICWO71g


Thanks, I'll try to watch them before he DMCA's them too.
Personally, my best video of em all is this.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-k-HmUHhCY

As you watch the videos, try and pick out anything that could be mistaken for harassment of his sheepish viewers. You would notice that you cannot find anything. The man sent govt agents i.e. introduced the gun into the room because someone is using his words to expose him. Anarchist my ass.

yep

heavenlyboy34
01-04-2015, 10:49 PM
I don't see the point. I'm not stuck in the physical world. Blackmailers don't care about your arguments. Blackmail is not a business. Blackmail doesn't even have to be true, and it can kill. Slander, which is false by definition, can steal millions and impoverish extended families. That is aggression. What else do I need to know? They are aggressive, they cause harm.

Sometimes the simpler argument is simpler because it's true. You say Block's argument is more thoughtful, but what if it's just more elaborate?

It boils down to harm done. Aggression is not only that which is physical, aggression can be financial, emotional, psychological. Some chattel slaves were never hurt in their lives and yet they were still slaves. Were treated as slaves. Thought as slaves. I would say they were aggressed against merely by being owned. Ownership in this case is an ideological construct and not merely a physical one.

If slander can't be aggression just because it's words, then theft can't be aggression if a hacker does it by a computer from 1000 miles away. I reject the entire concept. All I need for aggression to take place is {doesharm}+{getsharmed}. Everything else is just dickering over price.
It's purely for my benefit. You are under no obligation whatsoever. Like I said, I would like to see a compelling counter-argument to Block. If Block's argument is simply more elaborate, it should be easy to disassemble and prove wrong (like the arguments of the Federalists, Communists, etc have been torn to pieces over the years by a number of different people). Block made it extra easy for you too-having only dedicated one relatively short chapter out of a large book to blackmail. (no sarc/snark intended, btw)

WRT bold above^^, it's a non-sequitur. Slander is just words (from what's been dis/proven in this thread, IMO). You simply can't own a reputation-otherwise there would be virtually nothing in the editorial pages/"news" programming because those mediums are dedicated mostly to slandering the reputations of political/pop culture figures. Many programs/media are just a bunch of ad-hominems and insults strung together. Free speech kind of sucks when it works against you, but freedom often isn't convenient.

heavenlyboy34
01-04-2015, 10:59 PM
I don't think Stefan is smart enough to be a "fraud", that's giving him too much credit. I don't think he's much of a liberty movement person, one thing for sure is he's never supporting using government to solve the government.

To be fair, he's never claimed to be part of the electoral "liberty" movement. He's only considered himself part of the anarchist/voluntaryist movement, AFAIK.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-04-2015, 10:59 PM
This is what a hypocrite looks like

If you're going to suggest a visual, then you should include the picture of yourself

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17h5c00fxozlzjpg/original.jpg





Does [my trolling] sound familiar to anybody at all?


Fixed it for you. I am not even going through the thread, but rather just cutting to the chase with a neg rep.

Have a nice day.

GunnyFreedom
01-04-2015, 11:11 PM
I think WT and Gunny are using a different basis for argumentation than Block. Block is using strict application of the NAP, while Will and Gunny are using a more generic "harm principle" (that is my best guess at what is happening. I am not sure.)

Its not a pet issue for me either. If the only "unjust" law was to prohibit blackmail, I probably wouldn't even bother with this movement. At the end of the day, though, I still agree with Block.

Actually, I'm the one arguing a strict application of the NAP, Block is arguing for pragmatism.

1) "Paying for silence is better than getting outed without a choice (pragmatic)

2) only bad guys get blackmailed anyhow (pragmatic)

Block also misses that the difference between spying and making an expose and blackmail is that blackmail is secret and industrialized.

By calling the results of blackmail 'gossip' he trivialises the problem without bothering to state why it's trivial. As for me I don't want a private NSA culture any more than I want a public NSA culture.

Someone aggresses against another with the intent to do harm. (NAP-Principled) Slander, blackmail. These are inherently harmful actions. The blackmailer receiving profit will find more blackmail. The blackmailed ever more deeply impoverished. Unlike Block who feels that blackmail would make a nice check on criminal enterprise (pragmatic), I do not assume one has to have "done wrong" to be victimized by blackmail, and therefore I do not believe that blackmail is a valid check on crime (NAP-Principled).

I believe that slander and blackmail are a willful attempt to do unprovoked harm to another person. A willful attempt to do unprovoked harm is "aggression." I reject aggression. My position is faithful to the Non Aggression Principle. (NAP - Principled)

juleswin
01-04-2015, 11:13 PM
Bored at work again so I had a 5 min. of my time to look at this.
1. Stefans wife is a psychologist and she was on Stefans show. People called in and she talked to them.
2. Some sick fuck used information in that conversation to track and stalk listeners that asked advice from psychologist (Stefans wife). They also used pictures/calls and videos of other people who called Stefans show to harass and stalk them online.
3. Listeners of Stefans show called in and informed Stefan that they were stalked and harassed and asked him to remove that content.
3. Stefans wife gets reprimanded and license suspended.
https://members.cpo.on.ca/public_register/show/19048?section=discipline#ui-tabs-12
4. Stefan takes only steps that government allows him to control damage created by sick stalking fucks.

"If you attack listeners you dont get to use any of our materials. Thats the line"- Stefan M. Show.

Yea right. I am sure that is what the weasle wants you to believe. This must be why he filed a DMCA against 2 youtube channels. Btw one of his cult members should inform him that the C in DMCA stands for copyright. It's actually a violation of the law to use it to take down work that is not copyrighted and this is why one of the youtubers is suing him. I hope to god he wins and takes him for all hes got. Seeing as he is breaking the law by filling a false DMCA, he has made me a law abiding citizen a victim. I guess according to his logic, I am within and I am within my right to call the cops on him so they can choke the living daylights out of his body. Victims(me) needs to be made whole.

Sorry but nobody but his fanatic followers believe that garbage excuse. He has been unraveling lately and has just been very reckless. He filled the DMCA take down to censor the youtube channel that was making stinging critics of his show. Thank god it failed miserably. Those videos has spread to dozens of youtube channels and private hard drives. Before all is said and done, more people would be exposed to them than before he illegally filled a false DMCA on those channels.

Christian Liberty
01-04-2015, 11:15 PM
Actually, I'm the one arguing a strict application of the NAP, Block is arguing for pragmatism.

1) "Paying for silence is better than getting outed without a choice (pragmatic)

2) only bad guys get blackmailed anyhow (pragmatic)

Block also misses that the difference between spying and making an expose and blackmail is that blackmail is secret and industrialized.

By calling the results of blackmail 'gossip' he trivialises the problem without bothering to state why it's trivial. As for me I don't want a private NSA culture any more than I want a public NSA culture.

Someone aggresses against another with the intent to do harm. (NAP-Principled) Slander, blackmail. These are inherently harmful actions. The blackmailer receiving profit will find more blackmail. The blackmailed ever more deeply impoverished. Unlike Block who feels that blackmail would make a nice check on criminal enterprise (pragmatic), I do not assume one has to have "done wrong" to be victimized by blackmail, and therefore I do not believe that blackmail is a valid check on crime (NAP-Principled).

I believe that slander and blackmail are a willful attempt to do unprovoked harm to another person. A willful attempt to do unprovoked harm is "aggression." I reject aggression. My position is faithful to the Non Aggression Principle. (NAP - Principled)

Fair point. While I think threats of violence are clearly "foul play" I think its undeniably logical that if you have the right to receive X amount of money from Y, and you also have the right to do Z, you have a right to tell Y that you will do Z unless he pays you X.

I don't see any logical way around this. Its like saying prostitution should be illegal but that sex outside marriage should be legal and that gifting people money should be legal. If X man can sleep with Y woman and X man can legally give Y woman Z amount of dollars, it logically follows that X man can also pay Y woman Z amount dollars to sleep with him.

Similarly, if you can accept a gift of X from Y, and you can do Z, you can tell Y you will do Z unless given X.

Now, if by "blackmail" you mean threatening aggressive acts than that would be a different story.

juleswin
01-04-2015, 11:20 PM
I am going out of a limb to say that I don't understand why blackmailing should be illegal. I have something embarrassing on you that if made public will ruin you, I come to you and ask for a monetary payment to destroy/conceal said evidence and you can either agree to my offer or tell me off. How exactly is that aggression on anybody. Is it sorta like the whole deal with prostitution where the exchange of money makes it a crime? I really don't think it should be a crime in this society or a free one.

Also the fact that someone is emotionally harmed is not a sign of aggression. Some people are emotionally harmed by seeing 2 guys make out. Should that also be a crime? This is that line of thinking that causes legislators to criminalize revenge porn.

heavenlyboy34
01-04-2015, 11:22 PM
Yea right. I am sure that is what the weasle wants you to believe. This must be why he filed a DMCA against 2 youtube channels. Btw one of his cult members should inform him that the C in DMCA stands for copyright. It's actually a violation of the law to use it to take down work that is not copyrighted and this is why one of the youtubers is suing him. I hope to god he wins and takes him for all hes got. Seeing as he is breaking the law by filling a false DMCA, he has made me a law abiding citizen a victim. I guess according to his logic, I am within and I am within my right to call the cops on him so they can choke the living daylights out of his body. Victims(me) needs to be made whole.

Sorry but nobody but his fanatic followers believe that garbage excuse. He has been unraveling lately and has just been very reckless. He filled the DMCA take down to censor the youtube channel that was making stinging critics of his show. Thank god it failed miserably. Those videos has spread to dozens of youtube channels and private hard drives. Before all is said and done, more people would be exposed to them than before he illegally filled a false DMCA on those channels.

Really good points! :) Sorry I'm outta +rep for ya. :/

Christian Liberty
01-04-2015, 11:28 PM
I am going out of a limb to say that I don't understand why blackmailing should be illegal. I have something embarrassing on you that if made public will ruin you, I come to you and ask for a monetary payment to destroy/conceal said evidence and you can either agree to my offer or tell me off. How exactly is that aggression on anybody. Is it sorta like the whole deal with prostitution where the exchange of money makes it a crime? I really don't think it should be a crime in this society or a free one.

Also the fact that someone is emotionally harmed is not a sign of aggression. Some people are emotionally harmed by seeing 2 guys make out. Should that also be a crime? This is that line of thinking that causes legislators to criminalize revenge porn.

This...

idiom
01-05-2015, 12:12 AM
See. For some the only real aggression in the world is taxes.

The NAP doesn't = "don't be a dick" like one would assume (its a great but misleading marketing term), it means don't violate certain types of property belonging to certain classes of being, with those further narrowly defined.

Anything out side of that is categorized as 'not aggression'. There is a special exception for fraud, which doesn't follow from the axioms, but I guess even Rothbardians get annoyed when the gold they receive is thinly plated tungsten.

Ender
01-05-2015, 12:59 AM
I am going out of a limb to say that I don't understand why blackmailing should be illegal. I have something embarrassing on you that if made public will ruin you, I come to you and ask for a monetary payment to destroy/conceal said evidence and you can either agree to my offer or tell me off. How exactly is that aggression on anybody. Is it sorta like the whole deal with prostitution where the exchange of money makes it a crime? I really don't think it should be a crime in this society or a free one.

Also the fact that someone is emotionally harmed is not a sign of aggression. Some people are emotionally harmed by seeing 2 guys make out. Should that also be a crime? This is that line of thinking that causes legislators to criminalize revenge porn.

Disagree.

Blackmail is aggression- so is defamation; trying to destroy someone unless they pay you is not in my definition of liberty.

The Free Hornet
01-05-2015, 01:32 AM
Disagree.

Blackmail is aggression- so is defamation; trying to destroy someone unless they pay you is not in my definition of liberty.

So let's say, hypothetically, one makes an embarrassing proposition to an elf from middle earth. This elf finds themself with 3 options:

a) stay silent
b) blab to Gandalf and everyone else (fellowships, barmaids, that guy Sauron)
c) offer to stay silent ... for a price or else "b" = blab blab blab

The blab option is well within the rights of free speech. It is also - by your definition - aggression and trying to "destroy someone". We can blab with reckless abandon with truth as a civil defense. Option "a" may be preferable but Block's solution might be recast as ...

d) stay silent with a guarantee/compensation

Just imagine a blackmailer having to pay treble damages because they couldn't keep their trap shut.

Lastly, the "definition of liberty" is not so much 'stuff you like' but things that would bring yourself to action. Would you intervene with force to stop a murder in progress? Yes. Would you intervene with force to stop a blackmail in progress? Doubt it.

GunnyFreedom
01-05-2015, 02:44 AM
So let's say, hypothetically, one makes an embarrassing proposition to an elf from middle earth. This elf finds themself with 3 options:

a) stay silent
b) blab to Gandalf and everyone else (fellowships, barmaids, that guy Sauron)
c) offer to stay silent ... for a price or else "b" = blab blab blab

The blab option is well within the rights of free speech. It is also - by your definition - aggression and trying to "destroy someone". We can blab with reckless abandon with truth as a civil defense. Option "a" may be preferable but Block's solution might be recast as ...

d) stay silent with a guarantee/compensation

Just imagine a blackmailer having to pay treble damages because they couldn't keep their trap shut.

Lastly, the "definition of liberty" is not so much 'stuff you like' but things that would bring yourself to action. Would you intervene with force to stop a murder in progress? Yes. Would you intervene with force to stop a blackmail in progress? Doubt it.

I don't see the aggression in your scenario. Perhaps that's where the disconnect is. The mysterious party exposes himself to revelation by Ender when he makes the proposition to Ender. That's not actually the scenario I object to. I object to third parties spying and treasure-hunting and surveilling and hacking to dig up (or just invent) embarrassing things to blackmail people about.

In your scenario, the guy getting blackmailed takes the first step in the tango. But we already don't treat that the same. John Doe rapes Sally Mae, through John's lawyers Sally agrees to stay quiet for $1.5 million dollars. Happens all the time, but we don't call it blackmail, we call it a payoff.

PRB
01-05-2015, 03:07 AM
Yea right. I am sure that is what the weasle wants you to believe.


For the sake of argument, let's assume the accusation from Stefan & his fans are completely true.

1. Stalking can be criminal, but let's let Mr. Anarchist call the government to stop them
2. Stalking can be criminal, but the videos themselves are not stalking, at most they contain private information or copyrighted information, neither of which Mr. Purist Anarchist wants to have enforced by the gubmint
3. Unless and until the videos actually contain criminal information or copyrighted information, Stefan still has 2 problems
-He used government to enforce his wishes
-If it didn't contain either private or copyright protected information, he's a liar (of course he doesn't believe in using the government to punish himself for lying)
-did I mention he doesn't believe in either of the above to begin with?

I bet he's going to spin his justification for reporting a DMCA takedown notice as "it's a private report to a private property" bullshit. Hello? Google & Youtube wouldn't give a crap about copyright if it wasn't either to stay profitable or to avoid breaking a law. DMCA is anything BUT a voluntary compliance, it's forced on content providers to "protect" them from liability.



This must be why he filed a DMCA against 2 youtube channels. Btw one of his cult members should inform him that the C in DMCA stands for copyright. It's actually a violation of the law to use it to take down work that is not copyrighted and this is why one of the youtubers is suing him.


Yeah, but you need to remember that Stefan is only breaking the law according to a government he doesn't believe in or believes he's above. And he's only abusing the law when he wants to. Next he'll tell us he doesnt' recognize the jurisdiction he's being sued in.



I hope to god he wins and takes him for all hes got. Seeing as he is breaking the law by filling a false DMCA, he has made me a law abiding citizen a victim.


That's the most messed up part of all this. Somebody who understands the evils of government is using it for the specific reason he hates it. (we're not talking about somebody who hates paying taxes but loves copyright, we're talking about a guy who hates copyright but suddenly realized he can abuse it to his advantage and lie about it).



I guess according to his logic, I am within and I am within my right to call the cops on him so they can choke the living daylights out of his body. Victims(me) needs to be made whole.


We already established he's a hypocrite who won't be consistent, so "according to his logic" doesn't matter to him.

PRB
01-05-2015, 03:10 AM
Those videos has spread to dozens of youtube channels and private hard drives. Before all is said and done, more people would be exposed to them than before he illegally filled a false DMCA on those channels.

Luckily, the good and bad about the internet age is this : Stefan never really had any good number of followers to matter. Most people will hear about him and forget him, as long as they don't find his talk interesting, and it ends there. The worst that can happen to him is he loses a civil suit and/or gets a criminal charge/fine for perjury. In the history books for DMCA abuse, nobody will remember him. In the liberty movement hall of fame, he'll be forgotten before he's remembered.

The only value I see in him is to use his takedown (of himself, ironically), as a lesson of either the importance of DMCA, or the hypocrisy of self proclaimed anti-piracy, anti-privacy anarchists.

PRB
01-05-2015, 03:16 AM
Disagree.

Blackmail is aggression- so is defamation; trying to destroy someone unless they pay you is not in my definition of liberty.

LOL. I love how NAP advocates have to stretch the definition of aggression to include blackmail, defamation and fraud. Next you'll tell us smiling is aggression just so you can justify punching a person in return.

NAP is a nonsensical argument because at the end of the paragraph, it's basically "aggression is what I call aggression and/or unjustified force" totally circular.

It's funny how one can call defamation "destroying" but I bet the same person like you will say piracy is not "destroying" a person's profits, because in your mind, you arbitrarily decided what IS or ISN'T legitimately information one can protect. To say defamation is an actionable tort or crime assumes that free speech should be limited to truth and/or a person is obligated to maintain another person's reputation and public image. No such obligation seems to exist when we talk about whether the average consumer needs to respect the privilege of an artworks' creator to only distribute his work, copies of it, or derivatives of it as he sees fit for the price he names.

If you can justify copyright infringement on the grounds that "I never agreed to uphold copyright" or "I never recognize you hold copyright", you can surely say the same about reputation and defamation. Why should I not be allowed to lie about you for money or fun?

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 05:52 AM
Walter Block is dead wrong.

Yes. But so is Stefan Molyneaux. Nobody was being slandered or blackmailed or bullied. Stefan lied. Or rather his social media manager lied. Someone used clips from Stefan's show to make Stefan look bad and his social media manager looked for any excuse he could to try to get them taken down. He used the DMCA when complaining to YouTube. Since he knew that wouldn't fly with other libertarians he lied and claimed it was about bullying. I wouldn't be so hard of Stefan if he didn't spend so much time moralizing about everyone else. (The truth about Ghandi, MLK, Maya Angelou, etc). In those videos he mixes truth with exaggeration and dishonest spin to malign people who had done nothing to him. For instance he points out that Ghandi at one time had fought for the British against the Zulu and makes the claim that he would have killed Nelson Mandela if they had met. Only that was before Ghandi had taken the path of nonviolence. Also Nelson Mandela was not Zulu and the Zulu political movement actually later had violent clashes with the ANC. I like a lot of what Stefan does and says. But he can't go around putting down everyone else and not expect his own actions to be put under a microscope.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 06:15 AM
I do think there's a difference depending on how the information is acquired. If I see you do something bad and you tell me "You didn't see nutttin okay?" And I reply "Buzz off. I'm squealing to the coppers unless you given me some cash." then I don't think that's aggression. However if I break into your house and steal damaging information about you (or break into your computer, or spy on your cell phone) then that is aggression. But is the aggression the blackmail or the way I acquired the information? Does it matter? And let's look at the Cosby case. For the sake of argument let's assume he didn't rape anyone but he did have sex with all of these women and he used his power and influence to pressure them into having sex with him. Not a crime, but still pretty scuzzy. It seems these women were paid off. If they had one by one said "You're scuzzy. I'm going to expose you unless you pay me to shut up." Is that aggression? Now I change the scenario from their rape claims because I think everyone can agree that if they were about to file rape charges (and they were actually raped) and Cosby said "Hold on. Why ruin your life and mine. I'll can just pay you what I'd have to pay my lawyer to defend me." then the women in that case would not be the aggressors.


Actually, I'm the one arguing a strict application of the NAP, Block is arguing for pragmatism.

1) "Paying for silence is better than getting outed without a choice (pragmatic)

2) only bad guys get blackmailed anyhow (pragmatic)

Block also misses that the difference between spying and making an expose and blackmail is that blackmail is secret and industrialized.

By calling the results of blackmail 'gossip' he trivialises the problem without bothering to state why it's trivial. As for me I don't want a private NSA culture any more than I want a public NSA culture.

Someone aggresses against another with the intent to do harm. (NAP-Principled) Slander, blackmail. These are inherently harmful actions. The blackmailer receiving profit will find more blackmail. The blackmailed ever more deeply impoverished. Unlike Block who feels that blackmail would make a nice check on criminal enterprise (pragmatic), I do not assume one has to have "done wrong" to be victimized by blackmail, and therefore I do not believe that blackmail is a valid check on crime (NAP-Principled).

I believe that slander and blackmail are a willful attempt to do unprovoked harm to another person. A willful attempt to do unprovoked harm is "aggression." I reject aggression. My position is faithful to the Non Aggression Principle. (NAP - Principled)

Christian Liberty
01-05-2015, 08:08 AM
See. For some the only real aggression in the world is taxes.

The NAP doesn't = "don't be a dick" like one would assume (its a great but misleading marketing term), it means don't violate certain types of property belonging to certain classes of being, with those further narrowly defined.

Anything out side of that is categorized as 'not aggression'. There is a special exception for fraud, which doesn't follow from the axioms, but I guess even Rothbardians get annoyed when the gold they receive is thinly plated tungsten.

Fraud would follow from title-transfer contracts, IMO.

I do think there's a difference depending on how the information is acquired. If I see you do something bad and you tell me "You didn't see nutttin okay?" And I reply "Buzz off. I'm squealing to the coppers unless you given me some cash." then I don't think that's aggression. However if I break into your house and steal damaging information about you (or break into your computer, or spy on your cell phone) then that is aggression. But is the aggression the blackmail or the way I acquired the information? Does it matter? And let's look at the Cosby case. For the sake of argument let's assume he didn't rape anyone but he did have sex with all of these women and he used his power and influence to pressure them into having sex with him. Not a crime, but still pretty scuzzy. It seems these women were paid off. If they had one by one said "You're scuzzy. I'm going to expose you unless you pay me to shut up." Is that aggression? Now I change the scenario from their rape claims because I think everyone can agree that if they were about to file rape charges (and they were actually raped) and Cosby said "Hold on. Why ruin your life and mine. I'll can just pay you what I'd have to pay my lawyer to defend me." then the women in that case would not be the aggressors.

In the "breaks into the house" scenario you have a clear case of aggression, breaking and entering, and stealing. If anything that proves my point. Nobody would say you have the right to do that, not me, not Walter Block, not anybody.

I agree there are things you can do that are scummy yet not explicitly aggressive. Those things shouldn't be crimes. I think there might be a place for social ostracism for those things though. Now, to be clear, if this was done for every petty thing some people didn't like, it would go tyrannical pretty quick. I'm not advocating that. But I could see people being like "you know? We understand that it technically wasn't violent when that guy threatened to fire any of his female employees that didn't sleep with him. But its still repulsive. We're going to handle it by boycotting him and telling all of his customers can do so." You can do the same thing with the whole "no blacks allowed sign." Or blackmail, provided no aggression is used to get the info.

H. E. Panqui
01-05-2015, 08:16 AM
I've listened to SM very little..that very little was disappointing..windbaggish...flailing at the leave$, leaving the hideous root$ practically untouched...

...i would enjoy listening to a talk-radio show where intelligent, concise callers DOMINATED the show...instead of the current stinking Republican Party Inc. dominated radio program$...whereby the gist of their whole stinking show could be uttered by a stinking parrot trained to squawk some variant of 'Republican good, Democrat bad'...'Democrat bad, Republican not as bad'..etc. CONSTANT gd drivel..

...correct me if i'm wrong, but other than maybe 'liberal democrat' Allan ?Colmes there is no 'political' radio host who encourages ANY/ALL/LOTS of DISSENTING callers..Republicans are particularly chicken-$hits..slamming down, ridiculing, etc., intelligent dissenters and encouraging the gd fool Republican party cheerleading dullards..

...In 'my' 'market' political 'talk' :rolleyes: radio is nothing more or less than a 168 hr/week Republican Party Inc. advertisement selling their stinking, snake-oil Republican partier$..:(...and now the stinking Democrats have their hideous variant...

Weston White
01-05-2015, 08:48 AM
I am going out of a limb to say that I don't understand why blackmailing should be illegal. I have something embarrassing on you that if made public will ruin you, I come to you and ask for a monetary payment to destroy/conceal said evidence and you can either agree to my offer or tell me off. How exactly is that aggression on anybody. Is it sorta like the whole deal with prostitution where the exchange of money makes it a crime? I really don't think it should be a crime in this society or a free one.

Also the fact that someone is emotionally harmed is not a sign of aggression. Some people are emotionally harmed by seeing 2 guys make out. Should that also be a crime? This is that line of thinking that causes legislators to criminalize revenge porn.

Blackmail is relational to extortion (the latter applying namely to public employees or those posing as employees of the government, and corporations), blackmail is a lesser method of robbery, the former pertaining to coercion by information, knowledge, or evidence and the latter coercion by violence, harm, or force. Blackmail is not an act of aggression (e.g., duress), it is a coercive act (e.g., undue influence), unlike battery, kidnapping, rape, or robbery, which are.

An act of prostitution involves a pure voluntary exchange amongst consenting adults, whereas blackmail does not. However, it is not the mere exchange of money that makes prostitution a crime—it is the explicit exchange of money for the performance of sexual acts that makes it so.

A common example of blackmail is demanding a finder’s fee in exchange for the return of missing or stolen property, such as a lost pet, cell-phone, wallet, or purse. Hence, to blackmail another establishes an approximate causation to ‘injure’ another, while merely airing their dirty laundry (presuming all is factually true) does not.

In criminal law it is the act itself that dedicates wrongfulness not the victim’s perception of right from wrong or their private feelings, the crime is held against the public not the victim.

Two males being affectionate (e.g., kissing or caressing) in public is not really civilly actionable as an injury unto another, being that those males are held to no other legal duty or performance than heterosexuals engaging in similar acts while in public would otherwise have been.

Furthermore, the destruction or concealing of evidence may result in obstruction of justice or similar crimes.

Revenge porn is intended to harass, demoralize, or expose the victim, such being the end result and motivation of either blackmail or extortion.

Christian Liberty
01-05-2015, 09:19 AM
Using the definitions Block uses, which may not be correct but they've been what I've been going with:

Extortion = threatening to do something unlawful (aggressive) unless paid.

Blackmail = threatening to do something lawful (non-aggressive) unless paid.

So, if I told you I'd tell everyone in a very socially conservative community that you slept around in high school unless you paid me money, that would be legitimate (Probably not moral, but not aggression). If I told you I'd kill you unless you paid me money, that would be extortion and aggressive.

William Tell
01-05-2015, 09:46 AM
Using the definitions Block uses, which may not be correct but they've been what I've been going with:

Extortion = threatening to do something unlawful (aggressive) unless paid.

Blackmail = threatening to do something lawful (non-aggressive) unless paid.

So, if I told you I'd tell everyone in a very socially conservative community that you slept around in high school unless you paid me money, that would be legitimate (Probably not moral, but not aggression). If I told you I'd kill you unless you paid me money, that would be extortion and aggressive.

So using that reasoning, would you consider extortion a crime, or a threat to commit a crime? I'm kind of fuzzy as to where ancaps stand on threats to commit crimes, and whether they consider such threats criminal.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 10:51 AM
We already established he's a hypocrite who won't be consistent,...

All humans are inconsistent. And there is no "we." Neg rep for your continued lying on here.

Can someone else give please this asswipe a neg rep for also beating a dead horse?






It's funny...

You know what's even funnier? See you losing another green bar and eventually going to red.




LOL.

I know, right?

PRB
01-05-2015, 12:19 PM
All humans are inconsistent.


Some are worse than others.



And there is no "we." Neg rep for your continued lying on here.


Ask JulieSwin if there's a we here, I think she/he would agree with me.



Can someone else give please this asswipe a neg rep for also beating a dead horse?







You know what's even funnier? See you losing another green bar and eventually going to red.





I know, right?

umadbro

PRB
01-05-2015, 12:22 PM
So using that reasoning, would you consider extortion a crime, or a threat to commit a crime? I'm kind of fuzzy as to where ancaps stand on threats to commit crimes, and whether they consider such threats criminal.

Threats and extortions are not per se crimes, because no harm is done until harm is done. No harm no victim no crime. If you disagree, you're a pre-crimer and you'd be just as bad as people who think drunk drivers should be arrested before they've harmed anybody. You can't have it both ways or cherry pick, either you believe a crime requires physical harm, or you believe anything can be an arrestable crime. Obviously you're not a fascist who thinks anything can be a crime arbitrarily decided by the state, therefore the only logical and consistent position is to believe that only physical harm can be counted as a crime.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 12:44 PM
Some are worse than others.

Nothing worse than a lib who won't personally give, but demand that others give.




Ask JulieSwin if there's a we here, I think she/he would agree with me.




No, that member is liberty minded. You are an extreme lib.




umadbro

Nah, just annoying you more. Didn't you say I annoyed you?

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 12:50 PM
All humans are inconsistent. And there is no "we." Neg rep for your continued lying on here.

Can someone else give please this asswipe a neg rep for also beating a dead horse?

No. But I'll give him a plus rep to offset your neg rep. It's one thing to be inconsistent. It's another thing to make a life out of pointing out any real or perceived inconsistency in others and then turn around and be inconsistent. That's what Stefan Moleneaux does. And for him to take on YouTube channels that criticism him is just petty.

acptulsa
01-05-2015, 12:54 PM
Threats and extortions are not per se crimes, because no harm is done until harm is done. No harm no victim no crime. If you disagree, you're a pre-crimer and you'd be just as bad as people who think drunk drivers should be arrested before they've harmed anybody. You can't have it both ways or cherry pick, either you believe a crime requires physical harm, or you believe anything can be an arrestable crime.

What is the name of this game? You clearly believe in gray areas, and every thread you start is either an attempt at getting a 'gotcha' moment by providing half the facts, or an exploration of some gray area or another. But you then invariably argue that gray areas don't exist. It's a silly brand of trolling.

So, showing someone something that could damage their reputation and demanding money for it is a 'pre-crime'? It isn't extortion, it's just the foreplay to extortion? And I guess a rapist isn't a rapist when he forces foreplay on someone, but only becomes a rapist when he gets around to penetrating his victim?

No. But thanks for playing. And, no, physical harm is not a prerequisite for an act to be considered criminal under the non-aggression principle. Harm is, yes, but it doesn't have to be physical. Which is, of course, the fallacy you predicated this bit of trollery on, so you obviously won't be bumping this thread any more.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 12:57 PM
No. But I'll give him a plus rep to offset your neg rep.

I just gave him another neg rep to offset you plus rep.




That's what Stefan Moleneaux does.

Is this Stefan fellow a constant liar, like PRB? Which is worse, inconsistency or lying?

Ender
01-05-2015, 01:02 PM
LOL. I love how NAP advocates have to stretch the definition of aggression to include blackmail, defamation and fraud. Next you'll tell us smiling is aggression just so you can justify punching a person in return.

NAP is a nonsensical argument because at the end of the paragraph, it's basically "aggression is what I call aggression and/or unjustified force" totally circular.

It's funny how one can call defamation "destroying" but I bet the same person like you will say piracy is not "destroying" a person's profits, because in your mind, you arbitrarily decided what IS or ISN'T legitimately information one can protect. To say defamation is an actionable tort or crime assumes that free speech should be limited to truth and/or a person is obligated to maintain another person's reputation and public image. No such obligation seems to exist when we talk about whether the average consumer needs to respect the privilege of an artworks' creator to only distribute his work, copies of it, or derivatives of it as he sees fit for the price he names.

If you can justify copyright infringement on the grounds that "I never agreed to uphold copyright" or "I never recognize you hold copyright", you can surely say the same about reputation and defamation. Why should I not be allowed to lie about you for money or fun?

I love how you non-liberty people try to equate damaging others as part of your personal freedom.

Blackmail is a form of aggression- it can involve things that are not unlawful but humiliating or something about a person's loved one etc. etc. etc. Hurting others for a buck is NOT liberty, it is ego displacement.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 01:04 PM
What is the name of this game?


The name of his game is money. I guarantee you that this knucklehead and his ilk like Zip get paid and/or work for an organization. No one spends this amount of time of time on a board doing this type of unconventional trolling.

I am just going to neg rep them continually until every new member and casual member sees their red bar and knows it automatically. :D

dannno
01-05-2015, 01:20 PM
Except the private information he was complaining about was already available to the public through his show.

Incorrect....:


Bored at work again so I had a 5 min. of my time to look at this.
1. Stefans wife is a psychologist and she was on Stefans show. People called in and she talked to them.
2. Some sick fuck used information in that conversation to track and stalk listeners that asked advice from psychologist (Stefans wife). They also used pictures/calls and videos of other people who called Stefans show to harass and stalk them online.
3. Listeners of Stefans show called in and informed Stefan that they were stalked and harassed and asked him to remove that content.
3. Stefans wife gets reprimanded and license suspended.
https://members.cpo.on.ca/public_register/show/19048?section=discipline#ui-tabs-12
4. Stefan takes only steps that government allows him to control damage created by sick stalking fucks.

"If you attack listeners you dont get to use any of our materials. Thats the line"- Stefan M. Show.

PRB
01-05-2015, 01:27 PM
Nothing worse than a lib who won't personally give, but demand that others give.

No, that member is liberty minded. You are an extreme lib.

Nah, just annoying you more. Didn't you say I annoyed you?

I am not a liberal, extreme or otherwise. I don't demand anybody give, when did I ever?

Go ahead, ask her/him.

Yes, I might've said you annoyed me, if you continue to do so and admit it, you're the troll, not me.

PRB
01-05-2015, 01:30 PM
No. But I'll give him a plus rep to offset your neg rep. It's one thing to be inconsistent. It's another thing to make a life out of pointing out any real or perceived inconsistency in others and then turn around and be inconsistent. That's what Stefan Moleneaux does. And for him to take on YouTube channels that criticism him is just petty.

Thank you!

Yes, I agree nobody is perfect, but there's a difference between being a liar and an imperfect person, and another thing to claim to be better and make a living off criticizing others for being wrong or inconsistent.

PRB
01-05-2015, 01:32 PM
I love how you non-liberty people try to equate damaging others as part of your personal freedom.


Prove I am not liberty minded. And you have not established that's "damaging" or at least, damage you're entitled to protection against.



Blackmail is a form of aggression- it can involve things that are not unlawful but humiliating or something about a person's loved one etc. etc. etc. Hurting others for a buck is NOT liberty, it is ego displacement.

Do you have a right to not be humiliated? Ego displacement is not the opposite of liberty.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 01:37 PM
Go ahead, ask her/him.

Ask him what? I said he's liberty minded and you are a lib.


Yes, I might've said you annoyed me, if you continue to do so and admit it, you're the troll, not me.

Just trolling the troll. What's the matter--can't take it?


Prove I am not liberty minded.

Already been done countless times. Neg rep.

PRB
01-05-2015, 01:39 PM
What is the name of this game? You clearly believe in gray areas, and every thread you start is either an attempt at getting a 'gotcha' moment by providing half the facts, or an exploration of some gray area or another. But you then invariably argue that gray areas don't exist. It's a silly brand of trolling.


Cite me where I said I believe in gray areas? Or specifically, when it comes to whether lack of physical harm can be an actionable tort or arrestable crime.



So, showing someone something that could damage their reputation and demanding money for it is a 'pre-crime'?


Reputation is not physical, just like information is not physical. Damage to reputation is not measurable scientifically or materially. That's aside from the fact that damage of reputation, if it can be proved at all, is not physical damage to a person's person or property.

So yes, unless and until you prove it's a crime, it's a pre-crime or non-crime.



It isn't extortion, it's just the foreplay to extortion? And I guess a rapist isn't a rapist when he forces foreplay on someone, but only becomes a rapist when he gets around to penetrating his victim?


I never said extortion is a crime either. Rapist is not a rapist if he's forcing foreplay, forcing foreplay is sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual harassment, but not rape until there's penetration. Even statutory rape requires penetration, otherwise it's all other kinds of crimes, but not rape.



No. But thanks for playing. And, no, physical harm is not a prerequisite for an act to be considered criminal under the non-aggression principle. Harm is, yes, but it doesn't have to be physical.


How can you prove something that's not physical? Anybody can lie about anything.

PRB
01-05-2015, 01:40 PM
Ask him what? I said he's liberty minded and you are a lib.

Just trolling the troll. What's the matter--can't take it?

Already been done countless times. Neg rep.

1. Cite where you've proven I'm not a liberty minded person, or a liberal, as you seem to keep saying
2. Ask Julieswin if he/she agrees with me, and/or if "we" meaning at least me and another person, have established Molyneux is a hypocrite.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 01:41 PM
Yes, I agree nobody is perfect, but there's a difference between being a liar and an imperfect person,

I don't know this Stefan, know his deal, nor do I care. He might or might not be inconsistent. You however, are a pathological liar.


and another thing to claim to be better and make a living off criticizing others for being wrong or inconsistent.

Pretty much how you make your living here. Neg rep.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 01:47 PM
Incorrect....:

Nope. I'm 100% correct. Stefan's wife got suspended for going along with Stefan's insane cultish idea of "defooing."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q27OTViq06E

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 01:48 PM
I just gave him another neg rep to offset you plus rep.

Is this Stefan fellow a constant liar, like PRB? Which is worse, inconsistency or lying?

How often does one have to lie before being a constant liar? Here is Stefan caught lying to Joe Rogan about his wife's suspension.

http://youtu.be/lN5OjzEfQmI?t=3m57s

Another +rep to PRB.

PRB
01-05-2015, 01:53 PM
I don't know this Stefan, know his deal, nor do I care. He might or might not be inconsistent. You however, are a pathological liar.

Pretty much how you make your living here. Neg rep.

Let me sum up what I know and have learned about Stefan, you may not care, but I'll say it for the rest to read.

He's a self proclaimed free market anarcist or anarcho capitalist, most if not all people who ID with this position oppose copyright, not just the government enforcement, but the entire concept that ideas or information can be protected or one can use force to stop another from spreading it. (I should add, another prominent speaker on this topic is Stephen Kinsella who has at least reposted an article agreeing with Walter Block that blackmail should be legal)

Anyway, the issue at hand is a person who doesn't believe in either using government to get things done, or the enforcement of copyright, has actually used a government law as a threat to force a company to remove information, which he has admitted has nothing to do with copyright. At the very least, it's abusing a law for an ulterior purpose, aside from legal trouble, he's a hypocrite for using a law he doesn't believe in.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 01:53 PM
1. Cite where you've proven I'm not a liberty minded person,...


I have already done it countless times. Neg rep. Reason: Playing dumb.

.

silverhandorder
01-05-2015, 01:55 PM
I can tell PRB is a troll juat by how vitriolic he is. How he gets pleasure from attacking someone. Just compare his behavior to jmdrake. Jm does not like SF either but he does not come off as somene who enjoyes attacking someone.

On top of everything PRB simply lies.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 01:57 PM
Another +rep to PRB.

Another neg rep for PRB. That's four neg reps to your two plus reps. Go ahead and +rep him again. I neg repped him 15 times in the other thread. I neg repped that other asshole almost 30 times in the other thread until his bar turned red.

:p:D

PRB
01-05-2015, 01:59 PM
I can tell PRB is a troll juat by how vitriolic he is. How he gets pleasure from attacking someone. Just compare his behavior to jmdrake. Jm does not like SF either but he does not come off as somene who enjoyes attacking someone.

On top of everything PRB simply lies.

I'm sorry for enjoying what I do. But where did I lie? I keep hearing Northcarolina say that but I don't know what he's talkig about, can you perhaps answer this for me?

PRB
01-05-2015, 02:00 PM
Another neg rep for PRB. That's four neg reps to your two plus reps. Go ahead and +rep him again. I neg repped him 15 times in the other thread. I neg repped that other asshole almost 30 times in the other thread until his bar turned red.

:p:D

you go play your little pissing contest, gotta give you props for admitting you got nothing better to do.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 02:05 PM
I can tell PRB is a troll juat by how vitriolic he is. How he gets pleasure from attacking someone...On top of everything PRB simply lies.


Sums it up.

silverhandorder
01-05-2015, 02:06 PM
Let me sum up what I know and have learned about Stefan, you may not care, but I'll say it for the rest to read.

He's a self proclaimed free market anarcist or anarcho capitalist, most if not all people who ID with this position oppose copyright, not just the government enforcement, but the entire concept that ideas or information can be protected or one can use force to stop another from spreading it. (I should add, another prominent speaker on this topic is Stephen Kinsella who has at least reposted an article agreeing with Walter Block that blackmail should be legal)

Anyway, the issue at hand is a person who doesn't believe in either using government to get things done, or the enforcement of copyright, has actually used a government law as a threat to force a company to remove information, which he has admitted has nothing to do with copyright. At the very least, it's abusing a law for an ulterior purpose, aside from legal trouble, he's a hypocrite for using a law he doesn't believe in.
Why you lyng? Why does a copyright holder need to explain his reasoning for wanting to enforce copright?

As far as hipocricy. Stefan said in the past that wrong doers do not deserve protection. If you attack me I can use violence to put you down. If you stalk people you sure as hell I will use govt to srop you. Any means at his disposal.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 02:08 PM
Another neg rep for PRB. That's four neg reps to your two plus reps. Go ahead and +rep him again. I neg repped him 15 times in the other thread. I neg repped that other asshole almost 30 times in the other thread until his bar turned red.

:p:D

I honestly don't know how you have so much rep. :confused: Are you hacking the system or using sock puppets? Regardless, I'm not sure why you would neg rep someone over being critical of a person that's so insane or dishonest that he tells people (and gets his wife to violate her professional responsibility and tell people) to isolate themselves from friends and family who don't agree with Stefan. I like some of what Stefan says, but in some ways he's much worse than anybody he has ever criticized. Defooing? If Alex Jones ever said something that evil I would never listen to him again.

dannno
01-05-2015, 02:08 PM
Except the private information he was complaining about was already available to the public through his show.


Nope. I'm 100% correct. Stefan's wife got suspended for going along with Stefan's insane cultish idea of "defooing."


No, you said that the private information he was complaining about was available on Stefan's show when there was A LOT more to it.. You were wrong, Stefan and his callers were dealing with somebody who had a serious chip on their shoulder and I don't blame him for the actions to help put a stop to the harassment. The only reason you can't see what is going on is because you WANT Stefan to be wrong because you have strong disagreement with him in some other areas.

I listened to that show with Rogan and Stefan months ago when it came out. Defooing is not "insane", it is completely sane in some situations. The question comes down to for who and when it should be done. I don't know if I would agree with Stefan on every instance, but it's really just a matter of opinion. Everybody has their own thresholds. Stefan has a low threshold, but if I were making the decision in my own life I would still listen to and value his opinion. That doesn't mean I'm always going to follow it.

Just because Stefan got something wrong when it came to Gandhi doesn't mean he's a bad guy. He is a great researcher and philosopher. I'm sure if you called in to discuss that with him he would have taken it into consideration. I don't agree with him on every point, I think he has a complete misunderstanding regarding the effects of cannabis and other psychoactive but that doesn't mean I can't listen to his insights on various subjects and public figures. He did great shows on Robin Williams, Bill Cosby and Elliot Rodgers. They were packed with information that most people would never know about them and that was very useful in determining what kind of lives they had.

He also presents his own flavor and arguments for NAP which are interesting. You don't have to agree with them all. I personally would avoid hitting my kid if I had one, but I'm not 100% convinced that any type of punishment involving contact is bad for children either.. But Stefan makes some good cases that it may be and I've always agreed with his alternative of explaining things to children in a rational way so they can learn to make good decisions for themselves.

PRB
01-05-2015, 02:13 PM
Why you lyng? Why does a copyright holder need to explain his reasoning for wanting to enforce copright?


Ok, we're getting somewhere.

No, a copyright holder DOES NOT need to explain his reasoning or justification for using his rights or asking for enforcement he's entitled under, that's the lovely thing about law and rights, you don't need to justify it as long as you can prove it's done to you.

EXCEPT, he needs to prove it's actual copyright infringement, he's admitted it's not (and he's admitted he's used the law to indirectly enforce censorship in the name of privacy).

The legal question ends there, if he lied about copyright infringement, he'll have trouble both civil and criminal for it, that's his problem.

Morally and logically, he's a hypocrite for using a law he's admitted he doesn't believe should exist.



As far as hipocricy. Stefan said in the past that wrong doers do not deserve protection. If you attack me I can use violence to put you down. If you stalk people you sure as hell I will use govt to srop you. Any means at his disposal.

How does he determine who is a wrongdoer? Can I say he's a wrongdoer and therefore doesn't get to call the DMCA police?

dannno
01-05-2015, 02:14 PM
I honestly don't know how you have so much rep. :confused: Are you hacking the system or using sock puppets? Regardless, I'm not sure why you would neg rep someone over being critical of a person that's so insane or dishonest that he tells people (and gets his wife to violate her professional responsibility and tell people) to isolate themselves from friends and family who don't agree with Stefan. I like some of what Stefan says, but in some ways he's much worse than anybody he has ever criticized. Defooing? If Alex Jones ever said something that evil I would never listen to him again.

So a woman or child who is being physically assaulted or raped on a daily basis by her husband shouldn't defoo?

If the same husband supports stealing half of the woman and child's income, how much better is he? Certainly better, but how much?

I think the thing that Stefan is good at doing is showing the true callousness of the state. People like to say Stefan and his people are some sort of "cult", but really who is the bigger cult than the people who follow the US Govt and are ok with the concept of theft?

Ya, people are going to be trapped in the matrix, I'm not going to stop talking to my parents just because they stay trapped in it.. But at the same time the entire notion that all these people openly support theft is a pretty scary concept. It puts things in perspective, and it helps OTHER PEOPLE put these things in perspective as well.

PRB
01-05-2015, 02:14 PM
I honestly don't know how you have so much rep. :confused: Are you hacking the system or using sock puppets? Regardless, I'm not sure why you would neg rep someone over being critical of a person that's so insane or dishonest that he tells people (and gets his wife to violate her professional responsibility and tell people) to isolate themselves from friends and family who don't agree with Stefan. I like some of what Stefan says, but in some ways he's much worse than anybody he has ever criticized. Defooing? If Alex Jones ever said something that evil I would never listen to him again.

my guess is, he doesn't care whether Molyneux is right or wrong, he just hates me so he'll keep neg repping me until I stop posting here. I don't care why and how he can get so many reps to throw around, if that's his purpose of life, let him have it :)

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 02:15 PM
Are you hacking the system or using sock puppets?

Nah, it's all me. I'm sure PRB will be uncharacteristically honest and confirm that all those neg reps are from me.


Regardless, I'm not sure why you would neg rep someone over being critical of a person...

Because that is not his point. He couldn't care less about Stefan, Stephen, Steve, or anybody else like this. His whole schtick is going through liberty websites, finding what he identifies as gaps, and then posting here. His whole game is attempting to show the apparent hypocrisy of libertarians. I honestly don't know how you can miss this.

acptulsa
01-05-2015, 02:17 PM
My turn to negrep you.


Cite me where I said I believe in gray areas? Or specifically, when it comes to whether lack of physical harm can be an actionable tort or arrestable crime.

You said the only crimes are actions which cause physical harm. Whether you care to argue that point rationally, or just repeat it ad infinitum in hopes that will cause us to believe it, you deserve the negative rep for pretending there's any reason at all to believe we all feel that way here.


Reputation is not physical, just like information is not physical. Damage to reputation is not measurable scientifically or materially. That's aside from the fact that damage of reputation, if it can be proved at all, is not physical damage to a person's person or property.

Whether you believe a person's reputation can affect his or her ability to make a living or not, whether you believe a person who physically injures someone is liable for his or her lost wages, and whether or not you care to defend your position that a person who affects another's ability to make a living is liable for lost wages, you still deserve a negative rep for pretending the position you took is in any way The Libertarian Position.


So yes, unless and until you prove it's a crime, it's a pre-crime or non-crime.

I never said extortion is a crime either. Rapist is not a rapist if he's forcing foreplay, forcing foreplay is sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual harassment, but not rape until there's penetration. Even statutory rape requires penetration, otherwise it's all other kinds of crimes, but not rape.

So, if you don't say it's a crime, it isn't a crime, and you won't discuss the matter at all. Negative rep is deserved for being a monarchist--provided, of course, you get to be king.


How can you prove something that's not physical? Anybody can lie about anything.


1phys·i·cal adjective \ˈfi-zi-kəl\
: relating to the body of a person instead of the mind

: existing in a form that you can touch or see

: involving or related to sex

Full Definition of PHYSICAL

1 a : of or relating to natural science
b (1) : of or relating to physics (2) : characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics

2 a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature <everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance — Thomas De Quincey>
b : of or relating to material things

3 a : of or relating to the body <physical abuse>
b (1) : concerned or preoccupied with the body and its needs : carnal <physical appetites> (2) : sexual <a physical love affair> <physical attraction>
c : characterized by especially rugged and forceful physical activity : rough <a physical hockey game> <a physical player>

So, you talk about physical harm using definition three, then proceed as though you were using definition two all along. You weren't. This is a trollish and disingenuous bit of meaningless sophistry, and well worthy of your negative rep. Of course someone does not have to do you physical harm to do you real harm in the physical world.

I don't know who you think you're fooling with this naked and moronic sophistry, but people that stupid don't tend to gravitate to this forum.

Barrex
01-05-2015, 02:18 PM
Nope. I'm 100% correct. Stefan's wife got suspended for going along with Stefan's insane cultish idea of "defooing."

Read suspension hearing papers. She was not suspended because of "defooing"! In there it is specifically written that she never used "defooing" on/with her patients. She was suspended because stalkers used informations like photos, videos to get to peoples phone numbers, identity and other private informations to harass listeners. Use less he said/she said and more documents. They are out there (complaints, hearings, lawsuits and many more) if you are interested.

*I am not a member of any cult nor am I "fanatic follower"; I dont listen to Stefans show; I watched few of his youtube videos... and most of them not entirely. Putting "sorry" before insult doesnt make insult any more acceptable. I will not participate in this "debate" any further. Too much negativity, name-calling, trolling etc.

PRB
01-05-2015, 02:21 PM
Nah, it's all me. I'm sure PRB will be uncharacteristically honest and confirm that all those neg reps are from me.



Because that is not his point. He couldn't care less about Stefan, Stephen, Steve, or anybody else like this. His whole schtick is going through liberty websites, finding what he identifies as gaps, and then posting here. His whole game is attempting to show the apparent hypocrisy of libertarians. I honestly don't know how you can miss this.

I'll admit you're partially right, I believe in exposing hypocrisy of copyright deniers.

if you don't believe in copyright fine, but if you're a hypocrite about it, I'll call you out. I don't believe all libertarian oppose copyright protection, therefore I don't target everybody to attack. But I do believe some positions are indefensible or easy for a person to be a hypocrite on, and therefore I'd point them out if a person does such things.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 02:22 PM
you go play your little pissing contest,


YOU mad, bro? Can you imagine if I got paid or worked for an organization like you?


gotta give you props for admitting you got nothing better to do.

At least I'm not doing this while I work. Still sitting at work and posting on your bosses time?

I'm just waiting for people to warm up after the holidays. Speaking of which--just got a Skype from a customer, so it's off to work. Til next time...

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 02:23 PM
//

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 02:24 PM
my guess is, he doesn't care whether Molyneux is right or wrong,

Neither do you, and I'm not guessing.

Just one more post so I can neg rep you again. Now, it's off to work.

Later on, fatback.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 02:26 PM
Read suspension hearing papers. She was not suspended because of "defooing"! In there it is specifically written that she never used "defooing" on/with her patients. She was suspended because stalkers used informations like photos, videos to get to peoples phone numbers, identity and other private informations to harass listeners. Use less he said/she said and more documents. They are out there (complaints, hearings, lawsuits and many more) if you are interested.


Sorry, but you are uninformed. From your own link.

(a) You made public statements and provided advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and podcasts available thereon, wherein you promoted and recommended “deFOOing”, or dissociating from families of origin, both in general terms and in providing advice to specific individuals. You further made these statements and provided this advice in the context of your personal experience and while relying upon your qualifications as a psychological associate. Finally, when providing advice to individuals, you did so without properly assessing the circumstances of the members of the internet audience to whom the advice was provided;

So can we end the attacks on PRB in his thread now? The "evidence" presented in Stefan's case proves he is a liar and that the people defending him haven't even bothered to vet his claims.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 02:28 PM
Neither do you, and I'm not guessing.

Just one more post so I can neg rep you again. Now, it's off to work.

Later on, fatback.

Sorry, but he's telling the truth. Barrex link defending Stefan actually show Stefan to be the liar. At a certain level I like Stefan too. He's done a lot to help advance the cause of liberty. But he and his wife have given dangerous cultish advice to listeners and to her patients and then he turned around and lied about it.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 02:30 PM
Everyone please read this in its entirety before commenting further.

https://members.cpo.on.ca/public_register/investigation_detail/124

COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

IN THE MATTER OF The Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, Chapter 18 and the Psychology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, Chapter 38;

AND IN THE MATTER OF Ms. Christina Papadopoulos, Psychological Associate

AND IN THE MATTER OF a hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario concerning allegations of professional misconduct against Christina Papadopoulos, Psychological Associate as set out in the Amended Notice of Hearing dated May 17, 2012

DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE PANEL

The hearing of a Panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario (hereinafter referred to as the “Panel”) took place in Toronto on Tuesday, October 30, 2012. The panel was composed of Ms. Judy Cohen (“Chair”), Dr. Milan Pomichalek, Dr. Pamela Wilansky Traynor, Ms. Mary Bradley and Mr. Vincent Lacroix. The College was represented by Mr. Peter Osborne. Ms. Papadopolous was represented by Ms. Lisa Hamilton. Mr. Ian Roland was present as independent counsel for the Panel.

THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT

An Amended Notice of Hearing, dated May 17, 2012, was filed with the Panel. It set out the allegations of professional misconduct against Ms. Papadopoulos as follows:

1. Failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1 (2) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation. This includes failing to conduct yourself so that your activities comply with those statutes and regulations that apply to the provision of psychological services, contrary to section 2.1 of the Standards of Professional Conduct (Effective September 1, 2005) (“Standards”), providing information, advice or comment to the public in a manner contrary to section 6.5 of the Standards, providing psychological services while objectivity, competence and effectiveness were compromised contrary to section 12.2 of the Standards, and rendering opinions that were not based upon current, reliable, adequate and appropriate information contrary to section 14.3 of the Standards;

2. Provided a service that you knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit the client, contrary to section 1 (9) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation;

3. Engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practicing the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to section 1 (34) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.
By way of further particulars, it is alleged in the Amended Notice of Hearing that:

(a) You made public statements and provided advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and podcasts available thereon, wherein you promoted and recommended “deFOOing”, or dissociating from families of origin, both in general terms and in providing advice to specific individuals. You further made these statements and provided this advice in the context of your personal experience and while relying upon your qualifications as a psychological associate. Finally, when providing advice to individuals, you did so without properly assessing the circumstances of the members of the internet audience to whom the advice was provided;

(b) Your statements in support of deFOOing are not supported by current professional literature or consistent with the standards. Furthermore these statements were made in the absence of any meeting or proper assessment, and posed significant harm to members of the public and to the individuals to whom you directed your advice and comments;

(c) You made more general statements and provided advice, both in general terms and directed towards particular individuals that are not supported by current professional literature or consistent with the standards. One example is your statement that “no one is better off single than coupled.” Another example is the following statement, made in the context of answering the question regarding why someone was attracted to women who were not interested in a romantic relationship:

“I would say that it’s because he questions himself that he ends up choosing women who were not interested in him, or-not necessarily not interested in him, who were not emotionally available or who move him directly into a guy friend status. There’s a part of you, my dear friend, that doesn’t think you are worthy of having that level of intimacy, or that level of connectedness with someone. There’s a part of you, I think, that’s also quite afraid of it so you’re drawn to people who aren’t going to be able to give it to you.”;

(d) Your objectivity, competence and effectiveness were compromised by financial interests since you and the Freedomain Radio website through which you communicated your advice actively solicited donations from readers and listeners, which promoted and benefited the site managed by your husband Mr. Stefan Molyneux, with the suggestion that the level of donation reflect the number of podcasts listened to by any individual. Your private practice website (www.mississaugatherapy.com) was also accessible in the “Ask a Therapist” section of the Freedomain Radio website;

(e) In presenting information that is not representative of the discipline of the profession of psychology, and which could be harmful to a member or members of the public, while using and relying upon your credentials as a registered psychological associate member of the College, you acted in a manner that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

The parties presented the Panel with an Agreed Statement of Facts which states as follows:

The member, Ms. Christina Papadopoulos, hereby formally admits the following facts:

The Member has been a member of the College, registered as a Psychological Associate since December 10, 1997. Since that time, the member has been authorized to provide psychological services in Ontario, and provide such services in an autonomous practice in Mississauga.

The College received two complaints concerning the Member. The first was received in June 2009 and the second was received in April 2011. A panel of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) of the College considered each complaint and disposed of it in accordance with the provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the “Code”) by way of a referral, in each case, of specified allegations of misconduct arising from those complaints to the Discipline Committee of the College.

Subsequent to the referral arising out of each complaint of specified allegations of professional misconduct to the Discipline Committee, the College issued an amended Notice of Hearing, in order that, in accordance with the consent of the Member, these two related matters could proceed together by way of one consolidated hearing. There is significant overlap between the specified allegations of professional misconduct and the facts underlying those specified allegations, in each case, and accordingly, a joint hearing is the most expeditious and appropriate manner in which to proceed, given the public interest.

In the course of investigating the second complaint, the College conducted an investigation pursuant to S. 75 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. The investigation reviewed 10 records from the Member’s practice, and found that the Member had not recommended deFOOing to any of the clients to whom the 10 records pertained. However the Member made public statements and provided advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and podcasts available thereon, wherein she discussed and recommended “deFOOing”, or dissociating from families of origin in providing advice to specific individuals. The Member made statements and provided advice in the context of her personal experience and also while relying upon her qualifications and registration as a Psychological Associate. While providing advice to individuals, she did so without properly assessing the circumstances of the members of the internet audience to whom advice was provided.

Ms. Papadopoulos acknowledges and recognizes, that the making of personal disclosures in the context of the podcasts in which she was identified as a therapist and a registered member of the College, were capable of misinterpretation as psychological advice although she maintains that they were not intended as such.

While it may be appropriate to recommend family separation in cases of abuse, the Member did not obtain a sufficient history to ascertain whether the advice was warranted in the circumstances discussed in the podcasts. Although the Member advised that listeners seek professional help in their home communities on a number of locations, she acknowledges that this advice was given in the absence of any meeting or proper assessment, and there was significant risk of misunderstanding by members of the public and the individuals to whom the Member directed advice and comments and such misunderstandings posed a risk of harm.

The Member made general statements and provided advice, both in general terms and directed towards particular individuals that are not supported by current professional literature or consistent with the Standards. One example is the following statement, made in the context of answering the question regarding whether some people are better off single than coupled. The Member replied:

“My immediate impulsive reaction is: no one is better off single than coupled-and sometimes our impulses are correct, and sometimes are (sic) impulses are just that, and need to be explored and debated.”

“Given how dysfunctional many people are in today’s society, I’d say that it is better for them to be single. In fact I do counsel a lot of my clients not to date while they’re going through the process of therapy, because it is far too difficult to manage the relationship while you’re trying to figure yourself out, and often times those relationships will end up failing.”

“… In a perfect world where everybody is psychologically healthy, I think, you know, relationships are absolutely-can be absolutely wonderful. Very stimulating… I can only speak based on my relationships with [her husband] how enormously satisfying and fulfilling it is, and how happy we are. And, I wish that for everybody. I really, truly do… But, I don’t think it’s possibly for everybody until they are able to work through a lot of their own issues.”

Another example is the following statement, made in response to a question about why someone was attracted to women who were not interested in a romantic relationship:

“I would say that it’s because he questions himself that he ends up choosing women who are not interested in him, or-not necessarily interested in him, who are not emotionally available or whom moved him directly into a guy friend status there’s part of you, my dear friend, that doesn’t think you are worthy of having that level of intimacy, or that level of connectedness with someone. There’s a part of you, I think, that’s also quite afraid of it so you’re drawn to people who aren’t going to be able to give it to you.”

There is the risk and certainly the perception of the public, that the Member’s objectivity, competence and effectiveness were compromised by financial interests, since the Freedomain Radio website (although not the Member herself), actively solicited donations from readers and listeners, which promoted and benefited the site managed by the Member’s husband, with the suggestion that the level of donation to the website (her husband) reflect the number of podcasts listened to by any individual. The member’s private practice website (www.mississaugatherapy.com) was also accessible in the “Ask a Therapist” section of the Freedomain Radio website.

In presenting information that is not representative of the discipline of the profession of psychology, and which could be harmful to a member or members of the public, while using and relying upon her qualifications and registration as a registered Psychological Associate member of the College, the Member acted in a manner that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

The Member agrees and admits that she failed to maintain the Standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1 (2) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation, provided a service that she knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit the client, and has engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practicing the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to the Professional Misconduct Regulation.

Ms. Papadopoulos states, confirms and acknowledges that at the time of the relevant podcasts and her participation therein, she was, with the benefit of hindsight, naïve about the use and possible misuse of information distributed via the Internet and the possibility that such delivery may facilitate miscommunication and misunderstandings. In addition, Ms. Papadopoulos agrees and confirms that she has not participated in any podcasts, through freedomainradio.com or otherwise, since the making of the first complaint in connection with this matter and further undertakes, acknowledges and agrees not to do so in the future. The Member therefore pleads guilty to Allegation Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the Amended Notice of Hearing dated May 17, 2012

THE PLEA
Ms. Papadopoulos admitted the allegations of professional misconduct as set out in the Amended Notice of Hearing and she confirmed the accuracy of the contents of the Agreed Statement of Facts.

THE DECISION
The Panel found Ms. Papadopoulos guilty of professional misconduct on the basis of the agreed facts admitted by her and entered into evidence at the hearing by agreement of the parties.

THE PENALTY
The parties jointly submitted that the following penalty should be imposed by the Panel.

1. The Member agrees to accept a reprimand.

2. The Member agrees that she will not provide advice of a psychological nature in any podcast or internet-based broadcast.

3. The Member will undergo a one year period of peer mentorship at her own expense, with a peer mentor to be appointed by the Registrar, who will meet with the member at a frequency determined by the peer mentor to be sufficient to monitor ongoing treatment, not less than monthly, and will review a sample of client records selected at random by the mentor. The mentor will report to the Registrar at least once every three months, with such report addressing any concerns that have arisen with regard to the Member’s advice to clients. The Mentor will receive a copy of any Agreed Statement of Facts and Decision in this matter. The mentorship will commence no later than two months after the approval of this Undertaking/Agreement by the Discipline Committee.

4. The Member will successfully complete at her own expense:

(a) the clinical extern program “Brief and Narrative Therapies with Families, Couples and Individuals (Level 1)” offered by the Hincks Centre, or a similar program to be approved by the Registrar; and

(b) a program of study approved by the Registrar and administered by a member of the College, and who may be the Peer Mentor, who will design and implement the program of study (which would include an assigned reading list, meetings with the member, engaging in discussions with the member and include content and objective evaluation similar in nature to a university-level course), and which will focus on emotional development, psychopathology, psychotherapy across the lifespan, and a discussion on how communications and professional opinions to clients and others are perceived.

5. The Member’s Certificate of Registration will be suspended for a period of six months. The suspension will be suspended until December 31, 2013, at which time the suspension will be fully remitted if the Member has complied with paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Order.

6. A term, condition or limitation will be imposed on the Member’s Certificate of Registration, prohibiting her from engaging in the provision of psychological services to any clients involving dissociation from family of origin, except under the direct guidance of the Peer Mentor, until such time as she has complied with paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Order.

THE DECISION ON PENALTY
The Panel considered the Joint Submission on Penalty, as well as the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Panel found that the penalty jointly proposed by the parties was appropriate in the circumstances. The Panel so ordered.

At the end of the hearing Ms. Papadopoulos waived her right to appeal. The Panel delivered the reprimand to Ms. Papadopoulos following the conclusion of the hearing.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION ON PENALTY

The Panel approved and accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty for the following reasons:

1. The Panel accepted that it has an obligation to agree to accept a Joint Submission on Penalty arrived at between the College and the member, with the assistance of counsel, unless the Joint Submission is found by the Panel to be contrary to the public interest or that it brings administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

The Panel concluded that the Joint Submission on Penalty addresses the public interest and it did not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

2. The Panel noted that Ms. Papadopoulos had cooperated fully with the discipline process and with the College, in that she pled guilty to each allegation which saved the College the time and expense of a contested Hearing. She acknowledged and has taken responsibility for her actions. She has already signed an Undertaking Agreement with the College.

3. The Panel further noted that when ten files were inspected at random from Ms. Papadopoulos’ Mississauga practice, there was no indication that the member had recommended deFOOing. The practice of counseling deFOOing related only to public statements and providing advice to the public on the internet via the website www.freedomdomain.com and podcasts available.

4. The Panel further noted that when informed of the complaint, Ms. Papadopoulos immediately stopped all participation and shutdown the podcast. Ms. Papadopoulos further agreed not to provide advice or counseling of a psychological nature in any podcast or internet-based broadcast and/or make other public statements involving conflict with, and alienation and/or dissociation from family of origin or otherwise, in the future. Ms. Papadopoulos admitted that she had been naïve in providing information and counseling in this forum.

5. The Panel further noted that the Undertaking to which Ms. Papadopoulos agreed to and signed was quite substantial including:

(i) a term, condition or limitation on her Certificate of Registration prohibiting her from engaging in the provision of psychological services to any clients involving dissociation from family of origin, except under the direct guidance of the Peer Mentor, until such time as she has complied with the educational and peer mentorship components of the Order.

(ii) an educational component: the clinical extern program “Brief and Narrative Therapies with Families, Couples and Individuals (Level 1)” offered by the Hincks Centre, or a similar program to be approved of the Registrar;

(iii) a program of study approved by the Registrar and administered by a member of the College, who may be the Peer Mentor.
The Panel further noted that Ms. Papadopoulos has already begun the educational component of the Agreement/Undertaking.

6. The penalty provides a sufficient general deterrent to the other professional members of the College. It makes it clear that the College does not tolerate the kind of misconduct engaged in by Ms. Papadopoulos and reminds the other members of the profession of the importance of adhering to the highest professional and ethical standards. Furthermore, since there is potential of harm when offering psychological services on the internet, it will deter other members of the profession from engaging in similar acts.

7. The Panel further noted that for the reasons indicated above the public would have every reason to be confident in this profession’s ability to regulate and discipline itself.

Dated this 31st day of October, 2012

Ms. Judy Cohen (Chair)
Ms. Mary Bradley
Mr. Vincent Lacroix
Dr. Milan Pomichalek
Dr. Pamela Wilansky Traynor

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 02:34 PM
Sorry, but he's telling the truth.

I'm talking about PRB and his purpose for being here. Chances are--PRB knew next to nothing about this Stefan before he researched this post.

He's also chicken livered, just like Zip. Refused to take my bet where the loser leaves the forum for good. Neither one will take the bet. Now why do you suppose that is?

PRB
01-05-2015, 02:34 PM
Sorry, but he's telling the truth. Barrex link defending Stefan actually show Stefan to be the liar. At a certain level I like Stefan too. He's done a lot to help advance the cause of liberty. But he and his wife have given dangerous cultish advice to listeners and to her patients and then he turned around and lied about it.

I should add that, I believe jmdrake and I had a pretty nasty disagreement on the thread about Chris Kyle. So it's not at all that he and I are either working together or I just disagree with everybody. I disagree with people when I do, and I'm not afraid to applaud a person when I agree.

PRB
01-05-2015, 02:35 PM
I'm talking about PRB and his purpose for being here. Chances are--PRB knew next to nothing about this Stefan before he researched this post.

He's also chicken livered, just like Zip. Refused to take my bet where the loser leaves the forum for good. Neither one will take the bet. Now why do you suppose that is?

I'm not taking a bet from somebody who can't even prove I am a liar or liberal. Every time I ask, you zip up and say "I already did".

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 02:37 PM
I should add that, I believe jmdrake and I had a pretty nasty disagreement on the thread about Chris Kyle. So it's not at all that he and I are either working together or I just disagree with everybody. I disagree with people when I do, and I'm not afraid to applaud a person when I agree.

We did? I forgot about that. Then again I've probably had a nasty disagreement with just about everyone on this forum at some time or another. My New Years resolution is to not have any nasty disagreements! Starting in January 2016.

PRB
01-05-2015, 02:39 PM
I'm talking about PRB and his purpose for being here. Chances are--PRB knew next to nothing about this Stefan before he researched this post.

He's also chicken livered, just like Zip. Refused to take my bet where the loser leaves the forum for good. Neither one will take the bet. Now why do you suppose that is?

I'll tell you the truth about what i know and don't know about Stefan molyneux.

I've heard about him a few years ago on youtube. I don't follow him much, but I know him, like many ancaps, and along with Stephan Kinsella, oppose copyright protection. On top of that, I am aware of rampant DMCA abuse on youtube. This includes the Righthaven saga a few years back, then there was SOPA.

Because of my interest on these topics, I've followed the site techdirt, this is where I heard of the story about Molyneux. I don't need to know all his positions to know he's opposed to copyright and he's lied about this from his own admission.

specsaregood
01-05-2015, 02:48 PM
Then again I've probably had a nasty disagreement with just about everyone on this forum at some time or another.

I don't think I would characterize any of my disagreements with you as "nasty".

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 02:50 PM
I'm not taking a bet from somebody...


You won't bet me where the loser leaves the forum for good?

Why not? What do you have to lose?

PRB
01-05-2015, 02:54 PM
You won't bet me where the loser leaves the forum for good?

Why not? What do you have to lose?

I like coming on this forum, so there's that. I don't gain anything by you leaving either. So there's nothing to gain and a little interaction/entertainment/education to lose.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 03:01 PM
I like coming on this forum, so there's that. I don't gain anything by you leaving either. So there's nothing to gain and a little interaction/entertainment/education to lose.


LOL. Yeah, you're paid.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTaxvPppU3-rXgCXaBpqspmXGlJb5UBxpZLQSuwnlwNrv0nAtwxmQ

dannno
01-05-2015, 03:01 PM
Sorry, but you are uninformed. From your own link.

(a) You made public statements and provided advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and podcasts available thereon, wherein you promoted and recommended “deFOOing”, or dissociating from families of origin, both in general terms and in providing advice to specific individuals. You further made these statements and provided this advice in the context of your personal experience and while relying upon your qualifications as a psychological associate. Finally, when providing advice to individuals, you did so without properly assessing the circumstances of the members of the internet audience to whom the advice was provided;

So can we end the attacks on PRB in his thread now? The "evidence" presented in Stefan's case proves he is a liar and that the people defending him haven't even bothered to vet his claims.

Dude, Barrex is technically right.. it says right in the link you posted that the only thing she was in trouble for was appearing on the internet radio broadcast and offering advice regarding defooing without having a deep enough understanding of the individual's situation, not for recommending defooing to her patients which they found no evidence of and admitted such toward the end of the link you provided, which you did not bold.


there was no indication that the member had recommended deFOOing. The practice of counseling deFOOing related only to public statements and providing advice to the public on the internet via the website www.freedomdomain.com and podcasts available.


To that end, I don't understand how Dr. Drew was able to be on "Love Line" for all those years with Adam Carolla. Dr. Drew would always offer really hasty advice without knowing the person or their situation very well, that was always my complaint with the show. I have the same complaint about Dr. Laura.. She will start yelling at her callers if they start giving her too much background information and then she gives them advice based on two or three sentences.. These people are/were broadcast on nationally syndicated radio and did basically the same thing they are accusing Stefan's wife of and they did so on a daily basis, I think it is ridiculous.. They would recommend breaking up with people and making all types of really extreme family related decisions based on almost nothing..

I'm guessing that Stefan is also correct that the reason this entire issue came up was likely due to the person harassing the callers, I have never seen any indication that Stefan is a liar.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 03:03 PM
You won't bet me where the loser leaves the forum for good?

Why not? What do you have to lose?

Okay. Here is a question. I think it's pretty well established now that Stefan Molyneux is a liar and that, worse, his lies facilitate him making money off of his followers. If I'm wrong, then please show me exactly how I am wrong. Barrex attempted to do that and he just further confirmed I was right. Now if I'm right, then why be angry at PRB for starting this thread?

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 03:15 PM
Dude, Barrex is technically right.. it says right in the link you posted that the only thing she was in trouble for was appearing on the internet radio broadcast and offering advice regarding defooing without having a deep enough understanding of the individual's situation, not for recommending defooing to her patients which they found no evidence of and admitted such toward the end of the link you provided, which you did not bold.

Ummmmm...WHAT?



To that end, I don't understand how Dr. Drew was able to be on "Love Line" for all those years with Adam Carolla. Dr. Drew would always offer really hasty advice without knowing the person or their situation very well, that was always my complaint with the show. I have the same complaint about Dr. Laura.. She will start yelling at her callers if they start giving her too much background information and then she gives them advice based on two or three sentences.. These people are/were broadcast on nationally syndicated radio and did basically the same thing they are accusing Stefan's wife of and they did so on a daily basis, I think it is ridiculous..

I'm guessing that Stefan is also correct that the reason this entire issue came up was likely due to the person harassing the callers, I have never seen any indication that Stefan is a liar.

1) Yes Stefan is a liar and I've already posted the video to prove it. He claimed his wife was never suspended at all. That's not just lying, that's pathological lying.

2) I don't know about Dr. Drew and I don't follow Dr. Laura. But are you telling be that you don't understand the difference between giving hasty advice and giving blatantly wrong advice? How long should a Dr. know a patient before she should be able to say to a patient "Your family believes in the income tax? Defoo them!"

3) Professionals are held to a high standard of conduct even when they are not directly interacting with patients. If a medical doctor was on the radio telling someone "Do you have a migraine? Drink a liter of sulfuric acid and see if that clears it up."

4) Why on earth would you believe that the only way this would "come up" is if someone was harassing her patients? Do you not believe that someone could have simply filed a complaint with her governing body and included a link to the specific podcasts? I'm not one to go around always invoking Occam's Razor, but this time it really fits.

dannno
01-05-2015, 03:17 PM
Okay. Here is a question. I think it's pretty well established now that Stefan Molyneux is a liar and that, worse, his lies facilitate him making money off of his followers. If I'm wrong, then please show me exactly how I am wrong. Barrex attempted to do that and he just further confirmed I was right. Now if I'm right, then why be angry at PRB for starting this thread?

I haven't seen anywhere Stefan is purposely lying and I'm guessing this is a really bad topic to use to try and 'prove' he is a liar because it sounds like a lot of what happened wasn't publicly documented - there was a horrible degree of harassment coming from a very hateful person toward her patient(s) and some of the callers on the show and it sounds like that is in fact what prompted the investigation to begin with - what resulted and what she was charged with regarding her advice on the show wasn't that big of a deal compared to what other bigger radio personalities do.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 03:20 PM
Big for starting this thread anything to expose the fraud is good service to liberty.

Btw here are the videos the cult leader Stefan Molyneux doesn't want you to see. All the videos were archived and reposed in this youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXtp2ZZWZcRrhrR9ICWO71g

Personally, my best video of em all is this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-k-HmUHhCY

As you watch the videos, try and pick out anything that could be mistaken for harassment of his sheepish viewers. You would notice that you cannot find anything. The man sent govt agents i.e. introduced the gun into the room because someone is using his words to expose him. Anarchist my ass.

Wow!


Yea, but not even Hitler is all bad. Every human being have some good quality about them, some redeeming attribute that will make them qualify as not "all bad". The man is a cult leader and a con artist who contradicts himself just about every time he opens him mouth and in my opinion does as much harm as any good he bring to the liberty movement. And for anyone who missed the Eric Garner controversy, here is the video of it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9UUQg2vkhA

I won't call him a racist but he somehow seems to get it right when it comes to the Cliven Bundy situation but for Garder, he had to do some serious mental gymnastic to paint him in the worst light possible and make justification for the cops and businesses that called the police. You cannot make this kind of thing up.

Interesting. I saw the video of Stefan attacking the Mike Brown "gentle giant" meme, and I largely agreed with that though I believe the cops actions were questionable and the prosecutor was a disgrace. But Stefan attacking Eric Garner for selling cigarettes without a permit? Is he going to defoo himself from himself now?

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 03:27 PM
I haven't seen anywhere Stefan is purposely lying and I'm guessing this is a really bad topic to use to try and 'prove' he is a liar because it sounds like a lot of what happened wasn't publicly documented - there was a horrible degree of harassment coming from a very hateful person toward her patient(s) and some of the callers on the show and it sounds like that is in fact what prompted the investigation to begin with - what resulted and what she was charged with regarding her advice on the show wasn't that big of a deal compared to what other bigger radio personalities do.

*sigh* Please watch this video. I have cued this up right to Stefan's big fat lie. Joe Rogan says "This practice of defooing. Your wife got in trouble for this right? For advocating it on your show?" Stefan says "no." http://youtu.be/lN5OjzEfQmI?t=3m57s How on earth is that not a lie? And since it is a lie, why on earth would you believe Stefan's account of events?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 03:32 PM
Now if I'm right, then why be angry at PRB for starting this thread?

Oh, I'm just messing with him. He told me that he's annoyed with me. He's annoyed because he knows I'm right.

He won't even agree to stakes where the loser leaves the forum for a limited time. It's because he'll lose money.

How about it, PRB? Loser leaves for one year? Six months? One month?

Come on, Ohio State and Oregon. Bet?

dannno
01-05-2015, 03:42 PM
1) Yes Stefan is a liar and I've already posted the video to prove it. He claimed his wife was never suspended at all. That's not just lying, that's pathological lying.

Well maybe she wasn't suspended? Maybe the board later pulled the decision or dropped the suspension? Or maybe he has a better explanation for why he made that statement.

All I see is this huge witch hunt coming at him and his wife for no good reason.. Turns out he was right that she was not suspended for recommending defooing to her patients as many people had stated.. it was all over the internet broadcast and we have very little information as to how that all came about.




2) I don't know about Dr. Drew and I don't follow Dr. Laura. But are you telling be that you don't understand the difference between giving hasty advice and giving blatantly wrong advice? How long should a Dr. know a patient before she should be able to say to a patient "Your family believes in the income tax? Defoo them!"

This is all completely ludicrous..

You have the whole thing on defooing for income tax completely wrong. You might consider defooing them if you found out that they had a predilection for indiscriminate violence and power or something along those lines through conversations you have with them over a long period of time. If you found out that they were really a dangerous, callous uncaring person. Some people don't even want to discuss those topics, it could take years or you might never really get to the bottom of understanding their beliefs because they may shield them to protect their circumstances. The idea is that something as simple as the income tax can lead to a discussion that shows a persons true nature or beliefs. The only thing I would say to Stefan is that a lot of people use 'devil's advocate' arguments and so they might not actually believe the things they say, they may just be throwing out arguments to understand your belief system better.

Dr. Laura and Dr. Drew WOULD give blatantly wrong advice sometimes... I am certain of it based on how much hasty advice they gave. And the board 'suspended' Stefan's wife not for giving wrong advice, defooing can be good advice at times...but they gave it to her because she gave it out hastily..

But for example, anybody who used cannabis according to Dr. Drew and Dr. Laura (and Stefan, to be fair) is an 'addict' and couldn't possibly be treating a medical condition, considering cannabis has probably the greatest medical efficacy of any substance on the planet.. So Dr. Drew AND Dr. Laura would likely recommend to a woman who has a misunderstanding of cannabis and perhaps has too high of expectations of what a partner should be doing for them to leave a husband or father who is perfectly responsible and reasonable, just for using cannabis. That would fly on a radio show, yet it may be horrible advice. It might be like hiring a tweeker or gambling addict who passed their drug test over a stoner who failed their drug test, because the "board" recommends testing applicants for drugs. It flies, but its a bad decision.





4) Why on earth would you believe that the only way this would "come up" is if someone was harassing her patients? Do you not believe that someone could have simply filed a complaint with her governing body and included a link to the specific podcasts? I'm not one to go around always invoking Occam's Razor, but this time it really fits.

I'm not going to write-off Stefan as a liar because of Occam's Razor when I wasn't involved in the conflict.

PRB
01-05-2015, 03:45 PM
Oh, I'm just messing with him. He told me that he's annoyed with me. He's annoyed because he knows I'm right.

He won't even agree to stakes where the loser leaves the forum for a limited time. It's because he'll lose money.

How about it, PRB? Loser leaves for one year? Six months? One month?

Come on, Ohio State and Oregon. Bet?

Election year coming up, bitcoin just dropped, I'd rather be on here weekly.

But really, how long need I stay off for you to stop calling me a troll, liar, liberal? Your answer will tell me whether I care about your bet.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 04:11 PM
LOL. I love how NAP advocates have to stretch the definition of aggression to include blackmail, defamation and fraud. Next you'll tell us smiling is aggression just so you can justify punching a person in return.

NAP is a nonsensical argument because at the end of the paragraph, it's basically "aggression is what I call aggression and/or unjustified force" totally circular.

It's funny how one can call defamation "destroying" but I bet the same person like you will say piracy is not "destroying" a person's profits, because in your mind, you arbitrarily decided what IS or ISN'T legitimately information one can protect. To say defamation is an actionable tort or crime assumes that free speech should be limited to truth and/or a person is obligated to maintain another person's reputation and public image. No such obligation seems to exist when we talk about whether the average consumer needs to respect the privilege of an artworks' creator to only distribute his work, copies of it, or derivatives of it as he sees fit for the price he names.

If you can justify copyright infringement on the grounds that "I never agreed to uphold copyright" or "I never recognize you hold copyright", you can surely say the same about reputation and defamation. Why should I not be allowed to lie about you for money or fun?
The argument WRT IP is about property, not "information". The pro-IP side would have us believe that intangibles are tangible just because they made up a law. They're somewhat like the Keynesian mystic cultists of the information age. It's utter nonsense that would never have occurred to anyone prior to the rise of corporatism. If you had tried to convince a Mozart or Gutenberg or Aristotle or Antoine Louis their ideas were as much property as the clothes on their backs but in some other mysterious way, they would've called you a nutcase.

Barrex
01-05-2015, 04:29 PM
There I am a liar. I returned...ffs

Sorry, but you are uninformed. From your own link.

(a) You made public statements and provided advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com (http://www.freedomainradio.com) and podcasts available thereon, wherein you promoted and recommended “deFOOing”, or dissociating from families of origin, both in general terms and in providing advice to specific individuals. You further made these statements and provided this advice in the context of your personal experience and while relying upon your qualifications as a psychological associate. Finally, when providing advice to individuals, you did so without properly assessing the circumstances of the members of the internet audience to whom the advice was provided;

So can we end the attacks on PRB in his thread now? The "evidence" presented in Stefan's case proves he is a liar and that the people defending him haven't even bothered to vet his claims.
Sorry, but you are liar. AGAIN. Are you doing this on purpose? You are not retarded and you know difference between prosecutions argument and truth. Everything that prosecuting side alleges is not truth. Especially when prosecuting side got agenda of its own.

THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT
ALLEGATION- a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

Those are not findings, sentence or anything else. They are allegations. Committee received those allegations in complaints. Guess who made those complaints and allegations? hint-hint, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more say no more...




Everyone please read this in its entirety before commenting further.
https://members.cpo.on.ca/public_register/investigation_detail/124


Agreed. If you have IQ above 2 you will understand that she was punished for talking with people and nothing else. Oh Z HORROR of it... and try to understand the difference between "allegation" and other words.

THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT- someone complained is not equal to "he is guilty". If I tomorrow came and alleged that jmdrake is pedophile would everyone automatically say he is guilty and killed him? No. From allegations to killing there is investigation, prosecution, trial....

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS- Facts that both sides agreed on.

In a nutshell: She was accused of prescribing her patients "defooing" (leaving their families) without any evidence. Her random cases were inspected and there were no evidance to support that allegation.

She admitted that she was on her husbands talkshow and talked freely with other free persons about "defooing" and that defooing is acceptable in some cases (beating, abuse etc.). That is her only "misconduct"- she talked to other people.

She pleaded guilty and agreement was done. What else could she do? Go into expensive legal battle and risk losing her job? Plea bargains are death of justice systems. If I am not mistaking government in US has 97% conviction rate.* Would you go against that? If government wants to get you it will get you. You are pushed in and you try to get out of it as soon as you can and with smallest punishment possible.

There are a lot more documents that you can find if you want.

*I believe that stat is for criminal cases but it shows governments power in other trials/hearings etc.


Dude, Barrex is technically right.. it says right in the link you posted that the only thing she was in trouble for was appearing on the internet radio broadcast and offering advice regarding defooing without having a deep enough understanding of the individual's situation, not for recommending defooing to her patients which they found no evidence of and admitted such toward the end of the link you provided, which you did not bold.

To that end, I don't understand how Dr. Drew was able to be on "Love Line" for all those years with Adam Carolla. Dr. Drew would always offer really hasty advice without knowing the person or their situation very well, that was always my complaint with the show. I have the same complaint about Dr. Laura.. She will start yelling at her callers if they start giving her too much background information and then she gives them advice based on two or three sentences.. These people are/were broadcast on nationally syndicated radio and did basically the same thing they are accusing Stefan's wife of and they did so on a daily basis, I think it is ridiculous.. They would recommend breaking up with people and making all types of really extreme family related decisions based on almost nothing..

I'm guessing that Stefan is also correct that the reason this entire issue came up was likely due to the person harassing the callers, I have never seen any indication that Stefan is a liar.
She was under government microscope and she was cornered. If she fought it she would probably lose her license during proceedings and trials that would go on for years. She pleaded guilty and put is all behind. That is what 99% of lawyers (honest ones) would suggest to her. It is sick. Everything is sick. From government going after her, people going after her, her patients, callers of the show just to get to Stefan. Sick fucking people everywhere.

Those people are earning money from spitting on Stephans work (selling mugs, t-shirts, asking for donations etc.) and they pretend that they are "justice warriors". They had right to spit and criticize Stephans work and earn money from it but they didnt stop on that and they crossed the line. Some people dont understand or pretend not to understand. They used informations on the show to get to more personal informations and identities. This is called cyber-stalking and it is a crime. Stefan, his family, his customers were under attack and Stefan retaliated.

I am no debating his philosophy but if I were him I wouldnt be so mild about those attacks. I would got pissed and do a lot of damage. We live in society where everyone can be ruined legally if someone wants it badly. That is what this thread reminded me of and that is probably why it annoys me so much- beside anarchists/libertarians started another internet war amongst them selfs. Moronic and retarded. Fuck this thread and fuck anyone who...fuck it.

I unsubscribed and definitely am not posting in it.

acptulsa
01-05-2015, 04:37 PM
Election year coming up, bitcoin just dropped, I'd rather be on here weekly.

But really, how long need I stay off for you to stop calling me a troll, liar, liberal? Your answer will tell me whether I care about your bet.

Bad strategy. We have very long memories.

If you want to hang here without being accused of trollish behavior, stop attempting to make us look foolish in our own home ground by pretending to argue libertarian positions using sophistry and every other sort of embarassingly stupid trickery you can devise. Some of us have been dealing with people trollishly trying to make us look stupid by putting up with their presence for seven years and more. I don't know why you think you're better than them...

I've seen some of the 'I can't tell you any good reason why a racist would be a libertarian, but I'm libertarian because I'm racist' trolls that were here when I arrived that you can't hold a candle too--and they were terrible at trollish maneuvers.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 04:57 PM
There I am a liar. I returned...ffs

I haven't called you a liar. I said you were wrong. That said, now I am calling you a liar and full of shit. Stefan Molyneux told Joe Rogan that his wife was not suspended or reprimanded for pushing defooing on his show. That is a lie. You know that is a lie. Your own source proves that is a lie.



Sorry, but you are liar. AGAIN. Are you doing this on purpose? You are not retarded and you know difference between prosecutions argument and truth. Everything that prosecuting side alleges is not truth. Especially when prosecuting side got agenda of its own.


Moron, I have neither lied nor am I retarded. The allegation is that Stefan's wife was suspended for comments she made on his show. That allegation is true. If you can't understand that then you are dumber than a box of rocks and you aren't worth talking to. I'm not bothering with the rest of your dishonest ignorant screed. You drank the Kool Aid and you're are beyond help.

dannno
01-05-2015, 05:08 PM
I haven't called you a liar. I said you were wrong. That said, now I am calling you a liar and full of shit. Stefan Molyneux told Joe Rogan that his wife was not suspended or reprimanded for pushing defooing on his show. That is a lie. You know that is a lie. Your own source proves that is a lie.


Or maybe, as he has been accused elsewhere, he thought Joe asked whether his wife was suspended for advocating defooing to her patients and merely made a misstatement.. Though I wouldn't assume that I would rather hear his reasons, although I'm pretty sure he is sick of this whole situation.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 05:25 PM
Election year coming up,

No, it's 2015.



bitcoin just dropped,

So did avocadoes.




I'd rather be on here weekly.


You rather be on here weekly so you don't miss your pay.

I actually have more to you lose than you.

You:

1. Have no friends here.

2. Are not liberty minded.

3. Have never made a liberty post.

4. Make nothing but adversarial posts.

5. If you really wanted "a little interaction/entertainment/education" from a forum, then you'd take the bet. These forums are a dime a dozen, so you would not lose anything you claim by going to another forum.

GunnyFreedom
01-05-2015, 05:40 PM
Wow!



Interesting. I saw the video of Stefan attacking the Mike Brown "gentle giant" meme, and I largely agreed with that though I believe the cops actions were questionable and the prosecutor was a disgrace. But Stefan attacking Eric Garner for selling cigarettes without a permit? Is he going to defoo himself from himself now?

Wait, what? He attacked Garner for selling cigarettes without State permission? Wow. WTF kind of anarchist does that? Oh Lawd. I knew there was something way off with him.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 05:41 PM
Well maybe she wasn't suspended? Maybe the board later pulled the decision or dropped the suspension? Or maybe he has a better explanation for why he made that statement.

Find. Provide the proof to back up that claim because Barrex sure as hell hasn't.



All I see is this huge witch hunt coming at him and his wife for no good reason.. Turns out he was right that she was not suspended for recommending defooing to her patients as many people had stated.. it was all over the internet broadcast and we have very little information as to how that all came about.


So.....you are perfectly okay with a psychologist telling people over the radio that they should be assholes and disassociate with their own friends and family who haven't adopted some new philosophy (new to the listener) that her husband is pushing? Really? As long as she doesn't say it in her practice you are 100% okay with it?



This is all completely ludicrous..

You have the whole thing on defooing for income tax completely wrong. You might consider defooing them if you found out that they had a predilection for indiscriminate violence and power or something along those lines through conversations you have with them over a long period of time. If you found out that they were really a dangerous, callous uncaring person. Some people don't even want to discuss those topics, it could take years or you might never really get to the bottom of understanding their beliefs because they may shield them to protect their circumstances. The idea is that something as simple as the income tax can lead to a discussion that shows a persons true nature or beliefs. The only thing I would say to Stefan is that a lot of people use 'devil's advocate' arguments and so they might not actually believe the things they say, they may just be throwing out arguments to understand your belief system better.

You obviously haven't watched the video I posted. Do yourself a favor and watch it before attempting to comment. This is the theory Stefan promoted. Those who support statism support government force to enforce it. So if you support farm subsidies, you want people who don't support farm subsidies to be shot. Don't associate with people that want you shot. Here. Watch this for yourself. http://youtu.be/lN5OjzEfQmI?t=14m49s



Dr. Laura and Dr. Drew WOULD give blatantly wrong advice sometimes... I am certain of it based on how much hasty advice they gave. And the board 'suspended' Stefan's wife not for giving wrong advice, defooing can be good advice at times...but they gave it to her because she gave it out hastily..


Defooing someone because they disagree with you on farm subsidies is never acceptable advice.



But for example, anybody who used cannabis according to Dr. Drew and Dr. Laura (and Stefan, to be fair) is an 'addict' and couldn't possibly be treating a medical condition, considering cannabis has probably the greatest medical efficacy of any substance on the planet.. So Dr. Drew AND Dr. Laura would likely recommend to a woman who has a misunderstanding of cannabis and perhaps has too high of expectations of what a partner should be doing for them to leave a husband or father who is perfectly responsible and reasonable, just for using cannabis. That would fly on a radio show, yet it may be horrible advice. It might be like hiring a tweeker or gambling addict who passed their drug test over a stoner who failed their drug test, because the "board" recommends testing applicants for drugs. It flies, but its a bad decision.


In many states being a cannabis user is an invitation for the police to come and steal your home. Whether you agree with that or not (I personally don't) that is a high risk to put your family in just so you can get high. While I wouldn't agree with someone leaving their husband over that, I find that to be a far cry from telling someone who says she supports farm subsidies "Do you want me shot?"


I'm not going to write-off Stefan as a liar because of Occam's Razor when I wasn't involved in the conflict.

I'm not writing Stefan off either, but he is a liar. Not all liars are bad people. It's interesting the "logic" that's being batted about in this thread on Stefan's behalf. There's the "logic" that his wife got suspended because her patients were harassed (total fabrication) and then there's your "logic" that "Well...maybe she didn't get suspended after all. Maybe they just said they were going to suspend her." Okay. Possible. Unlikely but possible. No proof offered for this claim, but possible. That doesn't change the fact that Stefan has given some great analysis over the years. But he's not the saint he pretends to be. He shouldn't go around making up "Truth about everyone under the sun" videos if he's not willing to face the truth about himself.

silverhandorder
01-05-2015, 05:52 PM
Wait, what? He attacked Garner for selling cigarettes without State permission? Wow. WTF kind of anarchist does that? Oh Lawd. I knew there was something way off with him.

Thats not true watch foe your self...

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 05:56 PM
Or maybe, as he has been accused elsewhere, he thought Joe asked whether his wife was suspended for advocating defooing to her patients and merely made a misstatement.. Though I wouldn't assume that I would rather hear his reasons, although I'm pretty sure he is sick of this whole situation.

*facepalm*

Joe Rogan: But this practice of defooing. This is, I mean it's pretty widely criticized right? I mean your wife got in trouble for this. For advocating this on your show right?
Stefan: No
Joe Rogan: She didn't?
Stefan: No
Joe Rogan: Didn't she get suspended? Didn't she have...?
Stefan: No. No. None of that is true.
Joe Rogan: So that's just lies.
Stefan: Yeah. None of that is true.

Dannno, note the succession of lies! First Joe just merely says "She got in trouble for that right?" Now Barrex wants to call me a liar because he claims she was merely "accused." Well so freaking what! If I get arrested, even if I ultimately get acquitted, I still got "in trouble." So Stefan lied. Joe Rogan never says anything about what happened in her private practice. That's a red herring. Now I know that you haven't called me a liar, but you are going along with someone who did, when so far all of the evidence that has actually been presented backs up my claim that Stefan got caught lying red handed. If someone wants to prove me wrong bring forward the evidence and prove me wrong! Look, enough with the freaking hero worship man crush stuff. As I said earlier in the thread, Stefan has done some wonderful analysis. I have linked, and will continue to link, to his explanation of how our interventionism in World War I helped cause World War II and that intervention helped launch the Cold War which helped launch international terrorism. But I'm not going to pretend he is somehow right for starting this crap by advocating "defooing" for stupid reasons and getting his wife to go along with it and then using the DCMA to go after people who were calling him out on it. Really, you don't want to think anything bad about Stefan, so you will think the worst about someone else that you know absolutely nothing about just because Stefan says so? Seriously? This is like the people who automatically hated Paula Jones because they loved Bill Clinton.

silverhandorder
01-05-2015, 05:58 PM
So.....you are perfectly okay with a psychologist telling people over the radio that they should be assholes and disassociate with their own friends and family who haven't adopted some new philosophy (new to the listener) that her husband is pushing? Really? As long as she doesn't say it in her practice you are 100% okay with it?


Her husband never advocated that.




Defooing someone because they disagree with you on farm subsidies is never acceptable advice.
He never advocated that.







I'm not writing Stefan off either, but he is a liar. Not all liars are bad people. It's interesting the "logic" that's being batted about in this thread on Stefan's behalf. There's the "logic" that his wife got suspended because her patients were harassed (total fabrication) and then there's your "logic" that "Well...maybe she didn't get suspended after all. Maybe they just said they were going to suspend her." Okay. Possible. Unlikely but possible. No proof offered for this claim, but possible. That doesn't change the fact that Stefan has given some great analysis over the years. But he's not the saint he pretends to be. He shouldn't go around making up "Truth about everyone under the sun" videos if he's not willing to face the truth about himself.

You have not proven he is a liar. He does not owe you an explanation over his private business. Being barred for 6 month to go through retraining does not really seems the same thing as you claim. You are going after him because you don't like him.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 06:04 PM
Thats not true watch foe your self...

:rolleyes: It is true. He said the store owners were "victimized" by Eric Garner because he was undercutting their business selling loose cigarettes. Really this is getting old. No matter what evidence people put forward regarding problems with Stefan, his supporters will turn around and say "That's not true" without giving a single shred of evidence or coherent logical argument to back up their claims. Stefan lies to Joe Rogan and denies that his wife got in trouble for advocating "defooing" on his radio show? It must have been because Stefan just didn't understand what Joe Rogan was saying. :rolleyes:

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 06:07 PM
Her husband never advocated that.

Yeah he did. I've posted the transcript of the video that proved he did.



He never advocated that.


Yeah he did. I've posted the transcript of the video that proved he did.


You have not proven he is a liar.

Yes I have. I've posted the transcript of the video that proves this.


He does not owe you an explanation over his private business. Being barred for 6 month to go through retraining does not really seems the same thing as you claim. You are going after him because you don't like him.

Are you serious? My "claim" is that she got in trouble. Being barred for 6 months = getting in trouble. When Joe Rogan said "Your wife got in trouble for this right?" Stefan said "No." That was a lie. You know that was a lie. My liking or disliking him has nothing to do with this.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 06:16 PM
For the record, I don't "dislike" Stefan, but the stupidity and dishonesty he is causing to grow in some of his followers is enough to make me dislike him. Joe Rogan said "Your wife got in trouble for this right?" And she did. The very people attacking me in this thread admit she got suspended for 6 months and she got reprimanded. Anyone with half a brain knows that's "getting in trouble." Maybe you think she shouldn't have gotten in trouble, but that's beside the point. Now actually the suspension was itself suspended but only because she agreed to stop advocating "defooing."

Really anybody who wants to know the truth, watch this video. At 6:45 in he says "You don't go on a shopping excursion with a mother in law who wants you shot." And his definition of someone who "wants you shot" is someone who advocates statism in any form or fashion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN5OjzEfQmI

PRB
01-05-2015, 06:20 PM
The argument WRT IP is about property, not "information".

can information be property, yes or no?

PRB
01-05-2015, 06:22 PM
For the record, I don't "dislike" Stefan, but the stupidity and dishonesty he is causing to grow in some of his followers is enough to make me dislike him.

i'll say it too, I don't mean for this to be a general attack on Stefan's character, I don't think I completely disagree or dislike him. I made this thread to point out his hypocrisy on the copyright issue, but also as a warning to people that being opposed to copyright or opposed to information being property is an indefensible position.

PRB
01-05-2015, 06:24 PM
Bad strategy. We have very long memories.

If you want to hang here without being accused of trollish behavior, stop attempting to make us look foolish in our own home ground by pretending to argue libertarian positions using sophistry and every other sort of embarassingly stupid trickery you can devise. Some of us have been dealing with people trollishly trying to make us look stupid by putting up with their presence for seven years and more. I don't know why you think you're better than them...

I've seen some of the 'I can't tell you any good reason why a racist would be a libertarian, but I'm libertarian because I'm racist' trolls that were here when I arrived that you can't hold a candle too--and they were terrible at trollish maneuvers.

can you give me an example of a libertarian position I "pretend to argue"?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 06:25 PM
can you give me an example of a libertarian position I "pretend to argue"?


Neg rep.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 06:28 PM
Hey knucklehead, Are you going to bet or not?

PRB
01-05-2015, 06:28 PM
Neg rep.

Here we go again, whenever you can't answer a question, you throw out the neg rep card.

that's gotta be one of the best cards to play, Race Card, Shill Card, Neg Rep card.

acptulsa
01-05-2015, 06:29 PM
can information be property, yes or no?

You have a remarkable propensity for ignoring all manner of meaningful input and zooming right back in on the most trivial mote on earth. Have you even heard or read anything Molyneux has said on the specific subject of copyright, or are you ranting about your assumption of his hypocrisy?

And ideas can be property, but simple information? Information can be secret. Information about a new idea can be property. But common knowledge surely can't be claimed. Why? Have a point, or do you just ask questions to make people think you can think?

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 06:30 PM
i'll say it too, I don't mean for this to be a general attack on Stefan's character, I don't think I completely disagree or dislike him. I made this thread to point out his hypocrisy on the copyright issue, but also as a warning to people that being opposed to copyright or opposed to information being property is an indefensible position.

I don't think the misuse of the DMCA makes being opposed to copyright or opposed to information being property an indefensible position. If anything this further highlights the problem with copyright. Without copyright being an issue, Stefan would have had to really make the case that the people he was going after had actually looked up private information about his wife's patients and were harassing them. As it stands he was able to make one case to YouTube (copyright) and an entirely different case to his ancap fans (really it's about "cyberbullying").

PRB
01-05-2015, 06:33 PM
No, it's 2015.

So did avocadoes.


I didn't see the news about avocados, good to know.

2015 is now, but if I was away for 6 months or a year, it'll get closer to 2016.



You rather be on here weekly so you don't miss your pay.

I actually have more to you lose than you.

You:

1. Have no friends here.


I don't need friends to like being here.



2. Are not liberty minded.

3. Have never made a liberty post.


I am liberty minded and you're free to think my posts aren't liberty oriented.



4. Make nothing but adversarial posts.


so I guess those green bars I have are all stolen?



5. If you really wanted "a little interaction/entertainment/education" from a forum, then you'd take the bet. These forums are a dime a dozen, so you would not lose anything you claim by going to another forum.

give me another example of a forum that's similar enough.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 06:34 PM
that's gotta be one of the best cards to play, Race Card, Shill Card, Neg Rep card.

Your strategy of repeating a lie has also worked pretty good in history.

If you tell a lie long enough, then people will eventually believe it. You will even come to believe it yourself.




Oh yeah; neg rep.

PRB
01-05-2015, 06:36 PM
I don't think the misuse of the DMCA makes being opposed to copyright or opposed to information being property an indefensible position.


It doesn't. I'm saying the positions themselves are pretty much indefensible.



If anything this further highlights the problem with copyright. Without copyright being an issue, Stefan would have had to really make the case that the people he was going after had actually looked up private information about his wife's patients and were harassing them.


Fair enough. I agree copyright law and its enforcement is full of problems, I don't believe therefore throw the bathwater out with the baby.

Maybe it's best put : that Stefan illustrates by perpetuating the abuse problem of DMCA and copyright enfrocement for censorship purposes.

You are right, if there were no copyright or DMCA available, he'll have a hard time taking down a post he doesn't liek, but then we'd be in a whole different world anyway.



As it stands he was able to make one case to YouTube (copyright) and an entirely different case to his ancap fans (really it's about "cyberbullying").

agreed.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-05-2015, 06:40 PM
but if I was away for 6 months or a year,...

Yeah, you belong in the pen.




I don't need friends to like being here.

I do have friends here, so I have more to lose than you.




I am liberty minded and you're free to think my posts aren't liberty oriented.

No, your posts are not evidence of that. Another reason you have nothing to lose.




so I guess those green bars I have are all stolen?

Gained under false pretenses. And you're now losing them since you've been exposed.




give me another example of a forum that's similar enough.


Freesteader, Daily Paul, Liberty Conservatives, etc., etc. And I am giving you another neg rep for being both phony and lazy with that question.

PRB
01-05-2015, 06:46 PM
You have a remarkable propensity for ignoring all manner of meaningful input and zooming right back in on the most trivial mote on earth.


My question was directed at a guy trying to derail my thread by saying it's about property and not information. So I started by making sure he can define his terms before arguing back with him.



Have you even heard or read anything Molyneux has said on the specific subject of copyright, or are you ranting about your assumption of his hypocrisy?


I could dig out more, but I'll post this for now.

Molyneux has gone on record against the DMCA and IP law, saying that "IP must die" as it is an unjustified use of force.[18][19]

↑ http://youtu.be/15wxWLDmnAE?t=1m3s
↑ https://www.facebook.com/stefan.molyneux/posts/242827249085001


He believes this is a universal principle with no exceptions.[20]
↑ https://freedomainradio.com/old-free/books/FDR_2_PDF_UPB.pdf



And ideas can be property, but simple information? Information can be secret. Information about a new idea can be property. But common knowledge surely can't be claimed. Why? Have a point, or do you just ask questions to make people think you can think?

Ideas can be property, thank you.
Information CAN also be property, but not all information are equal.

Any intellectually honest person must acknowledge there's at least 3 types of information, if not more.
1. facts/discoveries/physical laws of nature
2. creative work (art/music/writing)
3. propaganda

Look at just the latter 2, you'll see the biggest contrast. People pay to see/enjoy #2, but #3, the writer pays to have it seen (advertisement, political messages).

So which of them, if any, would the creator have an interest in keeping as property vs giving away or paying people to view/know it? Anytime somebody makes a blanket "information can never be property" or "ideas can't ever be property" he's ignoring at least the facts above, therefore not honest (unless actually stupid or ignorant).

Without this as a premise, you cannot proceed to discuss whether "money is speech" or whether an artist giving away copies of his music is necessarily proof that copyright hurts or helps.

PRB
01-05-2015, 06:51 PM
Yeah, you belong in the pen.





I do have friends here, so I have more to lose than you.



No, your posts are not evidence of that. Another reason you have nothing to lose.





Gained under false pretenses. And you're now losing them since you've been exposed.





Freesteader, Daily Paul, Liberty Conservatives, etc., etc. And I am giving you another neg rep for being both phony and lazy with that question.

so you admit I've earned them by posting liberty posts, you just don't believe I'm sincere?

I haven't heard the first and 3rd. DailyPaul I haven't been to in a long time, and I don't find it as userfriendly.

Why do you keep sayin i'm lazy? I am asking YOU because I want to know what YOU think. I don't expect Google to tell me what YOU think.

silverhandorder
01-05-2015, 06:54 PM
:rolleyes: It is true. He said the store owners were "victimized" by Eric Garner because he was undercutting their business selling loose cigarettes. Really this is getting old. No matter what evidence people put forward regarding problems with Stefan, his supporters will turn around and say "That's not true" without giving a single shred of evidence or coherent logical argument to back up their claims. Stefan lies to Joe Rogan and denies that his wife got in trouble for advocating "defooing" on his radio show? It must have been because Stefan just didn't understand what Joe Rogan was saying. :rolleyes:

Because you lazy and can't be bothered to listen for the context. You can certainly disagree with his assessment but that does not make him somehow not libertarian or confused. Stefan is speaking from the point of view of store owner. No morality is being applied here. They are victims according to the law and their own self interest. IF you were honest you would acknowledge that Stefan said that he would not make these cigarette laws in the first place.

Difference between him and you is that he can remove himself from the picture to give an objective assessment.



Yeah he did. I've posted the transcript of the video that proved he did.



Yeah he did. I've posted the transcript of the video that proved he did.



Yes I have. I've posted the transcript of the video that proves this.



Are you serious? My "claim" is that she got in trouble. Being barred for 6 months = getting in trouble. When Joe Rogan said "Your wife got in trouble for this right?" Stefan said "No." That was a lie. You know that was a lie. My liking or disliking him has nothing to do with this.

I watched Stefan's videos for many years. Listened to a lot of shows where really badly messed up people call in. I never seen him go for DEFOO for not reason. He never suggests that first and never to the extreme you claim. When people call in and say they do not want to see their parents near their kids because of the way they raised them what would you say? I would never want horrible people around my kids relatives or not. When teenagers call in he 100% of the time tells them if their situation is messed up and then tells them to seek therapy and help. So forgive me when I can't trust someone who does not listen to the man accusing him of being a cult leader who tries to separate people from their parents. To put it in other terms you are not telling the whole truth. You are either careless or have an agenda either way I don't have time for that.

He does not owe Joe Rogan any in depth explanation. He does not go around telling people what happened with him and his wife. And that seemed like an ambush. He can choose to keep it private. Then people like you and me can settle this on our own. Some come away with the conclusion that he is a cult leader and spread that all over internet. Others read what happened and decide people like you are crazy. Honestly the only time I ever find this shit is from people who I already do no trust. The guy has a show running for over a decade. Provides great content. Invited to all over the place. Yet you going to have us believe he is some perv or cult leader?

Lastly Ghandi. From his video there was more than just Zulu stuff. You again show how you like to cherry pick stuff because you know someone who never heard of Stefan does not know what you doing.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 06:56 PM
My question was directed at a guy trying to derail my thread by saying it's about property and not information. So I started by making sure he can define his terms before arguing back with him.



I could dig out more, but I'll post this for now.

Molyneux has gone on record against the DMCA and IP law, saying that "IP must die" as it is an unjustified use of force.[18][19]

↑ http://youtu.be/15wxWLDmnAE?t=1m3s
↑ https://www.facebook.com/stefan.molyneux/posts/242827249085001


He believes this is a universal principle with no exceptions.[20]
↑ https://freedomainradio.com/old-free/books/FDR_2_PDF_UPB.pdf



Ideas can be property, thank you.
Information CAN also be property, but not all information are equal.

Any intellectually honest person must acknowledge there's at least 3 types of information, if not more.
1. facts/discoveries/physical laws of nature
2. creative work (art/music/writing)
3. propaganda

Look at just the latter 2, you'll see the biggest contrast. People pay to see/enjoy #2, but #3, the writer pays to have it seen (advertisement, political messages).

So which of them, if any, would the creator have an interest in keeping as property vs giving away or paying people to view/know it? Anytime somebody makes a blanket "information can never be property" or "ideas can't ever be property" he's ignoring at least the facts above, therefore not honest (unless actually stupid or ignorant).

Without this as a premise, you cannot proceed to discuss whether "money is speech" or whether an artist giving away copies of his music is necessarily proof that copyright hurts or helps.

LMAO!! An amazing misunderstanding of the nature of property, the creative process, economics, and more! (I am in the creative business, and can tell you this from firsthand experience. All you have is your opinion.)

acptulsa
01-05-2015, 06:56 PM
can you give me an example of a libertarian position I "pretend to argue"?

Copyright. You can't even say if ancaps and libertarians agree on the subject. Negrep coming; enjoy...

dannno
01-05-2015, 07:00 PM
Defooing someone because they disagree with you on farm subsidies is never acceptable advice.


This is a subject I'm not always in 100% agreement with Stefan on, but I see where he is coming from and you are still misstating his position as far as I can tell.

He doesn't think people should defoo because they disagree about farm subsidies.. The way he explains it is that once you break all of the components of the issue down, explain the components of theft and how it actually makes people worse off economically and the other person has a long enough time to understand, digest and retool their thought process on the subject, which may never happen or can take years to happen, you can use that opportunity to gain insights to see whether the person is good or not.

If after understanding the subject and the consequences they still advocate top-down rule over people and do not believe in individual liberty, then Stefan believes there is a connection between that and the potential for abusing or hurting individuals within their own sphere. By continuing the relationship with them, you are putting yourself at risk because this person might end up stealing or abusing you.

Stefan talks about how people do risk calculations all the time and that is how people make decisions. So you have to decide whether the potential for abuse from this person is worth keeping them in your life. The state shouldn't put people in jail for pre-crimes, for obvious reasons, but if we can predict whether certain people can potentially become abusive we can use that information in our own lives.

GunnyFreedom
01-05-2015, 07:07 PM
This is as good of a place as any. If I ever end up becoming a successful author or doing some whatever other thing involving IP and some situation comes up where I have to use IP (I highly doubt it, I am not a very litigious kind of person, but just in case it does happen) I just want to state for the record here and now before any such thing happens that IP is one of the areas that I totally disagree with the bulk of the movement on. If in the highly unlikely event I ever have to rely on IP for something, it will not be hypocrisy, because unlike many in this movement I do not reject IP. At all.

That's not to say I support what Stefan is doing here. I stopped paying him any mind anyway long ago when I noticed he was vehemently anti-parent. I'm just warding off the situation 15 years hence where if I have to sue someone for say...republishing my book under their name...you lot know in advance that I am not one of the liberty types what reject IP.

ETA - you may also note that I am not waiting until I suddenly have IP to decide that IP is OK.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 07:12 PM
This is as good of a place as any. If I ever end up becoming a successful author or doing some whatever other thing involving IP and some situation comes up where I have to use IP (I highly doubt it, I am not a very litigious kind of person, but just in case it does happen) I just want to state for the record here and now before any such thing happens that IP is one of the areas that I totally disagree with the bulk of the movement on. If in the highly unlikely event I ever have to rely on IP for something, it will not be hypocrisy, because unlike many in this movement I do not reject IP. At all.

That's not to say I support what Stefan is doing here. I stopped paying him any mind anyway long ago when I noticed he was vehemently anti-parent. I'm just warding off the situation 15 years hence where if I have to sue someone for say...republishing my book under their name...you lot know in advance that I am not one of the liberty types what reject IP.

ETA - you may also note that I am not waiting until I suddenly have IP to decide that IP is OK.

Have you blogged/written about this? I would like to see a credible, logical, rational defense of IP. No one on RPFs (or the interwebz at large, AFAIK) has done it, though they have certainly tried.

If you want to argue that we're stuck in the IP situation because it's the law TPTB have stuck us with ATM...that's a good reason to use it (a sound legal defense against corporations who want to exploit your labor with the regime's help, for example), but not a defense of IP at all.

silverhandorder
01-05-2015, 07:13 PM
This is as good of a place as any. If I ever end up becoming a successful author or doing some whatever other thing involving IP and some situation comes up where I have to use IP (I highly doubt it, I am not a very litigious kind of person, but just in case it does happen) I just want to state for the record here and now before any such thing happens that IP is one of the areas that I totally disagree with the bulk of the movement on. If in the highly unlikely event I ever have to rely on IP for something, it will not be hypocrisy, because unlike many in this movement I do not reject IP. At all.

That's not to say I support what Stefan is doing here. I stopped paying him any mind anyway long ago when I noticed he was vehemently anti-parent. I'm just warding off the situation 15 years hence where if I have to sue someone for say...republishing my book under their name...you lot know in advance that I am not one of the liberty types what reject IP.

ETA - you may also note that I am not waiting until I suddenly have IP to decide that IP is OK.

I am not sure about IP from a practical stand point. I am on the opposite end however. I don't think IP is a good idea.

However if I were produce work in today's environment it seems that I would have to accept working in this frame. There are certainly examples of people doing well by going against IP but most of the market still structured with IP in mind.

I wouldn't fault you for wanting IP enforced. I think when it's times come it will go away on it's own. Pirates are doing their part in this.

GunnyFreedom
01-05-2015, 07:17 PM
Have you blogged/written about this? I would like to see a credible, logical, rational defense of IP. No one on RPFs (or the interwebz at large, AFAIK) has done it, though they have certainly tried.

I have plenty, actually. Anti-IP folks are either unwilling or unable to get it so I don't see the point in the exercise. I can burn up an entire week of ripping my hair out arguing and not a single soul is going to budge. It's not like I haven't made this argument here before. My conclusion was without IP we wouldn't have books in the modern age, or if we did it would be recycled disjointed pap written by machines, and technology advance would grind to a halt.

I have no desire to go through a whole week to 2 weeks of that absurd stress again only to have all my points overlooked, distorted, or otherwise ignored. Life is too short to argue with brick walls.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 07:25 PM
Because you lazy and can't be bothered to listen for the context. You can certainly disagree with his assessment but that does not make him somehow not libertarian or confused. Stefan is speaking from the point of view of store owner. No morality is being applied here. They are victims according to the law and their own self interest. IF you were honest you would acknowledge that Stefan said that he would not make these cigarette laws in the first place.

Difference between him and you is that he can remove himself from the picture to give an objective assessment.

No. The difference is that I'm honest. And the fact that he wouldn't advocate for cigarette laws is irrelevant. He doesn't advocate for the way federal ranch land is managed either and he doesn't turn around and say Clive Bundy somehow was victimizing anyone. I listened to the whole video in context. I just didn't to it with rose colored glasses as you have.

Really, I'm getting tired of this "attack the messenger crap" coming from people like you. I didn't start out talking about cult behavior, but you and others are exhibiting it. Stefan's treatment of Clive Bundy versus Eric Garner was hypocritical. Stefan's blatant lie to Joe Rogan was inexplicable. Stefan's advocating that you don't hang out with people who "want you shot" coupled with saying that anyone advocating any government police "wants you shot" is irresponsible.


I watched Stefan's videos for many years. Listened to a lot of shows where really badly messed up people call in. I never seen him go for DEFOO for not reason. He never suggests that first and never to the extreme you claim.

I'm not making a "claim." I gave you the transcript. He said to say to someone who supports farm subsidies "Do you want me shot?" He said don't hang out with people who want you shot. Just because you've watched a lot of videos where he wasn't that extreme doesn't mean he was never that extreme. Now I'm not saying that he ever said that to any specific person. But his general advice was "Don't hang out with people who want you shot." It's amazing that you can't just admit this.



When people call in and say they do not want to see their parents near their kids because of the way they raised them what would you say? I would never want horrible people around my kids relatives or not. When teenagers call in he 100% of the time tells them if their situation is messed up and then tells them to seek therapy and help. So forgive me when I can't trust someone who does not listen to the man accusing him of being a cult leader who tries to separate people from their parents. To put it in other terms you are not telling the whole truth. You are either careless or have an agenda either way I don't have time for that.

I don't think that people who advocate statism are necessarily horrible people. I don't take the extreme position that people who want the government to collect taxes to pay for for roads want people who are against government funded roads shot. I understand the "logic" on how he gets to that extreme position. But it's still an extreme position. And I'm not making a "claim." I posted the freaking video.



He does not owe Joe Rogan any in depth explanation. He does not go around telling people what happened with him and his wife.


I never said he did. But he didn't need to lie. There is a difference between not giving an in depth explanation and lying. Saying his wife did not get in trouble was a lie. You know this. You have to. It's right there in front of your face. Now Stefan could have said "I'm not going to talk about that other than to say it's not what people think." He didn't. He lied.


And that seemed like an ambush. He can choose to keep it private.

He could have. Instead he chose to lie. Blaming Joe Rogan for a so called "ambush" doesn't excuse the lie.


Then people like you and me can settle this on our own. Some come away with the conclusion that he is a cult leader and spread that all over internet. Others read what happened and decide people like you are crazy. Honestly the only time I ever find this shit is from people who I already do no trust. The guy has a show running for over a decade. Provides great content. Invited to all over the place. Yet you going to have us believe he is some perv or cult leader?

The way you and others are reacting to me prove to me that he actually is some kind of cult leader. Seriously. I'm really shocked to see people I generally have respect for doing insane mental gymnastics to try to "prove" that somehow I'm lying for pointing out the obvious that Stefan lied. People put a lot of their own hopes and dreams into their "heroes." I get it. I understand why so many people took up for Bill Clinton no matter what. I understand when some people defend George W. Bush no matter what. And a part of me understands this "Defend Stefan at all costs regardless of the facts" mentality that I'm seeing in this thread. I'm "crazy" because I see Stefan lie to Joe Rogan and say his wife never got into trouble over defooing when the facts show that she did? Okay. Only a crazy person would think I'm being crazy.



Lastly Ghandi. From his video there was more than just Zulu stuff. You again show how you like to cherry pick stuff because you know someone who never heard of Stefan does not know what you doing.

:rolleyes: You really have drunk the kool aid deep haven't you? I didn't say that was all there was to the video. I could have also talked about how Stefan seemed to be defending the idea of the British empire by talking about the barbaric practices of Hinduism and that was quite odd considering that pretty much everyone in the liberty movement agrees that human rights abuses in the Muslim world do not excuse the American empire. And why would I "cherry pick" for the sake of "Someone who has never heard of Stefan" when just about every person on this forum has heard of Stefan? Really what is "crazy" are your arguments. Every "Truth about X" video Stefan does is his "cherry picking."

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 07:32 PM
I have plenty, actually. Anti-IP folks are either unwilling or unable to get it so I don't see the point in the exercise. I can burn up an entire week of ripping my hair out arguing and not a single soul is going to budge. It's not like I haven't made this argument here before. My conclusion was without IP we wouldn't have books in the modern age, or if we did it would be recycled disjointed pap written by machines, and technology advance would grind to a halt.

I have no desire to go through a whole week to 2 weeks of that absurd stress again only to have all my points overlooked, distorted, or otherwise ignored. Life is too short to argue with brick walls.
Did you actually prove this or just make the claim? There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. (Gutenberg invented the Western printing press and is essentially the inventor of the printed word in the West, but never had a copyright/patent. The classical creators did very well without IP as well-except the ones who didn't understand marketing and capitalizing on markets and such, which was their own fault.

HVACTech
01-05-2015, 07:42 PM
this thread needs a permanent sticky. :p

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 07:45 PM
I have plenty, actually. Anti-IP folks are either unwilling or unable to get it so I don't see the point in the exercise. I can burn up an entire week of ripping my hair out arguing and not a single soul is going to budge. It's not like I haven't made this argument here before. My conclusion was without IP we wouldn't have books in the modern age, or if we did it would be recycled disjointed pap written by machines, and technology advance would grind to a halt.

I have no desire to go through a whole week to 2 weeks of that absurd stress again only to have all my points overlooked, distorted, or otherwise ignored. Life is too short to argue with brick walls.

I remember the last time we had this discussion. I will say this. I am neither pro nor anti IP at this juncture. That said, I fully disagree with the notion that this "modern age" makes it impossible to have books without IP. I believe the opposite is true. With electronic publishing, micro payments, blogging, the ability to put internet links inside of ebooks that might be sponsored by advertisers and internet crowdfunding, its easier than ever for someone to write a book and get paid for it without using copyright. Let's take the last item I mentioned, crowdfunding. I saw a woman publish healthy cookbook for inexpensive meals via kickstarter using a "Buy one give one" model. For everyone who donated enough money up front to buy a paper copy of the book, she would give another paper copy to a local food bank to give to a poor person. But she also let anybody download a free PDF of her book! She met her kickstarter goal. That's just one way out of many to get paid for a book that you are willing to let people download for free. Would that idea work for a mystery novel? I don't know.

HVACTech
01-05-2015, 07:47 PM
classic HB.
Gutenberg did NOT have a Patent..


Gutenberg invented the Western printing press and is essentially the inventor of the printed word in the West, but never had a copyright/patent.

like my ex-wife, the preposition is that it was POSSIBLE. :)

acptulsa
01-05-2015, 07:53 PM
classic HB.
Gutenberg did NOT have a Patent..



like my ex-wife, the preposition is that it was POSSIBLE. :)

Not to mention acting like patent and copyright is the exact same thing.

PRB
01-05-2015, 08:02 PM
LMAO!! An amazing misunderstanding of the nature of property, the creative process, economics, and more! (I am in the creative business, and can tell you this from firsthand experience. All you have is your opinion.)

Misunderstanding? or just we disagree on definitions.

Again, I'll ask you to define your terms if you wish to discuss it. Or we can keep playing the "LMAO you're wrong because I said so!" shouting match.

I don't doubt you're in the creative business, but go ahead and share your experience & facts.

PRB
01-05-2015, 08:03 PM
Not to mention acting like patent and copyright is the exact same thing.

I agree patent, copyright, and trademark are 3 things. I am willing to concede they may not be equally fair to enforce, I wonder if opponents of copyright and IP can concede that not all ideas and information are equal.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 08:04 PM
Not to mention acting like patent and copyright is the exact same thing.

No I didn't. Copyright, patent, and trademark are all different. I didn't claim otherwise. We went through this several times in the last few IP threads, if you'll recall. If I make a typo and say "copyright" instead of "patent", so what? Typos happen on the interwebz as well as in spoken conversation. That doesn't invalidate the point.

PRB
01-05-2015, 08:05 PM
classic HB.
Gutenberg did NOT have a Patent..



like my ex-wife, the preposition is that it was POSSIBLE. :)

Oh, here we go. People saying "This guy didn't have a patent, therefore that's proof people will invent things regardless of monetary reward"

That's like saying I can give you examples of people who worked for free, therefore paying shit wages and asking people to be slaves isn't violating their rights, after all, I have proof people can and do work for free.

PRB
01-05-2015, 08:06 PM
Copyright. You can't even say if ancaps and libertarians agree on the subject. Negrep coming; enjoy...

I can say libertarians are generally split while ancaps are almost unanimously opposed to copyright, if not opposed to all IP.

Quote me where I lied about this.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 08:07 PM
I agree patent, copyright, and trademark are 3 things. I am willing to concede they may not be equally fair to enforce, I wonder if opponents of copyright and IP can concede that not all ideas and information are equal.

I'll concede that gladly. I still won't accept the claim that ideas or expressions of them can reasonably be called "property" because there is no proof of it. It's just variations on "X authority said it is so, therefore it is so". That's just theory. Practice is very, very different.

PRB
01-05-2015, 08:08 PM
Did you actually prove this or just make the claim? There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. (Gutenberg invented the Western printing press and is essentially the inventor of the printed word in the West, but never had a copyright/patent. The classical creators did very well without IP as well-except the ones who didn't understand marketing and capitalizing on markets and such, which was their own fault.

Can you acknowledge this? Just so we know you actually have some grasp of what information/ideas are?

Any intellectually honest person must acknowledge there's at least 3 types of information, if not more.
1. facts/discoveries/physical laws of nature
2. creative work (art/music/writing)
3. propaganda

PRB
01-05-2015, 08:10 PM
I'll concede that gladly. I still won't accept the claim that ideas or expressions of them can reasonably be called "property" because there is no proof of it. It's just variations on "X authority said it is so, therefore it is so". That's just theory. Practice is very, very different.

What is your definition of property which ideas and expressions of it cannot meet?

And better yet, does something need to be property for one to be justified to use force to control? (For example, if you cannot say Stefan Molyneux's home phone number is his property, has he better justification to ask people not to spread it around, knowing it may cause people to harass him?)

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 08:10 PM
Oh, here we go. People saying "This guy didn't have a patent, therefore that's proof people will invent things regardless of monetary reward"

That's like saying I can give you examples of people who worked for free, therefore paying shit wages and asking people to be slaves isn't violating their rights, after all, I have proof people can and do work for free.
Though that is true, it's not part of the argument against IP. The argument is that there are legitimate ways to capitalize on inventions without resorting the crony capitalist measures of IP registration.

PRB
01-05-2015, 08:12 PM
Though that is true, it's not part of the argument against IP. The argument is that there are legitimate ways to capitalize on inventions without resorting the crony capitalist measures of IP registration.

Fair enough.

What would be one? And please don't tell me "trade secrets" when you know that patents were created to protect things which clearly can't be protected as trade secrets (things which you can see with a naked eye).

Are you saying that IP can't exist and should never be enforced? Or just that you don't like the way it's enforced today?

PRB
01-05-2015, 08:14 PM
ETA - you may also note that I am not waiting until I suddenly have IP to decide that IP is OK.

But people who oppose IP, are almost always guaranteed to be those which don't benefit from it.

Ask the same question about "is ________ legitimate property" and fill in the blank with land, gold, air, slaves...to know what a person will answer, you need only know whether this person can profit from it.

HVACTech
01-05-2015, 08:17 PM
Oh, here we go. People saying "This guy didn't have a patent, therefore that's proof people will invent things regardless of monetary reward"

That's like saying I can give you examples of people who worked for free, therefore paying shit wages and asking people to be slaves isn't violating their rights, after all, I have proof people can and do work for free.

who says Gutenberg was not BORED?
and just liked fucking around with machines?
are you one of my ex's?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gYdlqjiQPAc

:)

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 08:23 PM
What is your definition of property which ideas and expressions of it cannot meet?)
"Property" is something tangible in the physical world.


property

[prop-er-tee]



Synonyms (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/source-synonyms)
Examples (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/source-example-sentences)
Word Origin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/source-word-origin)


noun, plural properties. 1. that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner: They lost all their property in the fire.


2. goods, land, etc., considered as possessions: The corporation is a means for the common ownership of property.


3. a piece of land or real estate: property on Main Street.


4. ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, especially of something tangible (http://dictionary.reference.com/#): to have property in land.




"Ideas" are abstractions. They exist in the mind alone. Even defenders of IP admit this-hence only physical manifestations of ideas can be registered as IP according to laws applying to all forms of IP.


And better yet, does something need to be property for one to be justified to use force to control? (For example, if you cannot say Stefan Molyneux's home phone number is his property, has he better justification to ask people not to spread it around, knowing it may cause people to harass him?)

Yes. If I were to try to steal your television, for example, you would be justified in using force to stop me. However, were I to copy your TV by memorizing the details of it by observing it and reverse engineering it, you are no poorer for it-and cannot legitimately use force to stop me.

As I mentioned in previous threads, an inventor who really doesn't want other people to "steal" his idea should not sell anything-but rent it out instead. (This obviously doesn't stop the person with perfect memory like Murray Rothbard, but it is a legitimate and rational means of controlling what happens with expressions of an idea)

It is somewhat reminiscent of physical gold. If you have it stored in someone else's vault somewhere, it is technically yours, but in practice you've surrendered control of it. Hence the old line among "gold bugs"-if you don't have it in your physical possession, it's not really yours.

PRB
01-05-2015, 08:25 PM
who says Gutenberg was not BORED?
and just liked fucking around with machines?
are you one of my ex's?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gYdlqjiQPAc

:)

I don't need to make one assumption or another about how and why somebody did or didn't do something.

I only need to tell you one person or a few people don't represent all people.

I can also give you hundreds of examples of people who worked for free, somehow that means nobody should ever be paid or labor is not your property?

I can give you examples of people donating organs and land, so that means land and organs can't be sold or can't be property?

I can talk all day with you if you think IP can be property, you just don't like how it's currently enforced, but if you're using exceptions to show IP can't or shouldn't be property, you can expect the responses to be "I got exceptions too bro"

PRB
01-05-2015, 08:28 PM
Yes. If I were to try to steal your television, for example, you would be justified in using force to stop me. However, were I to copy your TV by memorizing the details of it by observing it and reverse engineering it, you are no poorer for it-and cannot legitimately use force to stop me.

As I mentioned in previous threads, an inventor who really doesn't want other people to "steal" his idea should not sell anything-but rent it out instead. (This obviously doesn't stop the person with perfect memory like Murray Rothbard, but it is a legitimate and rational means of controlling what happens with expressions of an idea)

It is somewhat reminiscent of physical gold. If you have it stored in someone else's vault somewhere, it is technically yours, but in practice you've surrendered control of it. Hence the old line among "gold bugs"-if you don't have it in your physical possession, it's not really yours.

are you saying then, if information was ever given to even one person, you can never stop anybody from spreading it infinitely? in this example, if Stefan gave me his person contact under the belief I'll never share or sell it, he can never stop anybody else from having it because "if he really wanted to keep it private, he should never even tell me"?

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 08:31 PM
But people who oppose IP, are almost always guaranteed to be those which don't benefit from it.

Ask the same question about "is ________ legitimate property" and fill in the blank with land, gold, air, slaves...to know what a person will answer, you need only know whether this person can profit from it.
Not true anymore, though I'm sure it was at one time. Thanks to the interwebz and a better popular understanding of real property vs. imaginary "property" (ideas) it's more common to see inventors/creators use easy proliferation to gain more attention and capitalize on markets. (trying to compare ideas to land, gold, slaves, etc is absurd on its face-it's comparing apples and oranges) For example, I've participated in a contest in which the goal was to take an idea created by a composer and reinvent it in a way that is compelling (to the judges, of course). (I didn't win, but it was an interesting experience :) ) Inventors could do likewise. For example brand X could have a competition for the best variation on product Y.

HVACTech
01-05-2015, 08:36 PM
I don't need to make one assumption or another about how and why somebody did or didn't do something.

I only need to tell you one person or a few people don't represent all people.

I can also give you hundreds of examples of people who worked for free, somehow that means nobody should ever be paid or labor is not your property?

I can give you examples of people donating organs and land, so that means land and organs can't be sold or can't be property?

I can talk all day with you if you think IP can be property, you just don't like how it's currently enforced, but if you're using exceptions to show IP can't or shouldn't be property, you can expect the responses to be "I got exceptions too bro"

I will take that as a no.

never heard of a pulsejet?
it was a gift, from the germans to the britons..
nevermind...
it is a machine. :)

PRB
01-05-2015, 08:38 PM
Not true anymore, though I'm sure it was at one time. Thanks to the interwebz and a better popular understanding of real property vs. imaginary "property" (ideas) it's more common to see inventors/creators use easy proliferation to gain more attention and capitalize on markets.


This is again, where I will remind you to acknowledge the difference between creative work and propaganda.

Or more specifically : in demand creative work vs propaganda that seeks to be in demand.

People who use social media to get attention, only do so because they have no choice. If they could choose between sitting on their asses vs promoting their work, what do you think they would choose?



(trying to compare ideas to land, gold, slaves, etc is absurd on its face-it's comparing apples and oranges) For example, I've participated in a contest in which the goal was to take an idea created by a composer and reinvent it in a way that is compelling (to the judges, of course).


This is when somebody clearly is asking for help, you can't say everybody is. In cases where somebody is established to be in demand, this won't likely happen.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 08:42 PM
are you saying then, if information was ever given to even one person, you can never stop anybody from spreading it infinitely?
Yes

in this example, if Stefan gave me his person contact under the belief I'll never share or sell it, he can never stop anybody else from having it because "if he really wanted to keep it private, he should never even tell me"?

As I understand the case currently, Stefan is arguing from the claim that a tacit contract is as valid as a real one. US courts have held this to be wrong every time it's been brought to trial. The record companies and other corporate interests are exceptions to the rule because they have high-power attorneys who know how to bullshit ignorant judges and juries. Beyond this somewhat anecdotal proof, there is the fact that it is almost impossible to enforce a tacit contract in any meaningful way. Adobe has found a good solution, IMO. If you want to use creative suite, you have to register it.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 08:44 PM
This is again, where I will remind you to acknowledge the difference between creative work and propaganda.

Or more specifically : in demand creative work vs propaganda that seeks to be in demand.

People who use social media to get attention, only do so because they have no choice. If they could choose between sitting on their asses vs promoting their work, what do you think they would choose?



This is when somebody clearly is asking for help, you can't say everybody is. In cases where somebody is established to be in demand, this won't likely happen.

I gtg to class now, but I'll address this ASAP.

HVACTech
01-05-2015, 08:52 PM
Yes


Adobe has found a good solution, IMO. If you want to use creative suite, you have to register it.

they are concerned about what I do with my pulsejet?
:eek:
:D
:toady:

PRB
01-05-2015, 08:54 PM
"are you saying then, if information was ever given to even one person, you can never stop anybody from spreading it infinitely?"

Yes



Just so nobody can say I am strawmanning a person's position. I have it quoted here.

His position is basically, information isn't physical so can't be protected if it's even given to one person.

As such, you're basically saying under NO circumstance, forget IP, can Stefan EVER ask anybody to remove any information by force.

PRB
01-05-2015, 08:54 PM
they are concerned about what I do with my pulsejet?
:eek:
:D
:toady:

the same way owning a gun and car doesn't mean you can use it as you please without regard to others and law.

PRB
01-05-2015, 08:59 PM
Beyond this somewhat anecdotal proof, there is the fact that it is almost impossible to enforce a tacit contract in any meaningful way. Adobe has found a good solution, IMO. If you want to use creative suite, you have to register it.

it's simpler than that, tacit agreements aren't necessary if laws say you must follow or do something.

for example : nobody was asked whether he's made an agreement, tacit or explicit, not to own slaves.

so, we can go on all day about "only laws I agreed to are valid", but I won't do that unless you want to.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 09:05 PM
Oh, here we go. People saying "This guy didn't have a patent, therefore that's proof people will invent things regardless of monetary reward"

That's like saying I can give you examples of people who worked for free, therefore paying shit wages and asking people to be slaves isn't violating their rights, after all, I have proof people can and do work for free.

1) Who said Gutenberg didn't have a financial reward just because he didn't have a patent? You do realize that his invention increased his own productivity and therefore his own earning potential right? Look at Linus Torvalds (creator of Linux). His claim to fame is he created software that the source code is given away for free. He is worth $150 million dollars. (See http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/linus-torvalds-net-worth/)

2) How is asking a person to be a slave violating his rights? I'm assuming if you are asking a person to be a slave that person can say "no." Once upon a time this country had apprenticeships were people could work in exchange for education in a particular craft of profession. Now we have student loan debt and unemployed or underemployed graduates.

jmdrake
01-05-2015, 09:12 PM
I will take that as a no.

never heard of a pulsejet?
it was a gift, from the germans to the britons..
nevermind...
it is a machine. :)

And now we've given the Iranians a stealth drone.

PRB
01-05-2015, 09:12 PM
1) Who said Gutenberg didn't have a financial reward just because he didn't have a patent? You do realize that his invention increased his own productivity and therefore his own earning potential right? Look at Linus Torvalds (creator of Linux). His claim to fame is he created software that the source code is given away for free. He is worth $150 million dollars. (See http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/linus-torvalds-net-worth/)


$150M is far behind what Gates & Jobs are worth, but it's a hell lot more than I'll ever make. So perhaps he's got what he's satisified with and I can't tell him he's wrong. What I can say is, just because it worked for him, doesn't mean he's not allowed or shouldn't be allowed to choose a different path.

The point of IP or any property is that one has control or choice, not possible if it wasn't recognized as property (or a similar right, such as privacy).

Similarly, I can give you examples of an attention whore who wants everybody to follow him on twitter and call his house, that doesn't mean therefore Stefan can't and shouldn't choose to have privacy if he doesn't value attention from everybody. If you recognize a person's right to property, privacy, you leave him the choice. if you don't, then you can't.



2) How is asking a person to be a slave violating his rights? I'm assuming if you are asking a person to be a slave that person can say "no."

asking isn't the right word, I meant demand and actually enslave. After all, if you don't believe labor is property or freedom is property, and I can give you examples of people who worked for free or voluntarily forgone their freedom to collect money and movement, what would that prove?

HVACTech
01-05-2015, 09:51 PM
And now we've given the Iranians a stealth drone.

dear sir,
what you do with my invention is not my..

"IP" :p

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 10:47 PM
it's simpler than that, tacit agreements aren't necessary if laws say you must follow or do something.

for example : nobody was asked whether he's made an agreement, tacit or explicit, not to own slaves.

so, we can go on all day about "only laws I agreed to are valid", but I won't do that unless you want to.
Okay. That still doesn't change the illegitimacy of tacit contract-both philosophically and under established law and legal precedent.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 10:59 PM
Just so nobody can say I am strawmanning a person's position. I have it quoted here.

His position is basically, information isn't physical so can't be protected if it's even given to one person.

As such, you're basically saying under NO circumstance, forget IP, can Stefan EVER ask anybody to remove any information by force.
Well, depends on what sort of information we're talking about. If it's fraudulent, it can be reasonable to ask the site owner to remove it. Stef would agree with this because of his NAP adherence. I can't think of an example of this, but it's probably possible.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 11:04 PM
it's simpler than that, tacit agreements aren't necessary if laws say you must follow or do something.

for example : nobody was asked whether he's made an agreement, tacit or explicit, not to own slaves.

so, we can go on all day about "only laws I agreed to are valid", but I won't do that unless you want to.
Well, even the FF's who are so venerated and deified around here tended to argue that an unjust law should not be followed. This is also part of most nullification/secession doctrine.

PRB
01-05-2015, 11:10 PM
dear sir,
what you do with my invention is not my..

"IP" :p

do you have an invention or marketable idea? if not, your words mean nothing. i can say "what you do with my land is not my concern" as long as I have none too.

PRB
01-05-2015, 11:12 PM
Well, even the FF's who are so venerated and deified around here tended to argue that an unjust law should not be followed. This is also part of most nullification/secession doctrine.

so you just changed the subject and used your last resort? that ultimately, nothing matters as long as you decided a law is unjust.

What if I decided age of consent laws are unjust, do you respect my decision or belief?

PRB
01-05-2015, 11:15 PM
Well, depends on what sort of information we're talking about.


Ok. So you admit SOME information can be? Let's hear it.



If it's fraudulent, it can be reasonable to ask the site owner to remove it.


Give an example of what is a case of fraud an why it would be reasonable. Why can't we use the old "If you REALLY didn't want to share it, you shouldn't have shared it with even ONE person!"



Stef would agree with this because of his NAP adherence. I can't think of an example of this, but it's probably possible.

I appreciate you admitted that you can't think of it, but you are open to it being possible. I think this is a major goalpost, getting you to admit you are open minded enough to change your thinking or position, even if you can't think of an example.

Why is fraud aggression? Saying it is doesn't make it so. I can say smiling is aggression too.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 11:16 PM
I have plenty, actually. Anti-IP folks are either unwilling or unable to get it so I don't see the point in the exercise. I can burn up an entire week of ripping my hair out arguing and not a single soul is going to budge. It's not like I haven't made this argument here before. My conclusion was without IP we wouldn't have books in the modern age, or if we did it would be recycled disjointed pap written by machines, and technology advance would grind to a halt.

I have no desire to go through a whole week to 2 weeks of that absurd stress again only to have all my points overlooked, distorted, or otherwise ignored. Life is too short to argue with brick walls.
In case you haven't noticed, books and all other culture (particularly pop culture) has been nothing but recycled plots, motifs, etc. for a very long time. Hollywood goes through cycles where they just release sequels of sequels for a year or two. Hell, iconic books like 1984 and Brave New World are just retellings of the classic (but somewhat obscure in the West) "We". IDK if you're familiar with fan fiction, but it is often more creative and interesting than the original piece. :)

And of course, who can forget the many film versions of biblical stories? Talk about unoriginal! :eek:

My friend, were it not for people copying and playing with other people's ideas, Western culture would be extremely primitive. There is a reason fine arts students have to study the "classics". The classics are time tested and can be recycled millions of times without worrying about being sued by Dante or Moses or Beethoven's librettist or any number of dead guys/gals.

PRB
01-05-2015, 11:16 PM
Okay. That still doesn't change the illegitimacy of tacit contract-both philosophically and under established law and legal precedent.

You weren't listening? You don't need tacit agreements to be legitimate when you have forceful law that doesn't need to be agreed on, get it? Or no?

PRB
01-05-2015, 11:22 PM
In case you haven't noticed, books and all other culture (particularly pop culture) has been nothing but recycled plots, motifs, etc. for a very long time.


I love it when people bring up the "for a long time it's worked, so why not keep it that way". Yep, slavery was around for a long time too.



Hollywood goes through cycles where they just release sequels of sequels for a year or two. Hell, iconic books like 1984 and Brave New World are just retellings of the classic (but somewhat obscure in the West) "We". IDK if you're familiar with fan fiction, but it is often more creative and interesting than the original piece. :)


Retelling stories and duplicating copies of it are entirely different actions.



And of course, who can forget the many film versions of biblical stories? Talk about unoriginal! :eek:


Bible is an example of propaganda with agenda, rather than creative work for profit, which is why Scientology can/should be disqualfied as a religion.



My friend, were it not for people copying and playing with other people's ideas, Western culture would be extremely primitive.


You can say the same about slavery, sexism, imperialism. Sure, many things were done in the past, doesn't mean it's automatically right.



There is a reason fine arts students have to study the "classics". The classics are time tested and can be recycled millions of times without worrying about being sued by Dante or Moses or Beethoven's librettist or any number of dead guys/gals.

This is where you miss another important point. even the biggest copyright advocates recognize that copyright should expire. (same thing for patents, for the matter)

Please do not make strawman arguments about how copyright and patents would lead to perpetual royalties that never expire when you know nobody advocates that.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 11:23 PM
so you just changed the subject and used your last resort? that ultimately, nothing matters as long as you decided a law is unjust.

What if I decided age of consent laws are unjust, do you respect my decision or belief?

I didn't really change the subject. I was appealing to an authority that you and most of my opponents here seem to consider a standard of "correct".

PRB
01-05-2015, 11:28 PM
I didn't really change the subject. I was appealing to an authority that you and most of my opponents here seem to consider a standard of "correct".

I don't appeal to founding fathers for my arguments on copyright or intellectual property, at best I use it as proof it was an issue worth mentioning at the time of a country's founding. I recognize technology, population and times are different enough that I would not use their beliefs as the best support for arguments in this topic.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 11:32 PM
I love it when people bring up the "for a long time it's worked, so why not keep it that way". Yep, slavery was around for a long time too.



Retelling stories and duplicating copies of it are entirely different actions.



Bible is an example of propaganda with agenda, rather than creative work for profit, which is why Scientology can/should be disqualfied as a religion.



You can say the same about slavery, sexism, imperialism. Sure, many things were done in the past, doesn't mean it's automatically right.



[QUOTE=PRB;5746448]This is where you miss another important point. even the biggest copyright advocates recognize that copyright should expire. (same thing for patents, for the matter)

Please do not make strawman arguments about how copyright and patents would lead to perpetual royalties that never expire when you know nobody advocates that.
No strawman there. The IP advocates argue a copyright (etc) shall last the lifetime of the author plus x years (IDR what x is...they seem to change it every decade or so)-which is a pretty big stretch of the word "limited time" written in the Constitution, I'd say. And they do lead to perpetual royalties. The guy who copyrighted the happy birthday song still gets royalty checks. He can (and likely will) give the copyright to an heir or sell it to someone else. One of the ways corporate thugs try to take out opponents is to buy up the opponent's IP rights and just sit on them. (sometimes called "squatting") Had Jeff Tucker not acquired Laissez-Faire books, all the great literature they publish would have effectively disappeared outside of obscure library stacks in universities and such.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2015, 11:36 PM
You weren't listening? You don't need tacit agreements to be legitimate when you have forceful law that doesn't need to be agreed on, get it? Or no?

Sounds more like a threat than a good reason. And you do need tacit agreements to be legitimate (particularly in view of the courts of law and juries) or else it will never be enforced. Had the record companies not had access to powerful lawyers and lobbyists, they never would have defeated the likes of Napster and various sharing sites in court.

PRB
01-05-2015, 11:48 PM
No strawman there. The IP advocates argue a copyright (etc) shall last the lifetime of the author plus x years (IDR what x is...they seem to change it every decade or so)-which is a pretty big stretch of the word "limited time" written in the Constitution, I'd say.


No, limited time means not forever. 500 years is still limited time. We can argue about whether it's fair to be 50 years or 100 years, but you admitted NOBODY wants it to be forever, meaning Dante and Beethoven's work would have expired by now.



And they do lead to perpetual royalties. The guy who copyrighted the happy birthday song still gets royalty checks. He can (and likely will) give the copyright to an heir or sell it to someone else.


No, it's currently set to expire in 2030.

He can transfer it only as long as it's ownable, you cannot extend an expiration date by transferring your rights, since rights do not start with transfer, they start when it's created/registered/published.



One of the ways corporate thugs try to take out opponents is to buy up the opponent's IP rights and just sit on them.


That's the downside of property of any kind, people can buy it up to prevent others from making use of it. you can say the same thing with water and land.



(sometimes called "squatting") Had Jeff Tucker not acquired Laissez-Faire books, all the great literature they publish would have effectively disappeared outside of obscure library stacks in universities and such.

Because there's no demand for it.

PRB
01-05-2015, 11:49 PM
Sounds more like a threat than a good reason. And you do need tacit agreements to be legitimate (particularly in view of the courts of law and juries) or else it will never be enforced. Had the record companies not had access to powerful lawyers and lobbyists, they never would have defeated the likes of Napster and various sharing sites in court.

you can blame everything on somebody having more money and more lawyers, or you can consider that perhaps people do because they are right, or because the market supports them.

heavenlyboy34
01-06-2015, 03:55 PM
No, limited time means not forever. 500 years is still limited time. We can argue about whether it's fair to be 50 years or 100 years, but you admitted NOBODY wants it to be forever, meaning Dante and Beethoven's work would have expired by now. Yes, everything enters public domain after a certain time. IDK what it is nowadays.



No, it's currently set to expire in 2030.

He can transfer it only as long as it's ownable, you cannot extend an expiration date by transferring your rights, since rights do not start with transfer, they start when it's created/registered/published. [/QUOTE]
Yes, but in practice, whoever inherits the rights will have the legal right to claim it as their own (filing a patent/copyright in their own name).



That's the downside of property of any kind, people can buy it up to prevent others from making use of it. you can say the same thing with water and land. But IP is not like those sort of properties. That's one of the big reasons IP as a concept fails. Water and land are scarce by nature and ideas are not.





Because there's no demand for it.
False. The demand may be by obscure audiences (like balck and white film photography and antique cars), but it exists.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/10/16/laissez-faire-books-rip

PRB
01-06-2015, 04:12 PM
Yes, everything enters public domain after a certain time. IDK what it is nowadays.


https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm



No, it's currently set to expire in 2030.

He can transfer it only as long as it's ownable, you cannot extend an expiration date by transferring your rights, since rights do not start with transfer, they start when it's created/registered/published.
Yes, but in practice, whoever inherits the rights will have the legal right to claim it as their own (filing a patent/copyright in their own name).


No, they don't, that's just not how copyright works. Copyright starts and ends by the author and creation (or registration when in dispute), you can't renew or extend a copyright.

You also can't re-register what's expired and public (you can't patent what's already public, or "obvious"). This is not like snatching up a domain name.



But IP is not like those sort of properties. That's one of the big reasons IP as a concept fails. Water and land are scarce by nature and ideas are not.


If ideas aren't scarce, why don't you have them all?



False. The demand may be by obscure audiences (like balck and white film photography and antique cars), but it exists.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/10/16/laissez-faire-books-rip

not enough to keep it alive, that's my point. One person is demand, but one person without money is not enough to keep it running.

dannno
01-06-2015, 04:44 PM
There are so many problems with IP..

What if I write a song that I plan to release some day, then a year later somebody else writes the same song and copyrights it? Why should they have the only rights to the song just because they went to the government first if I wrote the song first?

Why do we put the government in charge of tracking all of this intellectual property? It's such an enormous task..

You really have to worship the government at some level to believe in IP.

heavenlyboy34
01-06-2015, 05:11 PM
There are so many problems with IP..

What if I write a song that I plan to release some day, then a year later somebody else writes the same song and copyrights it? Why should they have the only rights to the song just because they went to the government first if I wrote the song first?

Why do we put the government in charge of tracking all of this intellectual property? It's such an enormous task..


You really have to worship the government at some level to believe in IP.


Yup. +rep 4 u.

PRB
01-06-2015, 05:27 PM
There are so many problems with IP..

What if I write a song that I plan to release some day, then a year later somebody else writes the same song and copyrights it?


Never happened, but to answer you, the best answer is "publish it first, first to prove he did it wins".

You may be thinking of, what happens if I can prove I wrote it first but he registers it first. The answer is you win by creation. Registration in bad faith or without first creating it is not a full proof shortcut (the same is not true with "first to file" patent law today).

The other possibility is you completely lied about being the first to create without any proof of it, that wouldn't stand legally anyway, or else anybody can claim he owned something before you did and never sold it to you. If you created something with the intent to publish and profit, knowing that laws protect you if you profit, and chose not to, you are at fault yourself, but that's not a problem as long as you can prove you wrote it first.



Why should they have the only rights to the song just because they went to the government first if I wrote the song first?


That's like asking why should you be Danno and I must be PRB just because you said so first. But in reality, you don't need to run to register, as with patent. You do only need to prove you were the first to express and write it.

Why should YOU be the rightful land and home owner of where you lived just because you ran to the gubmint to regsiter your deed and ownership? That's a BS question, if you're asking the legal question, you appeal to the legal authority. The question of "should it depend on who records his land ownership" is a good one, but until that changes, that's at least one way to settle a dispute.



Why do we put the government in charge of tracking all of this intellectual property? It's such an enormous task..


It's not an enormous task when the people at stake can easily protect themselves by proving they did it first. It's not perfectly fair, but it's as fair as it can get. The alternative is that nobody can ever claim anything.



You really have to worship the government at some level to believe in IP.

No, you don't. No more than you need to believe in government for land ownership. First claimer wins is fairly common in all property disputes.

heavenlyboy34
01-06-2015, 05:42 PM
Never happened, but to answer you, the best answer is "publish it first, first to prove he did it wins".

You may be thinking of, what happens if I can prove I wrote it first but he registers it first. The answer is you win by creation. Registration in bad faith or without first creating it is not a full proof shortcut (the same is not true with "first to file" patent law today).

The other possibility is you completely lied about being the first to create without any proof of it, that wouldn't stand legally anyway, or else anybody can claim he owned something before you did and never sold it to you. If you created something with the intent to publish and profit, knowing that laws protect you if you profit, and chose not to, you are at fault yourself, but that's not a problem as long as you can prove you wrote it first.



That's like asking why should you be Danno and I must be PRB just because you said so first. But in reality, you don't need to run to register, as with patent. You do only need to prove you were the first to express and write it.

Why should YOU be the rightful land and home owner of where you lived just because you ran to the gubmint to regsiter your deed and ownership? That's a BS question, if you're asking the legal question, you appeal to the legal authority. The question of "should it depend on who records his land ownership" is a good one, but until that changes, that's at least one way to settle a dispute.



It's not an enormous task when the people at stake can easily protect themselves by proving they did it first. It's not perfectly fair, but it's as fair as it can get. The alternative is that nobody can ever claim anything.



No, you don't. No more than you need to believe in government for land ownership. First claimer wins is fairly common in all property disputes.
Why are you still comparing ideas to real property when not even the law says they are the same?

PRB
01-06-2015, 05:47 PM
Why are you still comparing ideas to real property when not even the law says they are the same?

Because they don't need to be the same to be justified the same way as far as whether something can be owned, how to settle dispute of ownership, and your favorite "whether you can own something without government".

First of all, do you concede or not, that land ownership disputes is no more fair if the primary arbiter is whether you recorded your deed first?

acptulsa
01-07-2015, 08:53 AM
False. The demand may be by obscure audiences (like balck and white film photography and antique cars), but it exists.

So, anything you don't like is for 'obscure audiences'?

Tens of millions of people believe Citizen Kane is still the greatest movie ever made. Tens of millions of people can identify a 1957 Chevrolet on sight. You can't find three people who give a shit about unfunny Russian cartoons even if you do translate them. That, huggy boy, is what an obscure audience looks like.


...you can't renew or extend a copyright.

You probably can't at that. But Samuel Clemens' progeny sure figured out how to do it.


You really have to worship the government at some level to believe in IP.

You have to worship government to believe that if Harper Lee hadn't made a buck on To Kill a Mockingbird, she might never have gone to the trouble to write it? You have to worship government to be dismayed by the idea of some fat corporation stealing every good idea that comes along and making billions on them, while not giving the person who invested his blood toil tears and sweat one farthing for his or her brilliance and effort? You do?

This is turning into one of the funniest threads we've ever had here...


First of all, do you concede or not, that land ownership disputes is no more fair if the primary arbiter is whether you recorded your deed first?

Good strategy. If you ask the semi-rhetorical questions you use in lieu of rational argument in something other than legible English, with confusingly bad grammar here and the wrong word there, people likely will decide it isn't worth the trouble to ask you to clarify, and then you can pretend to yourself that you won by forfeit.

Glad you're making that work for you. Remind me to pat you on the head.

PRB
01-07-2015, 12:55 PM
Good strategy. If you ask the semi-rhetorical questions you use in lieu of rational argument in something other than legible English, with confusingly bad grammar here and the wrong word there, people likely will decide it isn't worth the trouble to ask you to clarify, and then you can pretend to yourself that you won by forfeit.

Glad you're making that work for you. Remind me to pat you on the head.

I will rephrase.

For people who say "you have to worship the government to believe in IP", they seem to believe such a claim based on the false premise, that government registration is the only way to settle copyright claims or patent claims. It isn't, although legally today, it may be the most popular and fastest way.

I can ask the same question : What today is the most just, fastest, easiest, least likely to cause more confusion way to settle a land or house ownership dispute? What is your answer other than "Who first recorded"? If you have an answer, then we can settle IP claims that way too, without government. If you don't have an answer, you must admit IP is no worse than other forms of property if disputes are settled based on who recorded first.

acptulsa
01-07-2015, 01:17 PM
See, that's the trouble with raising kids in the Jet Age. They figure it doesn't invalidate their conclusions at all if their train of thought jumps over seven or eight stations along the way.

William Tell
01-07-2015, 01:24 PM
You have to worship government to believe that if Harper Lee hadn't made a buck on To Kill a Mockingbird, she might never have gone to the trouble to write it? You have to worship government to be dismayed by the idea of some fat corporation stealing every good idea that comes along and making billions on them, while not giving the person who invested his blood toil tears and sweat one farthing for his or her brilliance and effort? You do?

This is turning into one of the funniest threads we've ever had here...


+rep.