Why Libertarians Are Wrong About Immigration - Stefan Molyneux

[AmericanSpartan]

[dannno]

I'm a huge Stef fan, but his libertarian rant in the beginning is a bit ridiculous. He has converted plenty of libertarians to peaceful parenting on his show - probably more than any other group. Their views most closely coincide with his and it's not that far of a stretch for a libertarian to be a fan of Stef. I'm personally a fan of minarchism and anarchocapitalism/voluntarism, both would be a vast improvement from where we are now. I've always been pretty much in agreement with him on that, that has always been my philosophy on raising children although he has certainly helped reinforce it.

Libertarians don't all think alike regarding immigration - many believe that in a free market we can have open borders. Stefan himself holds that view, he admitted that stopping somebody at the border is using force and he is against that, but in the case of immigration in the system we have allowing people across the border causes an even worse case of the usage of force against peaceful individuals. I have a pretty similar view to him on immigration now which he has helped change in the last 6 months or so. Many other libertarians hold similar views, so the title of the video is a bit off base.. but the content of the video and the information contained is pretty good on this stuff and so far this video looks pretty good..

[dannno]

OP did you hear the part at 30:23? That's pretty much what I've been stating in your other thread on immigration which is where you seemed to disagree with me on.

[jmdrake]

Stefan Molyneux has just proven even more that he's full of crap. How many NAP babies has he raised? Seriously, I have a close friend that I've about fallen out with. During our 20s she harped on how terrible spanking was. While I refused to take her "no spanking" pledge, I did try to avoid it. During our child rearing years we were not in contact. When we got back in contact years later. I tried to compliment her on what a great job she had done without spanking. She admitted that she actually had spanked. Well later I was repeating a story of when I almost spanked one of my sons. My other son said my the son I was going to spank had punched him for no real reason. The puncher at first gave me some lame reason like the punchee son had teamed up with a neighbor kid against him in a game. But right before the spanking the puncher said "Well he told the neighbor kid to throw sticks at me and it hurt." So..I didn't spank him and told the punchee he deserved to be punched. As I was recounting this story again to my anti spanking (but had spanked) friend I was making the point that I was upset at that the puncher was using violence. She said "Spanking is violent." What the hell? She had spanked herself! When I started to point this out to her all of a sudden she wasn't willing to talk about spanking anymore. Here's the rub. Yes spanking is violent. But sometimes violence is called for. Violent retribution for the initiation of violence is not in itself wrong. That said, I'm willing to forgive my friend for having at least an aspirational morality even if she didn't live up to it. But Stefan here is just being an jackass. He's comparing parents wanting to maintain the option to run their household as they see fit in a manner that is not at all child abuse, despite what he thinks in his own sanctimonious mind, yet he's ready to sick the border support sicking the border patrol on everybody, not just the immigrants?

Danno, how can you support such a hypocrite? Serious question. And his "Well I'm Canadian so it doesn't matter" escape clause doesn't mean crap. Does Canada not have a border? Hey, here's a thought. Maybe Stefan should be spending his time and energy trying to convince Canadians that socialized medicine is a bad idea. Oh...but that would be real work.

Oh, and here's what's happening on the border Stefan. Women are being cavity searched in Texas and other border states. These are the same white anglo women that "AmericanSpartan" is so concerned about. And what's with Stefan and his love affair with Donald Trump? Donald Trump's going to end the war on drugs Stefan? What drug was Stefan smoking before he said that? And how about Donald Trump's support for an assault weapons ban? Oh...but I guess that's good. Those "spanking parents" are going to shoot their kids right?


I guess next Stefan will claim that libertarian parents who don't allow their children watch whatever they want on TV or on the internet will have not right to be concerned about the first amendment? So either as a parent you can't have any rules for your house or you must accept whatever arbitrary statism that Stefan Molyneux thinks you should have? Really nobody should be listening to this idiot.

[AmericanSpartan]

Stefan Molyneux has just proven even more that he's full of crap. How many NAP babies has he raised? Seriously, I have a close friend that I've about fallen out with. During our 20s she harped on how terrible spanking was. While I refused to take her "no spanking" pledge, I did try to avoid it. During our child rearing years we were not in contact. When we got back in contact years later. I tried to compliment her on what a great job she had done without spanking. She admitted that she actually had spanked. Well later I was repeating a story of when I almost spanked one of my sons. My other son said my the son I was going to spank had punched him for no real reason. The puncher at first gave me some lame reason like the punchee son had teamed up with a neighbor kid against him in a game. But right before the spanking the puncher said "Well he told the neighbor kid to throw sticks at me and it hurt." So..I didn't spank him and told the punchee he deserved to be punched. As I was recounting this story again to my anti spanking (but had spanked) friend I was making the point that I was upset at that the puncher was using violence. She said "Spanking is violent." What the hell? She had spanked herself! When I started to point this out to her all of a sudden she wasn't willing to talk about spanking anymore. Here's the rub. Yes spanking is violent. But sometimes violence is called for. Violent retribution for the initiation of violence is not in itself wrong. That said, I'm willing to forgive my friend for having at least an aspirational morality even if she didn't live up to it. But Stefan here is just being an jackass. He's comparing parents wanting to maintain the option to run their household as they see fit in a manner that is not at all child abuse, despite what he thinks in his own sanctimonious mind, yet he's ready to sick the border support sicking the border patrol on everybody, not just the immigrants?

Danno, how can you support such a hypocrite? Serious question. And his "Well I'm Canadian so it doesn't matter" escape clause doesn't mean crap. Does Canada not have a border? Hey, here's a thought. Maybe Stefan should be spending his time and energy trying to convince Canadians that socialized medicine is a bad idea. Oh...but that would be real work.

Oh, and here's what's happening on the border Stefan. Women are being cavity searched in Texas and other border states. These are the same white anglo women that "AmericanSpartan" is so concerned about. And what's with Stefan and his love affair with Donald Trump? Donald Trump's going to end the war on drugs Stefan? What drug was Stefan smoking before he said that? And how about Donald Trump's support for an assault weapons ban? Oh...but I guess that's good. Those "spanking parents" are going to shoot their kids right?


I guess next Stefan will claim that libertarian parents who don't allow their children watch whatever they want on TV or on the internet will have not right to be concerned about the first amendment? So either as a parent you can't have any rules for your house or you must accept whatever arbitrary statism that Stefan Molyneux thinks you should have? Really nobody should be listening to this idiot.

Your post is proof that he is right and clearly you can did not watch the video.

[jmdrake]

//

[jmdrake]

Your post is proof that he is right and clearly you can did not watch the video.

Says the guy that thinks the 1993 WTC bombing happened in 1992. In the first 10 minutes he clearly states that libertarians who won't agree with his asinine position on spanking shouldn't have the right to complain about whatever his position is on the border because. Someone that disingenuous isn't worth more than 10 minutes of my time.

[Cabal]

I'm against the State bringing over refugees simply on account of the theft and redistribution of wealth required to facilitate this. But I'm also against the State initiating violence to prevent people who are, at their own expense, peacefully travelling across an imaginary land border that the State has claimed an illegitimate property right to.

That the State may redistribute stolen wealth to immigrants at a higher rate than it redistributes stolen wealth to natives is not the fault of the immigrants, as they are not the ones actually doing the robbing, the State is. And to blame immigrants for State aggression and violence is, in my view, to distract from the real villain in this equation--the State. I do not see how, in the context of NAP and a philosophy of liberty, the State stealing and redistributing wealth justifies the State violence toward peaceful travelers and migrants. In both cases, the State is the initiator of violence, so in both cases, unsurprisingly, the State is in the wrong. Moreover, to argue for State border control is also to argue for illegitimate State property rights, which is just bizarre coming from anyone who claims allegiance to libertarian ideas.

Of course I would prefer that immigrants reject welfarism, just as I would prefer that society in general reject statism. But I'm not prepared to approve of State aggression and an illegitimate claim to property rights in the form of land borders simply because they may receive more stolen wealth than natives, on average.
If some guy puts a gun in my face and mugs me on the street, then later gives some of that stolen money to some other random guy in a totally unrelated exchange, I'm not going to blame the other guy for me being robbed, I'm going to blame the robber. I'm really at a loss as to why some people who promote libertarianism and NAP have difficulty understanding this. It's as if they believe the State wouldn't be robbing us regardless of how many immigrants there are, or how much welfare they consume. Since when has the State ever had difficulty finding things to spend stolen money on? Even if the State's illegitimate land borders were totally walled off and closed down, you don't actually believe that the robbery and redistribution of wealth would somehow be stopped or reversed, do you? If you do, that seems rather naive.

As for the argument about voting, I'm really not too impressed by that appeal considering I find voting and the electoral system to be an exercise in futility where liberty is concerned.

In any case, it still seems to me that whatever arguments libertarians, voluntarists, or anarchists may make to rationalize their position against immigration, they still don't seem to be able to reconcile how that translates itself into support for State aggression and support for illegitimate State property rights in the form of land borders. And that's a pretty big damn problem to reconcile for those who promote NAP and a philosophy of liberty.

[AmericanSpartan]

Says the guy that thinks the 1993 WTC bombing happened in 1992. In the first 10 minutes he clearly states that libertarians who won't agree with his asinine position on spanking shouldn't have the right to complain about whatever his position is on the border because. Someone that disingenuous isn't worth more than 10 minutes of my time.

So you can not make a point and are running away..Good.

[dannno]

He's comparing parents wanting to maintain the option to run their household as they see fit in a manner that is not at all child abuse, despite what he thinks in his own sanctimonious mind, yet he's ready to sick the border support sicking the border patrol on everybody, not just the immigrants?

Danno, how can you support such a hypocrite? Serious question.

On the immigration issue, my support ends at protecting the border and deporting criminals. I don't agree with Trump's proposal to kick out all illegal immigrants, and actually, I wish Stef or the caller had brought up this topic to discuss because it wasn't actually discussed. He only discussed stopping additional immigration, which I'm in total agreement on.

As far as peaceful parenting, I definitely agree with the overall theme of that. I don't think that a parent who spanks their child in an extreme case makes them a horrible parent, compared to say a parent who abuses their child emotionally and physically on a regular basis. You sound like you did just fine. Your son that punched sounded like he was doing so in self defense after he had been threatened with violence. Generally I think it is better to talk to your kids and help them understand, and even if a child is violent I don't know that treating it with violence is the most helpful solution, in fact it could potentially backfire.. but I'm not a person to judge others that much and I think if it is very limited and used very, very sparingly I think you can still raise the child in an otherwise peaceful manner fairly guilt free.

Hey, here's a thought. Maybe Stefan should be spending his time and energy trying to convince Canadians that socialized medicine is a bad idea. Oh...but that would be real work.

Do you need me to post his podcasts on socialized healthcare?? He has plenty of them.

Oh, and here's what's happening on the border Stefan. Women are being cavity searched in Texas and other border states. These are the same white anglo women that "AmericanSpartan" is so concerned about. And what's with Stefan and his love affair with Donald Trump? Donald Trump's going to end the war on drugs Stefan? What drug was Stefan smoking before he said that? And how about Donald Trump's support for an assault weapons ban? Oh...but I guess that's good. Those "spanking parents" are going to shoot their kids right?

These are fair points, especially if you wanted to get into the mass deportation issue. Stef only likes Trump because he thinks immigration is the biggest threat to our country. He doesn't think Rand has a chance, the rest of the Republicans are all the same and so that is why he comes out swinging for Trump sometimes. I'm not a Trump supporter because of his mass deportation ideas, and I think it would be great if somebody called up Stef and discussed how that could lead to some utter humanitarian catastrophes and a police state that could erode our freedoms quite possibly more so than allowing them to stay and freezing immigration.

So either as a parent you can't have any rules for your house or you must accept whatever arbitrary statism that Stefan Molyneux thinks you should have? Really nobody should be listening to this idiot.

Stefan wants to convince people on the issue of peaceful parenting, I've not yet heard him say that he would use force against non-peaceful parents, although consider the state does in fact intervene in many cases of non-peaceful parenting.

[dannno]

Says the guy that thinks the 1993 WTC bombing happened in 1992. In the first 10 minutes he clearly states that libertarians who won't agree with his asinine position on spanking shouldn't have the right to complain about whatever his position is on the border because. Someone that disingenuous isn't worth more than 10 minutes of my time.

That's a shame, the video really is worth the watch. I already said I disagreed with much of his libertarian rant in those first ten minutes, but again, DESPITE THAT, his arguments on immigration are pretty solid.

[jmdrake]

So you can not make a point and are running away..Good.

Running away from what? You keep making that BS accusation every time I smack you down over and over again. And so far I haven't seen you make a single point in this thread. My point, that you lack the IQ to understand, is that it's a stupid argument of Stefan to say that someone can't criticize his position on the border if that person doesn't agree with his lunacy on parenting as if parenting and statism were the same. They are not.

[dannno]

I'm against the State bringing over refugees simply on account of the theft and redistribution of wealth required to facilitate this. But I'm also against the State initiating violence to prevent people who are, at their own expense, peacefully travelling across an imaginary land border that the State has claimed an illegitimate property right to.

That the State may redistribute stolen wealth to immigrants at a higher rate than it redistributes stolen wealth to natives is not the fault of the immigrants, as they are not the ones actually doing the robbing, the State is. And to blame immigrants for State aggression and violence is, in my view, to distract from the real villain in this equation--the State. I do not see how, in the context of NAP and a philosophy of liberty, the State stealing and redistributing wealth justifies the State violence toward peaceful travelers and migrants. In both cases, the State is the initiator of violence, so in both cases, unsurprisingly, the State is in the wrong. Moreover, to argue for State border control is also to argue for illegitimate State property rights, which is just bizarre coming from anyone who claims allegiance to libertarian ideas.

Of course I would prefer that immigrants reject welfarism, just as I would prefer that society in general reject statism. But I'm not prepared to approve of State aggression and an illegitimate claim to property rights in the form of land borders simply because they may receive more stolen wealth than natives, on average.
If some guy puts a gun in my face and mugs me on the street, then later gives some of that stolen money to some other random guy in a totally unrelated exchange, I'm not going to blame the other guy for me being robbed, I'm going to blame the robber. I'm really at a loss as to why some people who promote libertarianism and NAP have difficulty understanding this. It's as if they believe the State wouldn't be robbing us regardless of how many immigrants there are, or how much welfare they consume. Since when has the State ever had difficulty finding things to spend stolen money on? Even if the State's illegitimate land borders were totally walled off and closed down, you don't actually believe that the robbery and redistribution of wealth would somehow be stopped or reversed, do you? If you do, that seems rather naive.

As for the argument about voting, I'm really not too impressed by that appeal considering I find voting and the electoral system to be an exercise in futility where liberty is concerned.

In any case, it still seems to me that whatever arguments libertarians, voluntarists, or anarchists may make to rationalize their position against immigration, they have still don't seem to be able to reconcile how that translates itself into support for State aggression and support for illegitimate State property rights in the form of land borders. And that's a pretty big damn problem to reconcile for those who promote NAP and a philosophy of liberty.

You clearly didn't watch the video, he dealt with every issue you just asserted.

Immigration IS a government program.. There is no moral stance you can take because all of the rules and structure of our society that is enforced creates more immigration and even more aggression - and that immigration creates more statism through voting.

Stefan does a better and more extensive job explaining it, but essentially you are only looking at one side of the force equation - and even if they don't take welfare, they are still in a system that benefits them through mass coercion and force associations.

And as pointed out, Stefan completely agrees with free immigration and open borders within a free society.

[dannno]

Running away from what? You keep making that BS accusation every time I smack you down over and over again. And so far I haven't seen you make a single point in this thread. My point, that you lack the IQ to understand, is that it's a stupid argument of Stefan to say that someone can't criticize his position on the border if that person doesn't agree with his lunacy on parenting as if parenting and statism were the same. They are not.

That's not really his argument against immigration, you missed it because you turned it off before he really even addressed the subject.

[Cabal]

You clearly didn't watch the video, he dealt with every issue you just asserted.

I did, actually. I've been watching and listening to Stefan since before he ever started getting posted here. My objections are unsatisfied by his explanations on this issue.

I'm aware of and even sympathetic to Stefan's perspective here, I simply find it at odds with the philosophy of NAP and anti-statism that he typically espouses.

[jmdrake]

On the immigration issue, my support ends at protecting the border and deporting criminals. I don't agree with Trump's proposal to kick out all illegal immigrants, and actually, I wish Stef or the caller had brought up this topic to discuss because it wasn't actually discussed. He only discussed stopping additional immigration, which I'm in total agreement on.

Which Trump proposal? That's the problem. In June of 2015 Trump was on record saying he wasn't against amnesty for the "good" illegal immigrants. He's an empty suit. He's worse than the Republicans that Stef says will betray you on immigration.

As far as peaceful parenting, I definitely agree with the overall theme of that. I don't think that a parent who spanks their child in an extreme case makes them a horrible parent, compared to say a parent who abuses their child emotionally and physically on a regular basis. You sound like you did just fine. Your son that punched sounded like he was doing so in self defense after he had been threatened with violence. Generally I think it is better to talk to your kids and help them understand, and even if a child is violent I don't know that treating it with violence is the most helpful solution, in fact it could potentially backfire.. but I'm not a person to judge others that much and I think if it is very limited and used very, very sparingly I think you can still raise the child in an otherwise peaceful manner fairly guilt free.

Thanks. I believe parents should have whatever reasonable tools they need at their disposal. The punchee son went through a stage where he was quite violent to the puncher. (That's before the puncher finally figured out that he had always been bigger than the punchee and was only being intimidated by the smaller sons aggression). I did a lot of spanking during that period because frankly I didn't have any better options. Then I found a Christian parenting book "Parenting by the Spirit." While it wasn't anti spanking it was a lot about prayer and meditation before meeting out any punishment. It helped. It took an entire summer to turn that part of his negative behavior around. But any punishment a parent meets out to a child, whether it's a spanking or taking away his cell phone, is a type of "aggression." The NAP doesn't apply strictly to physical force. And I don't believe that a philosophy that doesn't take into consideration that the relationship between parent and child is fundamentally different between that of two adults is sound.

Do you need me to post his podcasts on socialized healthcare?? He has plenty of them.

I'll take your word on it. My point is that he's got plenty to do up in Canada. I think his "Why do you care what I say when I can't do anything about it since I'm not a U.S. citizen" argument was lame. If he feels that way then why even talk about what's going on in the U.S. when he could take that same time to focus more on Canada?

These are fair points, especially if you wanted to get into the mass deportation issue. Stef only likes Trump because he thinks immigration is the biggest threat to our country. He doesn't think Rand has a chance, the rest of the Republicans are all the same and so that is why he comes out swinging for Trump sometimes. I'm not a Trump supporter because of his mass deportation ideas, and I think it would be great if somebody called up Stef and discussed how that could lead to some utter humanitarian catastrophes and a police state that could erode our freedoms quite possibly more so than allowing them to stay and freezing immigration.

I'm not a Trump supporter because of his anti gun ideas and his imminent domain ideas. Trump has everybody fooled into thinking his main issue is immigration. It isn't. It never was. It's downright scary that otherwise intelligent people have become so distracted by immigration that they don't see this. Trump has called for a complete assault weapons ban! He shouldn't be over 5% in a GOP poll based on that issue alone. But nobody is talking about that.

Stefan wants to convince people on the issue of peaceful parenting, I've not yet heard him say that he would use force against non-peaceful parents, although consider the state does in fact intervene in many cases of non-peaceful parenting.

I once heard him talk positively about state intervention against what he considers child abuse. I wish I had saved that video. But again, it's the false analogy in this case that I have the problem with.

[jmdrake]

That's not really his argument against immigration, you missed it because you turned it off before he really even addressed the subject.

I'm working off a very slow connection and the video is freaking 58 minutes long. I may watch it at some point. But I can't stand the hypocrisy of him saying "Well you can't criticize anything I might say on immigration if you don't support my position on spanking." That's just asinine. Anyway, you watched the video. What do you see his position being?

[dannno]

I'm working off a very slow connection and the video is freaking 58 minutes long. I may watch it at some point. But I can't stand the hypocrisy of him saying "Well you can't criticize anything I might say on immigration if you don't support my position on spanking." That's just asinine. Anyway, you watched the video. What do you see his position being?

His basic premise is that immigration is a government program, 61% of illegal immigrants are on welfare, over 50% of immigrants and about 30% of the general population. 50% of Muslim immigrants want to live under Sharia, 25% want to impose it on everyone and on top of that, their religion instructs them to be dishonest with their intentions in order to promote their religion so he thinks the numbers may be higher than that. How are we supposed to have a free society when we are bringing all these people using government funds, coercing people into supporting them and doing business with them when most of them are completely opposed to freedom on a worse scale than we are already used to in this country and abuse female children with genital mutilation and such? On top of that, they end up voting for more statism and it becomes a downward spiral.

The argument the caller makes is essentially the same argument Cabal is making, and he defends his positions pretty well imo.

[AmericanSpartan]

I'm against the State bringing over refugees simply on account of the theft and redistribution of wealth required to facilitate this. But I'm also against the State initiating violence to prevent people who are, at their own expense, peacefully travelling across an imaginary land border that the State has claimed an illegitimate property right to.

One evil is greater then the other, one is less evil and does not led us to losing our nation, culture, Liberty and control over election .

That the State may redistribute stolen wealth to immigrants at a higher rate than it redistributes stolen wealth to natives is not the fault of the immigrants, as they are not the ones actually doing the robbing, the State is. And to blame immigrants for State aggression and violence is, in my view, to distract from the real villain in this equation--the State. I do not see how, in the context of NAP and a philosophy of liberty, the State stealing and redistributing wealth justifies the State violence toward peaceful travelers and migrants. In both cases, the State is the initiator of violence, so in both cases, unsurprisingly,

They still take it, they still support and if given the means to will vote in favor of it. This a prevented evil and it should be prevented.

the State is in the wrong. Moreover, to argue for State border control is also to argue for illegitimate State property rights, which is just bizarre coming from anyone who claims allegiance to libertarian ideas.

Once again which is likely to cause more damage? Clearly mass immigration, time to terminate it.

Of course I would prefer that immigrants reject welfarism, just as I would prefer that society in general reject statism. But I'm not prepared to approve of State aggression and an illegitimate claim to property rights in the form of land borders simply because they may receive more stolen wealth than natives, on average.

That will not happen, we need to act and act fast or else we my not have an options but war.

If some guy puts a gun in my face and mugs me on the street, then later gives some of that stolen money to some other random guy in a totally unrelated exchange, I'm not going to blame the other guy for me being robbed, I'm going to blame the robber. I'm really at a loss as to why some people who promote libertarianism and NAP have difficulty understanding this. It's as if they believe the State wouldn't be robbing us regardless of how many immigrants there are, or how much welfare they consume. Since when has the State ever had difficulty finding things to spend stolen money on? Even if the State's illegitimate land borders were totally walled off and closed down, you don't actually believe that the robbery and redistribution of wealth would somehow be stopped or reversed, do you? If you do, that seems rather naive.

I may or may not but one thing is for sure, they could not import tens of millions of new supports, they could no longer put their thumb on the scales.

As for the argument about voting, I'm really not too impressed by that appeal considering I find voting and the electoral system to be an exercise in futility where liberty is concerned.

Would you like that to change? Because dumping tens of millions of welfare voters on the nation since 1970 has not changed things. Do you want the left to have one party rule

Do you think that would aid or hinder the cause of Liberty if they leftist had a permanent majority? Do like having a nation wide California or NYC?

Why not insure that your nation, culture, elections and future are not stolen from you?

In any case, it still seems to me that whatever arguments libertarians, voluntarists, or anarchists may make to rationalize their position against immigration, they have still don't seem to be able to reconcile how that translates itself into support for State aggression and support for illegitimate State property rights in the form of land borders. And that's a pretty big damn problem to reconcile for those who promote NAP and a philosophy of liberty.

Their will always be aggression why not have it used against people who will gladly and without hesitation against you to wipe out Liberty from the ace of the Earth?

You do not hold yourself to impossible ideals that are counteractive for your survival, or that of your culture, nation, people, and Liberty

Self Preservation not Aggression but nothing.

[dannno]

I agree with you (jmdrake) on all the Donald Trump stuff, I really wish Stef would use more caveats in his support for him by identifying areas where they are in obvious disagreement.. he has never called on people to vote for the guy, he just likes to talk about how Donald is great with the media by setting traps for them, discrediting them and playing them to keep himself relevant and he likes some things he says on immigration.

As far as taking cell phones and TV time from your kids, that's not really against NAP if you are paying for the cell phone and the TV.

[AmericanSpartan]

Which Trump proposal? That's the problem. In June of 2015 Trump was on record saying he wasn't against amnesty for the "good" illegal immigrants. He's an empty suit. He's worse than the Republicans that Stef says will betray you on immigration.



Thanks. I believe parents should have whatever reasonable tools they need at their disposal. The punchee son went through a stage where he was quite violent to the puncher. (That's before the puncher finally figured out that he had always been bigger than the punchee and was only being intimidated by the smaller sons aggression). I did a lot of spanking during that period because frankly I didn't have any better options. Then I found a Christian parenting book "Parenting by the Spirit." While it wasn't anti spanking it was a lot about prayer and meditation before meeting out any punishment. It helped. It took an entire summer to turn that part of his negative behavior around. But any punishment a parent meets out to a child, whether it's a spanking or taking away his cell phone, is a type of "aggression." The NAP doesn't apply strictly to physical force. And I don't believe that a philosophy that doesn't take into consideration that the relationship between parent and child is fundamentally different between that of two adults is sound.



I'll take your word on it. My point is that he's got plenty to do up in Canada. I think his "Why do you care what I say when I can't do anything about it since I'm not a U.S. citizen" argument was lame. If he feels that way then why even talk about what's going on in the U.S. when he could take that same time to focus more on Canada?




I'm not a Trump supporter because of his anti gun ideas and his imminent domain ideas. Trump has everybody fooled into thinking his main issue is immigration. It isn't. It never was. It's downright scary that otherwise intelligent people have become so distracted by immigration that they don't see this. Trump has called for a complete assault weapons ban! He shouldn't be over 5% in a GOP poll based on that issue alone. But nobody is talking about that.



I once heard him talk positively about state intervention against what he considers child abuse. I wish I had saved that video. But again, it's the false analogy in this case that I have the problem with.

It is the issue, we will take in more then 10 million NEW LEGAL immigration over the next 10 year alone. Do you know they vote?

He are some of their views.














They vote 8-2 for Democrats.


Think your gun rights are safe?










If we do not stop mass immigration will be be out voted and replaced, does not sound like a good thing? How did it work out for Rome or the Native Americans?

[AmericanSpartan]

I agree with you (jmdrake) on all the Donald Trump stuff, I really wish Stef would use more caveats in his support for him by identifying areas where they are in obvious disagreement.. he has never called on people to vote for the guy, he just likes to talk about how Donald is great with the media by setting traps for them, discrediting them and playing them to keep himself relevant and he likes some things he says on immigration.

As far as taking cell phones and TV time from your kids, that's not really against NAP if you are paying for the cell phone and the TV.

Your home, your money your rules.

[jmdrake]

His basic premise is that immigration is a government program, 61% of illegal immigrants are on welfare, over 50% of immigrants and about 30% of the general population. 50% of Muslim immigrants want to live under Sharia, 25% want to impose it on everyone and on top of that, their religion instructs them to be dishonest with their intentions in order to promote their religion so he thinks the numbers may be higher than that. How are we supposed to have a free society when we are bringing all these people using government funds, coercing people into supporting them and doing business with them when most of them are completely opposed to freedom on a worse scale than we are already used to in this country and abuse female children with genital mutilation and such? On top of that, they end up voting for more statism and it becomes a downward spiral.

The argument the caller makes is essentially the same argument Cabal is making, and he defends his positions pretty well imo.

That's a shame, the video really is worth the watch. I already said I disagreed with much of his libertarian rant in those first ten minutes, but again, DESPITE THAT, his arguments on immigration are pretty solid.

Just watched some more of it starting at 23 minutes in. (Trying to get to you 30:23 mark). A lot more double-talk from Stefan. For one thing he's an atheist but all of a sudden he's found his preference for Christian parents? Oh, and of course he leaves out the fact that most immigrants to the U.S. are not Muslim. They are Catholics. Latin America is overwhelmingly Catholic. And his obsession over spanking is maddening. If non-spanking leads to a freer society, than why hasn't the U.S. become more free over the past 50 to 100 years? Here's another spanking story. I knew a single mom in the projects who went to my church. Her 10 year old son was totally out of control to the point that once when we had them and another family over for dinner he literally kicked a church elder in the behind. He also couldn't read words like "cat" and "dog." And this mother was vehemently against spanking. How do I know? Because over dinner she casually told the story of how she got into a fist fight with another project mother because this other mother was spanking her own kid! Yes she had bought the "spanking is child abuse" nonsense hook line and sinker. So if not spanking leads to a peaceful society of brilliant kids who aren't on welfare........

Oh and the "50% of Muslims want to live under Sharia" stat is misleading. It's < 50% want Muslims to have the option of Sharia. Guess what? They already do. And some Americans stupidly freak out about it. Here's what I mean. Just like Jews have the option of contracting to have certain disputes mediated in courts that operate under the Torah, provided the broader laws of the society are not violated, Muslims can do the same thing. And? So? Jews can't stone gays or people caught in adultery when the law of the land bars that. And neither can Muslims under Sharia. I know a Christian missionary that became friends with a Sharia judge in the Philippines. When that judge died his will entrusted the decision making of his daughter to the Christian missionary who then allowed the daughter to not go along with an arranged marriage being set up for her. Muslims aren't this monolithic group that all look at Sharia the exact same way. If a Muslim in America wants to contract to pay 20 camels to another Muslim if a contract falls through I don't care. But again, most U.S. immigrants aren't Muslim. Maybe Stef pointed that out at some point in this video. Again, I'll watch the whole thing when I have a fast connection.

[jmdrake]

It is the issue, we will take in more then 10 million NEW LEGAL immigration over the next 10 year alone. Do you know they vote?

Newsflash to dufus. If Donald Trump gets elected do you think your guns are safe when he has already said he wants an assault weapons ban? And do you think he'll actually stop illegal immigration when he's already on record saying he's not against amnesty for the "good illegal immigrants?" Because of anti immigrant hysteria stupid republican voters aren't vetting Trump enough to know that not only is he anti gun, but he's not even really anti immigrant. Thanks a lot for nothing.

[Wilf]

Sorry, but what is with Molyneux 's body language,tone and world choice. Its seem like he is willing to pander to a new group that lacks critical thinking skills?

[jmdrake]

I agree with you (jmdrake) on all the Donald Trump stuff, I really wish Stef would use more caveats in his support for him by identifying areas where they are in obvious disagreement.. he has never called on people to vote for the guy, he just likes to talk about how Donald is great with the media by setting traps for them, discrediting them and playing them to keep himself relevant and he likes some things he says on immigration.

As far as taking cell phones and TV time from your kids, that's not really against NAP if you are paying for the cell phone and the TV.

The trap is being set all right. And conservative voters are falling right in it. And it seems like nobody, not Alex Jones, not Stefan Molyneux, not Michael Savage, nobody is taking the time to point out the trap. I wonder what the listeners of these men will think if Trump becomes president, betrays them on illegal immigration as I'm certain he will, and enacts an assault weapons ban?

[AmericanSpartan]

Newsflash to dufus. If Donald Trump gets elected do you think your guns are safe when he has already said he wants an assault weapons ban? And do you think he'll actually stop illegal immigration when he's already on record saying he's not against amnesty for the "good illegal immigrants?" Because of anti immigrant hysteria stupid republican voters aren't vetting Trump enough to know that not only is he anti gun, but he's not even really anti immigrant. Thanks a lot for nothing.

For the last time her has changed on the subject and even if he tried it will not Clear Congress. Even if such a ban was passed we could still elect a new Congress and have such a law repealed, with amnesty/immigration those people are not going back and will say and out vote us.

Once again offering nothing but "do nothing nothing matters".

[AmericanSpartan]

Sorry, but what is with Molyneux 's body language,tone and world choice. Its seem like he is willing to pander to a new group that lacks critical thinking skills?

Sure that is the case..Or maybe he is trying to say "stop bring in people who will vote against you/destroy because they will vote against you/destroy you.

[Sola_Fide]

Sure that is the case..Or maybe he is trying to say "stop bring in people who will vote against you/destroy because they will vote against you/destroy you.

Stop allowing immigration because they vote for Democrats that steal our liberty (especially the ones who are escaping Communism).

We need only natives to vote because they only vote for Republicans (see Bernie Sanders' support).

Republicans only support liberty (and the war state, the welfare state, the police state, the drug war, the FED, etc).

Your argument just convinced me. "We" need to protect our culture of violence, war, and statism. Onward for liberty!

[LibertyEagle]

Your argument just convinced me. "We" need to protect our culture of violence, war, and statism. Onward for liberty!

And you expect to get liberty by bringing in millions of foreigners who want liberty even less than the Americans already here? How's that going to work exactly?