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

[PaulConventionWV]

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

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

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

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

 

[brushfire]

Used to watch him, for years actually.

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

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

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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

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

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

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

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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

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

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

The founders had plenty compare to. They even wrote about it extensively. (read the Federalist Papers and the Framers' correspondence) It may be true that many things don't work as advertised, but a whole system of organizing public life is a pretty damn big thing to fail to deliver. Not a ringing endorsement of a political philosophy.

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

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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

I know that was my point.

(read the Federalist Papers and the Framers' correspondence)

I did.

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

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

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

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

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I know that was my point.



I did.



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



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

So far. And Republicanism (as most Americans define it) only works in mostly agrarian societies with a few major cities. So far.

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

 

[NationalAnarchist]

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

 

[NationalAnarchist]

Just started listening to his stateless society podcast.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

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

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

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

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

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

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

 

[Reason]

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

You are not alone good sir =)

 

[Murray N Rothbard]

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

 

[Reason]

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

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

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

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

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

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

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

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

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

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

He tends to try to psycho-analyze people, events, and phenomena in ways that are very quackish. The whole "de-foo" thing is quite odd. It's like he finds these things in modern pop psychology books.

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