Stefan Molyneux : Just put out a Ron Paul video. Your thoughts. Pretty compelling, imho.

[green73]

Why put out a video defending a politician then? Seems incongruent.

I don't believe it's incongruent for him to defend Paul in this instance. I think also--at least I hope so anyway--that he's waking up to the whole tsunami of Liberty that is the Ron Paul Movement, and how it largely responsible for the dramatic boost in voluntaryism.

 

[affa]

Why put out a video defending a politician then? Seems incongruent.

I have been against the concept of voting for decades - since I was a young teen, really. I am against it for moral/philosophical/ethical reasons, probably similar reasoning to Molyneux, though I don't know if we agree point by point. Ron Paul is the first, and likely only presidential candidate I will ever support. This does not making voting any easier for me... doing so will go against everything I believe in. Except - and this is a big exception - I recognize that Ron Paul is the best, most practical path to liberty I will ever see in my lifetime. Forget philosophy. Forget everything except this: Ron Paul can win this, and drastically alter the course of history, ending wars, bringing the bankers to justice... this goes beyond everything. It took me a lot of research to trust Paul enough to support him. But just because I support him does not mean I support our 'democratic' system (democratic republic) as an ethical form of government. It will be painful for me to vote. Absolutely painful. But it's a small price to pay for this chance.

 

[rawful]

Stefan,

Would it be worthwhile to vote for Ron Paul if statist machinations could be significantly rolled back? The ideas might become popular. Then snowball in the future.

He doesn't think Ron Paul should be elected because if coercion is accepted as a solution, no matter how little, it will always grow to be what it is today. Also because he doesn't want Ron Paul and libertarianism used as a scapegoat when things collapse.

 

[Vessol]

This is probably the best video I've seen yet that not only dispells the whole screwed up and slanderous racism/bigot thing, but it also goes on the attack and paints important issues that Ron Paul is AGAINST, that being the drug war and the colonial wars, as incredibly racist and thus making their supporters the racist one. I personally think it would be an excellent video to share around to anyone who thinks RP is racist.

 

[milo10]

I thought someone claimed earlier in this thread that Stefan has advised not supporting Ron Paul. Was curious about his reason for the video in light of that. Don't get me wrong..I'm all for the video and think it's terrific.

He also did a video saying that there was obvious racism in the media's harsh (!) treatment of Herman Cain. I'm not making that up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2lihdenZCg

I don't have a high opinion of Stefan. If you only listen to him do interviews, he does a wonderful job of defending anarcho-capitalism and Austrian economics. But if you look more closely at his positions, he has some really disturbing views on breaking up children from their families. They call it a "defoo" with foo being an acronym for "family of origin." This isn't just giving people in troubled family settings the courage to break free, but more like the disconnection from families that you see in Scientology. Here are some websites that cover this topic:

http://www.fdrliberated.com/ - Excellent introduction.
http://www.molyneuxrevealed.com/ - Written by a father who lost his son to the group
http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/f26-freedomain-radio

I am an anarchist myself. If any of you meet any anarchists who buy into Stefan's arguments against involvement in the political process, I would suggest you send them this 4 part essay Dismantling Leviathan by Roderick Long, who is frankly 10x the philosopher that Stefan is:

http://freenation.org/a/f24l3.html

I'm always ready to be cool with anyone who does anything to help Ron Paul. But really, everyone should be careful with this guy. You can dig up many long videos by him where he goes on and on about the dangers of voting.

I don't have a lot of patience for this, just like I don't have a lot of patience for the Objectivists and Koch brother libertarians who aren't supporting Ron Paul, and telling others not to.

 

[AdamT]

Stefan has a history of telling his viewers not to support Ron.

While I don't agree with him on everything, Molyneux is an amazing mind.

 

[jason43]

Also because he doesn't want Ron Paul and libertarianism used as a scapegoat when things collapse.

This is honestly my major concern if we are successful. A collapse under Paul that has been 100 years in the making could discredit our philosophy for 100 more. I think it is inevitable and mathematically unavoidable. I support Paul because he is converting millions of people to liberty and making them start reading again. If he had won in 2008, maybe things could have been fixed, but when the Euro starts to go, the dominoes will all start coming down.

I loved this vid. He also did one about Herman Cain and the sexism allegations. He does make some current events commentary vids, and usually his analysis is spot on. I only found Stef because of Paul, and I'm sure tons of other people that listen to him and have fully made the crossover to an-cap (like myself) got their start with Paul in 2008.

 

[anaconda]

I have been against the concept of voting for decades - since I was a young teen, really. I am against it for moral/philosophical/ethical reasons, probably similar reasoning to Molyneux, though I don't know if we agree point by point. Ron Paul is the first, and likely only presidential candidate I will ever support. This does not making voting any easier for me... doing so will go against everything I believe in. Except - and this is a big exception - I recognize that Ron Paul is the best, most practical path to liberty I will ever see in my lifetime. Forget philosophy. Forget everything except this: Ron Paul can win this, and drastically alter the course of history, ending wars, bringing the bankers to justice... this goes beyond everything. It took me a lot of research to trust Paul enough to support him. But just because I support him does not mean I support our 'democratic' system (democratic republic) as an ethical form of government. It will be painful for me to vote. Absolutely painful. But it's a small price to pay for this chance.

Seems rationale and intelligent. Thank you for your thoughtful post.

 

[anaconda]

While I don't agree with him on everything, Molyneux is an amazing mind.

Also an excellent speaker in every way.

 

[jason43]

I tweeted this vid.

^^^^to be clear on my other post, I support you doing whatever you can and want to do for liberty. I dont have too much faith in politics, but I have donated to Paul in 2008 and this time. I've been out hanging signs and at meetups. I also try to buy used goods, and support agorism. I think we should be doing everything we can in every way we can to promote and defend liberty.

 

[Salvial]

Molyneux has always supported Ron's beliefs and we can't blame him for being disillusioned that political action is hopeless - we just have to prove him wrong!

He's a brilliant free-thinker and a HUGE ally of liberty.

He made this because he has a brain and anyone with one can see through the racist slurs.

 

[anaconda]

This is honestly my major concern if we are successful. A collapse under Paul that has been 100 years in the making could discredit our philosophy for 100 more. I think it is inevitable and mathematically unavoidable. I support Paul because he is converting millions of people to liberty and making them start reading again. If he had won in 2008, maybe things could have been fixed, but when the Euro starts to go, the dominoes will all start coming down.

I loved this vid. He also did one about Herman Cain and the sexism allegations. He does make some current events commentary vids, and usually his analysis is spot on. I only found Stef because of Paul, and I'm sure tons of other people that listen to him and have fully made the crossover to an-cap (like myself) got their start with Paul in 2008.

A Paul presidency could also make him a hero in many ways. And he needs to indemnify himself in case of a false flag. He needs to discredit the media. Don't flame me for this, but I think he should quietly and quickly get his attorney generals office making arrests in 9-11, cutting immunity deals, and get people singing like canaries. The zeitgeist of the people would perhaps be forever and dramatically altered.

But, yes, there is a real risk that any President 2013-2016 will have horrible approval numbers. Especially with the MSM propaganda.

 

[StilesBC]

This is honestly my major concern if we are successful. A collapse under Paul that has been 100 years in the making could discredit our philosophy for 100 more. I think it is inevitable and mathematically unavoidable. I support Paul because he is converting millions of people to liberty and making them start reading again. If he had won in 2008, maybe things could have been fixed, but when the Euro starts to go, the dominoes will all start coming down.

I loved this vid. He also did one about Herman Cain and the sexism allegations. He does make some current events commentary vids, and usually his analysis is spot on. I only found Stef because of Paul, and I'm sure tons of other people that listen to him and have fully made the crossover to an-cap (like myself) got their start with Paul in 2008.

Yep, this is my biggest worry. The Austrian/Ron Paul remedy for our problems involves a lot of deflation in certain parts of the economy (specifically in those that have experienced the biggest bubbles - financials, service sector, government bureaucracies). The removal of artificial subsidies/guaranteed inflation to these industries will result in a lot of lost jobs, a drop in GDP and plenty of knock on effects as the Keynesians correctly say. Interest rates would likely rise. Concerns over US default could be raised. Major uncertainties over the future of the USD would cause increased volatility in asset markets.

Simultaneously, capital would be re-forming. The US would begin to regain competitiveness in manufacturing and the wealth gap would begin to narrow (via disproportionate decrease in asset owners' net worth vs. a smaller decrease by wage earners). Capital would begin flowing toward areas where decades of investment deficit have occurred (energy, transportation infrastructure).

My fear is that the transition period would take about 4 years (a typical economic cycle). The whole time, Paul would be hearing from Keynesians and Monetarists, "I told you so. Shortage of money. Lack of aggregate demand. Blah, blah, blah." Just when the positive effects of RP's policies start bearing fruit, someone else takes power and all of the credit along with it. Sounds pretty paranoid, I'm sure.

That said, the benefits of a Paul presidency to rid the world of American militarism, end the drug war, castrate the Fed (at least), and restore a number of individual liberties is enough to balance any of that paranoia out.

 

[Suzu]

Stefan's video can use help in the comments section on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axN53qCJChY

Thumbs up/down accordingly, and add your own if you have something useful to say.

Thanks

 

[Nate]

I have been against the concept of voting for decades - since I was a young teen, really. I am against it for moral/philosophical/ethical reasons, probably similar reasoning to Molyneux, though I don't know if we agree point by point. Ron Paul is the first, and likely only presidential candidate I will ever support. This does not making voting any easier for me... doing so will go against everything I believe in. Except - and this is a big exception - I recognize that Ron Paul is the best, most practical path to liberty I will ever see in my lifetime. Forget philosophy. Forget everything except this: Ron Paul can win this, and drastically alter the course of history, ending wars, bringing the bankers to justice... this goes beyond everything. It took me a lot of research to trust Paul enough to support him. But just because I support him does not mean I support our 'democratic' system (democratic republic) as an ethical form of government. It will be painful for me to vote. Absolutely painful. But it's a small price to pay for this chance.

+rep

That about sums it up for me. Been an anarchist for 17 years but the Ron Paul movement is vital for the reformation of the coercive society we currently live in. Is a constitutional republic run under minarchist libertarian principles like Ron Paul wants my ultimate end goal? No but it is certainly a MAJOR step in my direction.

 

[pacelli]

I really appreciate that Stephan did not go into childhood abuse or family upraising issues.

 

[kah13176]

Because it's in his rational self-interest. Same reason Rothbard defended some politicians/political action.

Rothbard was a strong proponent of using political action to effect change. Just check out the last chapter in his "For a New Liberty". He says that political action over time is essential to achieving a stateless society so long as the politicians involved are uncompromising and support less government in all facets of the status quo. He goes even further and states that even people who aren't purists but support diminished government (e.g. a low flat tax to no income tax) are temporarily acceptable.

 

[libertyfanatic]

Just actually discovered Stefan earlier today, before I saw this post I haven't really looked into all of his beliefs but he seems like a pretty smart guy, which is rare today.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Interesting information, looking it over now.

Thanks for posting.

He also did a video saying that there was obvious racism in the media's harsh (!) treatment of Herman Cain. I'm not making that up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2lihdenZCg

I don't have a high opinion of Stefan. If you only listen to him do interviews, he does a wonderful job of defending anarcho-capitalism and Austrian economics. But if you look more closely at his positions, he has some really disturbing views on breaking up children from their families. They call it a "defoo" with foo being an acronym for "family of origin." This isn't just giving people in troubled family settings the courage to break free, but more like the disconnection from families that you see in Scientology. Here are some websites that cover this topic:

http://www.fdrliberated.com/ - Excellent introduction.
http://www.molyneuxrevealed.com/ - Written by a father who lost his son to the group
http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/f26-freedomain-radio

I am an anarchist myself. If any of you meet any anarchists who buy into Stefan's arguments against involvement in the political process, I would suggest you send them this 4 part essay Dismantling Leviathan by Roderick Long, who is frankly 10x the philosopher that Stefan is:

http://freenation.org/a/f24l3.html

I'm always ready to be cool with anyone who does anything to help Ron Paul. But really, everyone should be careful with this guy. You can dig up many long videos by him where he goes on and on about the dangers of voting.

I don't have a lot of patience for this, just like I don't have a lot of patience for the Objectivists and Koch brother libertarians who aren't supporting Ron Paul, and telling others not to.

 

[ghengis86]

Yep, this is my biggest worry. The Austrian/Ron Paul remedy for our problems involves a lot of deflation in certain parts of the economy (specifically in those that have experienced the biggest bubbles - financials, service sector, government bureaucracies). The removal of artificial subsidies/guaranteed inflation to these industries will result in a lot of lost jobs, a drop in GDP and plenty of knock on effects as the Keynesians correctly say. Interest rates would likely rise. Concerns over US default could be raised. Major uncertainties over the future of the USD would cause increased volatility in asset markets.

Simultaneously, capital would be re-forming. The US would begin to regain competitiveness in manufacturing and the wealth gap would begin to narrow (via disproportionate decrease in asset owners' net worth vs. a smaller decrease by wage earners). Capital would begin flowing toward areas where decades of investment deficit have occurred (energy, transportation infrastructure).

My fear is that the transition period would take about 4 years (a typical economic cycle). The whole time, Paul would be hearing from Keynesians and Monetarists, "I told you so. Shortage of money. Lack of aggregate demand. Blah, blah, blah." Just when the positive effects of RP's policies start bearing fruit, someone else takes power and all of the credit along with it. Sounds pretty paranoid, I'm sure.

That said, the benefits of a Paul presidency to rid the world of American militarism, end the drug war, castrate the Fed (at least), and restore a number of individual liberties is enough to balance any of that paranoia out.

I really like Stefan, but I'm not sure how accurate he is in predicting libertarian/anarchist vilification after an RP win and subsequent economic collapse that is coming regardless. My contention would be that having a status quo politician in power at the time would lead us further into the black hole. This would leave the world worse off than an RP presidency no matter who gets the credit in the short term.