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

[thehungarian]

 

[thehungarian]

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

Thanks for the heads-up, OP!

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

 

[Christian Liberty]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[thehungarian]

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

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

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

 

[BuddyRey]

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

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

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

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

 

[Christian Liberty]

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

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

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

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

This is true.

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

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

 

[fr33]

This isn't the religion forum jesusfreaks.

 

[fr33]

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

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

 

[fearthereaperx]

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

 

[noneedtoaggress]

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

Alright, so qualify it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What do we want the other person to do?

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

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

 

[Cabal]

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

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

 

[Sola_Fide]

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

No it isn't.

 

[Cabal]

No it isn't.

How compelling.

 

[Sola_Fide]

How compelling.

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

 

[Cabal]

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

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

 

[LibertyEagle]

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

Spanking is not abuse.

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

Uh, NO.

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


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

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

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Spanking is not abuse.

How do you define abuse?

Uh, NO.

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

 

[Cabal]

I wouldn't bother, noneed.

 

[Sola_Fide]

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

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

 

[Sola_Fide]

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

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