What happened to Stefan Molyneux?

[helmuth_hubener]

Still working on that. I am still getting done being dissatisfied with various An-Cap thinkers. I am very much not satisfied with the NAP concepts as they tend towards protecting only specific classes of liberty, while not actually doing anything to restrict the growth of state-like entities.

I am currently revisiting Rand and various British thinkers before trying to work something up.

I do know that lightweight governments are historically plausible. I also know that most of the tangible infringements on my liberty currently come not from my government but from that of the United States.

I do think a theory of liberty probably needs to be a lot more relativist and generous than the axioms of Rothbard and needs to be a bit more fluid than Rand allows for. It needs to start from a nihilist conception of the world instead of assuming a hodgepodge of western values as the word of God.

It should acknowledge economic realities like the existence of natural monopolies, and aggression outside of direct hard property damage. It probably also needs to be able to incorporate implicit trust and assumptions instead of presupposing contracts 20,000 pages long every time you want to go to the bathroom.

As a social theory it needs to figure out that Robinson Crusoe doesn't generate his own air supply (depending on how big his island is I guess).

I do know that anything starts with "OMG I don't want to pay taxes! Its not fair! its a gun to my head" probably ends up replacing it with taxation that is just as unavoidable. Where you live is voluntary and paying taxation is voluntary. Denying those is denying reality. Philosophies founded in that won't get anywhere.

I also assume that freehold land ownership just means an indefinite lease. Even if your lease payments are zero unless you are running your own social system then it works out the same way.

Awesome post, idiom! That is exactly what I was interested in. I can see where you're coming from. I'll have to think about what you've said. I don't have all the answers, that's for sure!

Is it Rand's non-fiction you're reviewing? If so, is that any good? I've read all her fiction books, I think, and very much liked them (except for the first depressing one set in Russia).

Awesome, awesome post.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

In that case, your project is doomed before it even begins. Nihilism rejects all values as useless and/or meaningless (not just "hodgepodge" ones, or "western" ones, or "word of God" ones, or etc.). If you really intend to start from the position that there cannot be any useful and/or meaningful values (which would, of course, include any theory of liberty), then what's the point?

Or perhaps you simply don't understand the meaning of the words you are using, and you actually intended to convey that you aim to start from a "blank page" without any preconceptions or apriorisms. If so, then this is also doomed to fail. Any entries you might write upon your (supposed) tabula rasa are going to have been filtered through your conscious and unconscious judgements about what is and isn't relevant to your purpose. (You have already explicitly announced your disdain for "hodgepodge" westernisms, for example - and your characterizations of Randian and Rothbardian precepts as being insufficiently "fluid" or "generous" are gravid with implied presuppositions.)

Theory always precedes analysis - and in the limit, axiomatic assumptions are as inescapable as they are unprovable.

You make good points, Occam, but perhaps idiom just meant he wants to take a more utilitarian approach, being fed up with the dead ends, loop-de-loops, and contradictions to which he perceives a pure moralistic approach to have lead him. Utilitarian in the loose sense, as in practical. Workable. That's the impression I got anyway.

I do not share idiom's disillusion with anarcho-capitalism, but I can understand the frustration in seeing/realizing that free market replacements for the state would be able to do many of the same things the state can, if one really doesn't want anyone to be able to do these particular acts, no matter what.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Both C and V are sets of physiological attributes in humans (and other mammals) expressing and detectable in blood tests and hormone levels.

There is data for historical V and C levels?

We know the average V and C levels among ancient Romans?

V and C levels can be detected in tissue samples from long dead bodies?

Or are historical V and C levels being inferred? If so, from what?

As I mentioned, and as you also doubtless know if you are over the age of ten, adults universally express this observation that things used to be safer, that they used to have more trust, less crime, etc., that no one locked their front doors. It is a fact that cars did not generally used to be locked, and in fact going back one generation further could not be w/o customization because there were no locks installed by the manufacturers. In the absence of statistics, people's cumulative memory, observations, and life experiences are what we have to go by. I do not think these near-universal observations can be dismissed.

So no data then...

What is the point you're trying to make here, anyway? You seem as though you're grasping for something to pounce on to contradict, but, like Danke, haven't been able to quite figure out what I'm on about. You just sense you want to disagree with it. Right?

I sense that it's bunkum.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You make good points, Occam, but perhaps idiom just meant he wants to take a more utilitarian approach, being fed up with the dead ends, loop-de-loops, and contradictions to which he perceives a pure moralistic approach to have lead him. Utilitarian in the loose sense, as in practical. Workable. That's the impression I got anyway.

I do not share idiom's disillusion with anarcho-capitalism, but I can understand the frustration in seeing/realizing that free market replacements for the state would be able to do many of the same things the state can, if one really doesn't want anyone to be able to do these particular acts, no matter what.

Any species of utilitarianism (whether "loose" or "tight," whatever that distinction is supposed to mean) will come laden with its own collection of the very kind of moralistic* assertions and assumptions that idiom is so fond of grousing about when it comes to Rothbard et alia (though it might not be as explicitly "obvious" about it).

Axiomatic presuppositions are inescapable for any ethical "ism" - and the fact that any such "ism" partakes of them cannot sensibly be held against it (as idiom is wont to do with respect to anarcho-capitalism).



* Utilitarianism is just as "moralistic" as any deontological ethics, as demonstrated by the fact that it is not sensible to offer a justification for the adoption of utilitarianism that is itself utilitarian and not "moralistic" (as this would result in an obvious circularity). Thus, utilitarianism is no less prone to the "dead ends, loop-de-loops, and contradictions to which [you suggest] he perceives a pure moralistic approach [has led] him."

 

[helmuth_hubener]

There is data for historical V and C levels?

Yes. Like most all data, more as one approaches modernity, of course, but yes.

V and C levels can be detected in tissue samples from long dead bodies?

That is a possibility, actually.

So no data then... I sense that it's bunkum

Well, but we have your "sense", and that's better than data, right? You'd make a great historian (not!). Newsflash: all data is based on observation. You mayn't sensibly dismiss massive observational evidence and maintain any semblance of scientific integrity. Observation *is* data! Perhaps I should take all these overwhelmingly strong observations one-sidedly supporting one conclusion and collate them into a chart and then maybe you could comprehend them, yes? Especially if it had bright, primary colors.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

He just called you a bunch of cucks. Basically.

Umm, no.... don't know where that's coming from!

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes. Like most all data, more as one approaches modernity, of course, but yes.

That is a possibility, actually.

I'm confused.

Is there historical data going back to the distant past or not?

According to the snippet on the author's website, he attempts to explain historical events as distant as the collapse of the Roman Empire.

....I'm wondering how he manages to do that if there's no data.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm confused.

Is there historical data going back to the distant past or not?

According to the snippet on the author's website, he attempts to explain historical events as distant as the collapse of the Roman Empire.

....I'm wondering how he manages to do that if there's no data.

There is data, lots of data. The alleged "no data" we were discussing referred to US property crime statistics. Don't play psychological games.

C and V are real, tangible, and biological. As I said, one might even be able to bring paleontology into it and find the markers in well-preserved ancient specimens (mummies?). This is interesting, cutting-edge research, and by far the most innovative thing going on in the field of history right now, as well as the one with the most important and far-reaching conclusions.

Bottom line: you are not qualified to have an opinion on any of this. You know nothing about it. You have not read any books about it. I am happy that you challenged me, but I have now answered all your questions and you are reduced to mere snarkiness. Sad. I hate to see you this way.

Pro tip: Just read the book. (One of the two. I'll link you to the short one.)

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Any species of utilitarianism (whether "loose" or "tight," whatever that distinction is supposed to mean)

Tight is a systematic system, a moral philosophy, an "ism" as you say. Loose would be just taking the attitude "Eh, whatever works." No system.

Of course, to anticipate you, I do realize that in a sense the lack of a system in itself is a system. "Yes, you do have a philosophy!" and good old Robert LeFevre put it.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

There is data, lots of data. The alleged "no data" we were discussing referred to US property crime statistics. Don't play psychological games.

I asked you if there were historical data for V and C levels for the distant past.

You didn't really answer the question.

....except to note that it may be possible (as in, hasn't actually been done?) to extract V and C levels from ancient tissue samples.

C and V are real, tangible, and biological.

Yes, I appreciate that. What I want to know is whether we actually know what V/C levels were in the past.

As I said, one might even be able to bring paleontology into it and find the markers in well-preserved ancient specimens (mummies?). This is interesting, cutting-edge research, and by far the most innovative thing going on in the field of history right now, as well as the one with the most important and far-reaching conclusions.

Might...

Again, that makes it sound like there isn't any historical V/C level data.

Bottom line: you are not qualified to have an opinion on any of this. You know nothing about it. You have not read any books about it. I am happy that you challenged me, but I have now answered all your questions and you are reduced to mere snarkiness. Sad. I hate to see you this way.

I'm qualified to point out that explaining historical events by V/C levels is problematic if you have no idea what historical V/C levels were.

...as is evidently the case.

Pro tip: Just read the book. (One of the two. I'll link you to the short one.)

Before I spend money on the book (it's only available for purchase evidently..), I'd like to have some basic questions answered.

...like whether or not the data on which the argument rests actually exists.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I asked you if there were historical data for V and C levels for the distant past. You didn't really answer the question.

I did answer. The answer was yes, twice over.

Allow me to answer again: "Yes, Mr. 3point0, there is data for historical V and C levels."

I hope that clarifies.

But no, I rather think it will simply lead to some snarky response in which you demand more work from me, work which I know perfectly well you will respond to by inserting lines of snarkiness between my lines. To what end? To what end, Mr. 3.0? To what end.

You want to be convinced something you know nothing about is false? Guess what: you've already succeeded! You're there! Congratulations! No further work or typing is necessary on either of our parts. We both win. I win by saving my time to do something productive. You win by demonstrating me to be a buffoon and a nincompoop whose ideas are ridiculous bunkum, as one and all here can see very clearly you have done (no doubt).

For if you were sincerely interested in learning about this, you would have answered my question, in which I asked "Are you sincerely interested in learning about this?" and the answer would have been yes. Since rather than interest you express scorn and rather than learning and knowledge you seek debating combat, I yield the floor to your inexhaustible (and to me exhausting) negativity and vitriol.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I did answer. The answer was yes, twice over.

Allow me to answer again: "Yes, Mr. 3point0, there is data for historical V and C levels."

I hope that clarifies.

Going back how far?

Is there data for the Romans, whose decline he evidently attempts to explain?

...questions I asked previously and you ignored.

 

[RonPaulIsGreat]

Stefan has interesting takes on sometimes interesting subject. I wish there were a 100 channels examining subjects in a long format, but there aren't.

People get miffed at him because they are looking at him like he is trying to be a leader, in the normal sense. He's a dude with views and reasons why he thinks a certain way. I wouldn't follow him to hell, or jump in front of a bullet for him. It seems those that hate him, have the view that he thinks he's infallible, and those that watch him are lemmings.

Why some get so angry that others don't agree with them is beyond me.

So, at present he pretty well thinks "blacks" have an IQ disadvantage, as in more blacks tend to be lower IQ, as opposed to there are no genius black people which there are. This offends some, just the notion that race could be more than just a meaningless grouping. However, it's not "white supremacy" as his data he's working from also shows Asians and some Jewish sects have an IQ advantage over whites and do better all around even in this "white" society. If it's true, it's true. As of right now from the limited research I've done, it appears true.

So, if that's true, then blaming the ills of the black community on racism is horrible, as you'll never solve the problem as you'll always be flushing resources attacking the wrong source of the problem, and we'll continue to have all this discord in black communities blamed on Mr. Cracka.

So some will see his video and scream "RACIST" others will see an attempt to actually get to the core of a problem, and potentially solve it.

His like for Trump IMO, is more of a necessity than an actual "like". There is absolutely no alternative at all to Trump at present, Trump at least MIGHT result in a more conservative direction. Trump might examine issues honestly without the PC lens being applied at every turn. He MIGHT, Hillary won't, so, Trump, Trump, Trump.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

It seems those that hate him, have the view that he thinks he's infallible, and those that watch him are lemmings.

He does and they are, and this had nothing to do with his recent turn to the alt-right.

He's been this way from the beginning.

So, at present he pretty well thinks "blacks" have an IQ disadvantage, as in more blacks tend to be lower IQ, as opposed to there are no genius black people which there are. This offends some, just the notion that race could be more than just a meaningless grouping. However, it's not "white supremacy" as his data he's working from also shows Asians and some Jewish sects have an IQ advantage over whites and do better all around even in this "white" society. If it's true, it's true. As of right now from the limited research I've done, it appears true.

It's true, even the American Psychological Association acknowledges it.

The problem with the alt-right consists in the conclusions they draw from the fact of IQ differences between the races.

His like for Trump IMO, is more of a necessity than an actual "like". There is absolutely no alternative at all to Trump at present, Trump at least MIGHT result in a more conservative direction. Trump might examine issues honestly without the PC lens being applied at every turn. He MIGHT, Hillary won't, so, Trump, Trump, Trump.

He's for Trump because it's popular to be for Trump at the moment, and Stefan's primary goal has always been the promotion of Stefan.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Tight is a systematic system, a moral philosophy, an "ism" as you say. Loose would be just taking the attitude "Eh, whatever works." No system.

Of course, to anticipate you, I do realize that in a sense the lack of a system in itself is a system. "Yes, you do have a philosophy!" and good old Robert LeFevre put it.

Okay, I get what you're saying - but in that case, post #72 (to which I originally replied in #80) contradicts your suggestion in #82 that "perhaps idiom just meant he wants to take a more utilitarian approach [...]. Utilitarian in the loose sense." Working up an ethical system because of what you regard as objectionable in other such systems is not at all "in the loose sense" ...

 

[erowe1]

Going back how far?

Is there data for the Romans, whose decline he evidently attempts to explain?

...questions I asked previously and you ignored.

Judging from the reviews of his books on Amazon, he doesn't marshal much evidence.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

To revisit this:

What data, if any, do you have to support your claim that property crime rates have been rising?

As I mentioned, and as you also doubtless know if you are over the age of ten, adults universally express this observation that things used to be safer, that they used to have more trust, less crime, etc., that no one locked their front doors. It is a fact that cars did not generally used to be locked, and in fact going back one generation further could not be w/o customization because there were no locks installed by the manufacturers. In the absence of statistics, people's cumulative memory, observations, and life experiences are what we have to go by. I do not think these near-universal observations can be dismissed.

I found some data.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

From 1991 to 2010, the property crime rate fell ~43% (about the same as the violent crime rate).

 

[dannno]

He does and they are, and this had nothing to do with his recent turn to the alt-right.

He's been this way from the beginning.

That's not true, he always says he may be wrong about things, there could be evidence he isn't considering and that what he says is his point of view. He welcomes others on the show you want to have a debate and bring new evidence or thought to the table.

It's true, even the American Psychological Association acknowledges it.

The problem with the alt-right consists in the conclusions they draw from the fact of IQ differences between the races.

Right, the conclusion Stef draws was explained in the post you quoted - that telling black people the reason they might not do quite as well economically is not necessarily due to racism, but the falling apart of egalitarianism - further, Stef acknowledges that the falling apart of their culture and community has been because they were all pushed onto welfare and have been trapped in a cycle of single parent households caused by the welfare and divorce courts. So there are currently many more roadblocks that black people have to face than just the IQ issue, but if we had a free society then they would have more stable environments and do much, much better for themselves.

He's for Trump because it's popular to be for Trump at the moment, and Stefan's primary goal has always been the promotion of Stefan.

He likes Trump for how he has played the media into promoting himself for President by outwitting them and setting them up to promote him unknowingly, like what he does with CPUd. He likes how he messes with the dying MSM and their PC nonsense. He likes his strong border stance, he believes he has been a good entrepreneur and additionally he likes that Donald Trump is not a spanking parent and seems to have raised some well adjusted, bright children.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Right, the conclusion Stef draws was explained in the post you quoted - that telling black people the reason they might not do quite as well economically is not necessarily due to racism, but the falling apart of egalitarianism - further, Stef acknowledges that the falling apart of their culture and community has been because they were all pushed onto welfare and have been trapped in a cycle of single parent households caused by the welfare and divorce courts. So there are currently many more roadblocks that black people have to face than just the IQ issue, but if we had a free society then they would have more stable environments and do much, much better for themselves.

...

He likes Trump for how he has played the media into promoting himself for President by outwitting them and setting them up to promote him unknowingly, like what he does with CPUd. He likes how he messes with the dying MSM and their PC nonsense. He likes his strong border stance, he believes he has been a good entrepreneur and additionally he likes that Donald Trump is not a spanking parent and seems to have raised some well adjusted, bright children.

The aforementioned "wrong conclusion" is to attempt to use state power to change the demographics of the country, as through immigration restrictions. Stef, though you say he doesn't make this mistake, and realizes that the free market would solves the problem, is enthusiastically promoting Trump...who has zero interest in the free market and is running primarily on a platform of restricting immigration.

 

[dannno]

The aforementioned "wrong conclusion" is to attempt to use state power to change the demographics of the country, as through immigration restrictions. Stef, though you say he doesn't make this mistake, and realizes that the free market would solves the problem, is enthusiastically promoting Trump...who has zero interest in the free market and is running primarily on a platform of restricting immigration.

Stef sees immigration as it is currently as a huge government program. He is still ok with immigration in a free society, but he sees that the left has designed the system to give out welfare as a bribe to vote for the left, and then bring in massive amounts of immigrants and bribe them with welfare to vote left.

So he still sees immigration restrictions as a use of force, but he sees immigration as a whole as an even bigger use of force against the native population. So he prefers immigration restrictions which require less force over open and subsidized immigration and a welfare society that grows the state even further.