What happened to Stefan Molyneux?

[r3volution 3.0]

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.

Making immigrants ineligible for welfare would be better and political easier than denying them entry altogether. So why are self-ascribed libertarians focused on the latter? I say it's because they want immigration restrictions for non-libertarian reasons, nationalistic/xenophobic reasons; that they would want immigration restrictions even if there were no welfare at all. But they know that restricting immigration is contrary to libertarian principles, and don't want to explicitly reject libertarianism, so they cook up this spurious argument to give their proposals a veneer of libertarian respectability.

H.H. Hoppe is a clear case of this. In his writings on how an anarcho-capitalist society would/should look, he predicts/hopes that it will have a very traditional, rightist culture, in which proprietary communities would restrict immigration. It's not hard to understand, then, why he's always pumping out illogical but superficially plausible arguments for why state restrictions on immigration are compatible with libertarianism - he desperately wants them to be.

Just for purposes of illustration, another example of this "goal-oriented reasoning," shall we call it, would be Rothbard's attempt to prove that fractional reserve banking is inherently fraudulent and thus justifiably banned in a free society. He was concerned with the economic implications of fractional reserve banking, but didn't want to acknowledge the possibility of a divergence between economics and libertarian ethics, so he attempted (very much in vain) to show that FRB is not compatible with libertarian ethics.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I sense that it's bunkum.

By the way, I have unraveled your behavior, including your "sense" on this, so just to clear something up:

You sense that it's bunkum because you sense that it somehow lines up with Stephan Molyneux (the title character of this thread, after all) and that thus any sort of agreement with it would be supporting his agenda. And you also sense that it probably somehow has anti-immigration implications, because you're always on the alert for that.

Neither of these things you "sense," however, happen to be correct.

True that Mr. Molyneux had James Penman on his show for one episode, but to my knowledge he has never discussed the ideas of Biohistory since. Now before this past Saturday, when I listened to one episode, I had not had time to listen to Mr. Molyneux's show for several months, so some regular listener may correct me if I'm wrong. So while I am grateful to him for introducing me to these fascinating ideas, they do not seem to have held the same fascination to him, do not line up with his agenda, and do not feature on his program (in contrast to r vs. K reproductive theory, which does). Also there is no anti-immigration implication whatsoever. Biohistory has nothing to say about immigration being any kind of problem, much less implying that it needs to be controlled.

You express a seething hate for Stephan Molyneux, just as, actually, you express seething hate for most prominent libertarians (Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Justin Raimondo, Walter Block, etc., etc., etc.). Fine. You express a bitter, scowling hate for any position on immigration policy other than your own (totally unlimited, uncontrolled, mass peasant migration) and indeed this is the one and only policy issue you lately express any passion about or care about at all. Fine. But what this means is that your sense that you must not like Biohistory is a mis-sense. Biohistory has nothing to do with Molyneux nor with immigration limitation. So you don't have an obligation to hate it. What a relief! See, this is sometimes the risk you face when forming an opinion about a book based on your sense, despite not having read it and knowing nothing about it.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

@Helmuth

As far as the substance of the issue is concerned, here's where we left off.

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.

And...

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).

I'll await your response.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

@Helmuth

As far as the substance of the issue is concerned, here's where we left off.

Substance? Substance? Substance of what issue? You are arguing that the book Biohistory is bunkum, despite not having read it and knowing nothing about it. OK. There is your issue. I have been... well, not exactly arguing that it isn't bunkum, rather just discussing and putting forth some of the ideas in it, as well as my own ideas.

Am I interested in having an argument with someone who forms opinions about book without having read them?

Answer: Guess.

Follow-up: Am I interested in having an argument with an anonymous internet personality who for the past year has chosen to be unrelentingly negative, scowling, sneering, and hateful? Who has shown interest in, or even respect for, anyone else's ideas precisely ZERO times during that year? You are like a dark cloud in every thread that you come into. Your negativity and vitriol is inexhaustible. It never stops. Do I want to have any sort of interaction with that?

Despite this, I will "address" your "substance" thus: that is nice that you were able to unearth American FBI statistics from 1991 to 2010. What a herculean task that must have been for you. However, that is not actually particularly interesting, relevant, or noteworthy. I think we were all aware that crime has been going down recently. Why is that? The spread of shall-issue concealed-carry laws and other pro-self-defense legislation, and also the increasing strength of self-defense culture, have both contributed to this. The fact that we have undergone a massive increase in the number of the criminals who are currently locked up in prison, and thus have been taken off the streets, also likely plays a very large role.

None of this is particularly interesting, relevant, or noteworthy to my claims, which were that looking at things multi-generationally, over the longer term, older people invariably observe that society was safer and more honest 50-75 years ago, and that even more-so the earlier, now passed-away, generations observed the same thing about America 100-125 years ago. This would be the interesting and relevant time frame to discuss, since it was, golly, the actual time frame I was discussing!

I find that there exists a good body of unimpeachable evidence that the character of the people in this nation has substantially changed over the past 150 years. It has changed in a manner and a direction that I call "deterioration" (Your Judgment May Vary).

 

[r3volution 3.0]

First, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about Biohistory; how far back does the V/C level data go?

Despite this, I will "address" your "substance" thus: that is nice that you were able to unearth American FBI statistics from 1991 to 2010. What a herculean task that must have been for you. However, that is not actually particularly interesting, relevant, or noteworthy.

Interesting or not (it was you who raised the issue...), the data I cited directly contradict your claim that property crime has been on the rise.

None of this is particularly interesting, relevant, or noteworthy to my claims, which were that looking at things multi-generationally, over the longer term, older people invariably observe that society was safer and more honest 50-75 years ago, and that even more-so the earlier, now passed-away, generations observed the same thing about America 100-125 years ago. This would be the interesting and relevant time frame to discuss, since it was, golly, the actual time frame I was discussing!

I find that there exists a good body of unimpeachable evidence that the character of the people in this nation has substantially changed over the past 150 years. It has changed in a manner and a direction that I call "deterioration" (Your Judgment May Vary).

Which changes are you talking about?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

As I already said, 3-point-oh, I have no interest in debating with you. You win! (I win, too, because I don't have to have that pointless, negative experience.) Just call me a bunkum idiot and reiterate how many charts you have found to confirm your sense and call it a day, man! Victory!

 

[r3volution 3.0]

As I already said, 3-point-oh, I have no interest in debating with you. You win! (I win, too, because I don't have to have that pointless, negative experience.) Just call me a bunkum idiot and reiterate how many charts you have found to confirm your sense and call it a day, man! Victory!

Gee, I'm sorry, how boorish of me cite facts to support my position...

...And how dare I ask preposterous trick questions like "is there any data to support your thesis?"

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Gee, I'm sorry, how boorish of me cite facts to support my position...

...And how dare I ask preposterous trick questions like "is there any data to support your thesis?"

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." ~Mark Twain

 

[r3volution 3.0]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." ~Mark Twain

If you want to discount all crime statistics, fine, do that.

But then the conclusion must be that we have no idea whether crime rates are increasing or decreasing.

You can't use the absence of statistical evidence in support of Helmuth's position as evidence of it's truth.

 

[thoughtomator]

Molyneux is an extremely intelligent, well-informed and emotionally mature individual who thinks things though carefully.

It's a stark contrast to the grossly immature, poorly informed idiots who drove the liberty movement, and this board, into the ditch of extremely well-deserved irrelevance.

 

[Wilf]

Molyneux is an extremely intelligent, well-informed and emotionally mature individual who thinks things though carefully.

It's a stark contrast to the grossly immature, poorly informed idiots who drove the liberty movement, and this board, into the ditch of extremely well-deserved irrelevance.

True, he is intelligent. But is he honest?

 

[Jingles]

I love Stefan. I don't really see why anyone that is in our camp would disagree with the information he is presenting, but I may have an indication why... In 2012 he wasn't really super supportive of the Ron Paul campaign. I honestly forget why, but it was years ago. I remember being a little turned off as well, but the thing is in 2012 I did have a great Ron Paul bias (not that I still don't love and support the man). But it was more of the fact I tended to react almost like a liberal in a way that if I heard any type talk against the man I would kind of almost go crazy and go against whatever was said no matter what.

Even though I understand we are about the message and not the man... I think we do have a instinctive reaction to defend the man we think is right no matter what.

We get pissed off too when someone challenges us. It is just human nature. We are out there in the trenches making phone calls and such for the best candidate ever to run for president and someone says it doesn't matter!? Of course we are pissed... But was he right? In terms of political action, yes.

But I have been listening to Stefan a lot recently and I think he has a point. Not to put words in his mouth, but things currently seem to be much more about culture than logic. We can spout as much logic as we like, but if the culture isn't receptive to the logic. It doesn't matter. We don't live in a logical society in any sense currently.

I don't even know what point I'm getting at (drunk), but we aren't living in reality if we think we can completely persuade people with logic. People are too emotional. We are a rare breed. If we are going to be in politics we have to get down dirty in the trenches of emotional bullshit in order to reach people. It sucks. Its horrible, but it is what people react to.

Meh, everything is fucked.

EDIT: (Ah, hell... When did we start censoring cuss words here??)

 

[Murray N Rothbard]

Two vids of his recently..."In Trump We Trust" and "Why I Was Wrong About Libertarians"

He has been censoring commentary on the vids to avoid any criticism. But this one did somehow get through:

This interview is a powerful teachable moment with respect to human nature. We were fooled thinking that Molyneux was actually doing something different and special, but apparently that was only an accident of obscurity, because when given the chance at attention from mainstream figures, he turns into a facsimile of every other soulless mundane right-wing pundit out there.

 

[Danke]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsession

 

[misterx]

A better question is, what happened to Libertarians? When did they all become anarchists?

 

[CCTelander]

A better question is, what happened to Libertarians? When did they all become anarchists?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Libertarian philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion, leads inexorably to anarchism/voluntarism. It literally can't lead anywhere else. Just because this is an uncomfortable reality for our minarchists brothers and sisters doesn't make it any less true.

 

[Murray N Rothbard]

A better question is, what happened to Libertarians? When did they all become anarchists?

Because anarcho-capitalism is the heart and soul of Libertarianism. And Libertarianism without a robust rejection of statism is nothing more than another flavor of conservatism.

 

[misterx]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Libertarian philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion, leads inexorably to anarchism/voluntarism. It literally can't lead anywhere else. Just because this is an uncomfortable reality for our minarchists brothers and sisters doesn't make it any less true.

Sure, if you want to live in a fantasy world where everything is equal.

 

[anaconda]

he's going into a deep depression because of that weird mouth thing going on.

can't blame him.

What's the mouth thing?

 

[TheTexan]

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.

They really good at basketball tho