http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMOAbWcpKQ
Not sure how to embed.
It is a similie and the story of the similie - nothing more or less.
I like the analog between rioters and kids throwing temper tantrums. Hilarious.
But I think he fails to recognize the difference between form and substance and that the seeming similarities are the result of the state competing with families for moral authority.
A family is an intergenerational division of labour. The state is an artificial legal person which claims a right of ownership over every person living within it's territory. Hardly the same.
I mean honeststly this man has tunnel vision. He is like a conspiracy theorist with an axe to grind that people take way to serious. Moreover, he psychologizes, which is a big big no no (not to mention dubious) if someone cares about social sciences / philosophy first and foremost.
I don't like Stefan Molyneux. He is a bit on the manipulative side for me.
Great video thanks for posting! I think Stef is great he saved my brain and I wouldn't have found austrian economics if it wasnt for him.
He's got good points, but why does it always seem as though his videos are infomercials for the psychomanipulation industry?
You shouldn't trust a bureaucrat or politician, fair enough... You shouldn't even trust your own family, according to him...
So why trust a shrink?
I agree that 'the state' is probably a grotesque extension of basic human social instincts which give rise to the family/clan situation, and that child abuse is one of the principle reasons so many people are blind to its pervasive evil, but I'm not sure surrendering ourselves to the headshrinks en masse is really such a good idea, considering their personal and institutional infidelity with state power.
Lol he said to not trust your family? What the hell crack did you smoke before watching that video?
Oh, that's nice.
Have you read or listened to much of his work? This video is a summary of ideas he's been putting forward for years.
Don't you think it's reasonable to infer that an anarchist doesn't trust 'the family' when he equivocates it with 'the state'?
Stephen: I like the analog between rioters and kids throwing temper tantrums. Hilarious. But I think he fails to recognize the difference between form and substance and that the seeming similarities are the result of the state competing with families for moral authority. A family is an intergenerational division of labour. The state is an artificial legal person which claims a right of ownership over every person living within it's territory. Hardly the same.
I get this impression of Stef being always on the brink of leaving the NAP aside to further his deep dislike of religion/child raising practices he dislikes. In this last video, something caught my ear, when he says that the state will be gone when families are run a certain way. I no longer agree with him on that account. But a refreshing video anyways.
Stephen:A family is an intergenerational division of labour. The state is an artificial legal person which claims a right of ownership over every person living within it's territory. Hardly the same.
The family used to be much more like the state. Google "patria potestas".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos: The family used to be much more like the state. Google "patria potestas". It still is. It shall always be. Hayek warns against trying to model society after the pattern of the family. Now we must be warned again trying to model the family after the extended order. The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms. | Post Points: 20
It still is. It shall always be. Hayek warns against trying to model society after the pattern of the family. Now we must be warned again trying to model the family after the extended order.
I agree that 'the state' is probably a grotesque extension of basic human social instincts which give rise to the family/clan situation, and that child abuse is one of the principle reasons so many people are blind to its pervasive evil, but I'm not sure surrendering ourselves to the headshrinks en masse is really such a good idea, considering their personal and institutional infidelity with state power. [[[
I prefer Donald Livingston's observation that the state is the greatest destroyer of real community there is. Wherever real community and brotherhood can be found the state is attacking it and dismantling it, only to then set itself up to fill the void as the new provider of community. Thus Molynuex's observations, except that he misses or omits the speculative point that family disfunction may, at least in part, be an artifact of the state's assault on the family itself.
"Wherever real community and brotherhood can be found the state is attacking it and dismantling it, only to then set itself up to fill the void as the new provider of community. Thus Molynuex's observations, except that he misses or omits the speculative point that family disfunction may, at least in part, be an artifact of the state's assault on the family itself."
So true and tragic.
Merlin:It still is. It shall always be. Hayek warns against trying to model society after the pattern of the family. Now we must be warned again trying to model the family after the extended order.
I don't agree with the notion that a child's father should be allowed to put him to death (let alone do anything less severe to him).
Honestly, in my readings of Roman Law, the Somali Xeer, and other (originally) common-law systems, it seems to me that the state was modeled after the (extended) family, not the other way around.
James: Oh, that's nice. Have you read or listened to much of his work? This video is a summary of ideas he's been putting forward for years. Don't you think it's reasonable to infer that an anarchist doesn't trust 'the family' when he equivocates it with 'the state'?
that's a strawman. I've been following his ideas for years and never, not only once I heard about "You shouldn't even trust your own family, according to him." He may have said one should not blindly obey one's peers just because they are "authority" or "just because they said so" etc. He may also have said that one should question not only the legitimacy of the state, but legitimacy of the family (I am paraphrising here), I mean, children are always free to leave his parents if they beat or threaten them (psychologicaly or physically). It's a tabu in our society (western are more liberal though) to speak about such issues and he was probably the first one outspoken anarchist on the internet to talk and criticize family just as much as libertarians criticize the state's policies. And I like him for that, though I am not his "fan" or "devout follower". I just happen to have similar worldview as his.
Family is the root of all states, because in family kids are introduced into blind authoritarianism. It may be evolutionary purposeful whatever, but the similarity is there and always has been.
There is nothing psychotic in this. Just bravery maybe.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Autolykos: Merlin:It still is. It shall always be. Hayek warns against trying to model society after the pattern of the family. Now we must be warned again trying to model the family after the extended order. I don't agree with the notion that a child's father should be allowed to put him to death (let alone do anything less severe to him). Honestly, in my readings of Roman Law, the Somali Xeer, and other (originally) common-law systems, it seems to me that the state was modeled after the (extended) family, not the other way around.
Its a complex case. But I agree with any father ever who uttered the words: if you don’t like it here, leave! If the kid is too young to leave, well I don’t think anyone can go in and snatch him from his family. At most you can take the kid to your own house and hope he doesn’t ask for mommy/daddy (otherwise it’s kidnapping!).
Now, that the state is modeled after the family, this is what many scholars have said. Hayek’s whole point is that the state is modeled after the family, and should not be. Where I don’t agree with Stef anymore is that the family should not look like the free market (whatever that’s supposed to mean). Neither can be like the other, and either is beautiful as it is.
that's a strawman. I've been following his ideas for years and never, not only once I heard about "You shouldn't even trust your own family, according to him." He may have said one should not blindly obey one's peers just because they are "authority" or "just because they said so" etc. He may also have said that one should question not only the legitimacy of the state, but legitimacy of the family (I am paraphrising here), I mean, children are always free to leave his parents if they beat or threaten them (psychologicaly or physically). It's a tabu in our society (western are more liberal though) to speak about such issues and he was probably the first one outspoken anarchist on the internet to talk and criticize family just as much as libertarians criticize the state's policies. And I like him for that, though I am not his "fan" or "devout follower". I just happen to have similar worldview as his. Family is the root of all states, because in family kids are introduced into blind authoritarianism. It may be evolutionary purposeful whatever, but the similarity is there and always has been. There is nothing psychotic in this. Just bravery maybe.
You may not be a "devout follower", but you admit they exist, and it's part of what bothers me about Stefan Molyneux. I never said he was "psychotic". In fact, I think think he might be smarter than people give him credit for. That's what worries me.
If you're not a devout follower, the whole "defoo" thing just means that you should critically examine the extent to which your own parents disrespected the NAP in how they treated you, form a rational prognosis based upon the information you glean, and take action, which is perfectly fine and commendable. You can't teach the value of the NAP to your children if your own actions are not predicated upon it. They can only become libertarians by sheer, unlikely accident if you provide an authoritarian role-model for them to follow.
But I don't have any respect for his business model. It seems to me that he targets emotionally vulnerable people to become permanent donors to his own personal cult. He seems to enjoy isolating himself with emotionally dependant sycophants. I don't care if it doesn't violate the NAP - I'm not calling him evil - I just don't think he's half the philosopher he thinks he is.
Maybe calling it a "cult" is a good excuse for abusive parents who can't understand why their kids hate them, but don't you think it's strange that these parents would point to FDR specifically? Why would their children even mention FDR, or his name to them when they "defoo"? I don't go around saying "Murray Rothbard told me so" to justify personal economic arguments I have with people, for instance. Why couldn't the argument be seperated from its originator's name, in the context of private conversation, where it would actually be prudent to do so?
I'm not saying he's the devil, I'm just providing a basis for why I don't like him, no matter how much I admire some of the arguments he's made in the past.
Furthermore, his wife is a headshrink who clearly has a powerful influence over the things he says.
Have a look at this...
https://members.cpo.on.ca/members_search/show/19048
Under "discipline & other proceedings". I'm not going to take sides in a battle between the Ontario Headshrink's Druidic Circle and a heretical member, but make of this what you will...
A panel of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee has referred the following allegations to the Discipline Committee: Ms. Christina Papadopoulos committed professional misconduct in making public statements and providing advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and podcasts available thereon; specifically, she: 1. failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(2) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation. This failure included providing information, advice or comment to the public in a manner contrary to section 6.5 of the Standards of Professional Conduct (Effective September 1, 2005) ("Standards"), providing psychological services while objectivity, competence and effectiveness were compromised contrary to section 12.2 of the Standards, and rendering opinions that were not based upon current, reliable, adequate and appropriate information contrary to section 14.3 of the Standards. 2. provided a service that she knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit the client, contrary to section 1(9) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation. 3. engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practicing the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to section 1(34) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation. A hearing date has not yet been scheduled
Ms. Christina Papadopoulos committed professional misconduct in making public statements and providing advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and podcasts available thereon; specifically, she:
1. failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(2) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation. This failure included providing information, advice or comment to the public in a manner contrary to section 6.5 of the Standards of Professional Conduct (Effective September 1, 2005) ("Standards"), providing psychological services while objectivity, competence and effectiveness were compromised contrary to section 12.2 of the Standards, and rendering opinions that were not based upon current, reliable, adequate and appropriate information contrary to section 14.3 of the Standards.
2. provided a service that she knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit the client, contrary to section 1(9) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.
3. engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practicing the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to section 1(34) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.
A hearing date has not yet been scheduled
So the state is interfering, but regardless... If psychology is a real thing, malpractice is possible, and has just been alleged. If it's not a real thing, why the hell should anyone with sense pay attention to what they say?
It's a way of saying that behaviour is the essentially the same in all contexts. Only the specifics of any given context change. Conservatives don't like to believe it because the traditional family is sacrosanct.
I read he has BBQs with the runaways which bothers me most.
He does not seem to far from Rothbard about people being free to leave the family.