David Gordon Layeth the Smackdown

I have no idea why a man like Gordon is reviewing a book like this, but he did it anyway.  

For those of us who have a distaste for Molyneaux, it's a little entertaining watching Gordon shoot fish in a barrel:

http://mises.org/daily/6101/The-Molyneux-Problem

LOL @ fish-in-a-barrel. Yes, I found this piece highly entertaining.

Despite the impression I have so far given, Molyneux is by no means stupid: quite the contrary. Therein, I suggest, lies the source of the problems of his book. Because of his facile intelligence, he thinks that he has a talent for philosophical argument and need not undertake the hard labor of learning how such arguments are constructed. Unfortunately for him and his book, he is mistaken.

Ouch.

I don't know what to think of Stefan. I like his videos, he has a lot of good interviews, and his intuition on certain things seems to ring with me, but sometimes I hear arguments from him that are downright deceptive. I think he's very talented in sophistry. 

How to not come off as a cultist

http://nielsio.tumblr.com/post/26119199766/how-to-not-come-off-as-a-cultist

It was nice to have someone with Gordon's knowledge step up and take the narcissist down a bit in such a public setting.

Here was my reaction to one of the earlier introductions I had to him.

 

For a split second I thought the "cultist" piece might have been satire.  The title says "how not to come off as a cultist", and then the first few bullets all talk about how to make sure people are aware your ideas come from other people.  The first sentence literally says to make sure people know "your project is part of a larger and much older tradition".  And then it goes on to say you should tell people “I learned from these people, and maybe you will find value in them as well”.

That kind of sounds exactly like a cultist to me.

 

Either way, I have no idea how that "cultist" piece is relevant.

 

@JJ

That's a decent assement of the man. I may be wrong on this,  I think I heard he was a professional actor at one point in his life.  If so that would be a good pick up on his persona / speaking skills

Thurs. 12/07/05 18:18 EDT
.post #205

John James:

Here was my reaction to one of the earlier introductions I had to him.

John James:

Such a clever narcissist.

Further evidenced at 21:13 when he compares himself to Socrates going into the marketplace and simultaneously gives Block a sideways dig by attacking the fact that he works at a state-sponsored university.

Molyneux might or might not be a "narcissist," but to focus on his personality while ignoring his argument is argumentum ad hominem.

And what is Molyneux's argument here? We need to start, not at 21:13, but earlier, at 20:50, where Molyneux reads from Walter Block's article:

4. Congressman Paul does not look for second-best solutions. He is not skilled in the art of compromise; he is a man of principle. The contrast between Dr. Paul and his many critics is all too glaring.

Although Block doesn't say so directly, he insinuates, without substantiation, that Molyneux (one of Ron Paul's "many critics") is not "a man of principle."

Molyneux responds to this by opining "I mean, I think I'm a pretty staunch man of principle..." and then offers as support for this opinion the fact that when it comes to earning one's income in the free market, he practices what he preaches, i.e., Molyneux earns his income via voluntary exchange (unlike Block, who has "a tenured position, protected by the state, at a university").

Molyneux's point here is that Block's insinuation is both incorrect and hypocritical.

John James:

Molyneux says "every sane, reasonable human being in the world accepts the non-aggression principle in personal relationships." ... whether Molyneux ... actually believes his work is the reason that everyone accepts the NAP in personal relationships, I don't know ...

But Molyneux neither states nor even implies that "everyone accepts the NAP in personal relationships." You've misrepresented his position. Clearly, Molyneux is aware that many people have not accepted the NAP in personal relationships. It's just that he does not include these people in the category of "sane, reasonable human beings."

John James:

... but if he doesn't actually believe that, one can only wonder why he believes his work in promoting something "every sane, reasonable human being in the world" already accepts, is more useful ...

And one might realize that Molyneux, like Ron Paul, has been (successfully) promoting liberty, not only to those who have already accepted the NAP, but also to those who haven't.

John James:

This of course means either one of two things. etc.

Or perhaps, even a third thing; see above.

This quote is almost as good GotLucky:

 

"Molyneux makes some good points against public education, but he would not be Molyneux if he did not give us a bad argument as well."

MMMark:

Molyneux might or might not be a "narcissist," but to focus on his personality while ignoring his argument is argumentum ad hominem.

I did not ignore his "arguments", as evidenced by the fact that you have more to say about my post.  So I have no idea why you would introduce such a straw man.

 

Molyneux's point here is that Block's insinuation is both incorrect and hypocritical.

Just because it's a point Molyneux aims to make doesn't make it true or accurate.  (Unless of course you're one of the "Molyneuxbots" who think otherwise).

 

But Molyneux neither states nor even implies that "everyone accepts the NAP in personal relationships." You've misrepresented his position. Clearly, Molyneux is aware that many people have not accepted the NAP in personal relationships. It's just that he does not include these people in the category of "sane, reasonable human beings."

Nice try.  Go back and listen to the video starting at 30:05.  He even begins his statement by saying "the non-aggression principle is accepted by everybody..." and then catches himself, and being the smart guy he is realizes that there are always exceptions, and having the need to cover all his bases so as not to have people pick at the details of argument while ignoring the real point of it (as you have done here) and claim he made a blanket statement, he quickly makes his required qualifier...while making the widely understood exasperated facial expression to show that basically what he's saying at the time is more of a cumbersome formality than an important point. 

He is not trying to imply that there is some great mass of the human race that doesn't accept the NAP in private relationships (as you want to characterize his argument to be so that you can make him sound less self-contradictory).  He in fact does imply that virtually everyone, or pretty much everyone, accepts the NAP in private relationships.  Indeed his entire point is almost the opposite of what you're trying to make his argument out to be...that essentially all human beings (i.e. the vast vast majority, save the few exceptions of "insane" people) accept the NAP in private relationships.  He even continues by saying "we all accept this".  (I seriously honestly doubt he's saying "we, superior, not-insane, not-unreasonable people"...by "we" it sure seems to me he's talking about "humans in general")...because the entire point he's trying to call attention to is that virtually everyone has no problem accepting NAP in private relationships, but when it turns to "the public sphere" as he calls it, "everything becomes the complete opposite".

He even states the whole issue right after making those statements: "...so violations of the NAP are considered evil in the private sphere, violations of the NAP are considered both virtuous and necessary in the public sphere.  So, the question is why?"

That is Molyneux's focus.  I don't believe for a second that you asked Molyneux: "would you say that pretty much everyone accepts the NAP in private relationships?" that he'd say anything opposed to an affirmative....That he would take exception to that and be like "well no...only the sane, rational people believe that, which is actually a pretty small percentage of the human population"...as you seem to want to suggest he would.

Which of course would have to mean my characterization of his point is accurate.  If you don't agree, feel free to write him that question and let us know what response you get.

 

MMMark:

And one might realize that Molyneux, like Ron Paul, has been (successfully) promoting liberty, not only to those who have already accepted the NAP, but also to those who haven't.

And if one might actually pay attention to the actual point Molyneux was trying to make, instead of pedantically focusing on his wording, one might realize that Molyneux himself would affirm that the number of people who do not accept the NAP in their private relationships is infinitely, and essentially negligibly small.

One might also realize that he has basically just asserted that Molyneux has been successfully promoting liberty to insane people.

Once again, I highly doubt even Molyneux himself would agree with you on your characterization of his own position.

Or perhaps, even a third thing; see above.

Not likely.  See above.  (And pay closer attention to the actual point someone is making.)

 

I do enjoy Molyneux's interviews with experts. As for his philosophy, I have no expertise in this area so I am not qualified to comment.

John James:

For a split second I thought the "cultist" piece might have been satire.  The title says "how not to come off as a cultist", and then the first few bullets all talk about how to make sure people are aware your ideas come from other people.  The first sentence literally says to make sure people know "your project is part of a larger and much older tradition".  And then it goes on to say you should tell people “I learned from these people, and maybe you will find value in them as well”.

That kind of sounds exactly like a cultist to me.

Didn't you say that once already?

Anyways, I for one would like to hear how that "kind of sounds exactly like a cultist to [you]".

Autolykos:

Didn't you say that once already?

That depends.  Didn't that link to that tumblr post get posted already?

 

Touché.

I'd still like to hear how Nielsio's suggestions "kind of [sound] exactly like a cultist to [you]".

Fri. 12/07/06 23:59 EDT
.post #206

John James:

I did not ignore his "arguments", as evidenced by the fact that you have more to say about my post.

But why do you deny doing something I didn't accuse you of?

I didn't say you ignore his "arguments"; I said you ignore his argument. Singular, not plural. Now, which "argument" do I say you ignore? Why, the very one I make reference to when I write, in my very next sentence, "And what is Molyneux's argument here?" and then go on to lay out what that argument (singular) is (that you ignored, while focusing instead on Molyneux's "narcissism").

John James:

Just because it's a point Molyneux aims to make doesn't make it true or accurate.

I agree. But, what makes it a valid point is the fact that he has adduced evidence, as I said, and which I reproduced. After examining the evidence, Block is clearly both incorrect and hypocritical when he insinuates, without substantiation, that Molyneux is "not a man of principle."

John James:

(Unless of course you're one of the "Molyneuxbots" who think otherwise).

Wow, I strongly disagree with you here. What you've just asserted, essentially, is that an argumentum ad hominem is a non-fallacious argument.

If I were a "Molyneuxbot," that fact would not, as you suggest, make Molyneux's point here "true or accurate," any more than your dislike of Molyneux, or your smearing him as a "narcissist," would make his point untrue or inaccurate." His personality, or what you or I think of his personality or him personally, has nothing to do with the validity, or the truth or accuracy, of his argument.

John James:

Go back and listen to the video starting at 30:05. ... He even states the whole issue right after making those statements: "...so violations of the NAP are considered evil in the private sphere, violations of the NAP are considered both virtuous and necessary in the public sphere. So, the question is why?"

That is Molyneux's focus. I don't believe for a second that you asked Molyneux: "would you say that pretty much everyone accepts the NAP in private relationships?" that he'd say anything opposed to an affirmative....That he would take exception to that and be like "well no...only the sane, rational people believe that, which is actually a pretty small percentage of the human population"...as you seem to want to suggest he would.

Hm. What you've said here is reasonable, but your "conclusions":

John James:

This of course means either one of two things. Either Molyneux is narcissistic enough to believe his efforts are the reason every sane person accepts the very principle he promotes in the capacity he promotes it...or he's narcissistic enough to believe that him spending his time promoting something every sane person already accepts is actually more impactful than everything Ron Paul has done. One can only wonder which it is, but I'm not quite sure it matters.

are absurd. There is nothing "of course" about them, and this thinly-veiled demagoguery won't past muster. It's just junk.

I am at least making a serious effort to resolve this question, instead of engaging in character assassination.

John James:

And if one might actually pay attention to the actual point Molyneux was trying to make, instead of pedantically focusing on his wording, ...

Physician, heal thyself.

This is hypocritical. Your entire analysis (<--- note the link) of Molyneux's video has nothing to do with "the actual point Molyneux was trying to make," and everything to do with attempting to smear him as a "narcissist."



If you reject my first theory, there is another possibility; consider these quotes:

10:48

... with the solutions that I provide, namely, ostracism of statists, and intervention in the realm of child-abuse and so on, and improved parenting, peaceful parenting; that is where the science, the evidence, the experts, the interviews, the data, has led me in terms of how we build a peaceful world. And so that's my focus.

14:34

But, what we can do is we can effect change in our personal relationships; we can effect change in how we treat our children; we can effect change in how we treat our spouses; we can effect change in who we associate with, in a private, personal relationship situation. That's where we can effect change.

So, perhaps when Molyneux says "...so violations of the NAP are considered evil in the private sphere, ..." he excludes (for example) the use of aggression on children. While "... every sane, reasonable human being in the world accepts the Non-Aggression Principle in personal relationships," (many of) these people might still spank or otherwise physically aggress against their children.

Here is some evidence to support my theory, from Corporal Punishment, the Nonagression Principle and the Future of Peace:

1:05

...the future freedom of the world is at least to some degree, if not a large degree, rooted in the peaceful parenting, or peaceful protection, of children, which really comes down to the fundamental question for liberty activists or libertarians or anybody, I think, with a moral bent, which is: Does the Non-Aggression Principle apply to children? And, I think that it applies to children more than it applies to anyone else, because of their sort of helpless and dependent relationships, and the unchosen nature of their relationships, with their ... parents.

Note Stephanie Murphy's statement at 3:24:

But, so many people wrote in and said things like "Well, I was spanked and I turned out just fine."

Murphy then asks Molyneux " I'm sure you've heard that a lot, right?" to which Molyneux answers "Yes, I'm afraid so."



The Non-Aggression Principle is widely accepted in the private or personal sphere, except when it comes to children, according to Molyneux.

[Just as a sidenote, I grow bored with MMMark quite quickly, and I honestly didn't really have an intention to respond to this latest nonsense, but since gotlucky made the effort to express his interest (using my graphic, too!), I figured what the hell.  So this one's for you, Bugs.]

 

MMMark:

I didn't say you ignore his "arguments"; I said you ignore his argument. Singular, not plural. Now, which "argument" do I say you ignore? Why, the very one I make reference to when I write, in my very next sentence, "And what is Molyneux's argument here?" and then go on to lay out what that argument (singular) is (that you ignored, while focusing instead on Molyneux's "narcissism").

I "focused" on his narcissism throughout the post.  That was the running theme.  You brought it up and cried "ad hominem" as if my post were somehow invalidated simply because the theme was his narcissism.

I didn't ignore anything.

After examining the evidence, Block is clearly both incorrect and hypocritical when he insinuates, without substantiation, that Molyneux is "not a man of principle."

So let me get this straight.  All I have to do is show one single solitary area of my life where it seems to fall in line with a professed principle, and that makes me a principled individual?  I didn't realize it was that easy.  Thanks so mmmmuch, mmmmark!  That's a load off my mmmmind.

And as for Block being a hypocrite, I'll let Block's own words respond to that.  Feel free to contact him with your "refutations" and/or accusations of hypocrisy.  I'm sure you'll be able to give him tons of arguments he's never heard before.

Wow, I strongly disagree with you here.

Oh my!

 

What you've just asserted, essentially, is that an argumentum ad hominem is a non-fallacious argument.  If I were a "Molyneuxbot," that fact would not, as you suggest, make Molyneux's point here "true or accurate," any more than your dislike of Molyneux, or your smearing him as a "narcissist," would make his point untrue or inaccurate." His personality, or what you or I think of his personality or him personally, has nothing to do with the validity, or the truth or accuracy, of his argument.

 

Hm. What you've said here is reasonable, but your "conclusions" are absurd.

Well, what I've said there was a direct refutation of you're erroneous implication that Molyneux somehow was meaning to claim that there was some huge sect of the human population that didn't buy into the NAP in private relationships, and that therefore his focus there is not unfounded.  So I'll take your first clause as an admission of your error.

As for your second clause referring to my origanal post from the other thread, please, do tell, what other option is there?  I'm just dying to hear it.

 

MMMark:

John James:

And if one might actually pay attention to the actual point Molyneux was trying to make, instead of pedantically focusing on his wording, ...

Physician, heal thyself.  This is hypocritical. Your entire analysis (<--- note the link) of Molyneux's video has nothing to do with "the actual point Molyneux was trying to make," and everything to do with attempting to smear him as a "narcissist."

First of all, let's address the fact that in a very ironic, Inception-like twist of occurances, you're here hypocritically calling me a hypocrite while ignoring the very thing you are doing so that you might accuse me of being a hypocrite for doing what you're doing while you make you're accusation.

Simply accusing me of being a hypocrite doesn't excuse you for mischaracterizing his argument so that you might pretend to "catch" me in "misrepresenting his position" (aka mischaracterizing his argument).  I realize this fallback to "oh yeah!  well...uh...ad hominem!  Also watch me use archaic English to make me sound like I'm really smart while I attempt to abscond with my dignity after doing precisely what I accused you of, so that I might accuse you of it..." is supposed to get you off free somehow, but it's a poor choice of strategy.

Earlier in this very post I'm quoting from you, you basically implied that I only ignored Molyneux's argument in favor of focusing on narcissism on a single point.  In fact that was the entire point of your first section.  You even went in and bolded an "s" and spent sentences talking about plural versus singular in this context.  Now that you've been shown to be the actual mischaracterizer of Molyneux's point, you're looking for some way to point a different finger at me so that you might escape the reality of your error...and you've chosen to go back to your "ad hominem" claim...once again seeming to attempt to discount my entire post simply because the running theme throughout was that he's a narcissist.

First of all, I openly stated that pointing out his narcissism was the theme of the post.  It's not some logical fallacy.  I never attempted to claim that anything Molyneux said was wrong because he's a narcissist.  I was merely pointing out the fact that he is one, and providing examples throughout.  Just because someone makes personal observations about another person it does not automatically make "ad hominem! ad hominem!" a valid claim.

And as I've shown here, (and you evidently agree), I was the one who actually did understand the point Molyneux was trying to make, so I'm not quite sure what ground you think you have to stand on to tell me to pay better attention to the actual point Molyneux was trying to make.  Indeed as we've established it was you who misrepresented his point so that you might accuse me of misrepresenting his point (and later ironically, of being a hypocrite, evidently).

If you reject my first theory, there is another possibility; consider these quotes:

10:48  peaceful parenting; [...] 14:34  how we treat our children;

So, perhaps when Molyneux says "...so violations of the NAP are considered evil in the private sphere, ..." he excludes (for example) the use of aggression on children. While "... every sane, reasonable human being in the world accepts the Non-Aggression Principle in personal relationships," (many of) these people might still spank or otherwise physically aggress against their children.

Here is some evidence to support my theory, from Corporal Punishment, the Nonagression Principle and the Future of Peace:  1:05

Wow you're definitely "hardworking."  I mean, most people would say "desperate" but I guess it's just a matter of perspective.  You're certainly willing to sacrifice more time for even the slightest hail mary chance of redemption than I ever would be.  I'll definitely give you an E for effort.

 

Ty, JJ. I refuse to watch soap operas, so I need to get my drama fix somewhere else.

Sat. 12/07/07 13:11 EDT
.post #207

John James:

Just as a sidenote, I grow bored with MMMark quite quickly, ...

(Translation: "I've failed to goad MMMark into a pissing contest/flame war" ... )

John James:

... and I honestly didn't really have an intention to respond to this latest nonsense, ...

(... then goes on to write about 1100 more words).

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

John James:

I "focused" on his narcissism throughout the post.

Right...maybe you find that less "boring" than trying to understand his arguments.

John James:

Wow you're definitely "hardworking."

As opposed to "bored," John?

I'm honestly trying to reconcile what you've (creditably) pointed out seem to be two mutually inconsistent statements of Molyneux's.

Maybe that "bores" you, but your continued participation belies your protestations.

 

It seems my opening sidenote has caused a stir.  I really didn't think much of it, I was just being open.  I figured gotlucky deserved to know he's the only reason you got a reply.  (Everyone needs to feel special sometime I guess).

I used the present-tense "grow" to make a statement about the typical discussion with you.  Not just this one in particular.  I honestly was never trying to "goad" you into anything.  Indeed our conversations always begin with you jumping into threads to respond to posts I make.  And besides, if I were trying to express a statement about this interaction in particular I would have said "I've grown tired".

But sure I offered a full response.  As I said I had no intention of responding, but thanks to gotlucky expressing his interest, I decided to go ahead and do so.  If I was gonna bother with responding at all I might as well address everything.

It's nice that you finally acknowledge that Molyneux's narcissism was the theme of my post all along, (thus basically admitting your earlier mischaracterization in which you so pretentiously seemed to try to claim I focused on his narcissism for a single "argument").  But you have actually finally made one correct observation, that pointing out Molyneux's ridiculous narcissism is actually less boring that his horrible arguments.  You throw in the phrase "trying to understand" his arguments, but of course, we've shown that it is in fact you who has trouble understanding them...I just find them, well, bad.  So yes, pointing out a large part of what makes Molyneux such a douchebag (and calling out some flaws and straw men along the way) is much less boring than trying to contort his incredibly poor "arguments" into something logical and reasonable.  But of course, you would know more about the latter than I would.

It's also kind of silly (laughably ironic, in fact) how you would accuse me of "continued participation" after "protestations"...when it is you who has shown such pedantic attention to accuracy in statements.  I'll again call attention to the entire segment of your previous post in which you highlight the "s" in "arguments" and proceed to talk about plurals vs. singulars, etc.  And yet here in this very next post you accuse me of "protestations".

As I said, I had virtually no intention of responding to your nonsense until gotlucky took the time to create a post solely to signal his interest in the discussion.  With that I decided to actually offer a response.  In that response I simply offered a sidenote for gotlucky to mentioned the only reason it appeared at all.

And here you characterize me of "continued participation" after "protestations", as if I had said "I'm never responding to you again" and then offered another response and said "okay now I'm done", and then yet another response and said "okay I really mean it this time", etc.  It was a single post in which I mentioned I wasn't going to bother creating one until a third party expressed interest in it. 

I fail to see even one "protest" here, but I would be very interested for you to show me the multiple instances of this "protest" against participation.

But don't worry.  I won't hold my breath.

 

seems like a wwe smackdown.

 

 

seems like a wwe smackdown.

nah, that would imply there was an actual contest between something - rather than a basic demonstration of futility

@JJ

Ha! I was right he is an actor, from his own words on the Mises thread:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/29904.aspx

I must admit that I am always skeptical when a review starts with insults - when I studied acting and playwriting at the National Theatre School in Montréal, I was always told to "show it, don't say it!"

 

So yeah, good call on picking up him creating a persona

ill give the link lol, wwe has basic demonstrations of futility

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0E5IhiSyq8

lol, good point I forgot about stormtrrooper / redshirt type syndrome

Sat. 12/07/07 19:26 EDT
.post #209

John James:

I figured gotlucky deserved to know he's the only reason you got a reply.

Magnanimous of you.
For whose benefit is your latest round of participation, oh bored-yet-altruistic one?

John James:

I fail to see even one "protest" here, ...

I was quoting Shakespeare, and I linked to the wikipedia page that explains the usage. I encourage you to read it.


Almost five hundred fifty more words from you this time, including:

- you so pretentiously
- kind of silly
- laughably ironic
- pedantic attention
- your nonsense

but none of which deal with reconciling Molyneux's two (seemingly) mutually-contradictory statements.

I've offered two theories; here's a third:

Being a fallible human being, perhaps Molyneux, when he said that he has "done a huge amount to promote the non-aggression principle in personal relationships," was a bit sloppy and neglected to qualify that with "by stressing that the NAP should also be applied to children" (for example).

Now that he's (apparently) posting at this forum, maybe he'll pop in and offer some clarification.

No examples of my "protests"?  Guess it's a good thing I didn't hold my breath. 

 

http://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-1/

"And there it stood. On the eve of the publication of UPB, Molyneux knew he had done nothing less than replace God as the final authority on morality. Where philosophers had failed for thousands of years, he would succeed. Out of nowhere, a small band of believers led by a Canadian philosopher stood ready to lead humanity, finally, to happiness."

 

If this was anyone other than molyneaux, I would feel sorry for them by now.This is just ugly

 

http://mises.org/daily/6105/Mr-Molyneux-Responds

 

"He holds that all such rules must refer to all human beings without reference to particular times or places. He says in his response that he has argued for this requirement, but in fact he hasn't. He has simply repeated his requirement a number of times."

Another nonarbitrary moral rule that I commend to Molyneux's attention is "one ought to respect one's parents."

LOL

David Gordon's criticism is not only awesome, but sometimes even subtle. This section was the best, imho:

 

He says,

Rape cannot be UPB because sexual penetration is only rape if it is unwanted — thus one man must want to rape, while the other man must desperately not want to be raped, which means that both of them cannot simultaneously value rape as universally preferable behavior.

Suppose that A is trying to rape B. A wants to rape B but B does not want to be raped. This is entirely consistent with both A's and B's thinking that A is morally obligated to rape B. It isn't a requirement of logic that B want A to do whatever A is morally obligated to do.

The argument against rape that I found the most philosophically interesting in his book is a different, though related, one. If rape is morally required, then acting against rape is evil, i.e., as Molyneux defines this, morally proscribed. But in order for rape to occur, the victim must resist the rapist. If the victim does not resist, then rape has not taken place.[1] Thus a moral rule that required rape could be put into practice only if evil behavior, i.e., resisting rape, takes place. The purported rule, then, is inconsistent with everyone's acting as morality dictates.

Gordon's response is hilarious. Not only does he actually provide an in depth criticism of this, he slips in a really subtle criticism in the footnote. It's like it's not even worth his time to call attention to Molyneux's mistake.

EDIT: I did not quote the response nor did I quote the footnote. You guys will have to read the article to find it!

I'm amazed that Gordon is spending so much time on Molyneux; he has the patience of a saint.

David Gordon has put out what I consider to be the highest quality of Mises dailies, contributing real, valuable, and economic material to the discussion.

At any rate, I'm glad that someone at the institute has finally given some attention to Molyneux, a man who I find has a lot of quality material up until the point that he really gets going on ethics. With this said, from what I've read he still misses the fundamental problem with Molyneux's ethics which is this: The performing of an action does not mean that everyone should do this action, merely that the individual in question believes that the performance of this action by himself under a specific set of conditions is positive.

i love the discussion! certainly something good has to come out of it

I'm with Neo, Gordon is definitely my favorite Mises daily writer.

Neodoxy:

At any rate, I'm glad that someone at the institute has finally given some attention to Molyneux, a man who I find has a lot of quality material up until the point that he really gets going on ethics. With this said, from what I've read he still misses the fundamental problem with Molyneux's ethics which is this: The performing of an action does not mean that everyone should do this action, merely that the individual in question believes that the performance of this action by himself under a specific set of conditions is positive.

You might also be interested in this from the Molyneux responds thread.  (In case anyone was unaware, Molyneux has an even worse problem with economics and finance.)

...which actually leads me to question...what exactly is Molyneux's "strong suit"/"quality material"?

 

...which actually leads me to question...what exactly is Molyneux's "strong suit"/"quality material"?

I guess his "strong suit" is his strange and idiosyncratic ideological potpourri which synthesizes opposition to government with opposition to family, academia, friendship, etc.  Molyneux isn't so much "anti-authoritarian" as he is "anti-authority"; he believes that statism has its roots in parent-child relationships and that to destroy the state you need to first destroy the creator of the state, i.e. family.  Molyneux steadfastly claims that he isn't opposed to all parents, but in order to be a good father or mother you have to be an anarcho-capitalist, which is almost none of them.

in order to be a good father or mother you have to be an anarcho-capitalist, which is almost none of them.

my first thought was "well, at very least they wont be in favor of shipping their offspring off to die for halliburton in some barely hospitable wasteland" but considering how rebellious adolescents tend to be, perhaps that would have the unintended consequence of encouraging them to do such a thing. But ignore me, I'm just fixating on this because of recent events.

I guess his "strong suit" is his strange and idiosyncratic ideological potpourri which synthesizes opposition to government with opposition to family, academia, friendship, etc.  Molyneux isn't so much "anti-authoritarian" as he is "anti-authority"; he believes that statism has its roots in parent-child relationships and that to destroy the state you need to first destroy the creator of the state, i.e. family.  Molyneux steadfastly claims that he isn't opposed to all parents, but in order to be a good father or mother you have to be an anarcho-capitalist, which is almost none of them.

 

 

Either way to base oneself in psychology , that encourages proactivness (even if it is passive agressive)  in an environment of many young adults / kids in an unaccountable environment  is a move that desreves nothing but contempt