Stefan Molyneux Hates Ron Paul

Molyneux is an excellent communicator of libertarian ideas; there can be little doubt about that, with great videos like this and this.  I check in at the FDR forums occasionally to see what's going on there.  It used to be more academic and focussed on philosophy and law and anarchy theories and so on, but discussion has shifted towards mainly threads on parenting, personal relationships, and people seeking advice about recovering from the effects of having had "abusive" (in the extremely broad sense used on FDR) parents.  There is a strong sense of community at FDR, especially since this shift took place.

Whether they are a cult depends on your definition of the word, but I do see Molyneux and the Freedomainers sharing many similarities to Rand and the Randians.  I think some of what Murray Rothbard said about the latter applies to them.  In addition to the Molyneux Revealed site you linked to, there is also FDR Liberated if you want to read more about the cult angle.

With regard to Ron Paul, I disagree with Molyneux.  Most of his criticisms of Paul fade away when you realise that Paul's primary goal is spreading the libertarian message, and being in office and running for President was for him purely a means or strategy for doing that effectively - for better or worse.  Molyneux is wrong to conflate Paul's strategy (i.e. Rothbard and Rockwell's strategy) with the flawed strategy of 'dismantling the state from the inside', which is what basically all so-called "libertarian" politicians that aren't Ron Paul are trying to do.  Whether Paul's strategy or Molyneux' strategy has been or is going to be more effective at spreading the message of liberty is an interesting debate to have, but Molyneux never really gets round to that debate, because he never addresses Paul's actual strategy, just a strawman version of it.

Walter Block made some negative and entirely unjustified remarks about Molyneux recently.  And David Gordon critiqued Molyneux' UPB, quite reasonably.  I expect these events left some Freedomainers with a dislike of mises.org (see threads here and here).  But I think it's extremely unlikely you were not allowed to join the FDR forum just because you mentioned mises.org.  The knowledgeable posters there link to mises.org quite often.  Have you tried joining again or emailing for an explanation?

But, by being a Congressman, he is full of contradictions, for example he is for diverting money disbursed thorugh multi-thousand page spending bills to his own district based upon the logic that the Federal Government stole the money and he is getting some back.

would you mind explaining what the contradiction is?

Man, I always feel like, there's so few of us libertarians, we can't afford infighting like this! Especially if it's merely over strategy and not necessarily philosophy.

I think Graham hit it pretty well.  Virtually all of Molyneux's complaints about Ron Paul (or really, the idea of Ron Paul) are little more than straw men he has crafted so that he might have something to attack about the man who has become a thousand times more popular and prominent than he ever will, and has undeniably done more to turn people on to libertarianism than pretty much any other single person.  This, combined with Molyneux's narcissism creates a cognitive dissonance that he must find a way to deal with...and of course his method of choice (like most others in such a position) is belittlement and attack.

And this sort of negativity — which I think can really most aptly be labled no more complexly than "jealousy" — is of course not unique to the bald self-proclaimed philosophy king.

I read this Walter Block piece where he called out anti-Paul lady Wendy McElroy for basically supporting libertarianism without being libertarian.  It really blew me away to read some of the stuff she wrote.  (Granted, it was during the 2008 presidential campaign, but still.)  Even then things were making a huge impact.  But it doesn't even need to be stated how exponentially larger every aspect was the second time around...when you can see how much the influence as grown, and the visible results it was having at the height of the campaign, as well as the residuals it continues to show.  I'm quite interested to hear a response from her and see if she'll still try to stand by her claim that "the millions of dollars as well as the incalculable time and energy that libertarians have donated to elect [Ron Paul] will disappear down the drain," and that "support for Ron Paul diverts money/time from causes and activities that have a lasting impact rather than one that evaporates after the faux-euphoria of political campaigning."

I honestly don't know if it's a genuine disbelief that someone like Paul and his methods of spreading the word and making a difference would actually be effective (which, I have no idea how anyone could possibly try to make that claim...at least by this point), or whether it's more just a simple jealousy that the people berating Paul have...

...that they (McElroy, Molyneux, et al) have dedicated their lives to something, and feel like they are being true to principle and "doing it right", and yet are virtually unknown, and essentially have very little (if anything) to show for their efforts in the way of visible impact and influence...whereas someone like Paul...a politician, is at the front of a revolution, and, as Block said "has already put libertarianism on the map in a way that no one in the history of civilization has ever done."  I'm inclined to believe it's a bit of both...but more so the latter.  I find that these anarchist (at least, the anti-Paul types) tend to be rather ego-centric, and quite self-important.

Here's a Mises Blog post with various examples (including the McElroy one).  And here's my post on typical Molyneux.

 

Youtube user lengthyounarther has a good video on Molyneux you might be interested in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWpZEO2EZ1s

Generally, as a Congressman Ron Paul agrees to the structure and mechanics of Congress and the rest of the Federal Government.  The Federal Government, and any other monopoly government for that matter, is antithetical to liberty.  Although Ron Paul is clearly most liberty oriented Congressman easily in the 20th century he is still part of the machinery of force.  More specifically, Ron Paul directs money stolen from tax payers in the Federal Budget to his district which is clearly an aggression against those people outside the district.  Ron Paul is against open borders which is clearly another aggression against people on both sides who may want to conduct commerce freely.

Like I have said, Ron Paul is vastly superior to any other legislator in the past 120 years and maybe beyond that.  But no matter your intent, participation in an agency that uses force comes with some contradictions.

Bogart:

Generally, as a Congressman Ron Paul agrees to the structure and mechanics of Congress and the rest of the Federal Government.  The Federal Government, and any other monopoly government for that matter, is antithetical to liberty.  Although Ron Paul is clearly most liberty oriented Congressman easily in the 20th century he is still part of the machinery of force.  More specifically, Ron Paul directs money stolen from tax payers in the Federal Budget to his district which is clearly an aggression against those people outside the district.  Ron Paul is against open borders which is clearly another aggression against people on both sides who may want to conduct commerce freely.

Like I have said, Ron Paul is vastly superior to any other legislator in the past 120 years and maybe beyond that.  But no matter your intent, participation in an agency that uses force comes with some contradictions.

You're right about the taxation, Bogart. It's an inevitable conclusion.

Generally, as a Congressman Ron Paul agrees to the structure and mechanics of Congress and the rest of the Federal Government.

do you mean that he agrees as in he cognitively agrees, like in his head? What I am asking is if you think tha ron paul thinks the federal government is a good thing?

The Federal Government, and any other monopoly government for that matter, is antithetical to liberty.  Although Ron Paul is clearly most liberty oriented Congressman easily in the 20th century he is still part of the machinery of force.

would you describe him as a well-functioning or poorly-functioning part of the machine? How much did he do to apply force to people? What would have changed if he had not been a congressman? How many fewer people would have been arrested, and how many fewer dollars would have been collected? Approximations would be fine, I just want a general idea of how much more unpleasant he made living under government by being a part of it.

More specifically, Ron Paul directs money stolen from tax payers in the Federal Budget to his district which is clearly an aggression against those people outside the district.

I'm not sure I agree with this. The money is already in the pipeline, it seems to me that he has as much right as any other taxpayer to say what happens to it. Its only the unfortunate case that his position as an elected official allows his wishes to carry weight. That doesnt mean he must abstain from exercising those rights he does have.

Ron Paul is against open borders which is clearly another aggression against people on both sides who may want to conduct commerce freely.

I wasnt aware of that.

Like I have said, Ron Paul is vastly superior to any other legislator in the past 120 years and maybe beyond that.  But no matter your intent, participation in an agency that uses force comes with some contradictions.

Like Hans Munch?

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

ron paul on borders. i imagine it would cost a lot to keep such track of people

Some people here attack Stefan as some kind of narcissist that was not achieved the same popularity level as Paul, and must therefore attack, belittle ect. This is not true. The basic premise behind Stefans disaprovement of Paul is the fact that if Paul were to become president and the system just collapses under him (which this system will collapse inevitably regardless who is in the white house) the years from now statist textbooks will run along the lines " remember when that Libertarian was voted into office and everything collapsed?". Basically Stefan wants someone like Obama in charge on a system that is really beyond redemption so that stattism has a better chance to be blamed, which would still be true. I remember about how Stefan was tired about having to debate people whom blamed these crisis on capitalism on the false ideal that Bush.Jr was somehow a free-market guy.

 

This makes sense. If I had to constantly tell people that George Bush and the Republicans in no way represent free-market ideals then I would certainly go mad. Stefan in no way dislikes Ron Paul, in fact the opposite. He only does not want Capitalism and Libertarianism to take the blame more then it already has. :) John James is just wrong about Molyneux.

I think that the cult accusation is an interesting one. I can understand it to a certain extent. Stefan is a very nice guy and he obviously cares a lot about people. At the same time he makes very grandiose and radical claims dealing with practically all aspects of life. All of these things signal "cult" to a certain extent, and of course there will be those who take Stefan to heart and really follow his "teachings", but in reality this is not any more cult-like than how many people treat Oprah. The difference is that Stefan is a lot more thorough and his teachings are a lot more radical. This is why he can look like a cult leader when I don't think that's very fair.

Stefan is an intellectual who believes himself to be right in the things that he believes. Some agree with him. Is he a cult leader? Once again, if this is the case then Obama and most other public figures with a message are cultists as well, just less intellectual ones.

I'm pretty sure the major parts of the cult accusation are the basis of his philosophy on some newly discovered absolute truth, and his attempts to cut people off from their family.  I don't think Oprah has either of those attributes.

Exactly. His philosophy is much more radical and doesn't play into established values and practices so easily. Therefore he is a "cultist"

 

In the real world things don't simply vanish from existence once we close our eyes.

Political power is not like the proverbial spoon that you can bend once you cease believing it exists. Unfortunately, this is not the Matrix.

Political power is real and it won't certainly disappear if you close your eyes and refuse to acknowledge it.

Political power always grows out of the barrel of a gun.

And this gun is not some Maoist metaphor. It is full metal real. And it's always there, whether it's visibly naked or covered up by layers of feel good rhetorics.

Ron Paul lives in the real world.  He knows politics won't go away because some dude made a video on youtube explaing why he decided politics is a bad thing and why he thinks he can solve every political problem by whining, bitching and complaining online about them.

In the real world, sometimes you need to fight fire with with fire.
 

Aiser:

Some people here attack Stefan as some kind of narcissist that was not achieved the same popularity level as Paul, and must therefore attack, belittle ect. This is not true. The basic premise behind Stefans disaprovement of Paul is the fact that if Paul were to become president and the system just collapses under him (which this system will collapse inevitably regardless who is in the white house) the years from now statist textbooks will run along the lines " remember when that Libertarian was voted into office and everything collapsed?". Basically Stefan wants someone like Obama in charge on a system that is really beyond redemption so that stattism has a better chance to be blamed, which would still be true.

That has to be some of the worst nonsense I've heard in a while.  Molyneux's beef is a lot more than "a Paul presidency would lead people to falsely blame libertarianism for negative things in the economy."

Just listen to him rant.  He all but directly states how he essentially resents Paul's method/path of spreading liberty, and by extension, the Congressman's success.

Again here's just one example.  I don't see how anyone can deny the man's narcissism, and, given the way he attacks Paul (i.e. mostly with straw men), it's almost just as obvious that his issues are much deeper than "he'll cause people to blame libertarianism for a recession!"

I mean, it's nice to have an FdR cult member come to the forum to defend the dear leader, but I really don't think there's any room to stand on on this one.  I'd stick to something a little less obvious, where you have more wiggle room and plausible deniability.

 

"he'll cause people to blame libertarianism for a recession!"

I always thought that puzzling considering they already do.

Sometimes I wonder if people like Molyneux and Adam Kokesh really mean it when they bash other libertarians who aren't as 'pure' as they'd like. They do need to cater to their audience after all. Perhaps they're just trying to show how 'hardcore' they are for entertainment reasons.

In any case, it should be considered counter-revolutionary to go all true-scotsman on people, what Rothbard called the tendency towards left-sectarianism (vs right-opportunism).

Ron Paul was enormously effective in the strategy he chose, almost incredibly so, and his method has produced a lot of exposure for our ideas. You can't knock that result.

If you have another method, pursue it, don't knock other's chosen strategy.

My thoughts. Essay form.

 

I really like Ron Paul. He is an excellent writer, and an excellent speaker. I appreciate everything that he does. He's like the modern F. Bastiat.

 

Nevertheless, Stefan Molyneux has true points the strategy which is being pursued does not lead and cannot lead to more freedom. Also he has a problem of with the dependence of free market economists on tenure or religous funding. Religion is very far away from science. Socialism is itself one kind of religion, because is substitutes belief for reason. If you do not accept any arguments by authority, then the alliance is worrying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5-j9LBCmM3c#!

http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx (see How Not To Achieve Freedom)

 

Libertarianism which seeks to enter the political arena and change it from within, or through academia, or through religion, is not going to lead to more freedom, any more that one can infiltrate a gang of thieves and become leader and get them to put money into people's pockets instead of taking it out. So if that is the stated goal of libertarianism, to increase freedom, then these three strategies are totally useless. They do not achieve their stated goal, but cost losts of money and time of supporters.

Most people, even though many are brought to free market ideas by Ron Paul, do not accept even the scientific perspective to economic problems, and do not accept taxation is theft, and do even want to think about why property exists and is necessary. They deny emotionally the ultimately logical basis of all economic science, and go by mysticism. So listening to Ron Paul, or other free market economists, or people like you and me, does nothing to change the minds of most people.

As Lichenberg said, you cannot educate the stupid, namely, the non-philosopher, who has no love of truth. If an ape opens a scientific book, they do not come out an apostle, whereas the already wise benefits by the book and becomes wiser. Strong dependence on initial conditions. The sole point of publc platforms is not to convince people but to irritate opponents, not to convince them but to show them that they have not convinced us. Because opponents have other reasons for not caring about the truth of arguments. They benefit by the redistribution, or are emotionally involved. You will not persuade such people,. Robert Heinlein pointed out, any more than patience and being nice and respectful shall ever result in teaching calculus to a horse.

So if the stated goal of libertarian politics, economics, is to persuade other people and increase freedom thereby, then it has failed already and will never succeed. The true way is to erase the attitude that leads to socialism, as Mises wrote in Human Action. That can only be done at the personal level.

But to actually increase freedom in the world is not the real goal of libertatian economists. As Joseph Salerno pointed out, technical economics is a vocation, and yet the public is hostile to free market technical economics. So how can most economists support themselves if they are not socialists? The public is against them emotionally. Only people who non-technical books, like the great economic histories, shall be able to support themselves.

Despite the stated goal of Libertarianism, political, academic, and religious, the actual goal is to get people to contribute to the support of free market economists, so that they can continue writing and speaking.

Until economics is approached more scientifically by the vast majority of the population, one cannot support him or herself by developing free market economics, regardless of it being true. That's why we need good people to raise money.

 

As a technical Austrian economist, I very much support Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement, not because I think that they will increase freedom, but because they give the possibility of free market economists to survive and write new technical material. They raise money for the development of economic science. But that does not increase freedom. To use science to increase freedom, one must have the opportunity, and we don't have it. But I am a lover of truth, and to learn the truth is human capital. It requires saving or voluntary support.

 

As Bastiat wrote, one cannot study if one is hungary and has no way to support themselves. R.P. and the Libertarian movement, have contributed immensely to the knowledge of truth, by getting people to fund the learning and development of economic science. But knowing the truth and being able to change the world are two totally different things.

As Rene Thom said, whether a person knows why the flood happened or not, if they are inside their house when the water hits, they die all the same. Knowledge is not power, per se, but becomes so only when coupled with opportunity. But I am for one for now satisfied with knowledge if nothing else.

So I support both the R.P. movement and S.M.'s kind of thing. Both sides have valid points and do important things. They just have different actual goals. And I think both goals are important, but personally, if nothing else, I want to know the truth, and the libertarian movement, if nothing else, provides money for that.

 

If this sounds cynical, it's because it is. But whatever. The important thing is that it's true. S.M. does not hate R.P. He appears to me to be very blunt, that all. And I applaude honesty and bluntness, being myself a bulldozer and anti-pragmatic. But I also value the development of technical economic science, so I do not think that the libertarian movement as is is useless. I think it greatly increases the pursuit of truth. The key point is that this is a different goal from the pursuit of freedom itself. That is fine by me, but I guess it sort of feels unpleasant to S.M. Different preferences.

When Ron Paul started the freedom movement was in its infancy. From his perspective it may have appeared like a new movement was beginning and soon to sweep the country. Even Robert LeFevre believed the people were waking up to true freedom back in the 70's and said as much.

But this has largely not been the case. But had it been, Paul would've been perfectly positioned to become the first libertarian president had libertarianism flowered back then into a mass movement, and he would've been able to enact many libertarian measures.

I think that may have been his end-game. It's just that things did not work out that way for a number of reasons.

"I mean, it's nice to have an FdR cult member come to the forum to defend the dear leader"

Lol.

To the Molyneux cheerleader above, I think it might be Stefan himself! On a more serious note (it may well be the case, never know), to limit Molyneux's criticism of Ron Paul to merely "he doesn't want him to be the one in charge when the system crashes" is crap, frankly. He was clear in saying that he would be a disaster because "the 1776 government didn't work." In essence, he's falsely proceeding as though a minarchist government is a totalitarian government, although he's wrong; though this does not deny that he may, indeed, be correct in assuming one inevitably leads to the other. It'd be a lot like saying, "Why shower now? You'll just get dirty and have to shower again. Forego showering until you know you will never get dirty again!" Give me a break.

the actual goal is to get people to contribute to the support of free market economists, so that they can continue writing and speaking.

in between all the arguments from authority, the truth comes out: the goal of "libertarianism" is to put more money in Stefan Molyneux's pocket.

Malachi:

the actual goal is to get people to contribute to the support of free market economists, so that they can continue writing and speaking.

in between all the arguments from authority, the truth comes out: the goal of "libertarianism" is to put more money in Stefan Molyneux's pocket.

Indubitably, friend. 100% correct. There's a simple way people can avoid being misled: a commitment to having no men that are deities. When a followers believes that Mr. Molyneux is incapable of being incorrect, that is when someone becomes a cultmember, regardless of Mr. Molyneux's intentions.

Something I found on Google. Typed in "Molyneux Ron Paul" or something to that effect and this popped up from Molyneux's forum (he didn't write it; another member wrote it). Sort of gives an insight into his listeners/viewers; the rest of the thread was filled with 5 or 6 responses of other people agreeing.