GilesStratton: QuestEon:John, I don't know you very well, but my impression of you from this thread isn't favorable. Don't even both, from what I've seen he reacts this way when his almighty one is challenged.
QuestEon:John, I don't know you very well, but my impression of you from this thread isn't favorable.
Don't even both, from what I've seen he reacts this way when his almighty one is challenged.
You've only insulted me. You were too bashful to contact Molyneux.
Basically, this is a thinly veiled attack on atheism and it's implications. And above all on passion. You use words like "militant", because you fear the strength and assertive aspects of the military more so than the violence. You use "almighty" and "idol" because you fear the passion of religious life moreso than the irrational aspects. And of course you believe atheists also hate the military and the church (the good parts rather than the weak aspects) so you resort to these pathetic provocations so that we might question ourselves and discontinue.
I can tell you that we won't be intimidated. Not me. Not Molyneux. Not any of us.
Religious people do not like that atheists would ever organize or ever put anything into effect, so they have to be shout people down with these appeals to weakness and passionlessness that matches their own boredom. Their own resigning to mediocrity. The worst part is that it's in the most passive aggressive and pathetic terms. Have some damned dignity.
Magnus: If you are done insulting people on this forum, you can take a look at this: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1210_Guardian_Sunday_Call_In_Show_Nov_16_2008.mp3 It's your favorite podcaster, defending himself against the accusations that some of you trolls here and the guardian have made against him. Listen to it and then reply.
If you are done insulting people on this forum, you can take a look at this: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1210_Guardian_Sunday_Call_In_Show_Nov_16_2008.mp3
It's your favorite podcaster, defending himself against the accusations that some of you trolls here and the guardian have made against him. Listen to it and then reply.
I haven't insulted anyone on this forum, Magnus. However, I don't see any particular reason why I should accept unfounded attacks on my character. Like being called a troll, for instance.
John Ess:You were too bashful to contact Molyneux.
Or, too indifferent.
John Ess:Basically, this is a thinly veiled attack on atheism and it's implications.
Not really, I can't say I'm big fans of atheists but I have no issues with Walter Block for example. It's just funny that you choose religion to attack, how original of a Molynoid.
John Ess:And above all on passion.
Yes, you are very passionate about your cult leader, and yes it is very irritating. More so when the leader just so happens to be a second rate thinker at best, and an arrogant fool at worst.
John Ess:You use words like "militant", because you fear the strength and assertive aspects of the military more so than the violence.
Or because many people use the term "militant atheist" to describe themselves.
John Ess:I can tell you that we won't be intimidated. Not me. Not Molyneux. Not any of us.
Congratulations?
John Ess:Religious people do not like that atheists would ever organize or ever put anything into effect,
You're like a broken record really. You echo the same tired nonsense as the rest of the libertarian left, and you erected a huge strawman that you didn't even manage to known down about the whole thing being about some sort of crusade against atheism.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Wah wah wah.
You can't mount a crusade against anything. I want you to mount a crusade. That's why I said have some damn dignity.
You have no problem with Walter Block because he's never taken any philosophical position. Even the "first-rate" philosophers you read probably never say anything either. But to perhaps fetishize nonsense that has no effect on anything or yourself.
John Ess:You have no problem with Walter Block because he's never made any philosophical position.
And yet he's an atheist, I thought that's what this was about?
John Ess:Even the "first-rate" philosophers you read probably never say anything either.
Because we all know only Ayn Rand Stefan Molyneux has ever contributed anything to philosophy!
I've read plenty of philosophers in my day. And I know which ones people gravitate towards when they want writers that will stay enough in the abstract not to hurt anyone's feelings. Not that that is the sole purpose of philosophy -- it is not -- but there are writers in the business of existence and then there are those that ignore it for it obvious reasons. It is apples and oranges. But there's a reason that the Bible says not to eat one of these fruit.
It's better to believe in subjective crap (like your own generic "religiousness"), so it has no real consequence or seriousness attached to it. It's basically an armistice with other weak belief systems. And with Walter Block who takes no position and teaches at a Jesuit school (that blasted his latest lecture).
Rand would do you some good. Walter Block, in fact, has Atlas Shrugged assigned in his intro to economics courses. I can give him that much towards trying to corrupt the poor Jesuit bastards.
John Ess:And with Walter Block who takes no position and teaches at a Jesuit school (that blasted his latest lecture).
He should do some real good and post videos on Youtube, perhaps he can emulate Stefan Molyneux and his top ten podcast!
As for the rest, may God have mercy on you.
Now, back to discussing Austrian economics and not the supposed "threats" from philosophers.
Stefan Molyneux is not a philosopher. He is a conman, a malignant narcissist, (some say a "successful psychopath"), peddling a pile of junk intrinsicist sophistry called UPB, which says that things are good or bad in themselves, for all people, at all times, everywhere. Context, which modifies all moral statements, is ignored. Thus his "advice" is worse than useless.
People who dare question his statements too deeply are not tolerated for long on the FDR forum. He owns the community and he owns their thoughts and feelings. And they pay him for it. That's a cult.
John, I'm not sure where you got the idea that Walter Block doesn't take philosophical positions. In fact, my strongest objection to the way that Dr. Block presents himself is that he takes positions all too readily, sometimes without explicitly acknowledging the complexity involved in the issues with which is concerned.
Short Seller: Now, back to discussing Austrian economics and not the supposed "threats" from philosophers. Stefan Molyneux is not a philosopher. He is a conman, a malignant narcissist, (some say a "successful psychopath"), peddling a pile of junk intrinsicist sophistry called UPB, which says that things are good or bad in themselves, for all people, at all times, everywhere. Context, which modifies all moral statements, is ignored. Thus his "advice" is worse than useless. People who dare question his statements too deeply are not tolerated for long on the FDR forum. He owns the community and he owns their thoughts and feelings. And they pay him for it. That's a cult.
You sound like you haven't read a lot of philosophy (but maybe own a thesaurus). Which is strange, because you apparently have a lot of time on your hands.
Nerd up and get to a book store.
Actually John, I think that's a pretty fair criticism of Stefan's theory. I made a similar argument here. (And I hope you don't accuse me of not having read much philosophy!)
dogface: Now, back to discussing Austrian economics and not the supposed "threats" from philosophers. Stefan Molyneux is not a philosopher. He is a conman, a malignant narcissist, (some say a "successful psychopath"), peddling a pile of junk intrinsicist sophistry called UPB, which says that things are good or bad in themselves, for all people, at all times, everywhere. Context, which modifies all moral statements, is ignored. Thus his "advice" is worse than useless. People who dare question his statements too deeply are not tolerated for long on the FDR forum. He owns the community and he owns their thoughts and feelings. And they pay him for it. That's a cult. You sound like you haven't read a lot of philosophy (but maybe own a thesaurus). Which is strange, because you apparently have a lot of time on your hands. Nerd up and get to a book store.
Now, back to discussing Austrian economics and not the supposed "threats" from philosophers. Stefan Molyneux is not a philosopher. He is a conman, a malignant narcissist, (some say a "successful psychopath"), peddling a pile of junk intrinsicist sophistry called UPB, which says that things are good or bad in themselves, for all people, at all times, everywhere. Context, which modifies all moral statements, is ignored. Thus his "advice" is worse than useless. People who dare question his statements too deeply are not tolerated for long on the FDR forum. He owns the community and he owns their thoughts and feelings. And they pay him for it. That's a cult.
Come on, Short Seller, there's no need for that. We try our best to maintain a civil atmosphere around here, and while I acknowledge that John's post may have been incendiary, there's still no place for outright insults in response.
I think Short Seller needs a time-out. A one day ban should remind him to be civil when dealing with other members on the forum...
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
GilesStratton:You echo the same tired nonsense as the rest of the libertarian left, and you erected a huge strawman that you didn't even manage to known down about the whole thing being about some sort of crusade against atheism.
What does the libertarian left have to do with religion? It only describes a socio-political standing.
banned: GilesStratton:You echo the same tired nonsense as the rest of the libertarian left, and you erected a huge strawman that you didn't even manage to known down about the whole thing being about some sort of crusade against atheism. What does the libertarian left have to do with religion? It only describes a socio-political standing.
They don't necessarily have anything to do with eachother.
Ayn Rand was an atheist, and she was certainly not part of any libertarian left.
GilesStratton: John Ess:You have no problem with Walter Block because he's never made any philosophical position. And yet he's an atheist, I thought that's what this was about? John Ess:Even the "first-rate" philosophers you read probably never say anything either. John Ess:Even the "first-rate" philosophers you read probably never say anything either. Because we all know only Ayn Rand Stefan Molyneux has ever contributed anything to philosophy!
While Molyneux does tend to rhetorically kiss Rand's ass, his philosophy deviates from hers in some key areas, so I see no reason to conflate the two. His emphasis is on universalism, striking at the root of ideology and direct action in one's personal life as a precondition to any large-scale realization of liberty. In my understanding, Molyneux's main insight is into the psychological and cultural preconditions that state legitimacy relies on.
banned:What does the libertarian left have to do with religion? It only describes a socio-political standing.
Indeed, I'm sorry.
I suppose it comes LL being poorly defined (in my opinion anyway), it's clear when BP and Juan fit in to all of this but what about Roderick Long for example who (as far as I know) believes in the usefulness of the political means and yet describes themself as a left libertarianism. And what if Hoppe were to advocate agorism, where would that put him?
Brainpolice:While Molyneux does tend to rhetorically kiss Rand's ass, his philosophy deviates from hers in some key areas, so I see no reason to conflate the two.
It was actually a referance to similarities between the Randroids and the Molynoids.
Brainpolice: Molyneux's main insight is into the psychological and cultural preconditions that state legitimacy relies on.
You mean, the weak assumption that parents = God = the state? And his dubious argument that somehow accepting that children are reliant upon their parents at any early age and should therefore treat them with respect translates into we must accept the state later in life. I wonder where the atheist communists who despise the family and the cultural conservative anarchists fit into this, how about the atheist who advocates the family?
It's funny that Molyneux should attack Hoppe, Rothbard and Block for not sticking to their principles and teaching at state universities and yet he is having a child. How amusing.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:While Molyneux does tend to rhetorically kiss Rand's ass, his philosophy deviates from hers in some key areas, so I see no reason to conflate the two. It was actually a referance to similarities between the Randroids and the Molynoids. Brainpolice: Molyneux's main insight is into the psychological and cultural preconditions that state legitimacy relies on. You mean, the weak assumption that parents = God = the state? And his dubious argument that somehow accepting that children are reliant upon their parents at any early age and should therefore treat them with respect translates into we must accept the state later in life. I wonder where the atheist communists who despise the family and the cultural conservative anarchists fit into this, how about the atheist who advocates the family? It's funny that Molyneux should attack Hoppe, Rothbard and Block for not sticking to their principles and teaching at state universities and yet he is having a child. How amusing.
I think it's clear that you have a simplified misinterpretation of Molyneux. In my understanding, his point is that there is a psychological root to the submission to arbitrary authority, and the state is merely a large-scale institutional manifestation of this. This is perfectly in line with Etienne La Boetie's observation about how the state relies on ideology and passive resignation. Molyneux is trying to point out the degree to which religion and abusive family relations may play into this, how the state relies on raw dogma and bigotry to obtain compliance and how behavioral patterns emerge as the reflection of an underlying culture. It's hardly a concern to be brushed aside entirely ad hoc.
Brainpolice:In my understanding, his point is that there is a psychological root to the submission to arbitrary authority, and the state is merely a large-scale institutional manifestation of this.
So you're just restating what I said, in a more sympathetic way?
Brainpolice:This is perfectly in line with Etienne La Boetie's observation about how the state relies on ideology and passive resignation.
No it isn't, and if you think it is you're going to have to elaborate.
Brainpolice: Molyneux is trying to point out the degree to which religion and abusive family relations may play into this, how the state relies on raw dogma and bigotry to obtain compliance and how behavioral patterns emerge as the reflection of an underlying culture
And please, do tell me, how does one define "abusive" family relations? Yes, parents will order their children around and physical violence may be used in order to help with this process, it doesn't follow that this supports the state in any way though. Perhaps you should read Kid Lib by Rothbard. The point is there's so much Molyneux' theory fails to account for that his pseudo physchology is laughable. As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, what about the atheist statists who reject the family and the theist, cultural conservative anarchists? Or how would he explain the fact that every totalitarian state in history has grown at the expense of the family?
I'd be quite interested in hearing his alternative methods of raising children though, if parents do such a bad job. I'm sure it'll be amusing.
Anyway, I don't feel like going into this, we've been through it before and by the end of the argument you simple told me to "speak to him about it".
No, I'm trying to engage in an actual analysis rather than a knee-jerk assumption. You seem to just be making knee-jerk assumptions and oversimplifications. You're not even attacking Molyneux's ideas at face value. At least Danny took the time to read his book and formally critique it; you just seem biased from the start.
It quite blatantly is, as La Boetie's entire observation rests on a psychological and ideological basis for people's complaince.
And please, do tell me, how does one define "abusive" family relations? Yes, parents will order their children around and physical violence may be used in order to help with this process, it doesn't follow that this supports the state in any way though.
The very basic point is that these are learned behaviors that manifest themselves on a larger scale in politics, that the ideological acceptance of the necessity of violenceand legitimacy of arbitrary authority has implications extending far beyond the family but the family is where it is initially learned. You don't even seem to be grasping the point.
Perhaps you should read Kid Lib by Rothbard. The point is there's so much Molyneux' theory fails to account for that his pseudo physchology is laughable. As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, what about the atheist statists who reject the family and the theist, cultural conservative anarchists?
You seem to be misunderstanding what the point is. Noone is claiming that, by defacto, a libertarian must be secular or that all statists are religious. The point is with regaurd to the underlying mentality of subserviance in general, which just so happens to have a historical connection with religion.
Or how would he explain the fact that every totalitarian state in history has grown at the expense of the family?
I'm not even sure what you specifically mean by "the family". Your use of it strikes me as platonic.
GilesStratton:I'd be quite interested in hearing his alternative methods of raising children though, if parents do such a bad job. I'm sure it'll be amusing. Anyway, I don't feel like going into this, we've been through it before and by the end of the argument you simple told me to "speak to him about it".
GilesStratton:Yes, parents will order their children around and physical violence may be used in order to help with this process, it doesn't follow that this supports the state in any way though.
Perhaps you should read Kid Lib by Rothbard.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: Using physical violence is an outright crime by any libertarian standard.
Only, funnily enough this only applies to beings capable of rational argumentation, which children are not.
Brainpolice:No, I'm trying to engage in an actual analysis rather than a knee-jerk assumption.
Whether or not that's true, all you did was to essentially take my argument and reword it.
Brainpolice:It quite blatantly is, as La Boetie's entire observation rests on a psychological and ideological basis for people's complaince.
If you think it is, elaborate, I already know what La Boetie's argument is seeing as I just finished TDVS yesterday and want to know how it justifies your claim.
Brainpolice:The very basic point is that these are learned behaviors that manifest themselves on a larger scale in politics, that the ideological acceptance of the necessity of violenceand legitimacy of arbitrary authority has implications extending far beyond the family but the family is where it is initially learned. You don't even seem to be grasping the point.
I fail to see how parenting is "arbitrary authority" to begin with. To say that this somehow manifests itself is silly, totalitarian regimes have always sought to undermine the family, so please, do tell me in this situation where exaclty is this arbitrary authority first learned?
Brainpolice:You seem to be misunderstanding what the point is. Noone is claiming that, by defacto, a libertarian must be secular or that all statists are religious. The point is with regaurd to the underlying mentality of subserviance in general, which just so happens to have a historical connection with religio
Or you just can't refute the argument so you pretend that I don't understand. I've never said Stefan Molyneux made any claims about libertarians being secular or religious. My point is that if individuals who despise the family yet worship the state exist (which they do, in abundance) Molyneux's theory and the cultural marxists that adhere to it is completely wrong.
Juan:Children are incapable of rational argumentation ? Are you out of your mind ?
So you know in order to salvage your theory you resort to denying reality?
GilesStratton: Juan:Children are incapable of rational argumentation ? Are you out of your mind ? So you know in order to salvage your theory you resort to denying reality?
He's not denying reality. The claim that children qua children are incapable of rational argumentation isn't true. This essentially ignores any degree of natural curiosity within children that some children express better than others. Also, if you are seriously going to defend the premise that the NAP doesn't apply to children, you must accept the reductio ad absurdums that follow from this (such as it being legitimate for children to be murdered).
Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Juan:Children are incapable of rational argumentation ? Are you out of your mind ? So you know in order to salvage your theory you resort to denying reality? He's not denying reality. The claim that children qua children are incapable of rational argumentation isn't true.
He's not denying reality. The claim that children qua children are incapable of rational argumentation isn't true.
Yes it is. I don't mind though, the leftists can try and use logic to stop their kids running into the middle of the road and sticking their fingers into electrical sockets without using violence, when they don't listen all it means is fewer left libertarians.
Brainpolice:Also, if you are seriously going to defend the premise that the NAP doesn't apply to children, you must accept the reductio ad absurdums that follow from this (such as it being legitimate for children to be murdered).
Or not, murdering the child for any reason would intefere with their ability to reach a stage where they would be capable of rational argumentation, slapping them to teach them not to run into the middle of the road does the opposite.
I weeded out misunderstanding/misrepresentation. It's called clarifying.
If you refuse to see that it relates to psychology, and that psychology relates to familial and cultural factors, I don't know what to tell you.
I never claimed that parenting qua parenting is arbitrary authority. You seem to conflate your parenting model with parenting as such, or your family model with family as such. Also, the claim that totalitarian regimes are anti-family by definition strikes me as kind of silly, as there is nothing about it that is neccesarily opposed to "family" as such and the regime itself may very well be founded on a particular family.
Noone is opposed to "the family" as such. And, once again, your accusation of cultural marxism is a strawman.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Juan:Children are incapable of rational argumentation ? Are you out of your mind ? So you know in order to salvage your theory you resort to denying reality? He's not denying reality. The claim that children qua children are incapable of rational argumentation isn't true. Yes it is. I don't mind though, the leftists can try and use logic to stop their kids running into the middle of the road and sticking their fingers into electrical sockets without using violence, when they don't listen all it means is fewer left libertarians.
It's patently false based on basic observation of children doing just that, engaging in arguementation in an educational setting. It's not as if one magically becomes capable of argumentation when one reaches legal adulthood, and it's not as if kids are so naturally inept that they completely lack the ability to take ideas seriously. As for your reference to "the leftists", you're just perpetuating culture war nonsense and revealing your conservative bias.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Also, if you are seriously going to defend the premise that the NAP doesn't apply to children, you must accept the reductio ad absurdums that follow from this (such as it being legitimate for children to be murdered). Or not, murdering the child for any reason would intefere with their ability to reach a stage where they would be capable of rational argumentation, slapping them to teach them not to run into the middle of the road does the opposite.
The slapping scenario is a deflection from the unavoidable point that if you accept that the NAP doesn't apply to children, then anything that we would normally consider a negative rights violation against someone, in any context, must be regaurded as legitimate when done to a child. They can be murdered, assaulted, stolen from, enslaved, etc., because they aren't regaurded as having any rights.
Brainpolice:If you refuse to see that it relates to psychology, and that psychology relates to familial and cultural factors, I don't know what to tell you.
Any reason in particular you seem so adamant about not elaborating?
Brainpolice:I never claimed that parenting qua parenting is arbitrary authority.
Lol, no true scotsman.
Brainpolice: You seem to conflate your parenting model with parenting as such, or your family model with family as such.
This is like getting blood out of a stone, you have a very irritating tendency to write lots about nothing.
Brainpolice: Also, the claim that totalitarian regimes are anti-family by definition strikes me as kind of silly, as there is nothing about it that is neccesarily opposed to "family" as such and the regime itself may very well be founded on a particular family.
I'm glad it strikes you as silly, I would be insulted if it didn't. The state is always in competition with pre state insititutions, of which the family in one. It only follows that will it will go to great lengths to abolish it. For example the Nazi and Soviet use of children as weapons against their parents, read Nineteen Eighty - Four for a nice illustration.
And what if Hoppe were to advocate agorism, where would that put him?
You should know Hoppe finds politics to be futile. In fact, he is in favour of secession, not the political means.
Brainpolice:. As for your reference to "the leftists", you're just perpetuating culture war nonsense and revealing your conservative bias.
Right, I have a conservative bias, is if that's bad, you might as well say I have a bias towards the truth, as if it's bad.
Brainpolice:It's patently false based on basic observation of children doing just that, engaging in arguementation in an educational setting.
And yet there somehow there isn't the opportunity for this educational setting in the few seconds before I child runs into the road, so they must be taught in the only way they understand.
Brainpolice:It's not as if one magically becomes capable of argumentation when one reaches legal adulthood,
Oh, I was waiting for the next strawman, it had been a couple of lines.
Brainpolice:and it's not as if kids are so naturally inept that they completely lack the ability to take ideas seriously.
Two in a row.
You post seems to imply that I wish to keep children subservient for the entirety of their lives, I don't know where you got such an absurd idea.
GS: J: Children are incapable of rational argumentation ? Are you out of your mind ? So you know in order to salvage your theory you resort to denying reality?
J: Children are incapable of rational argumentation ? Are you out of your mind ?
Jon Irenicus: And what if Hoppe were to advocate agorism, where would that put him? You should know Hoppe finds politics to be futile. In fact, he is in favour of secession, not the political means. -Jon
I only chose to say agorism because the left libertarians (wrongly) choose to claim it to be a purely left libertarian idea, whereas secession needn't be.
Here, for example:
Agorist: advocate or conscious practitioner of Counter-Economics, older terms include Left Libertarian and New Libertarian.
From here: http://agorism.info/
Because it hardly needs elaborating. Ideological sustainace of state = psychological phenomenon, and psychological patterns are linked to one's familial and personal relations.
Not really, you're just probably dull.
There is no absolute dichotomy between family and state in this way. The purpose of the state isn't the abolition of the family, it's the control of the society in general, which relies in part on the existance of families to produce people to control. The art of rulership isn't predicated on anniating the citezenry altogether, the citezenry must be kept in a state where they can be perpetually milked. The state isn't interested in getting rid of "the family" as such, it's interested in producing a particular model of citezen and family, one that best perpetuates its power.