Stefan Molyneux says that family is the source of all statism as it instills a sense of blind obedience and 'might is right' mentality. Parents never explain why they order kids to do certain stuff or why actions are good or bad. Parents hold the 'gun of morality' in their hands and that morality is to follow whoever is in charge without any rational assessment. I hope I am not misrepresenting him but this is how I understand his theory. Children also never get to choose who their parents are so it is an involuntary relationship. Now contrast this with Mises' view of the family which, similar to Hoppe's view, is something opposed to statism and traditional family values should be conserved.
My guess is that traditional family values such as responsibility, independence, thrift, prudence are opposed to those values imposed by the welfare state and fractional reserve banking. State institutions infect families with these behavioural ills. So it is not that families are intrinsically evil, modern families are just so infected with statist 'values' like moral relativism and learned helplessness. As we can see in the ghettos and slums which are caused by things like rent control and public housing, families there are abusive and beat their families. These for me, are what Molyneux is railing or should rail against. It's wrong to generalize in saying that ALL families are evil.
What do you think?
Molyneux never said that all families are evil.
I suggest you actually listen to what he says instead of relying on 2nd hand sources unquestionably.
Sorry, I really mean't to say that the concept of family is intrinsically evil.
He said that it is a fantasy to think that you can live a virtuous life while keeping ties with your family. Doing that, to him, would be like the fantasy of minarchism. It's in his podcast where he reads the article 'Criminality of the State' by Albert Jay Nock.
In anycase, you agree with me correcting Molyneux then? What is your view on the family?
Kenneth: Stefan Molyneux says that family is the source of all statism as it instills a sense of blind obedience and 'might is right' mentality. Parents never explain why they order kids to do certain stuff or why actions are good or bad. Parents hold the 'gun of morality' in their hands and that morality is to follow whoever is in charge without any rational assessment. I hope I am not misrepresenting him but this is how I understand his theory. Children also never get to choose who their parents are so it is an involuntary relationship. Now contrast this with Mises' view of the family which, similar to Hoppe's view, is something opposed to statism and traditional family values should be conserved. My guess is that traditional family values such as responsibility, independence, thrift, prudence are opposed to those values imposed by the welfare state and fractional reserve banking. State institutions infect families with these behavioural ills. So it is not that families are intrinsically evil, modern families are just so infected with statist 'values' like moral relativism and learned helplessness. As we can see in the ghettos and slums which are caused by things like rent control and public housing, families there are abusive and beat their families. These for me, are what Molyneux is railing or should rail against. It's wrong to generalize in saying that ALL families are evil. What do you think?
I think this is an example of that "bohemian libertarianism" that Rothbard openly despised and which Hoppe has criticized. While I agree, of course, that unnecessary coercion in the household is, indeed, the source of a great deal of evil in society, I think that the extended family structure (not just the nuclear family) is, in fact, the greatest obstacle to state power that exists. To see this, empirically, consider the two most anarchic cultures in existence today - Afghanistan and Somalia. Both countries have a clan-based, elder-ruled, patriarchal culture where your legal protections ultimately derive from your family. It could be coincidence that these are the last two countries which have still not fallen to the modern Leviathan but I doubt it. There are other good theoretical reasons to see family as an impediment to the state (having to do with organization integrity, I'm still working on these ideas).
Clayton -
To see this, empirically, consider the two most anarchic cultures in existence today - Afghanistan and Somalia. Both countries have a clan-based, elder-ruled, patriarchal culture where your legal protections ultimately derive from your family.
They're also not libertarian societies by any stretch of the imagination, which makes appealing to them as "functional libertarian anarchy" seem like a joke to me. What does tribalism and elder-rulership have to do with libertarian society?
Kenneth: Sorry, I really mean't to say that the concept of family is intrinsically evil. He said that it is a fantasy to think that you can live a virtuous life while keeping ties with your family. Doing that, to him, would be like the fantasy of minarchism. It's in his podcast where he reads the article 'Criminality of the State' by Albert Jay Nock.
I suggest you stop lying about what he said.
At this point I can only conclude that you're purposely trolling. Time to notify a moderator.
At the philosophical level, what Molyneux has proposed is that the notion of inherent positive obligations to people simply because they are "family" cannot be reasonably justified and instills an unhealthy psychological atmosphere, and that social problems at a larger societal level can be viewed as a macrocosm of this microcosm, that the learned behaviors within a particularly authoritarian family structure end up translating into the political level. I think that this is more or less correct, and it is not an attack on "the family" per se, but traditional authoritarian models of familial relations. The applied part of his idea is that it may make sense to disassociate from family members if it seems like one is just enabling one's own abuse in perpetuity and your family isn't willing to reason with you. I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with this. Molyneux rejects family-idolatry.
Where I think Molyneux goes wrong is in his neo-fruedian psychologizing on such a basis, steering everything back to the family in an excessive way and essentially pushing the conclusion that people's familial relations are authoritarian onto them without sufficient evidence. As a result, he ends up pressuring people (particularly teenagers and young adults that get sucked in to his website) to disassociate from their families, while effectively functioning as a substitute family figure himself. He may also tend to make the claim a bit too strong in terms of its relation to politics and history. It isn't necessarily the case that everything always comes back to the family, as if we can explain away historical epochs in terms of its "psycho-class" and reduce it to the issue of the family. Of course, this is just him copying Loyd DeMause's theory of "psychohistory".
Hey! Hey! Hey! Didn't I refer a specific podcast? You can check it out yourself if you like. Your hostility tells me you do not want to discuss this topic cause maybe it will undermine Stefan Molyneux whose many viewpoints(such as atheism) you espouse?
I would say that all families has a seeds of evil. It would be too extreme generalization to say that they are all evil. But that's my opinion, I don't remember Stef saying these words, but I do know that he doesn't support a myth of "obligation to live with a family". That seems logical to me. You didn't choose your parents and THEY have to make efforts that you won't run away from them (caring, loving) etc. etc.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Kenneth: Hey! Hey! Hey! Didn't I refer a specific podcast? You can check it out yourself if you like. Your hostility tells me you do not want to discuss this topic cause maybe it will undermine Stefan Molyneux whose many viewpoints(such as atheism) you espouse?
From my experience, I first encountered him at Molyneux's website a number of years ago, so it makes sense why he'd be defensive (Molyneux is the one that got him into market anarchy). But it also makes sense why a LVMI associate would be hostile to Molyneux because of the greater likelyhood of accepting cultural conservative tendencies (reverance for "the family", theism, etc.). I think the cultural conservatives that react to Molyneux this way are wrong though, because cultural conservatism is epistemically unjustifiable. And that's ultimately what this "debate" is going to come down to: fence-sitters aside, whether or not one accepts culturally conservative viewpoints and the connection of those viewpoints to politics.
Brainpolice: cultural conservatism is epistemically unjustifiable.
cultural conservatism is epistemically unjustifiable.
How so?
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
If you're going to claim that Molyneux has stated that the family is inherently evil then you're going to actually have to provide a quotation.
Molyneux has recently expanded his own family, so from the face of it your statement is completely non-sensical.
There seems to be a great misunderstanding here. I actually watched the videos where Stefan Molyneux talks about the family and statism. It is very clear that he does not say that families are inherently statist. He only said that abusive families lead to statism. Stefan Molyneux has at least one child of his own, as well as being married.
Brainpolice:At the philosophical level, what Molyneux has proposed is that the notion of inherent positive obligations to people simply because they are "family" cannot be reasonably justified and instills an unhealthy psychological atmosphere
I think this is a very accurate statement
Brainpolice:that the learned behaviors within a particularly authoritarian family structure end up translating into the political level.
This is quite a shaky theory. Traditional families and corporations are 'socialist' or centrally planned structures but that doesn't necessarily translate into politics. Being in a heirarchical, centrally planned structure doesn't mean you are psychologically tuned to statism. If that were true then a stateless society having hierarchical structures like families and corporations would be a contradiction.
What I'm curious about is if the traditional family is so statist then why is it being broken down by the welfare state(promotes dependency) and fractional reserve banking(promotes wasteful spending). If the traditional family is statist, then it should be strengthened by the growth of the state, not undermined.
Brainpolice: To see this, empirically, consider the two most anarchic cultures in existence today - Afghanistan and Somalia. Both countries have a clan-based, elder-ruled, patriarchal culture where your legal protections ultimately derive from your family. They're also not libertarian societies by any stretch of the imagination,
They're also not libertarian societies by any stretch of the imagination,
True, but that is a values-conflict. I think the more important social problem than "fostering liberty" is breaking the legal double-standard which characterizes all statist societies. Liberty has its best chances in a society where coercively imposed legal double-standards do not exist. I do not believe that, in the absence of the state, all societies will be libertarian because of the fact of variation of the characteristics of individual humans and the cultures in which they exist.
which makes appealing to them as "functional libertarian anarchy" seem like a joke to me.
Well, I didn't.
What does tribalism and elder-rulership have to do with libertarian society?
As I said above, the absence of a legal double-standard is a crucial necessary condition for liberty. Liberty certainly will not pertain in the presence of the state-imposed legal double-standard and class-based political privileges. Tribal culture may not be libertarian but there is no reason that it could not be.
The problem in debating about religion is that atheists grossly misunderstand religious people. They make absurd claims that religious people believe that there is no need to be responsible because God will take care of us and other bs! I find most of Molyneux's arguments against religion as strawmen and arguments against fundamentalist religion.
Anyway, this discussion is about Molyneux's views on family and not religion.
I agree regarding the statements about atheism. I remember one going on in a tangent about centuries old crimes against humanity by Catholics and then using that to go after a catholic.
Another atheist filled site that goes overboard in accusing too many people of being fundamentalist is FSTDT.com. They even went after Ron Paul. Although, it seems as though some of the crazier anti-theists have left.
Kenneth:Traditional families and corporations are 'socialist' or centrally planned structures but that doesn't necessarily translate into politics. Being in a heirarchical, centrally planned structure doesn't mean you are psychologically tuned to statism.
It works more complex than that. A parent that operates on a do as I say, not as I do basis will fail to instill any values to his kids because the kids will think of those values as arbitrary impositions rather than as matters of mutual respect. The kids are essentially left to their own devices. What is going to happen then? They will acquire values by imitation of people with the highest status. Initially, their parents and teachers. Later, celebrities.
Kenneth:Stefan Molyneux says that family is the source of all statism as it instills a sense of blind obedience and 'might is right' mentality. Parents never explain why they order kids to do certain stuff or why actions are good or bad. Parents hold the 'gun of morality' in their hands and that morality is to follow whoever is in charge without any rational assessment. I hope I am not misrepresenting him but this is how I understand his theory. Children also never get to choose who their parents are so it is an involuntary relationship. Now contrast this with Mises' view of the family which, similar to Hoppe's view, is something opposed to statism and traditional family values should be conserved.
Because you cannot argue with small children. They are stupid.
ClaytonB:I think this is an example of that "bohemian libertarianism" that Rothbard openly despised
When it suited him, that is. When he was attempt to court the New Left, it was quite a different matter indeed.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Well I grew up without a father and I feel like it instilled a hatred of arbitrary authority in me. So I would say there might be some truth to it.
Physiocrat: Brainpolice: cultural conservatism is epistemically unjustifiable. How so?
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
His entire argument loses to biology, until the biology that enables supposed inherent statism changes (gene therapy has a long way to go). In many families it's pretty clear what is reasonable & unreasonable obedience, which may have to be resolved through conflict between family members (such as arguing, which occurs all the time). This of course, prevents the idealization of a "nu" anti-statist model of family that will probably never occur until people whom are self-admitelly anti-coercive, anti-state, etc. start only breeding amongst themselves, possibly in more than 1 or 2 numbers of children, as a way of establishing a permanent population that will carry on, at the very least, anti-establishment memes, and the most, anti-statist views & culture. Admitelly, the above gets into voluntary eugenics (not dysegenics, please look up the difference), & not everyone likes that, among one of the reasons, because it's not humanistic, despite the fact that individuals engage in eugenics on an unconscious level by choosing a mate to have kids with (although that is not the only drive in choosing a bearer of your children, obviously).
I think Molyneux's rationalism is the source of statism, but there we go...