Political Theory

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Short Seller — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:12:54 GMT

[Moderator edit: Original post content deleted]

[Moderator note to poster: Don't insult other members]

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Caley McKibbin — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:08:35 GMT

E. R. Olovetto:
Is there any proof that even a majority of the cases were from these members?

There is no proof of anything here. Just scaremongering and crass interpretation. How to blow smoke until nothing seems like something 101.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Stephen — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 05:01:09 GMT

And I have to give a big shout out to Lilburn. You deserve an MVP badge next round.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Stephen — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:58:49 GMT

John Scott:
I was convicted of killing a girl in 1987

It's not every day someone admits to murder, on a public forum, using their real name. I was shocked when I read it. I have to ask, how do you live with yourself? And what exactly do you mean when you say you took responsibility?

Re: Stefan Molyneux

scineram — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:34:40 GMT

Player:
It's a very big 'hole' in libertarian theory, well, unless you follow logically that voluntary means voluntary, not 'voluntary if you are over 18, if not, you are your parent's property as some christians say, with obey, respect, adore your two? parents).

Voluntaryness is overrated. It is not binary, and it's a very vague concept.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

anterior55 — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:28:11 GMT

This is a reasonable rendition of Molyneux's core belief. SM should admit it proudly and publicly. But he doesn't. In public and even in this thread, he is constantly carrying on in public about a desire for reconciliation. While behind the scenes he is espousing the beliefs you describe in your post. Leave them to stew in their anquish. Don't reconcile. Don't communicate. It's impossible. Be free. Throw away the grandmother's valentine day cards.

As to what is wrong with making a living by promoting family break ups, I will leave that one to the judgment of anyone who cares to consider what that truly means.

You have one important thing wrong in the post. Parenting is not something to be earned. It is a solemn obligation. By a huge majority (think 99.99%) parents carry out that obligation with a combination of love, caring, intelligence and a commitment that can only be understood by another parent.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Player — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:45:13 GMT

Lets see:

Government says to 'act for our best interests'.

Do we believe that? No

Parents say the same.

Do we believe them? It should depend. Why not analyze it? It's a very big 'hole' in libertarian theory, well, unless you follow logically that voluntary means voluntary, not 'voluntary if you are over 18, if not, you are your parent's property as some christians say, with obey, respect, adore your two? parents).

It seems family is a diplomatic immunity, family always get the default assumed instance that they do everything for their kids. Hell no, and even if they did, they would have no information! Hello! Subjective value anybody?

Families are not voluntary, biological parents are just the first to have the chance to talk and take care of the kid, they have an incredible chance to get their trust, but they never ever have a right to the child, it was never theirs. If you loose their trust or worse, gain their hate, accept it! You are not a good parent! Just as you would accept you are not a good entrepreneur, leave room for those who do it better, and get out of the way, don't try to force your 'clients' to stay in your shop!

I haven't listen any of his podcasts yet, only some articles in lostlibertycafe and the first book, on truth, the tyranny of illusions, and even if you accuse him of trying to get kids to leave their parents, what? What's wrong with that? Trying to break free and take control and responsibility of your own life, how is that wrong? Parenthood is not a god-given right, it has to be earned!

Re: Stefan Molyneux

anterior55 — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:58:37 GMT

Molynuex says: Even if these parents think that I am running some sort of cult, the literature is very, very careful to subject -- that parents should never attack the cult.

In other words, these parents are indulging their own destructive anger at the expense of their future possible relationship with their children - even if we accept that I'm some bad guy who is running a cult.

For the record, I may have gone too far in assigning motivations to Molyneux. I agree, no one can know someone's thoughts or heart. But we do know his actions. And we do know what he has said and written. Questeon has certainly pointed out the significant inconsistencies between what he says here on this board and what he has said to his members.

To me, the above quote from Molyneux indicates an admission that everything I have said is true and it is impossible to defend. So he engages in an attack on a third party group. (i.e. Parents who have been defoo'ed). I think he does this so the discussion will go back to bad parenting and parent child relationships and away from what FDR is actually doing. I do enjoy that the forum here isn't easily distracted.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

William — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 04:55:01 GMT

@Freedomain

1) Do you find it acceptable for an intellectual site to delve somewhat regularly into people's personal problems, even if it is an informal "call in" or forum chat

2) Do you agree that a very significant portion of your followers are teenagers?

3) Do you agree that there is a significant amount of "personal problem" and testimonial type discussion on the forum of an intellectual philosophy site?

4) Do you agree that there are different developmental stages in a person, and (in general) the adolescence stage is a unique and and non final stage in one's development?

5) Do you think for most it takes years of hard work and rigorous training to become aquatinted with the psychology of the adolescent stage?

6) Is it responsible for one (An intellectual political theory/philosophy site) to mix teaching personal psychology and have personal chats with adolescent kids when one does not have professional training? It would most likely take a person trained in dealing with adolescents to teach adolescents?

7) If it was some other site of an opposing ideology (Protestants, Marxists, whatever) doing the same thing would you feel comfortable with that site on a structural level? Can you see how an intellectual site based around ethics; and then delving into personal psychology, having a membership community, and having call ins and forum discussion where people talk about their personal problems (or even just chat to have fun) could be seen as alarming (particularly when so many are so young)?

8) Do you think that your structure is peerless? That is to say there is no "ethics board" or equal footing intellectuals that you claim to be responsible with, journals, etc. The site is own and operated by you and you have complete control of it. Have your ideas and back and forth communication been received almost exclusively by people under that structure?

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Hairnet — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:54:09 GMT

John Scott:

John Ess:
and apply it to all people (and especially adults who had the upper hand in mind and in physical power at one point).

I take it you are referring to the parents. Would that assumption be correct?

I think there are some crappy parents. There are some crappy kids. We are all crappy, I'd guess, at some time or another. Not that we mean to be. Are you a parent? I think a lot of people who don't have kids do not understand that most of us - us parents, that is - want nothing more than our children to grow into independent, smart, critical thinking adults who make great decisions on their own. So when I hear these theories about parents wanting to control their kids, I think that's not representative of the mainstream of parents. My kids are free to do what they want. But if Stefan decided to advise one of my kids to break off the relationship with me, at a time when my child was vulnerable, I don't know that I would maintain self control. That's just the parent in me talking.

I love my kids more than life itself, and when idiots start painting parents as hegemonic tyrants, I gotta ask, are you a parent? Would you not do anything for your child?

For me, that kind of talk is in the same class as the "all men are rapists" crap.

Well I agree it is certainly a dangerous exaggeration to paint all parents as tyrants, but let me put it this way, a great deal of the morons you have known in your life have grown up and had kids. My slutty neighbor for instance, has just gotten pregnant. She is moronic and irresponsible, and I hate to think how she is going to manage attempting to raise a kid.

To some, it can be very difficult to manage relationships with friends, lovers, and associates. These relationships are all voluntary and have the possibility of breathing room if things get bad. This isn't the case with children. A child has to deal with a great deal of the personality flaws that a parent has. These personality flaws might not affect any of the parent's other relationships. The parent has to live with the child in order for the child to thrive/survive, so the child's likelihood to exposure is increased.

I don't think that makes most parents evil though. I think if you are a good person in general you will be a good parent in general.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

QuestEon — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:10:54 GMT

I was trying so hard to be Switzerland here. I really was. Would you mind if I compared some (and by some, I mean all) of your statements from this post to previous statements you've made?

FreedomainRadio:

The real tragedy here, in my opinion, this even if everyone accepts that I am some really bad guy who for some reason wants to break up families -- for fun or profit, take your pick --

With respect, I believe your logic dictates that people must discard their parents. Here's my argument.

The following are your words taken from your essay, which can be read in full here. (I wouldn't want to appear to be taking your meanings out of context) I wrote my own little essay on this piece because I think it is the foundation of FDR and therefore profoundly important. It can be found right here.

FreedomainRadio:

So face it: your parents were bullies, or weak curriers of favour, or manipulative emotional infants themselves. You have no respect for them, for respect requires courage, and courage requires logical morality. You do not love them, since love demands virtue, and manipulating children into blind obedience is not at all virtuous.

You end this essay with these words:

FreedomainRadio:

Either the world is not sick, or parents are. Because, as my wife says, it all starts with the family. If you want to perform the greatest service for political liberty, all you have to do is turf all of your unsatisfying relationships. Parents, siblings, spouse, it doesn’t matter.

So, point #1. It's not a matter of accepting or not accepting that "I am some really bad guy who for some reason wants to break up families." I know when someone sets up a logical argument and yours, per this essay, is this:

Your relationship with your parents is unsatisfying.
You should "turf" all of your unsatisfying relationships.
Therefore, you should "turf" your parents.

There are no qualifications that you are talking about a few abusive parents. In fact, you clearly end the essay with the words "Do you think it extreme for me to say that almost all parents are horribly bad?"

I don't know if you personally "want to break up families"--I can't know your intent and desires. And I'm not saying you're a "bad guy." I don't know what's in your heart.

But your logic is absolutely inescapable.

Let's consider your position on parents who may openly criticize you. You said:

FreedomainRadio:

for parents whose children have separated to take zero responsibility for their family problems, and spend months or years following me around the Internet and attacking me wherever I show up, and setting up websites where they rage against everything that I do -- all of this is truly tragic, because their children are doubtless fully aware of their actions on the Web, and when they witness continual displays of extreme anger and blame throwing, it scarcely is going to entice them to return back to their parents.

Even if these parents think that I am running some sort of cult, the literature is very, very careful to subject -- that parents should never attack the cult.

For the record, I'm not saying FDR is a cult. However, there is only one parent Web site that I know of: www.molyneuxrevealed.com. It was created by a man you once interviewed as a "good" parent. Then after the podcast was produced, his son defooed.

Let's compare your statement above to another one you made in a podcast:

FreedomainRadio:

I think the parents of those who have defooed have kept it even more a guilty secret than those who have defood–it’s a very hard thing to talk about. It’s like saying, “hey, here’s my porn collection, let me spread it out over the dinner table while we’re dining out in this fine restaurant.” It feels sometimes like that to talk about defooing with people.

Which leads me to Point #2. If you compare your two statements, what you are telling us (but, far more important, what you're telling your members) is that when parents speak out against you they are displaying "extreme anger and blame throwing" and when they do not speak out against you they are hiding a "guilty secret." I believe in Star Trek they refer to this as the Kobayashi Maru.

On to the next.

FreedomainRadio:
If these parents were to swallow their anger and pride, and go and get some counseling, and try to truly understand, with humility and taking at least some responsibility, what went wrong in their families, then there could be some real chance for reconciliation, which I think would be wonderful.

There are two aspects to this statement that I'd love to get clarification on, if you could, please. Regarding the first, you are on record as saying the following:

FreedomainRadio:
I don’t think that it is particularly honorable to remain ‘friends’ with someone who is unwilling to renounce the use of violence against you, but that is everyone’s decision to make of course…

This statement was made in reply to someone asking about being friends with someone who is a statist and/or religious. You told the person that if his friends believed in either of those things, they are advocating violence against you. (I believe it has since become known as your "against me" argument.

Point #3. Are you saying now, categorically, that one can reconcile and have a good relationship with parents even though they are statist and/or religious? Are you now saying definitively that such a relationship is not dishonorable? What is the likelihood for me and anyone else on this board to have a great relationship with religious and/or statist parents?

The second aspect of your "reconciliation would be wonderful" statement that I'm curious about is this. You say that if parents took some responsibility, there would be some real chance for reconciliation. But reconciliation requires forgiveness and understanding all the way around. That doesn't compare with this statement from the essay I quoted previously:

FreedomainRadio:
You are told to repair things with your parents, but that is an impossible task – a complete waste of time that will also make you crazy. Since they hurt you when you were young, you cannot fix the relationship. To make the point with an extreme example, if you are raped by a man, you cannot cure him of his desire to rape. Maybe someone else can, but you cannot. Since your parents bullied or bribed you into blind obedience, you cannot help them become better people. Maybe someone else can. A therapist perhaps. But not you. You have no hope, since their guilt about how they treated you will always muck up any attempt at honest communication.

And really, it is impossible to forgive someone who has bullied a child. Forgiveness is for repairable events, like being distracted or breaking a vase. A bad childhood cannot be repaired or returned intact. Where restitution is impossible, forgiveness is impossible. Don’t even try.

Does this sound too radical? Do you think it extreme for me to say that almost all parents are horribly bad?

Point #4. You seem to be saying here on Mises that reconciliation is possible and would be wonderful, yet in the above statement you are saying it is an impossible task. Again, this statement is taken from the essay I linked to above, the one that is not talking about a few parents, some parents, or violently abusive parents, but nearly all parents. How is this "wonderful" reconciliation going to occur, when you've already said "Forgiveness is impossible. Don't even try?"

In fact, you have categorically stated that any yearning for reconciliation is futile. As you say in this podcast:

FreedomainRadio:

Your yearning for a good family (in the past, I’m not talking about the family you can create in the future)…Your yearning for a good family is a destructive fantasy because it is completely and totally impossible. You will NEVER have had, or have, or will have, a good biological family of origin (or non-biological). It will never happen that you will be well parented. It will never happen, that you will have a good siblinghood, relationship when you were children with your siblings.

If your parents had their brains exchanged by space aliens, those Luxembourgers–if your parents had their brains changed tomorrow, and become wonderful parents, you will never have been well parented, because it’s too late.

It’s too, too, too late.

So, if I follow your logic, yes, such a reconciliation would be wonderful. It is also impossible. It is a destructive fantasy. You will never have a good biological family of origin. It is too, too, too late.

Your words. Your logic. I'm just quoting.

FreedomainRadio:
I imagine that their sons and daughters will simply find their decision to take a break from such relationships to be continually reinforced.

I certainly agree with the last sentence. Their decision will be continually reinforced.

But by whom?

Re: Stefan Molyneux

magnolia — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:31:48 GMT

FreedomainRadio:

The real tragedy here, in my opinion, this even if everyone accepts that I am some really bad guy who for some reason wants to break up families -- for fun or profit, take your pick -- for parents whose children have separated to take zero responsibility for their family problems, and spend months or years following me around the Internet and attacking me wherever I show up, and setting up websites where they rage against everything that I do -- all of this is truly tragic, because their children are doubtless fully aware of their actions on the Web, and when they witness continual displays of extreme anger and blame throwing, it scarcely is going to entice them to return back to their parents.

Even if these parents think that I am running some sort of cult, the literature is very, very careful to subject -- that parents should never attack the cult.

In other words, these parents are indulging their own destructive anger at the expense of their future possible relationship with their children - even if we accept that I'm some bad guy who is running a cult.

If these parents were to swallow their anger and pride, and go and get some counseling, and try to truly understand, with humility and taking at least some responsibility, what went wrong in their families, then there could be some real chance for reconciliation, which I think would be wonderful.

If they continue to take no responsibility, blame my podcast for everything, and act out their anger in such a public way, there is very likely no chance whatsoever that their children will view this behavior with admiration and respect, and wish to start up relationships again, because I imagine that their sons and daughters will simply find their decision to take a break from such relationships to be continually reinforced.

It's time to get some real help and break the cycle.

For the record, I am not a defooed parent.

I too think that this post is a red herring. But just for argument's sake, let's take the defooed parent position to the extreme, with a hypothetical example. Some parent might claim that their child had a happy childhood, that they made every effort to be the best parent possible, that everything was perfectly fine until one day their child came across your site, had their mind completely warped by your words, began making all sorts of false accusations against them, and within the space of a few months, had completely cut off all contact with them. We have a case of the child's word against the parents' and without further information we cannot determine the veracity of the two sets of claims.

But, continuing with our hypothetical example, let's assume that the parent is telling the truth. That they did nothing they should now have to repent for and correct. That their child, on some level, knows that he is lying when he claims otherwise. What would it communicate to the child if the parent apologized for wrongdoings they didn't commit, and entered therapy when they did not need it? Perhaps they attempted to contact their child and failed, perhaps they were afraid that doing so would make things worse. They love their child and miss him every day. Their child no longer wanting to participate in a relationship with them does not place a positive obligation on them to stop wanting a relationship with their child. They have the desire to do something. I think that spreading the word about what happened, for the benefit of others, is a reasonable action to take.

Mind you, I am not a black-and-white thinker, and would be highly doubtful of any parent's claim that they were completely blameless. But I'm also doubtful of any child's claim that he was completely blameless. I think it's a fact of life that we will sometimes inadvertently hurt the ones we love. And I think there's always room for more open communication in relationships, perhaps facilitated by a therapist. I hope I have demonstrated, however, that if you're going to paint things in extreme black-and-white terms, the opposite case can be made against your claim, and there is no way any third party (including you) can determine which of the two is true. In reality, it's likely that neither one is true. But if you're going to call for critical examination of the extreme parental claim, you also must call for critical examination of the extreme child's claim. Too often you seem to go along with whatever the child tells you.

I think that a possible effect of encouraging defooing is to teach people to run away from trying family relationships rather than putting effort into making them work and gaining valuable skills from that. Some listeners might not like their parents, not for any good reason, perhaps just because they don't have much in common. And so, after hearing a bunch about the benefits of defooing, they cut themselves off from their parents, without warning. You can't claim to know that this has never happened (as I don't believe it's physically possible for you to be in contact with every listener of your show), and I would wager a large sum of money that it in fact happens quite regularly. You also can't claim that, logically speaking, such a situation would never arise. It's one possible outcome of the recognition that all relationships are voluntary. By not calling attention to the possibility that your words may appeal to some listeners because they would encourage them to run away from their problems rather than facing them head-on, you're not giving your listeners the whole story. I think this is irresponsible. From an economic standpoint, I can understand it. People will pay you more to say what they want to hear, and not say what they don't want to hear, even if it would be beneficial to them in the long-run to hear the things they don't want to hear.

A more complete picture is this: While it's true that all relationships are voluntary, it's also true that we won't necessarily like every person we have a relationship with (think: boss), and it's also true that no relationship will ever be completely smooth sailing. It is a parent's job to teach their child the life skills they will need in order to survive and thrive, and being able to get along in relationships they're not completely ecstatic about is an important one of these skills that a child could learn from their family. So in some cases, it might be beneficial to the child to try to make it work, even if they're not really into it. Do you give this perspective any airtime? Do you strive to make listeners aware of all of the potential drawbacks of defooing (i.e. the loss of valuable opportunity to learn and practice important life skills -- particularly for cases not involving serious abuse), so that they can make a truly informed decision?

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Andrew Cain — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:22:39 GMT

anterior55:

Your story is good for another reason. That father was perfectly willing to hate you for the rest of his life. But because you took the courageous move to find him and walk with him, his hatred dissipated. That is the right way to handle things. Even your average professional therapist would encourage that. It is pure cowardice to be in a snit with your parents and leave them with zero notice and continue to bask in the pain you are causing them.

The point is that John voluntarily associated with the father. Don't call people cowards who choose not to relive a painful past or decide to seek a better state of being.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

wilderness — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:45:47 GMT

E. R. Olovetto:
Well, for me it is partially having better things to concern myself with, partially not knowing the facts, and partially not understanding the arguments coming from various angles.

Me too, but it is interesting enough for me to watch and comment from time to time. Though some involved having a better angle on this obviously find this to be a better thing to do. I mean something could well be at stake here, but then maybe not. I sometimes get the feeling that there's more to this outside of this thread, but then again I haven't watched the guys shows and I don't readily grasp what 'defooed' is or what have you. Am I'm not writing this post, concerning those invested in this thread, to dumb it down or anything. I'm simply pointing out that there is an audience I guess and it is interesting.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

John Ess — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:24:31 GMT

anterior55:

As to the $50 a month relationship, I was merely pointing out that these are his premium members. it is much more than premium podcasts. It is special access to SM. Personal discussions to explore their problems and receive his thinking on how they can solve their psycological problems. Sm knows them all personally and counsels each and every one of them.

I do know that many of them have defooed with the encouragement of Molyneux. Most of them did it with no warning (per Molyneux's recommneded way to do it). Molyneux knows this to be the truth.

His arguments that all of them have been through months of therapy and have been unable to reconcile or find another way is simply not true.

These are facts. Not opinions.

It's not facts or opinion, but an assertion.

He accepts money to keep the server space and pay bills. In a free market, it costs money to do stuff.

I do not think it costs anything to call in, in fact, I'm pretty certain of it.