This thread was quite illuminating, although I think it's sort of easy to slip into the "what kind of dude is he?" stuff rather than focus on actual arguments... (Lord knows I fall into this trap myself as well!)
For those who are skeptical about the benefits of therapy, I totally understand the perspective, but you might want to check out my interview with Chris Boyce (a former economist now studying psychology) about his statistical analysis indicating that psychological therapy is 32 times more effective at promoting happiness than increased income:
Also, I am always looking for ways to reduce the prevalence of violence in the world, since less violence means less-to-no state in the long run. You might want to look at this video series for some rather shocking and astounding findings:
http://fdrurl.com/bib
I have also talked with some real luminaries in the psychological field, this is great stuff for those interested in self-knowledge:
http://freedomainradio.com/Videos/FreedomainRadioThePsychologyInterviews.aspx
Best wishes, and thanks for the interest!
Stef
I am the host of Freedomain Radio, the most popular philosophy show on the web, and a Top 10 Finalist in the 2007 Podcast Awards. http://www.freedomainradio.com
An intellectual site should not have overtly therapeutic goals at the same time. I think the problems of combining the two goals should be self evident.
Also, where is the intellectual perspective on the psychology? Where and what is the methodology used to your psychological perspective? What is the school of thought? Why are you mixing it so heavy with political theory and economics? What is the main function and goal of your site? Is it education or personal therapy? If you see yourself as a therapist is there anything you posted claiming how and why you feel your therapy is legit?
Is your site more based on "just throwing stuff out there" that happens to interest you? I don't get it.
Also, throwing out a vague and cryptic statement such as "For those who are skeptical to the value of therapy..." means very little. It is an imprecise use of words and counting on vague generalizations of things such as: what therapy actually is/means, what people on this thread are actually arguing about when they talk of "therapy", what it actually means when you generalize the "benefits of therapy".
What kind of dude you are, or more importantly, what is the "telos" of the site becomes a legit argument when enough people see the nature of the site as obfuscated. If you are a polemicist, scientist, therapist, apologist, whatever that's fine, however absolute clarity on methodology, school of thought, one's "telos", etc is needed to obtain any validity in anything intellectual.
When one does recommend therapy (or perhaps even "practice" it on his members, uncertified and online therapy to boot) and then say they have a type of intellectual philosophy and science website: I see a cult of personality, I see an inevitably intellectually compromised site, and I expect little more than (perhaps higher brow) "armchair" intellectualism. I also see talking about "what type of dude you are" as an inevitable consequence of such an action.
Kant, Hume, Nietzche, Marx, Mises, etc were not therapists, nor would any psychologist/therapist assume them as such. Any therapeutic value one may get from them, or any way to apply their teachings to therapy is beyond their realm.
Thanks for the reply Don.
First of all, I think it's important to understand that philosophy -- which is my approach -- has much more claim to the principles of self-knowledge, self understanding and self examination then the modern upstart called psychology. I'm sure you are aware of the first commandment of Socrates, over 2,500 years ago: "know thyself" - I have always tried to follow that approach, and I certainly believe that it is valuable for everyone.
I am not a psychologist, of course; therapy is one-on-one, private, professional, paid, long-term and so on, which is unrelated to any chats that I might have my listeners about the value and goals of self-knowledge. I myself went through many years of professional therapy, and I know the difference. I am committed to the value of honesty, as I'm sure most people are, and so if people ask me my thoughts on a particular subject, I will share them, and that is my approach in the show.
You asked an excellent question about the main goal and function of my website. The main goal and function of my site, as has been stated from the beginning in 2005, is the logic of personal and political liberty, with personal always being first and most important. In my view, the only fundamental freedom is freedom from illusion, and that requires knowledge of both the world and oneself. If you would like to review the scientific evidence behind these statements, to satisfy yourself that this is not just my opinion, please check out the video below:
I'm not sure why you considered my statement "For those who are skeptical to the value of therapy" "vague and cryptic" - perhaps you did not read the thread, but there were several people who expressed skepticism as to the value of professional therapy. I merely wanted to provide some scientific evidence to the contrary. If you wanted to watch the video I posted, it might help clarify what I was talking about.
Thanks again for the reply, and I hope that I have helped shed some light on my approach. Please feel free to let me know if anything remains unclear.
Best wishes!
I'm not sure why you considered my statement "For those who are skeptical to the value of therapy" "vague and cryptic" - perhaps you did not read the thread
This had kind of a double implication:
a) That you meant the word "therapy" as some special system, or were using the word as some vague "catch all" type phrase which could imply contradictory meanings of the word therapy.
For example I took it to read: "If you need help turn to Christianity". In this case, the word "Christianity" becomes meaningless because it is too broad a term i.e. "Christianity" could mean a number of various and sometimes contradictory definitions.
Either way, I think implication "a" was wrong as I now think you meant something like: "Seeking known, qualified psychologists to help with personal satisfaction is helpful"
b) The second part was me trying to pick a fight with the psychoanalytic school (or even worse pseudo-psychoanalytic) due to it being mentioned in previous posts, I thought you may have been advocating a specific type of psychoanalytic method. Either way, that implication is rescinded as well, as I just don't think it is appropriate nor do I wish to put the time into arguing against the psychoanalytic school of thought.
P.S. The 1st video is interesting as in it is at least a fairly mainstream psychological view that too much freedom (See Barry Shwartz for example) leads to dissonance and unhappiness. Also interesting an "excessive freedom" type approach and test was done by Gilbert & Ebert about irrevocable choice, if any one wants to check that out. Of course my use of terminology of freedom, and the underlining theories is very crude in my postscript. I just wanted to show the tests and methods the psychologist in the video was probably looking at for anyone who is interested.
please check out the video below:
Thanks for the video. I did watch it (skimmed, it was mostly just a review for me). I want to be clear, this is not about if I do or do not agree with the positions but if the site is intellectually grounded. While there very well may be polemics and propagated words (that I may or may not disagree with), when how I am now looking at the nature of the Free Domain Radio site there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Example, I may not agree with "Progressive website A", "Marxist website B", "Psychoanalytic Website C", "Great Man Theory of History website B", or "The Substansivist school of thought for Phoenician trade site" but there is a grounded work of thought underneath them i.e. they have a substance and telos rather than a hodgepodge of ideas thrown together for dubious reasons.
Coupled with your previous statements in this post does this sum up your basic premise for the site:
1) You deal with everything from a "personal freedom and rational approach / philosophy". I think it is safe to assume that "freedom" and "rationalism" has been appropriately defined by you.
2) You hold that "self-discovery" (for lack of a better term) is also a linchpin of your site. This would be why you would bring up psychological studies (from the two or three that I knew of on the second video, they were peer reviewed and published) that would lead to a more individualistic self examining approach.
3) You do not psychologize, but you will offer personal opinion on something when asked. Your personal opinion is separate and informal from any message you would wish to be held accountable for. A conversation with some one asking for advice is spurious to any compendium of thought you would wish to be identified with
As I stated before in a previous post, I do not have much experience with the Free Domain Radio site (nor do I think my time and preferences will ever allow me that option). What I have repeatedly observed though is the absolute heated polemics the site tends to cause, something that I find baffling considering the site is revolved around one person rather than a school of thought. Even more baffling is that it doesn't seem to be one type of group (Free Domain exiles, political group a, religious group b) though admittedly, as far as groups are concerned the ones who I know of that usually know and discuss it are of the "free market libertarian bend".
If all you are doing is taking one type of approach (self examination/ freedom approach) and applying it to various topics, why the heated polemics and accusations of the site have dubious intentions? If there are too many insurrectionists (assuming they are from separate events, times, and reasons) it becomes almost impossible to completely blame them. There is most likely something wrong with the institution in which they rebelled from.
Assuming you are not The Evil people make you out to be and I had to throw out a half hearted guess, it may be due to fraternizing informally with the clientele. They may not be able to distinguish between the formal and informal. While this can be a boon to ones recognition it can also be the bane to the focusing on one's central message. Of course that could be a 101% wrong guess, but being that I have come across the issue enough to take notice, it does hold a tertiary interest to me; and assuming no one is being intentionally malicious I would bet there is either a communication breakdown or something in the system that needs to be addressed or repaired.
Hey, Stef around here. That’s cool.
Thanks for the reply, very illuminating, I appreciate your feedback!
If I understand your last paragraph correctly, then you are assuming that if a man is hated, he must be doing something wrong -- where there is smoke there is fire, so to speak. I don't think that is a very good approach, if you don't mind me saying so, because all it does is encourage people who really disagree with a man to attack him personally, with the goal of creating just that sort of impression of "wrongness."
To put things in perspective, I have had close to 150,000 listeners, and there are almost 8,000 members on my message board, and I've had to ban maybe 30 people over the years, and maybe a dozen or two have ended up as full on haters - 0.00016% of my listeners. It only seems like a pattern because the haters are the loudest.
I think that to judge a man by the hatred of the occasional lunatic only gives power to lunatics, at the expense of the virtuous.
Is this the real Stefan? A test! I demand a test! In your next youtube video, blink 16 times in rapid secession and we will know it is you.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
haha as if that won't happen anyway!
FreedomainRadio: haha as if that won't happen anyway!
Well I'm skeptical but if it is the real Stefan then a tip of the cap to you because you helped me understand dispute resolution organizations when I was just coming into anarchism.
I did some research on this . Molyneux does encourge family breaks as a routine matter. He does this with one on one persuasion; Pilgrimages to his home in Mississagua, CA. and other typical cult like engagements. Not everyone engages in this, but his primary source of income is from those he has persuaded to leave their families and become FDR accolytes.
He is doing real damage to real familes to make a profit. My opinion is that any good he does in the area of anarcho'capitalism thought is negated by these actions. www.molyneuxrevealed.com
anterior55: I did some research on this . Molyneux does encourge family breaks as a routine matter. He does this with one on one persuasion; Pilgrimages to his home in Mississagua, CA. and other typical cult like engagements. Not everyone engages in this, but his primary source of income is from those he has persuaded to leave their families and become FDR accolytes. He is doing real damage to real familes to make a profit. My opinion is that any good he does in the area of anarcho'capitalism thought is negated by these actions. www.molyneuxrevealed.com Now that Stefan is here (if that is the real Stefan) maybe he can shed some light on this. It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan | Post Points: 20
Now that Stefan is here (if that is the real Stefan) maybe he can shed some light on this.
anterior55:I did some research on this .
In your opinion, are adult relationships voluntary (or should they be)?
anterior55: I did some research on this . Molyneux does encourge family truths as a routine matter.
I did some research on this . Molyneux does encourge family truths as a routine matter.
Fixed your post.
Stefan...guilty of abiding by freedom of association?! The blasphemer!
Blueline976: anterior55: I did some research on this . Molyneux does encourge family breaks as a routine matter. He does this with one on one persuasion; Pilgrimages to his home in Mississagua, CA. and other typical cult like engagements. Not everyone engages in this, but his primary source of income is from those he has persuaded to leave their families and become FDR accolytes. He is doing real damage to real familes to make a profit. My opinion is that any good he does in the area of anarcho'capitalism thought is negated by these actions. www.molyneuxrevealed.com Now that Stefan is here (if that is the real Stefan) maybe he can shed some light on this.
anterior55: I did some research on this . Molyneux does encourge family breaks as a routine matter. He does this with one on one persuasion; Pilgrimages to his home in Mississagua, CA. and other typical cult like engagements. Not everyone engages in this, but his primary source of income is from those he has persuaded to leave their families and become FDR accolytes. He is doing real damage to real familes to make a profit. My opinion is that any good he does in the area of anarcho'capitalism thought is negated by these actions. www.molyneuxrevealed.com Now that Stefan is here (if that is the real Stefan) maybe he can shed some light on this.
Well this is all nonsense of course. "Pilgrimage to my home?" I guess this refers to the fact that I throw a free BBQ every summer for listeners, where we eat burgers, make jokes, shoot the shite and go out for karaoke.
As far as family stuff goes, my approach is standard Rand and Rothbard; that adult relations are voluntary, and that adults have the right not to see their parents if they fear them. It's not a big focus of my show at all, but unfortunately some parents have ended up blaming my little podcast for allll their family problems, which is really tragic, since these situations can be saved and reversed, in my opinion, if parents take at least some responsibility for any misdeeds and really listen to the complaints their family members have. Since Freedomain Radio started in 2005, only a few dozen out of like 150,000 listeners have taken breaks from family relations, and all (to my knowledge at least) have been under the care of a professional counselor, who has supported their choices.
FreedomainRadio: Since Freedomain Radio started in 2005, only a few dozen out of like 150,000 listeners have taken breaks from family relations
Let me make sure I understand you. By "a few dozen" I assume you mean at least 3 dozen. So, are you saying that in the past 5 years, at least 36 young people in your program have broken off contact with their families?
Brainpolice:As far as Molyneux and cults go, he very clearly has what we would call a "cult of personality".
"I am completely unimportant in the conversation."
That says it all. I couldn't care less whether some goofs on the internet support him or anyone else with unbridled enthusiasm. Welcome to public life. I find it banal and distracting to talk about such things that have no importance. That you find it so important indicates that you have a little too much of your own enthusiasm.
FreedomainRadio: If I understand your last paragraph correctly, then you are assuming that if a man is hated, he must be doing something wrong -- where there is smoke there is fire, so to speak. I don't think that is a very good approach, if you don't mind me saying so, because all it does is encourage people who really disagree with a man to attack him personally, with the goal of creating just that sort of impression of "wrongness." To put things in perspective, I have had close to 150,000 listeners, and there are almost 8,000 members on my message board, and I've had to ban maybe 30 people over the years, and maybe a dozen or two have ended up as full on haters - 0.00016% of my listeners. It only seems like a pattern because the haters are the loudest.
The last paragraph wasn't: man being hated = he must be wrong on some ontological level. Remember, I said I was more concerned with methodology than anything. I was referring to a potential problem with methodology, as I was under the assumption the site was producing a somewhat dramatic amount of polemics (and many of a personal nature). Under my (admittedly limited) knowledge and impressions of the site I thought if there was a major problem it was probably a methodological one. of e.g. Beta may have been better than VHS, but something was wrong with the way Sony communicated the ideas to the public. In that case I blame Sony not those who refused to buy it.
Of course everything is refuted if the numbers you gave me are indeed the best way to view the sites relationship's with people. It could very well just be you happen to have some very loud "squeaky wheels" and other people who turn the site into something far more than what you claim it represents.
Grayson Lilburne: FreedomainRadio: Since Freedomain Radio started in 2005, only a few dozen out of like 150,000 listeners have taken breaks from family relations Let me make sure I understand you. By "a few dozen" I assume you mean at least 3 dozen. So, are you saying that in the past 5 years, at least 36 young people in your program have broken off contact with their families?
I don't know the exact figures, 20-30 perhaps would be about right I think. And they broke from families they said were abusive, under the care of professional therapists. They weren't "in my program" (don't really know what that means, sorry) - I don't have a program of any kind, I just share my thoughts and arguments on the web for free, for anyone who might be interested.
I hope that helps.
FreedomainRadio:I don't know the exact figures, 20-30 perhaps would be about right I think.
Okay, so 20-30 of your listeners broke off contact with their familes: "DEFOOed". I'm curious, did you coin that term?
I don't recall really. FOO is a standard acronym for Family of Origin. I can't remember where the term originated...
FreedomainRadio: I don't recall really. FOO is a standard acronym for Family of Origin. I can't remember where the term originated...
Really? That's kind of funny, because it's such a potent term and clever acronym, that I would have thought you'd remember whether you came up with it or not. But I know you have a talent for coming up with powerful and evocative ways of putting things, so formulating such a term might not be such a big deal for you as it would be for others. But you do use the term, right?
Grayson, every single criticism of FDR regarding cutting ties with abusive parents has been based on the notion of mind control sales, as if listeners are sitting ducks waiting to be picked off. Speaking of cults, the idea that you should honor someone based on kinship is a Christian commandment.
I'm chop-happy. As long as there are beaten wives making excuses I will like to see people cut ties. As long as there are taxpayers making excuses I will like to see people cut ties. As long as there are sporting sons being denigrated from the sidelines I will like to see people cut ties.
Caley McKibbin:as if listeners are sitting ducks waiting to be picked of
Perhaps not, but more often than not they're teenage males with emotional issues. As I said, they might not be sitting ducks, but in terms of manipulation it doesn't get much more easy than that.
Let me put my cards on the table here, I don't think Mr Molyneux is insincere, I really think he believes what he's saying, after all, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. But I do think there is something that any reasonable person should find genuinely troublesome about convincing young males (or females) to leave their parents by abusing ones position of authority.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
hayekianxyz: But I do think there is something that any reasonable person should find genuinely troublesome about convincing young males (or females) to leave their parents by abusing ones position of authority.
But I do think there is something that any reasonable person should find genuinely troublesome about convincing young males (or females) to leave their parents by abusing ones position of authority.
So you're worried about abuse of authority and you're pointing at Stef? What he is doing is *precisely* pointing out that power tends to lead to abuse of power. How many of those youngsters who decided to quit their families mentioned being sexually, physically and emotionally abused ..by their own families?
If anything, you should be celebrating Stef's work on this. Mises.org is about gaining insight about economic exploitation. What Stefan has done is apply those same insights to personal relationships.
Now, you may not agree entirely with his specific way of doing that; but certainly you can't validly disagree on principle.
After a youth with more psychologists than friends, I can somehow only get giddy at Molyneux's brand of "abuse of authority".
Nielsio:Now, you may not agree entirely with his specific way of doing that; but certainly you can't validly disagree on principle.
It's obvious that people here who are resisting this have not listened to his podcasts about the basic idea behind all of this- or any of his podcasts.
hayekianxyz:I do think there is something that any reasonable person should find genuinely troublesome about convincing young males (or females) to leave their parents by abusing ones position of authority.
This (among a couple other things) is my concern with the site. I just wonder how much (if any) is communication error/ obfuscation, a methodological misstep in the way the site and ideas are presented, and/or sensationalism from "squeaky wheels" (either for or against Free Domain) that turn the site into something more that Freedomain is claiming what the site is about.
Also, does the site deliberately target teenagers? If we look at the "evolution" of the site, does it start off more with political theory and philosophy and then drift stronger towards psychology and family issues? If that is the case, is there a way to tell how it started; was it people (perhaps teenagers) bringing up/ responding more enthusiastically to Freedomain on issues concerning the family and psychology, or did the podcasts start delving into that direction on their own accord (if this is the case when and why)? Also,is it clear from his podcasts that he is not an authority on who should leave families and professional advice and therapy is most likely needed to make such a decision?
Another important thing to think about that just occurred to me, if he is somewhat left of center on his hostility to families, and happens to attract many teenagers, could we not compare that to much teenage media? There are a plethora of rock musicians, for example, who probably promote the same thing. Or how many teenage movies do you see that portray the parents in a negative light that leads to a child's alienation, etc? I would imagine certain rock personalities "caused" many kids to hate and leave their families. Or perhaps, more accurately, does any counter culture, big or small, tend to attract these things (and on my initial impression, personality cults can most certainly play a major role for rallying points); Socrates, Jesus, Protestants, The Age of Reason, Romanticism, and on and on and on (even if that may not be the intention of the person or ideas involved)? How much of this should be alarming and how much of this, to use a Karl Marx phrase, is just "the tendency of things"?
FreedomainRadio: under the care of a professional counselor, who has supported their choices.
under the care of a professional counselor, who has supported their choices.
Yeah, I got to say no to that. The basic assumption of collectivism is that the individual is not competent to make his own decisions. The basic of assumption of individualism is that he is competent.
Now whenever I hear people suggesting that somebody needs a "coach" or a "mentor" and that the kid should place himself under his guidance or under his care, or under anything else, I have to say no. The attempts to get the kid to doubt his own judgment may often be successful, but that doesn't mean that they are right.
It seems utterly hypocritical to me to tell a kid to question all his assumptions, to not trust authority figures, but oh, yeah, trust this "coach" and not yourself.
Mentors and coaches - never had one, never needed one, and don't think there is a any excuse for an individual substituting the judgment of a coach or mentor for his own judgment.
Individualism
Grayson Lilburne:But you do use the term, right?
Okay, sorry Stef, I should have just googled it in the first place. I see that you do use the term "deFOO". In fact Google registers 1,420 results for the word "deFOO" on your site alone. One of them struck me as kind of interesting: an "Annual deFOO Christmas and New Year Party" in Cancun, Mexico, organized by three of your "Philosopher Kings".
Now, since most of your listeners are young, many of them must not have much of a family besides their "family of origin". So when they deFOO, whether for good or for bad, that must leave a rather big hole in their lives in terms of familiar human contact, no?
So, whether you intend it or not, isn't it likely, just judging from the facts of the situation, that many such people would want to fill that hole with something else?
And what better thing to fill that hole than the community which helped them deFOO in the first place? (One of your Philosopher Kings has waxed rhapsodic about, "Finding this new home, and this new family".) Especially when that community has regular cookouts and retreats to Mexico?
And I happened to notice that almost all the people in planning to go to the deFOO retreat were either "Philosopher Kings" or "Diamond Donors". I remember hearing somewhere that a Philosopher King badge runs about $50 a month (plus an initiation fee). How much do Diamand Donors chip in?
Again whether or not you intend it to turn out this way, there does seem to be a pretty likely chain of events that would tend to accompany any FDR-aided deFOO:
Molyneux --> deFOO --> Acute need for familiar human contact --> FDR Involvement --> FDR Donations --> Molyneux
And you can't blame some libertarians, at least those of the more rigorous and less "true believer" stripe, for taking a look at the chain above and closing the loop in their minds.
I'm not saying you promote deFOO because of the loop; I'm not even saying you're aware of it. I'm saying that it's there, and that, to the outside observer, it can look awfully suspicious.*
So, either (1.) break the loop for us, or (2.) convince us that it's just an embarrassing, but meaningless, coincidence that you just happen to benefit greatly from the family break-ups you promote.
*especially when you go so far as responding to a woman complaining about birthday cards and Valentine's Day cards sent to her kids from their grandparents by writing, "Don't engage. Throw the letters out unopened, that's my advice..." The same woman informed you that, "My 12 yr old daughter is a freedomainian listener and advocate; she thinks they [her grandparents] are evil, and is glad they are gone." To this you respond,"Magnificent! Your whole family tree is now growing towards the sun! Is your daughter's wisdom causing any problems with her friends?"
Grayson Lilburne: *especially when you go so far as responding to a woman complaining about birthday cards and Valentine's Day cards sent to her kids from their grandparents by writing, "Don't engage. Throw the letters out unopened, that's my advice..." The same woman informed you that, "My 12 yr old daughter is a freedomainian listener and advocate; she thinks they [her grandparents] are evil, and is glad they are gone." To this you respond,"Magnificent! Your whole family tree is now growing towards the sun! Is your daughter's wisdom causing any problems with her friends?"
I'm pretty sure he's responding to this: "what has changed is that i don't feel so worthless, helpless and broken".
Nielsio: Grayson Lilburne: *especially when you go so far as responding to a woman complaining about birthday cards and Valentine's Day cards sent to her kids from their grandparents by writing, "Don't engage. Throw the letters out unopened, that's my advice..." The same woman informed you that, "My 12 yr old daughter is a freedomainian listener and advocate; she thinks they [her grandparents] are evil, and is glad they are gone." To this you respond,"Magnificent! Your whole family tree is now growing towards the sun! Is your daughter's wisdom causing any problems with her friends?" I'm pretty sure he's responding to this: "what has changed is that i don't feel so worthless, helpless and broken".
If it was solely in reply to her exclamation regarding her own feelings, why would he refer to her "whole family tree"? Obviously, the "whole family tree" "growing toward the sun" was regarding, at least in part, the 12-year-old girl becoming a "freedomainian listener and advocate".
Grayson Lilburne: If it was solely in reply to her exclamation regarding her own feelings, why would he refer to her "whole family tree"? Obviously, the "whole family tree" "growing toward the sun" was regarding, at least in part, the 12-year-old girl becoming a "freedomainian listener and advocate".
The sun is here a metaphor for the truth, human freedom, and positive human relationships. Why no interest in what those grandparents actually did? What caused their children to feel worthless, helpless and broken, deep into their adult lives?
When Jeffrey Tucker advocates the free market, and he 'converts' someone, and that person donates to Mises.org --which remains always freely available--, do we have to justify this 'loop'? Do we have to justify when Jeffrey praises John Papola with great enthusiasm because he may get more donations out of it? Or is there some other reason why we're into these things?
Nielsio:When Jeffrey Tucker advocates the free market, and he 'converts' someone, and that person donates to Mises.org --which remains always freely available--, do we have to justify this 'loop'?
With an Austrian scholar, it's a case of breaking off from an unsound economic theory.
With FDR, it's a case of breaking off from one's family.
Anyone familiar with Austrian economics knows a lot more about economic theory than Stefan knows about any of the dozens and dozens of mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters whose lives he possibly shattered.
With LvMI, the "loop" is in harmony with basic standards of competence and responsibility regarding the consequences of its actions. I have not been convinced that FDR's deFOO campaign satisfies that criteria.
Grayson Lilburne: Nielsio:When Jeffrey Tucker advocates the free market, and he 'converts' someone, and that person donates to Mises.org --which remains always freely available--, do we have to justify this 'loop'? With an Austrian scholar, it's a case of breaking off from an unsound economic theory. With FDR, it's a case of breaking off from one's family. Anyone familiar with Austrian economics knows a lot more about economic theory than Stefan knows about any of the dozens and dozens of mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters whose lives he possibly shattered. With LvMI, the "loop" is in harmony with basic standards of competence and responsibility regarding the consequences of its actions. I have not been convinced that FDR's deFOO campaign satisfies that criteria.
Let's just get down to this: do you think it's good to get away from sexually, physically and/or emotionally abusive people? Or does their genetic status as mother, father, brother or sister absolve them from any such wrongdoing?
What sort of proof is sufficient for you for someone to legitimately disapprove of abuse?
Nielsio: Let's just get down to this: do you think it's good to get away from sexually, physically and/or emotionally abusive people? Or does their genetic status as mother, father, brother or sister absolve them from any such wrongdoing? What sort of proof is sufficient for you for someone to legitimately disapprove of abuse?
If that isn't the most dishonest attempt to frame an argument I've ever seen...
If the kid is being abused, he can contact the authorities. To allow a sexual predatory to remain in the community is sickening.
But then, we aren't talking about predators, are we? We're talking about children going through regular stage of development wherein they feel the need to assert their own independence. And somebody comes along and manipulates them into demonizing their loving parents and turning against them.
Nielsio:Let's just get down to this: do you think it's good to get away from sexually, physically and/or emotionally abusive people? Or does their genetic status as mother, father, brother or sister absolve them from any such wrongdoing?
Of course "yes" for the first question and "no" for the second question. Whether it's okay for an individual to deFOO is not the issue; it's whether it's okay for a third party, who has the moral hazard of having money to gain yet nothing to lose in the matter, to so actively promote such drastic measures, under a state of considerable ignorance regarding the situation.
Nielsio:What sort of proof is sufficient for you for someone to legitimately disapprove of abuse?
A lot more real proof than Stefan ever gets in his adroitly worded interviews with emotionally-charged and pliable young people, which exclude completely ANY hearing of the family's perspective.
John Scott: If that isn't the most dishonest attempt to frame an argument I've ever seen... If the kid is being abused, he can contact the authorities. To allow a sexual predatory to remain in the community is sickening. But then, we aren't talking about predators, are we? We're talking about children going through regular stage of development wherein they feel the need to assert their own independence. And somebody comes along and manipulates them into demonizing their loving parents and turning against them.
If a child has or had actually loving parents then some guy from the internet has 0 chance of getting him away from them.
I suggest you actually listen to some of the actual experiences these people had. They are absolutely not examples of 'loving parents'; they are often horrifying.
The example in these last posts was about a married woman of adult age with her own children, and yet she was still having feelings of worthlessness and brokenness. I've asked before and I'll point out again: what was the cause of that? Portraying that as some sort of pubescent rebellion makes no sense in this example.
You say if children are abused, they should call the government or have them jailed. And what if the abuse happened in the past? Should we still hang out with those people, or should we -- of our own insight and volition -- get as far as we can from those people. Is their status as a genetic family member worth anything still?
Nielsio:If a child has or had actually loving parents then some guy from the internet has 0 chance of getting him away from them.
As someone who has taught kids for about a decade, that's just about the most misinformed comment I've ever read regarding the psychology of children and young people in general.
It is axiomatic that adult relationships are voluntary. That is the primary diversion that Molyneux uses to change the subject. The huge and damaging issue at FDR is the associattion of Psycology with Philosophy and Molyneux's warped definition of abuse and corruption within the family.