Stefan Molyneux

[kurczak]

let's say Wheem as another libertarian (just using your name as an example, I'm not putting words in your mouth nor implying how you would behave) didn't agree or didn't participate in this discussion.

He decides that it is his right to beat the crap out of the naked person. So, in a bid to protect his children (from looking at genitals, ono), he's attacking this person in the street. Let's say there are no by-standers/by-standers-who-care-to-intervene and Wheem kills the naked person, intentionally or unintentionally.

There are no police, nor any responsible citizens to punish Wheem's murder. Is this a just society?

Anarcho-capitalist is not a society without rules. It's just that the rules are ultimately made (and enforced) by the owners of (real) property instead of (in theory) consensus of citizens.

Whether or not imaginary Wheem would be punished would depend on what the "laws" of the owner of the street were. And whether or not he would be able to catch Wheem before he ran away from his property. Pretty much exactly just like whether or not you go to prison in a country depends on whether or not the country criminalizes that behavior and on whether you manage to run to Mexico before they catch you.

An anarcho-capitalist society would (or at least could) be just the same as what we have now. Police, army, navy, NSA, mandatory health insurance, whatever. The only difference would be that those things would be legitimized not by some mythical political will of "the people" but by the decision of the property owner(s).

 

[Heafodban]

So you are saying that rampant capitalism = libertarian? And yeah, please list those countries.

Yes, rampant capitalism qualifies as libertarian, though not all libertarians are capitalists.

I think the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Sweden would qualify as having had libertarian economies in the 19th century. China too, during the 17th century.

I think you have a misconception of what libertarianism is. It's a very wide spectrum of political ideologies that span right and left. It's not specifically the guy wailing his arms saying tax is theft.

 

[Mage246]

I always suspected that Wheem was a serial killer.

BTW, in this hypothetical society it's worth pointing out that there is zero penalty for killing someone with little of no social and financial standing. Workers of the world, get ****ed!

 

[RalliX]

I always suspected that Wheem was a serial killer.

BTW, in this hypothetical society it's worth pointing out that there is zero penalty for killing someone with little of no social and financial standing. Workers of the world, get ****ed!

I'm pretty sure you'd be pretty quickly blacklisted for aimlessly killing people of low standing just because they are weak. If the people who are under you have any sense of moral you'll quickly find yourself poisoned or knifed. IE: Caponed

 

[Mage246]

The higher you are in that society, the more power you have. Anyone who threatens to blacklist you? Fire them, or get your similarly amoral friends to fire them. Hint: amoral dickheads tend to rise to the top of power structures because they're the ones who care most about power.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

I always suspected that Wheem was a serial killer.

BTW, in this hypothetical society it's worth pointing out that there is zero penalty for killing someone with little of no social and financial standing. Workers of the world, get ****ed!

I'm pretty sure you'd be pretty quickly blacklisted for aimlessly killing people of low standing just because they are weak. If the people who are under you have any sense of moral you'll quickly find yourself poisoned or knifed. IE: Caponed

Wear a mask, go at night, entrap people in unconscionable contracts, live in a community of assholes who prey on passer-byers, kill people who black list you, etc. problem solved.

 

[Jhessail]

I always suspected that Wheem was a serial killer.

BTW, in this hypothetical society it's worth pointing out that there is zero penalty for killing someone with little of no social and financial standing. Workers of the world, get ****ed!

I'm pretty sure you'd be pretty quickly blacklisted for aimlessly killing people of low standing just because they are weak. If the people who are under you have any sense of moral you'll quickly find yourself poisoned or knifed. IE: Caponed

You are either hopelessly naive or completely ignorant of human history.

An anarcho-capitalist society would (or at least could) be just the same as what we have now. Police, army, navy, NSA, mandatory health insurance, whatever. The only difference would be that those things would be legitimized not by some mythical political will of "the people" but by the decision of the property owner(s).

Yeah because that has worked so well in the past. So yay, another case of ignorant idiots parading their ignorance around.

I think the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Sweden would qualify as having had libertarian economies in the 19th century. China too, during the 17th century.

Great Britain and Sweden had poor houses - some run privately others by State - and there was an increasing amount of "social" legislation that severely limited the rights and freedoms of capitalists, as two examples of anti-libertarian thingies and stuffies. I have no idea what was going on in the Netherlands or in China. Yeah, USA really qualifies and we know where that led - the monopolistic early 20th century society where less than 5% of society owned more than 95% of all wealth and they had a chance to prove how well the trickle-down economics work and hey, it turned out it doesn't work. Also, the massive numbers of violation of people's basic human rights because rich people were above the law. Yay.

 

[kurczak]

An anarcho-capitalist society would (or at least could) be just the same as what we have now. Police, army, navy, NSA, mandatory health insurance, whatever. The only difference would be that those things would be legitimized not by some mythical political will of "the people" but by the decision of the property owner(s).

Yeah because that has worked so well in the past. So yay, another case of ignorant idiots parading their ignorance around.

Just saying. Caricaturing anarcho-capitalists as people who advocate some Wild West-style shooting people in the streets doesn't really advance any actual argument against it.

 

[Heafodban]

Great Britain and Sweden had poor houses - some run privately others by State - and there was an increasing amount of "social" legislation that severely limited the rights and freedoms of capitalists, as two examples of anti-libertarian thingies and stuffies. I have no idea what was going on in the Netherlands or in China. Yeah, USA really qualifies and we know where that led - the monopolistic early 20th century society where less than 5% of society owned more than 95% of all wealth and they had a chance to prove how well the trickle-down economics work and hey, it turned out it doesn't work. Also, the massive numbers of violation of people's basic human rights because rich people were above the law. Yay.

You claimed libertarianism can't exist in the real world. This is what I've been disputing. It doesn't matter how bad you think rampant capitalism was, it did exist in the real world. If rampant capitalism can exist  in the real world then, unless the addition of civil liberties would somehow break the system, libertarianism can also exist in the real world.

This isn't just semantics. You're discrediting a giant swath of the political spectrum by claiming not only that it's not ideal, but that it can't even function. This is an untrue and unfair accusation that I think should be disputed.

And once again, libertarianism spans both right and left. There are such things as libertarian socialists. The defining characteristic of libertarianism is having liberty as its core value, not the economic system. You can't even reject libertarianism based on its lack of welfare and wealth equality because some forms of libertarianism advocate those things.

So yay, another case of ignorant idiots parading their ignorance around.

Hypocritical of you to say. You're doing exactly this by not even knowing what libertarianism is while debating it.

 

[Jhessail]

How come you don't take this opportunity to educate me? As I've pretty much just been going off this dictionary definition:

Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment.

alongside the libertarian arguments I've most commonly encountered.

You claimed libertarianism can't exist in the real world. This is what I've been disputing.

But rampant capitalism isn't the same as libertarianism - or is it? You are arguing that because USA had aspects of "economic libertarianism" in the 19th century, it means that a libertarian country actually existed. That doesn't compute.

 

[Heafodban]

How come you don't take this opportunity to educate me?

I think libertarianism is any political ideology that has liberty as its core value. I'll think up a society I'd consider libertarian:

There's a republic. The government has only a handful of roles: to tax; to plan and maintain roads; to provide law enforcement and a judicial system; to address crises. People are free to express their opinions. People may choose their spouse or spouses. People can associate with whoever they want, or not associate with whoever they want for any reason (in other words, pick their friends, employees, employers). People aren't forced into service, such as the military. The government is transparent. People have freedom of thought. There's no propaganda. The government is close to the people and is re-elected often and the proportion of representatives to citizens is great. People are only punished after being given a fair trial. People can legally commit suicide. People can legally prostitute themselves. People can legally do any drug or medicine of their choosing. People can legally own weapons.

Other libertarian societies could have wealth equality, or no government at all.

But rampant capitalism isn't the same as libertarianism - or is it? You are arguing that because USA had aspects of "economic libertarianism" in the 19th century, it means that a libertarian country actually existed. That doesn't compute.

It's not that libertarian countries have existed, it's that libertarian economies (of the right-wing variety) have existed. If the countries that had rampant capitalism also had robust civil liberties they would've qualified as libertarian countries. I don't think robust civil liberties would've broken the system. So I think libertarianism can exist in the real world.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

So there's this...

Think what you will about TF, but damn. This guy is a nut.

 

[Moose!]

Somebody should take him out back and shoot him. 

 

[Heafodban]

So there's this...

Think what you will about TF, but damn. This guy is a nut.

Yeah he's nutty and extremist. But damn, this Thunderf00t guy doesn't even understand most of his arguments.

I left a comment on his video explaining the arguments to him, in case you're interested in seeing what I mean.

 

[RalliX]

So there's this...

Think what you will about TF, but damn. This guy is a nut.

They seem to be very close competitors on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3hFN8UrBPw

The whole video looks to be a smear campaign. Additionally they seem to butt heads about some things and have very similar video headlines.
I guess the main way to test this is how Stefan would respond to having someone like me on his podcast.
I sympathize with his views, my mother is very religious, my father a military public servant...

I'd basically be an ideal litmus to see how he would counsel me about association with my parents.
I'm very close to my parents, and would never consider dissociating with them simply because of a disagreement about how people ought to be or not be governed.

If he went way over the deep end on trying to convince me to FOO, for example, we might be seeing his true colours without a doubt. On the other hand he might be moderate about it.

Edit: One thing I was very surprised and disappointed by was the lie to Rogan. There was no faking that.

Edit2: This new Molyneux video talks a lot about objectivity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdS9QFaXRQ4

I have a feeling we're seeing a case of some people having an unresolved argument and then having it devolve into smear tactics. A simple google search of FOO leads to a blog from a very angry mother, and  some other writings mainly concerned with attacking the character of Molyneux without attacking his argument.

Indeed, the suit against his wife seemed to have been built by someone who was very specifically against the ideas which Molyneux and his wife both held, and which his wife probably still holds.
Looks to me like the Misses probably would have lost her income entirely if she had contested the case against her, which consisted basically of her giving people her opinion on something, and the sentence consisting of re-education.

The anti-Molyneux crowd seems to not acknowledge the statement that these 'impressionable' young men who he often talks to, make their own choices about their parental associations, as well as their donations to him.
I've not donated to Molyneux, and I don't think I will. I also think my parents were very good ones, despite the features of them which Molyneux may say were bad features.

That does not however mean that he doesn't deserve to tell people what he would do if he were them.
Trying to block people's opinions is just the antithesis to free speech. If someone makes a decision based on someone else's advice, regardless of the results of that choice, the decision was not forced on them.

To say otherwise is absurd.
I'd say that this is probably what was going through Molyneux's head when he said what he did to Rogan. That does not excuse the way in which he conducted himself. It was an attempt at damage control, which did not help his cause whatsoever.

For me, all this is just a practice in objectivity. To not grow excessively accustomed to a single viewpoint. Molyneux is certainly no more than human, with faults, and who sometimes has incorrect ideas.

 

[Anthropoid]

How come you don't take this opportunity to educate me? As I've pretty much just been going off this dictionary definition:

Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment

Waitaminute . . . THAT is the definition of a "libertarian?" Aren't we ALL libertarians now?

Explain to me, based on that definition, how 99% of politicians and voters in the West are NOT libertarians!?

Which one of you wants to do anything short of "maximize [any one of our] autonomies, freedoms of choice, political freedom, volluntary association or primacy of our individual judgment?" I'd like to know so that I can call you a Nazi or something autocratic-sounding like that.

If that seriously IS what defines a libertarian (and I doubt that it is in fact sufficient to do that) then I most definitely am one, and I suspect most of you also are, particularly those of you who have ever engaged in sex out of wedlock, non-traditional sexual or gender behaviors, or a range of other iconoclastic behaviors that traditionally would have been sanctioned either by law or tradition.

 

[Jhessail]

Didn't Thunderf00t go bat**** insane crazy few years ago as well? I'm not going to watch a 20 min video where two nutjobs insult each other.

Waitaminute . . . THAT is the definition of a "libertarian?" Aren't we ALL libertarians now?

That's the beauty of very high-level dictionary definitions - they are extremely positive and vague at the same time. Which is why I added the line about common arguments, which then grounds it into the "government and taxes are so bad and we can definitely have a better society without!" nonsense that's so common on the Interwebs.

'll think up a society I'd consider libertarian

Nice dream, and I don't really have anything against that but it will never work and hasn't really ever existed and striving towards such a society can actually be dangerous. For example, you left out organizations like FDA and EPA, without which corporations would have killed way more people than they actually have managed to kill. And please, no-one start whining about the invisible hand of capitalism because we all know that it doesn't actually work.

 

[Heafodban]

Nice dream, and I don't really have anything against that but it will never work and hasn't really ever existed and striving towards such a society can actually be dangerous. For example, you left out organizations like FDA and EPA, without which corporations would have killed way more people than they actually have managed to kill. And please, no-one start whining about the invisible hand of capitalism because we all know that it doesn't actually work.

http://youtu.be/JSumJxQ5oy4?t=12m23s

 

[Austupaio]

I don't really agree with his outlook there, I view preventing the immediate deaths of bad drugs as more meaningful than preventing potential long-term deaths of held-back-good-drugs.

If the U.S. were facing an epidemic and people were dying in vast swathes due to the lack of a drug that was being held back, maybe his example would be more relevant. As it is though, Cancer and Heart Disease are the leading killers and even those are not epidemics nor an immediate threat to America as a country.

 

[Jhessail]

Yeah, that argument lacks substantive evidence that proves that FDA is doing more harm than good - and when **** really hits the fan, the process is expedited, like with swine flu vaccines, which then resulted in several narcolepsy cases. A side-effect that would have been found out if the regular process had been followed but media hysteria and all that jazz. Point is, without FDA anyone could sell anything and claim it cures everything - which isn't a major problem when it's an individual snake-oil salesman touring the Wild West in his wagon but when a corporation that can pump advertising campaigns worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually... I hope you start to see the benefit of an tax-payer funded long-term-planning organization like the FDA