Can someone redpill me on Stefan Molyneux? I've been watching some of his videos and a lot of what he says makes sense and seems logically thought out. I also have read a little about that whole therapy session scandal thing and I believe what he did was wrong, but it is not something that's unforigivable to me.
So what details am I missing on him? What do I need to know about his true character. I need the redpill on him before I continue listening to him.
>>70760327
He's kinda creepy and that puts a lot of people off. He's right though and does a good job at citing what he's talking about.
>>70760468
>creepy
wut
he's very affable
>>70760327
You're missing the ability to think.
>>70760600
I agree. seems like he'd be a really cool dad. almost wish he was my dad sometimes.
>>70760468
Not an argument
>>70760600
do you support me getting shot?
>>70760644
where's the argument?
>>70760644
not an argument
>>70760468
>He's kinda creepy
>>70760327
I did a video about this mental midget a few weeks ago. Subscribe if you like my style.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwtKsYzRz1M
>>70760327
let me put it this way. If I wanted to join a cult Stef's cult would be the first on my list. Looks like a great nice cult.
created a pseudo cult with his Ayn Rand ideology, urging supporters to shun family members who do not reject government taxation.
There have been supporters who have gone to psych wards because of Molyneux.
>>70760815
>>70760778
what the fuck
>>70760894
yeah, nah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eXvPUdGXSI
>>70760327
Just watch his videos. He's usually right. Never send him money or join his dumb cult, though.
>>70760644
this guy is correct, despite the fact that _Not an Argument_
>hm I think I'll watch a Steven Molyneaux video
>why yes, I do have 2 hours to spare
>>70760778
I randomly clicked in and you said "Be that as it may, and may that as it be." I then closed that tab.
I hate you already. You need more face tattoos.
>>70760327
He's right about women and race but he's an idealist about free markets.
>>70760894
How does suggesting that you shun your parents for x relate to people going to psych wards?
Most of the posts against the guy read like anti-stefan shills. I was hoping someone could give me some solid stuff.
>>70761265
it's people who have grievances with Molyneux that perpetuate this cult shit
he probably dismissed their shit as not an argument and are now buttblasted, so they pick a new not an argument to perpetuate
>>70760327
Every time I watch him he is typically correct, cites everything well, and goes into excruciating detail for every bit of the subject.
The only real problem he has is that he repeats himself and rambles on, spending two hours or more on something he could have explained just as well in about half an hour. He desperately needs better editing.
>Argued that theoretical physicists and other obscure fields are completely worthless and that these people should have designed I-phones instead because "that's what the market wants".
A typical anarchistic nihilist.
>>70761265
NOT AN ARGUMENT.
Also, most of the pseudo science he mentions is bullshit. I watched couple of videos to him and with my mudskin IQ was able to figure out his BS.
>Stefan says non white immigrants of second generation suffer from regression to the mean when it comes to IQ because das science
>Indian plus Arab community in the US rank highest when it comes to college education, IQ and wealth, in matter fact second generation indians have an IQ of 110
B-but that's not an argument, and so your bullshit thread and your bullshit cult leader.
>>70761463
I agree on the rambling. I do kind of like the single take format though, as it doesn't really effect me. I "watch" his videos like a podcast. I listen well I do other stuff.
He's alright. Makes a lot of good points, but is prone to going off the deep end.
Got anally destroyed by the commie Joseph Peter too so there's that.
>>70760717
No argument. Just statement of fact.
>>70760898
But kinda true though...
>>70760468
he's creepy as fuck
You know you have too much time on your hands if you're watching Stephen fucking Molyneux videos.
>>70760327
Oh my god fuck off with your self-promotion Stefan.
ONE FUCKING DOLLAR?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GbDnZD0upU
He is nearly always solid on politics.
I love how he as a lot of other people took a sharp right turn these last couple of years.
His series on rk selection theory is probably the best i've seen from him.
I haven't listened to a lot of what he says on relationships and frankly i don't care.
If you are intrigued by his ideas you should really consider reading Democracy the god that failed by Herman Hoppe.
>>70760327
Can someone explain to me who he is, and why people care about him. I might watch some of his stuff.
>inb4 newfag
I've seen people talk about him forever I've just never bothered looking into what he's about.
>>70761265
He boils ideas down to their logical extreme and then uses it as a blanket explanation of the situation where people that don't like him are too often too dumb to actually recognize it.
The primary example being that he states that all forms of state taxes are inherently taking money from the people at gunpoint. This is technically true. If you don't pay taxes, the government sends people with guns to take your money. This is the prime reason he doesn't like taxes from what I understand. From that, he stated that if your family support this system and you don't, they are essentially in support of a system that is robbing you at gunpoint. Hanging out with people who support you being robbed at gunpoint is a bad idea, and you should avoid those people, therefore, you should avoid your family if they support government taxation.
Everything about his argument is technically correct, but seems to assume that all the actions at each stage is the result of deliberate malevolence instead of gross incompetence and useful idiocy. I'm honestly not sure if he actually meant what he said about it, or if he was simply trying to be provocative, but it pissed off a lot of people who like government taxation and started the cult meme.
>>70761255
free market is the best possible option for whites
supporting a massive welfare state is one of the worst ideas for whites
>>70762065
>stephen
holy fuck this triggers me on a personal level
>>70761637
It's an arguement, just a very bad one without sources.
![415AUFhgH1L._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Yk2QMva.jpg "415AUFhgH1L._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg")
>>70760327
Universally preferable behavior is god level philosophy.
>>70760327
Don't bother getting "into" him. There is no real point beyond that - instead just listen to the videos of his that interest you and as always, question everything - if he seems wrong, do your own research. But then, he is really committed to being scientifically right whenever possible, so unless you for some reason disagree with the basis of his philosophy, you shouldn't have much to research yourself.
>>70762338
Sorry Steve
>>70760327
His old stuff especially is pretty "creepy" and really not well done at all and that kinda haunts him but a lot of his basic arguments are sound regarding morality and ethics, spreading the word of libertarianism, voluntarism and essentially anarchy are good things. He also champions peaceful parenting, no hitting and spanking which leads to children growing up without deeply rooted issues that cause them to be basically degenerates. He's a pretty big trump supporter he's generally very anti-left which is also good, and probably his best quality is that he holds women accountable for their degeneracy which is an extremely rare trait for anyone much less a popular youtuber, the first finger he points at single moms is right at the mothers, for being so low quality you're fucking any old man. He's extremely anti-feminism and pro MGTOW.
Basically he's about as red pilled as you can get.
>>70762263
eheuheuei he got it right. Monlyneux is based, and i cant see why /pol/ is not listening to this guy. is it because he is a jew and you are jewfobic ? look i didnt say anti-semite, its jewfobic since you are afraid of jews because they are smarter than christians.
>>70762535
>>70761028
Man he looked ugly as fuck back then. That beard really does the trick.
>>70762617
It's because he's a fraud. He's only interested in raising his viewership.
Beneath his surface, he's a pretty messed up guy.
>>70762851
Not an Argument.
>>70762266
He's addressed this a lot. He generally recommends making the arguments slowly and introducing family and friends to these ideas over periods of months and if they disagree fundamentally that you cannot call yourself a libertarian and surround yourself with those people.
It's basically just saying that you should stand by your convictions, either the argument is right or it's not.
I think he knows that people are stupid and generally indoctrinated into their politics and morality just about as much as their religion.
Basically the hardest part of libertarianism is getting people to see the power of the state at work, that's the only way it'll ever end.
So he speaks using clear NLP - type tone
he also just generally seems creepy, and seems to have at least in some cases made a thing out of people leaving all normal ties behind and sort of moving in with his crew, refusing to associate with non-stefan approved people. it's called 'FOOMING.'
there's also a bunch of people who used to be into his work who've turned against him and they're filled with all sorts of creepy stories against him
personally i just can't bear to listen to his voice, it sound so forced and grating. and he takes 20 minutes to say anything AT ALL.
>>70760898
>>70762374
>Universally preferable behavior
is there an epub of this somewhere?
NOT
>>70762846
the camera has some fish eye going for it, doesn't help
>>70763273
Free on his site http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf
NOT
NOT!!
>>70763497
ARGUMENT
>>70763563
>>70763202
>>70762263
this shit is not funny
>>70763649
Not an argument
>>70763703
better
>>70763649
Not an argument
>>70760327
Look up the thunderf00t video where he tears him apart.
>>70760327
Sometimes i think he acts like an ass without making much sense but he speaks his own truth without caring about what other people think or about political correctness and i respect him for that.
>>70763419
only pdfs
who even reads the whole book while sitting at a computer, come on stef it's 2016!
>>70763649
Not an argument
ONE DOLLAR
>>70763815
>thunderf00t
>>70763891
whats with the one dollar meme
>>70763815
blusterfoot has never teared apart anyone
>>70760327
Hi everybody Stefan Molyneux from freedomainradio I hope you're doing well!
Spanking your kids is the direct cause of all the world's evils, specifically wars and the government, which is an immoral system centralised around the monopoly of violence to commit taxation, which is nothing else but theft at gunpoint, a gross violation of the Non-Aggression principle. Any arguments against these are actually not an argument because of my own moral framework that I invented that you cannot refute because speaking to me is proof that my framework is correct and evidence of Universally Preferable Behaviour. Therefore I literally cannot be wrong because everything is literally not an argument. The only way we can slay the great beast that is the government is for you to donate more than one fucking dollar. If you call in we will have a discussion about how your daddy's rich and your momma's good lookin', but she was an evil vile woman who is a child abuser because she fought with her husband in front of you once. If my mother weren't my mother she would be FUCKING DEAD! I would have FUCKING KILLED HER! You must go to therapy and defoo because spending time around people that WANT YOU SHOT is suicidal. Throughout the call I will constantly interrupt you, and scold you if you do the same to me, but that's okay because I have the largest philosophy show in the history of humanity. However, I will not hesitate to hang up on you if you admit that free will does not exist, because I don't debate with robots.
>>70763141
Honestly, I used to be libertarian, but it's just not pragmatic enough. It works if everyone is libertarian, but if even one other nation is willing and able to take advantage of the situation on a federal and international level, the whole thing falls apart and ends up mirroring the tragedy of the commons on a grand scale.
In a hostile international community, you need a strong federal presence to represent the interests of the people to other foreign powers. Free trade simply stops working when other countries take advantage of it. That's how we got into this mess with china and mexico in the first place. It's how we got our private debt so incredibly high.
I'd call myself more of a cultural libertarian now, but my political ideology is more nationalist or classical liberal. The ancap stuff Stefan talks about simply doesn't work on a global scale, and possibly even on a national scale.
>>70763961
>watching the amazing banana youtubers
>>70764001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CM_--di7L8
Do you support me receiving a one dollar d'nation?
>>70763961
>>70764006
>>70764048
https://youtu.be/lN5OjzEfQmI
He is green pill confirmed.
The retarded nazis here can't see his intelligence for what it is.
>>70763961
>muh cancer dad
>>70763815
well he was cultish in his tactics, doesn't mean that all his information is wrong.
>>70764044
10/10 would donate <1.00 dollars for more
>>70764117
>here's a bunch of things cut out of context
>>70761621
>the eternal leaf wants his free government cash to research the yellow paint in his leaf
Don't you realize research fields are infinite and money is scarce? I'd rather have that type of money given to expensive medical research than some sneezy guy writing to Scientific American because that is the only use of his research.
You are no better than the "indian intellectuals" coming to your country and getting free dollars to research paleontology when they could do it at home.
>>70764045
>The ancap stuff Stefan talks about simply doesn't work on a global scale, and possibly even on a national scale.
It doesn't work on a local scale. What about laws? Who will enforce them? What about prison/jail? The guy is too smart for his own good as he neglects to consider human nature.
It starts sounding stupid when he keeps bringing up force and violence in terms of laws and taxes. Just sounds fucking edgy as hell. Most humans prefer order over anarchy.
>>70764044
Bretty ghud, but you left out all his cringey relationship advice and how he psychoanalyzes peyote he has never met over the phone, often times only with the third hand information the caller provides about someone else.
>>70764381
Not an argument.
>>70764044
Not an argument
>>70764044
I only follow his political stuff on the election, not his philosophy or social issue stuff.
>>70764044
you conflated a lot of shit he has never said or implied
kind of sacrifices the impact - instead of being spot-on and clever, it's a bit more on the pathetic side when you have to make shit up
>>70763649
not an argument
>>70764868
No he didn't, his impression was spot on. Also, you didn't make an argument.
>>70764476
I say possibly because I cannot undeniably and empirically prove it won't work because it's protected by the same "it hasn't been tried" and "that wasn't REAL ancap" memes that are used to defend communism.
My D&D group uses communism to buy pizza. We pitch in to a pile of cash according to our ability and get pizza according to our need, and it all works out in the end, but that doesn't mean it would work as a government.
Ancap falls apart just like communism does for the exact same reasons. It is an ideology that only works when people on a large scale behave against human nature. On the other hand, start with a capitalist free market and add a healthy dose of nationalism, and you get a system that protects the nation from outside influence while providing a stable set of rules that focus human nature into healthy productivity.
>>70764868
not an argument
He's great, ignore /pol/ haters
Stefan "DEFOO the Hebrew" Molyneux is /pol/ approved. Lately, he has been hanging out a lot with Ben Garrison who claims that his acquaintance has further strengthened his resolve to secure the future of our people and white children.
Guys watch the "Trump Effect" before the EA Kikes take it down https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F082JKzJqE
...
Plus check out this new short video "The Evolution of Donald J Trump." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofZsphTPf-U
>>70760327
>When you say theoretical physicists are useless to society and someone points out that all you do is shill an idealistic ideology on the Internet.
>>70764994
nigger, it's all conflated - you don't have to do this shit if you want to prove someone wrong
just pick apart what he actually says, not put your dumb spin on it
>>70764183
>DUDE ITS A CULT
not an argument
>>70764476
Mate, get your English language in check. Do you know what a law is? Your question about laws is literally answered by the dictionary.
Also anarchy is not the antonym of order in the context anarchists use it. Disorder is.
The antonym of anarchy is government.
>>70760327
A shill. He say what rightwings likes.
>>70765259
Oh, I think I see your problem. They must not have satire in eastern Europe. Living under communism and then being dirt poor will crush your humor, I guess.
>>70765464
not an argument
Just another gatekeeper
>>70765302
Good point, but not an argument.
>>70765464
Where is the weed Justin?
>>70764189
>success of his face
wew
>>70765533
satire in English is for stupid? did not know that
the satire I know necessitates understanding of the subject being mocked
>>70765608
not an argument
>>70765533
oh, and mind that it does work to satirise the average person shitting on Molyneux
>>70765328
And just like other shitty ideas, anarchy only works in a world where there is only anarchy. The moment a government forms that is capable of acting in a cohesive manner, it can and will manipulate and defeat and and all anarchic civilizations.
Anarchy cannot compete with other forms of government, making it as useless as communism in that regard.
>>70760327
What's the therapy session scandal?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUTQSoMy04w
>>70765745
Then you must have not read what he posted, because it was very knowledgeable. Also, you still have yet to make an argument.
>>70765996
now you are going in circles
>>70760327
To fibd the redpill on anythng simply
READ THE FUCKING RULES AT THE TOP OF THE FUCKING PAGE YOU SHIT-TASTING CHILD MOLESTER.
>when the peaceful parenting creates a non-violent stateless society just right
>>70765608
I think his red-rimmed eyes are a slight giveaway
>>70765986
Not an argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBY0bZWKehQ
>>70765854
So? He's not exactly advocating for an anarchist overthrow of the government. He's advocating for the steps necessary to keep the government in check, better human relations and perhaps one day advance to an anarchist society.
If your position is that the world should continue to be shit because it will always be shit, then I don't really think you have much to add to the conversation.
>>70766359
I have this one as a weebum with sound
A friend once told me to always be wary at very good and well conducted speakers.
>>70766093
You're denying facts. You said it was conflated, then you said it was ignorant. You can't even make up your mind.
Frankly, I think you just don't like it because you don't like molyneux being criticised. Grow a thicker skin.
>>70766359
Sheeeit
I keep starting his video's but usually end up being too frustrated anout his antics to keep on going so stop it after 10 min or so.
He picks his sources to confirm what he intuitively already thinks is true. He uses logic but makes assumptions without using serious theory to back them up. No real intellectual pursuit of truth is going on in his mind.
>>70766457
post it
>>>wsg/1017499
>>70766359
spooked me
btw does anyone has the one dollar video I want to see it. Im sure one of you memelords like you have it in your favorite
>>70766439
Successful anarchism would be a symptom of a perfectly advanced society, composed of truly civilized peoples.
>>70766703
This is correct. He is a very good speaker though, and intonates his words in a way in which many believe and look up to him.
>>70766863
k lemme find it
>>70760327
>tell me what to think about this guy telling me what to think. No matter what we say about Stef and even no matter what Stef himself says, it is you who must think and give meaning to his words and accept what he is saying or not. You have to think OP. That's why I like Stef. He encourages thought, indeed it is his primary object to promote it, in my opinion.
>>70760644
this actually is an argument.
>>70766259
not a CV boot
>>70766876
Human beings will never be civilised in large numbers, unless augmented to be. We're animals. There will always be conflict, a utopian society is almost impossible. You are correct though.
>>70763649
noni argumentus
>>70766439
Your argument in inherently flawed.
If you believe that the free exchange of ideas is a good thing, and that good ideas are capable of standing on their own merit and defeating bad ideas with that merit, then you should also believe that a good political system should be able to outperform other political systems. Just like how capitalism outperforms socialism every single time, these political systems stand on the merits of their ideas.
Anarchy cannot compete with any other form of government. It instantly collapses into a hierarchal government of some kind whenever and wherever it happens, and non-anarchy political systems outperform it without exception.
Anarchy cannot stand on its own merit. That is something you yourself seem to concede with your statements. The fact you think it is still a good idea is exactly as delusional as the people who think communism is still a good idea.
>>70767034
That's why I said symptom rather than cause. Even Whites aren't good enough for a true anarchic society. Any enforced anarchy is impossible by definition and would always result in somebody gaining monopoly by force, after tremendous struggle and death of course.
A
FUCKING
DOLLAR
>>70766626
again, you're going in circles
your ability to start denying the meaning and context of what I said when I said and make up new one highlights your inability to understand - or maybe you're just jewish, who knows
it's the same issue you must be having with Molyneux, because it's clear why you would start doing the same the moment you disagree with something Molyneux said
I'll have to repeat, just so you don't derail shit - his shit was conflated, Molyneux has never said or meant what was written in the context implied, it's exaggerated in some cases for ridicule or made up, conflated - it's not accurate, so it does not work to satirise Molyneux, but it does work to satirise those who have grievances with Molyneux, because their ability to misinterpret things is legend
ignorance = lack of awareness
>>70767139
Anarchy is able to stand on its own merit as an idea. You're making the fallacious assumption that people are rational and judge ideas based on their merits, which they are not. So whether an idea is able to stand on its own merits or not is completely irrelevant to reality at this time.
We are moving toward communism as a society, yet you're telling me that communism is out performed by capitalism every time - so why are we moving toward communism (actually socialism, but whatever)? That goes contrary to what you're telling me, that ideas with merit come up on top.
Now, it is theoretically possible for the majority of people to be rational, so any idea that is capable of standing on its own merits is theoretically possible. That includes anarchy and free market capitalism. The first step for either of these is to root out irrationality and government dependence.
You aren't even addressing my argument as clever as you think you are, you're just throwing shit at me to see if it sticks.
>>70766912
He literally speaks and intones like they tell you to do in Neuro-Linguistic Programming manuals
>>70767873
> you're making the fallacious assumption that people are rational and capable of judging ideas on their merits, which they are not.
How can anarchy work if people aren't rational?
>>70760778
HAHAHAHA WHAT THE FUCK?!
>>70760327
Does anyone else get the "employer" vibe from Stefan?
It feels like he's the every guy I've ever sat opposite of in a job interview.
>>70760468
>creepy
Must be a woman or a fag. No straight male says 'creepy' to describe somebody else.
>>70761691
This
>>70768190
By first promoting rationality and the ability to think for oneself. Very few people are actually completely incapable of reason, irrationality is mostly a learned thing.
They teach you that at schools and home if you have religious parents.
>>70768355
That's because he was an employer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yI_WClCDiE
>>70760327
There is literally a website about his cult, his inner circle and the lifes he has destroyed:
http://www.defoo.org/defoo/
Among other things he convinced some girl to accuse her father of raping her. Because Molyneux was raped himself as a child.
In fact much of his current topics can be explained by his childhood:
his hate for women especially single mothers.
he was raised by his mother who was pretty much a slut and had a new man every day, one of these men raped Stefan.
Poor guy to be honest, I feel really bad for him.
But he is in no position to give other people advice on these things.
>>70767427
No, you're completely mischaracterized the piece. Everything in there is taken right from what molyneux has said in the past. Your criticism that it's inaccurate is wrong. It is conflated, so that's a fine criticism, but that's how that style of satire works. If you don't like it that's fine, but that doesn't make it wrong. Which brings us to why you don't like it: you just have Stefan's balls in your mouth. Then you can't make an argument so you try to insult me. Then you redefine the weird ignorant to mean something it doesn't mean. So how much is he paying you?
>>70767873
Plenty of societies have moved to anarchism as well, but you can judge the quality of the idea based on the result, as opposed to its appeal. The result of communism, and to a lesser extent socialism, has always without exception been economic strife and human suffering, especially when compared with free market capitalism guided by nationalism.
Should the world continue down its current path due to the popular appeal of socialism, it will result in a global economic crash and the oppression of human rights on a mass scale. It has already begun, if you care to glance at the continent around you. The idea cannot stand on its own, so people work to silence those with better ideas.
Anarchism is no different. Any true anarchy would last exactly as long as it takes for a warlord to come into power and no longer. It has no merit, despite its apparent popular appeal, and it cannot compete with other ideas directly, because it is itself not functional as a political system.
>>70768483
Let me just get this straight. You're saying that anarchism can work, but only with full access to an institutionalized education system that reinforces the philosophy of anarchism?
How does that work without a government?
>>70760778
Put a shirt on.
>>70769098
I don't think any society has moved to anarchism. There have been a few that have collapsed into anarchism as a result of a failed state, such as Somalia.
If a tornado destroys your house, it's not exactly the same thing as dismantling it.
>>70769248
No, and stop strawmanning me, it's annoying. I said that anarchism can work if people are rational. If people aren't taught to be irrational, like you have been, it is theoretically a possible long term goal until an argument surfaces that proves it wrong.
Who the fuck said anything about an institutionalized system? The whole reason people are so irrational is because the government controls education and makes children believe in bullshit that contradicts reality.
>>70768977
first off, I never said "ignorant" - you did
I said "the satire I know necessitates understanding of the subject being mocked" - understanding, not knowledge of, so me saying ignorance = lack of awareness was an attempt to get your attempt to derail shit back on track
it's not "redefinining" the word, btw, look it up
second, I did not mischaracterise anything - it's bad, inaccurate criticism disguised as humor, a coward's criticism for lack of an actual criticism - everything is not taken right from what Molyneux has said in the past, thus the criticism is not wrong - you admit it's conflated, but if it's conflated then it's clearly what Molyneux said in the context he said it in
that's to say you admit to being wrong but are now moving the goalposts, as was originally intended - a coward's criticism wrapped in a joke to keep it safe when for when it actually runs into someone who does not find it funny
third, you say I insulted you when I didn't, not once, not even vaguely - actually, you started with insulting me and mine >>70765533 and it did not stop there
>>70770164
if it's conflated then it's clearly NOT what Molyneux said in the context he said it in*, even
>>70768875
>single mothers
I've only listened to him the last days, and the single mothers thing is pretty evident that he has an issue with. So he kinda disqualifies himself from being taken seriously on the subject on single moms because it's way too close to him.
He's pretty smart though, but he should get some therapy and work with his mother thingie... or just stay off that topic.
Pretty smart guy though.
>>70769589
But people are not rational. Because of this, I support a system of government that focuses the irrational nature of mankind into productivity.
You support a system of government that falls apart at the seams the moment a single person thinks irrationally.
Again, just like communism, which falls apart the moment someone thinks in their own self interest.
Before schools, people would dance around a fire to make it rain on their crops and carve out people beating hearts to make the sun rise the next day. People are not rational creatures, especially on a large scale and the fact that you seem to think they are is itself irrational simply due to how much raw data you need to ignore to hold that belief.
And to continue your analogy, regardless of if you dismantled your house or if a tornado did it, you are still now homeless. Congratulations.
>>70769589
Is the only requirement for functional anarchy that humans are 'rational?'
What if, given that humans have different abilities, it might be beneficial for some humans to (if they are self-interested) rule over others in some way? What if they were able (possibly like Stefan) to build some sort of cult following, or armed body around then? Then wouldn't it be rational for them to act aggressively towards other groups?
And even if one wasn't inclined to do something like that out of concern for the welfare of others, you might be forced too act aggressively towards others given that you cannot guarantee they will feel the same way towards you.
even if humans' are rationally self interested, that doesn't mean that it won't be advantageous for some to seek power over, or to do harm too others.
t. hobbes
Of course people in general being decent, they could combine too form an group with the power to overawe anyone acting on their own, but that'd be little different than a government
>>70770575
I don't support a system of government. I support you not getting shit education.
>>70760778
this is a quality post
>>70760778
I fucking despise your style. You'll probably piss off a few people. Well done, carry on.
>>70770802
>What if, given that humans have different abilities, it might be beneficial for some humans to (if they are self-interested) rule over others in some way?
If the relationship is voluntary it has no conflict with anarchism. Although the term you use "rule over others" is incorrect in that case. Being ruled is not a voluntary relationship, a ruler is a head of state with significant power.
Anarchism is without rulers, without state.
>What if they were able (possibly like Stefan) to build some sort of cult following
A cult is by definition irrational.
The assumption isn't that all people are rational, the assumption is that enough people are so they are able to defend themselves from the irrational ones by cooperating.
>>70764996
>start with a capitalist free market and add a healthy dose of nationalism, and you get a system that protects the nation from outside influence while providing a stable set of rules that focus human nature into healthy productivity.
This is what I hope a Trump presidency will bring about.
>>70766439
Stefan literally argues for non-government. No application of force by an authority upon the populace ever. That's ridiculous.
>>70766912
He definitely enjoys hearing himself speak. It's annoying when he rambles for 10 minutes answering question and wants to throw in 'humorous' analogies every 5 minutes.
>>70771459
> If the relationship is voluntary it has no conflict with anarchism. Although the term you use "rule over others" is incorrect in that case. Being ruled is not a voluntary relationship, a ruler is a head of state with significant power.
Anarchism is without rulers, without state.
Well what if it wasn't voluntary? How would you prevent the situation from degenerating into one of open conflict, if we assume that it would sometimes be advantageous for some too act as predators? And therefore it would also be advantageous for everyone else too seek to overawe, in some sense, every other party, given that they have no guarantee they would not seek to predate on them?
> The assumption isn't that all people are rational, the assumption is that enough people are so they are able to defend themselves from the irrational ones by cooperating.
If people cooperate to defend themselves, then it seems like they might be able to do so, but without a single government - tier power, it would still be advantageous for them to be aggressive towards other groups as they cannot be sure of their intentions. Likewise it is always possible that these groups are co-opted or broken up.
finally, even if a cooperative defensive scheme were possible, it seems like it'd be vulnerable too free-riders. others would benefit from any defensive scheme you employ, but unless you can ensure they pay for it, they'd be an incentive too free-ride so it seems likely the whole cooperation would be unstable. people would cooperate if they absolutely had too, then they'd arguably be an incentive for people to defect. for example, I could opt out of paying for police services now in our current society, i'd still likely benefit from my neighbors employing such services. i wouldn't bear the full cost of my refusal to pay
>>70768875
Let me guess, she hit him when she got pissed off and now he has a complex about corporal punishment? He seems to shoehorn spanking into a lot of his videos that are about other things.
>come home
>see a 170 response thread about stefan
>get really excited
>sadly and slowly come to the realization that theres not a single argument to be found
>>70761621
>we need to spend billions of dollars to have physicists sit around on campuses writing bullshit unverifiable meme theories
>>70772103
If it's not voluntary, the victims are more than entitled to self defense.
>advantageous for them to be aggressive towards other groups
How is that ever advantageous? This is undoubtedly advantageous to a state because they gain more subjects to rule over and/or more prestige or funding in the form of war reparations at the expense of others, but for the common man or woman who is not part of the ruling elite a conflict is universally a bad deal.
Like, could you explain to me why you would want to go into a field full of explosions and machinegun fire using a rational argument? Because I don't think there is any rational argument that would make that preferable to not doing it. Given that the choice exists.
>others would benefit from any defensive scheme you employ
The defense scheme is "have a gun". Organized defense like private security is obviously something you pay for. Don't pay = you've got to defend yourself. Or hope that they'll respond anyway, because having some madman going around and attacking people in the neighborhoods you have customers in is bad for business.
>>70765583
>>70765608
>>70765636
>>70765745
>>70765828
>>70765854
>>70765885
>>70765986
>>70765996
>>70766093
>>70766121
>>70766169
>>70766209
>>70766259
>>70766359
>>70766439
>>70766457
>>70766512
>>70766626
>>70766687
>>70766703
>>70766796
>>70766843
>>70766863
>>70766876
>>70766912
>>70766931
>>70766947
>>70766973
>>70767034
>>70767085
>>70767139
>>70767404
>>70767873
>>70767886
>>70768190
>>70768279
>>70768355
>>70768422
>>70768467
>>70768483
>>70768498
>>70768533
>>70768875
>>70768977
>>70769098
>>70769248
>>70769391
>>70769589
>>70770164
>>70770282
>>70770463
>>70770575
>>70770802
>>70770807
>>70771160
>>70771335
>>70771459
>>70772052
>>70772103
>>70772330
>>70772454
All are perfectly, well reasoned arguments.
who is this faggot and why are there so many threads on him in the catalog?
>>70760778
this video is certified dank
>>70772898
> that ever advantageous?
well look at societies before the rise of 'strong' states - they were filled with violent predation! Now I grant that this might not fully scale to the modern world, but you do also seem to have examples of similar happening in failed states in eastern europe or africa.
When you ask me whether I would have a 'rational' reason for going to war, i think you're setting me a trap. I imagine as per your standards, nobody has ever gone to war for rational reasons -- but note that the vast majority of humanity seems capable of it, willing, even.
and as per Hobbes - it isn't enough that most 'normal' people couldn't or wouldn't act in such a way, only that there is the possibility of others doing so to them. this is enough too form a defensive incentive for even non-aggressive people too act aggressively, as a form of preemptive defense.
> The defense scheme is "have a gun". Organized defense like private security is obviously something you pay for. Don't pay = you've got to defend yourself. Or hope that they'll respond anyway, because having some madman going around and attacking people in the neighborhoods you have customers in is bad for business.
The last part is exactly my point - there's a huge free-rider problem with security arrangements, because it's nearly impossible to isolate the benefits of security arrangements onto only the individuals who purchase them. I benefit if my neighbours are armed, even if I can't afford a gun. I benefit if my neighbours employ private firms that detain criminals in our society etc etc.
One additional question, something i've never gotten about liberals....isn't private property backed by force just as much as goverment? the whole question of whether goverment is justified or not can't rest on the idea that it's 'forceful' because every single property system is backed by force. the question is whether force is justified or not, surely?
>>70760468>>70760600>>70760644>>70760711>>70760717>>70760729>>70760757>>70760778>>70760815>>70760894>>70760898>>70760941>>70761028>>70761053>>70761096>>70761104>>70761130>>70761255>>70761265>>70761441>>70761463>>70761621>>70761637>>70761691>>70761738>>70761826>>70761866>>70761893>>70762065>>70762111>>70762160>>70762202>>70762252>>70762259>>70762266>>70762284>>70762338>>70762369>>70762374>>70762382>>70762535>>70762575>>70762617>>70762787>>70762846>>70762851>>70762904>>70763141>>70763185>>70763273>>70763278>>70763418>>70763419>>70763497>>70763558>>70763609>>70763612>>70763649>>70763703>>70763754>>70763757>>70763815>>70763826>>70763830>>70763844>>70763891>>70763961>>70764001>>70764006>>70764044>>70764045>>70764048>>70764117>>70764183>>70764189>>70764199>>70764381>>70764392>>70764456>>70764469>>70764476>>70764483>>70764545>>70764569>>70764710>>70764868>>70764925>>70764994>>70764996>>70765083>>70765097>>70765106>>70765124>>70765231>>70765259>>70765302>>70765328>>70765464>>70765533>>70765558>>70765564>>70765583>>70765608>>70765636>>70765745>>70765816>>70765828>>70765854>>70765885>>70765986>>70765996>>70766093>>70766121>>70766169>>70766209>>70766259>>70766359>>70766439>>70766457>>70766512>>70766626>>70766687>>70766703>>70766796>>70766843>>70766863>>70766876>>70766912>>70766931>>70766947>>70766973>>70767034>>70767085>>70767139>>70767237>>70767404>>70767427>>70767873>>70767886>>70768190>>70768279>>70768355>>70768422>>70768467>>70768483>>70768498>>70768533>>70768875>>70768977>>70769098>>70769248>>70769391>>70769589>>70770164>>70770282>>70770463>>70770575>>70770802>>70770807>>70771160>>70771335>>70771459>>70772052>>70772103>>70772330>>70772454>>70772487>>70772898>>70772911>>70773074>>70773306>>70773960
NOT. AN. ARGUMENT!
>>70774850
what the fuck?
What's wrong with my comment?
>>70774915
it's not an argument
>>70774915
Well, from what I can tell, the main problem is that it's a shitpost devoid of any quality.
>>70773960
The societies before the rise of strong states were irrational, religious and ruled by absolute monarchs with limitless power on their small plot of land. Of course an absolute monarch benefits from conquering new territory, he gets richer!
My question is, how does the peasant the monarch drags away from his field by force benefit? The reason I ask you to give a rational explanation is a thought exercise. Aggression is inherently immoral, but in the event that it's not, you have to at least posses a rational reason why you'd prefer it over say cooperation or trade to make it a valid issue with the assumption that anarchy is the logical way of organizing society once majority people are rational.
If it's irrational to prefer aggression, why would rational people prefer it?
>The last part is exactly my point - there's a huge free-rider problem with security arrangements
Why is it a problem?
>>70770061
>>70770185
It was the "Just do it! Hop on a plane and do it!" guy!!!!!!!
>>70773960
>well look at societies before the rise of 'strong' states
appeal to tradition. it wouldn't work on you when I say the majority of states have failed, even though that is a much stronger appeal than yours
>>70774850
If one more person replies to me without commenting on my video, I'm gonna get really pissed
>>70773960
>isn't private property backed by force just as much as goverment?
I don't demand others maintain my property with the threat of violence
how well read are you on the principle of coercion. or are you just trolling
>>70773960
>One additional question, something i've never gotten about liberals....isn't private property backed by force just as much as goverment? the whole question of whether goverment is justified or not can't rest on the idea that it's 'forceful' because every single property system is backed by force. the question is whether force is justified or not, surely?
I don't understand the point of this question. Anarchism isn't against force, it's against aggression. The government is a coercive monopoly on force, they aggressively apply force on people.
The issue isn't that government uses force, it's that the relationship is not voluntary. Also libertarians are generally minarchists so they may support government and monopolization of force as well as aggression, they just believe that the government should be minimized often based largely on pragmatic considerations. Like the government being incredibly inept and corrupt.
>>70761637
>Chinese are shorter than whites
>DUDE MAO YING IS 2 METERS TALL LOL BTFO HAHAHAHA :D:D:D:DD:D
In the case of poo in the loos, it's obvious that the most intelligent and rich (therefore well pre-educated) of their folk go to the US.
Even if their IQ is 110, they still can't learn to speak English without a disgusting, maddening accent. Also they still can't learn to use toilet paper instead of their hands.
>>70775122
> The societies before the rise of strong states were irrational, religious and ruled by absolute monarchs with limitless power on their small plot of land. Of course an absolute monarch benefits from conquering new territory, he gets richer!
You know normal people can also get richer, and usually like getting richer right? There's plenty of incentives for people too want to behave badly towards others, nothing about this is 'irrational' so long as you don't value other people's welfare less than your own.
They also benefit in the defensive sense - in that even if they do not wish to predate on others, by being aggressive they can potentially remove those that might predate on them.
if you want an answer to your question, of course most benefits were unlikely to benefit from a war, but a significant number were. it wasn't unheard of for peasants to seek to join the army, crusade, join mercenary companies and so on. nor was in unheard of for peasants to participate in less organised but still predatory behaviour e.g. stealing from others and so on. these things are endemic in human history.
> Why is it a problem?
The problem arises because people can get something for nothing, because there is a contradiction between individual and collective incentives. As an individual I want to be protected, but I also want to have more money. the incentive, then, for an individual is too not spend on security so long as others might be able too.
imagine a lake filled with fish - if everyone fishes, it gets used up and there are no more fish. if we all agree too a quota of fishing per week, it is sustainable. everyone may agree too a quota, but there's an incentive for an individual to defect and overfish so long as everyone else keeps too the quota
>>70760327
>Redpill me on Stefan Monlyneux
>>70775122
>there's a huge free-rider problem with security arrangements
>Why is it a problem?
The same reason anti-vaccers place everyone else around them, especially those allergic to vaccines, at greater risk of disease. If you are made safer by relying on your neighbor to pay for security services, then it would be illogical to waste more money yourself. If everyone acts in their logical self interest, nobody pays for security services.
The rest of your argument essentially claims that anarchy works when people are perfect. They are not. I'm honestly not sure what else to tell you at this point, it's like pointing out that the sky is blue. This should not be a focus of the conversation.
Sure, if people were perfect and always logical and rational, then we wouldn't need cops or the government, but that's not the case. It has never been the case. There is no evidence at all that indicates it ever will be the case. People are still irrational, just as they always have been irrational, and creating a philosophical view that doesn't take that into account is about as sound as creating an economic model that fails to account for banks and debt.
Every few months I send him a $1 donation with a letter detailing how much his videos have helped me.
>>70775412
>>70775250
> appeal to tradition. it wouldn't work on you when I say the majority of states have failed, even though that is a much stronger appeal than yours
Huh? How can I be appealing to tradition since I am not trying to say that anything is desirable and this state of affairs? I'm presenting it as a piece of evidence that I hoped would support my point, not suggesting anything about it's desirability.
> I don't demand others maintain my property with the threat of violence
how well read are you on the principle of coercion. or are you just trolling
Honestly, I don't know what the principle of coercion is. I have read some libertarian things for a few years, but I don't know what that phrase refers too if it isn't just their general precepts on coercion.
I don't quite get your point, or at least, think it's unclear. The issue isn't that people are maintaining a government or not, but that every system of property ultimately requires force (force here in the sense of 'if you violate my property claims I can/will be violent towards you.') hence the issue with government cannot be that it is 'forceful' or requires force, but that in some way government property is not justly owned, therefore it is not acceptable for them to defend it via force.
>>70776017
Attacking people isn't free.
> it wasn't unheard of for peasants to seek to join the army, crusade, join mercenary companies and so on.
That was because they were paid more than they lost, irrational and paid more than they lost in that order.
There were unlanded peasants who had nothing to their name but their soul, obviously it's not a big deal if they joined an army and made a few ducats. The monarch was taxing his peasants so he had some to pay.
>The problem arises because people can get something for nothing
Ok but why is that a problem?
>imagine a lake filled with fish - if everyone fishes, it gets used up and there are no more fish. if we all agree too a quota of fishing per week, it is sustainable. everyone may agree too a quota, but there's an incentive for an individual to defect and overfish so long as everyone else keeps too the quota
I don't think people are going to be happy with that situation. And generally, when you have someone voluntarily put a quota in place it's for a good reason. Lets say the reason is that if the quota is not maintained, everyone starves. It is within rational self interest in every participant to adhere to the quota because the alternative is starvation.
>>70776309
>If everyone acts in their logical self interest, nobody pays for security services.
Then there is no organized security at all. That can only mean that there is no threat. Otherwise it wouldn't be in their rational self interest.
>>70776644
The general point is that there are going to be situations were people are able to benefit by acting in a predatory way towards others. I don't get what is so hard to understand about this?
>I don't think people are going to be happy with that situation. And generally, when you have someone voluntarily put a quota in place it's for a good reason. Lets say the reason is that if the quota is not maintained, everyone starves. It is within rational self interest in every participant to adhere to the quota because the alternative is starvation.
But it is also in the self-interest of an *individual* too break the voluntary quota, and make more money. they won't starve so long as everyone else keeps to the quota. do you see?
>>70775538
Let's say I don't recognize certain things as being subject to property claims. Let's say, for example: people, air, water, intellectual property, and apple trees. Now let's say I take an apple from "your" apple tree (which in my view belongs to no one), and you use force to try to stop me, who is aggressing whom?
>>70776309
It's worse than this, because people can still follow their individual incentives rationally, and it'll lead to an awful state of affairs.
If you're rational in a libertarian society, you'll try and free ride as much as possible on security (and a fuckload of other vital goods) - if everyone does that, it'll be terrible.
Libertarians need to appreciate that behaviors that are individually self-interested and rational can lead to collectively irrational and awful states of affairs.
>>70776644
> It is within rational self interest in every participant to adhere to the quota because the alternative is starvation.
And yet they don't.
>>70776820
And yet there is.
Are you even aware of what the tragedy of the commons is? Have you even heard of it? Because it's happened across human history and more or less disproves the bulk of your arguments.
In order for your philosophy to be of use, humanity must undergo a fundamental change. Your philosophy is itself incapable of predicting human behavior or offering any form of useful method of social organization. Since that is essentially what it is advertised to do, I think it's safe to say anarchism has no practical or philosophical use whatsoever and can be discarded without further debate.
>>70776975
That's why you have guns and other weapons to defend yourself as well as security, neighborhood watch, etc.
If you're talking about a criminal element, it exists whether there is a state or not.
>>70777006
You're the aggressor. You're trespassing on my property. It wouldn't be my apple tree if that was otherwise. It obviously has to be located within my land which is clearly designated as such for that to be true.
Also why are you arbitrarily categorizing things? That's irrational.
>>70777187
How do you know that they don't? Are you God? Government set quotas aren't the same thing, the government has no incentive to enforce them, sets them unilaterally without consent of the people subject nor does it bother enforcing them.
>>70777187
>Are you even aware of what the tragedy of the commons is?
Are you even aware of what common land or "the commons" actually is?
Philosophy doesn't attempt to predict human behaviour, it attempts to determine what is right.
>>70777906
>You're trespassing on my property
What makes it your property?
>>70777972
If I work or develop a piece of unowned land, it becomes mine until I abandon it.
>>70778175
Why does it become yours?
>>70761637
I agree, the best and brightest of the Middle East and India GTFO as fast as possible to the West? I'm saying this as a first generation Lebanese American, minorities in the U.S. perform better because only the smartest of the minorities come here (at least until now, with all this refugee shit)
In any case, what is Palestine like? I have visited Lebanon many times but I am not stupid enough to visit Palestine. My grandfather grew up in Haifa before Israel became a country.
>>70778264
Because I'm working it. I own my labour and the consequences of it. Self ownership is a fundamental principle of anarcho-capitalism.
>>70778428
Why do you own yourself?
>>70777906
> That's why you have guns and other weapons to defend yourself as well as security, neighborhood watch, etc.
If you're talking about a criminal element, it exists whether there is a state or not.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. But you know the arguments I made above? That since it is in the interests of people to predate on others in this way, and since therefore it is in the interests of all to predate on others in a general sense (as they cannot be sure they will not do the same too them) how can you prevent a state of general violence from arising, without a state with enough power to ensure it's laws are generally upheld?
> You're the aggressor. You're trespassing on my property. It wouldn't be my apple tree if that was otherwise. It obviously has to be located within my land which is clearly designated as such for that to be true.
> Also why are you arbitrarily categorizing things? That's irrational.
This guy is speaking to a state of affairs *before* we've established who has the correct set of property claims. You can't just declare he is an aggressor because his claims are wrong, you have to show why we should favor your proposed set of property rights (you own the apple) over his (he owns the apple.)
>>70760327
He's the incarnate of inaction. He always tries to move people to do something for him instead of going out on the street, because he literally (insane as his fucked up 90-iQ mind is) believes he is "helping" the movement by his silly show.
>>70778428
Why would self-ownership have anything to do with deciding who owns what apple tree?
Self ownership means you own yourself, right? There's no sense in jumping from that to preferring one set of ownership rights over objects that are not yourself.
>>70760327
He is a shit philosopher, check out PhilosophyLine's videos on him.
>>70777906
>How do you know that they don't?
Because that has been the case throughout all of history, and assuming it will continue that way is a lot more logical then assuming all of humanity will suddenly and radically change overnight.
According to you, philosophy has about as much use to society as theoretical physics. Again, throughout the ages, philosophy has been a tool intended to be used to make sense of human behavior, explain it, and use that knowledge in a practical way to make a better and more functional method of living. Your philosophy requires mankind change overnight to a uniform understanding of its own accord. Mine requires mankind continue to behave in the manner it has behaved since we first crawled out of the mud. Which do you honestly believe is more likely to hold practical value when creating the foundation of a society?
stefan was more based before he started shilling for trump
He looks increasingly disturbed. I think the hint is in his YouTube handle: stefBOT- an autistic, schizophrenic nihilist whose religion or only purpose in life is the "free market".
https://youtu.be/e1b3Wi1lI6Y
>>70778576
Self ownership is common sense but I'm willing to listen to arguments against it if you have any.
>>70778677
>This guy is speaking to a state of affairs *before* we've established who has the correct set of property claims.
No he is not.
He uses an arbitrary category to isolate certain things from being considered ownable property, then asks who is the aggressor when he is stealing something that is mine but falls under his arbitrary category.
If it was not my property, the arbitrary category would be unnecessary. Because it's impossible to steal something from me which I do not own.
>>70778996
>radically change overnight.
Nobody here is proposing radical overnight changes.
Also I find it interesting that you're saying physics is useless. I don't even know how to respond to that.
>>70779279
>Self ownership is common sense but I'm willing to listen to arguments against it if you have any.
Well, "common sense" isn't sufficient to prove self-ownership, and the burden is on you to substantiate your claim. But I can make some arguments against it:
1. "Ownership" describes a relationship between a subject and an object. To say a thing owns itself is incoherent.
2. Control does not imply ownership, which is one way one it is sometimes justified.
3. Ownership is, in essence, a social agreement; it's an abstract concept that doesn't exist outside the minds of people. Therefore it only means as much or as little as people will agree to.
>>70779279
Stefan says it is useless. That was the joke.
Regardless, your anarchism IS useless at best, damaging at worst, and offers no measurable or identifiable value to any situation in which it is implemented.
And yes it does require radical global change to the basic human condition, because it goes against every aspect of human self interest and behavior that has gone largely unchanged since the dawn of fucking time, and if you can't see that then you are a far cry from the rational human you claim humanity is composed of.
I am here saying that jumping from the plane will kill you because gravity will smash you against the ground below. You're saying it won't because gravity shouldn't be so strong. Well regardless of what you think is morally right or rational, if it doesn't match up with the evidence of thousands of years of human behavior, it still won't work.
>>70761104
except most of his followers got their start in ayn rand which means most of them are highly ambitious and socially savvy. you wouldn't know anything about that though.
>>70779279
> He uses an arbitrary category to isolate certain things from being considered ownable property, then asks who is the aggressor when he is stealing something that is mine but falls under his arbitrary category.
> stealing something
> that is mine
> If it was not my property, the arbitrary category would be unnecessary. Because it's impossible to steal something from me which I do not own.
I'm honestly lost at this point...the guy was proposing an arbitrary hypothetical in hope of prodding you to provide an argument for why you should favour your set of property claims over his. the point is that prior to you providing an argument as to why your claims are justified, both sets of claims are equally valid and 'arbitrary' (if you want to use that word.) when you refer to things as 'stealing' or 'this is mine' you haven't provided an argument for why we must favour your set of property claims, but just acted as if they are correct, which is what I was calling you up on.
> If it was not my property, the arbitrary category would be unnecessary. Because it's impossible to steal something from me which I do not own.
This is just silly. I think you know it as well.
you are literally saying that you cannot propose a different set of property claims, because to do so would be unnecessary if your claims were actually untrue. it's just question begging.
I think we're both giving up at this point - but if I could offer any (hopefully not pretentious suggestions) - read some classical political philosophy. rawls, steiner, nozick, cohen, rose etc. not JUST stefan's stuff!
I will never watch his videos because they are LONG AS FUCK and I dont want to only look at some bald guy during the entire video.
At least brother whats his name has nice mountain backdrops and weird body gestures
>>70761637
So he cites valid scientific sources, you don't, and he's the one that uses pseudo science? Makes sense, buddy. Makes sense.
fuck off.
>>70760327
I think he's great but a bit unpractical. But what is this therapy session scandal you talk about?
>>70780354
sure totally.
>>70780196
>ayn rand readers
>highly ambitious and socially savvy
>>70779927
A human is not a thing. Also there is no burden on me to prove self ownership, because in the absence of it I don't own my argument :^)
Why do I have to prove it? It's not my argument.
>>70780110
I didn't bother including the word theoretical and strawmanned your position to "physics is useless".
I really don't care what you or anyone else thinks is useful or useless. If it's useless, don't waste your time discussing it. I don't discuss theoretical physics for example, and know nothing of it.
>>70780213
>I'm honestly lost at this point...the guy was proposing an arbitrary hypothetical in hope of prodding you to provide an argument for why you should favour your set of property claims over his.
Read his hypothetical scenario again and again until you get it. The assumption presented is that my property claim is correct but he has chosen to exclude certain things from that claim arbitrarily. Among those things is an apple tree which in the absence of his arbitrary category would be assumed as my property.
He has no reasoning as to why these things are excluded from ownership. I, by the way, agree with him that intellectual property cannot be owned. Which was among his arbitrary examples. of unownable property.
>>70780839
If you don't read Ayn Rand you are not ambitious and are socially mentally ill.
>>70760327
I like him, sometimes the topics he covers are boring and I have picked out a few exaggerations and discrepancies within his videos. Overall he is a very smart guy with a very pragmatic sensible way of describing situations and his beliefs. Go listen to a video when your driving or going for a walk, I couldn't imagine sitting there and watching him for an hour.
>>70780839
>not knowing the whole concept of ayn rand's ideology lends itself to ambition
>current year
that is, true followers anyway. I've been a lover ever since my first read through and I've started several businesses, lift daily, fuck daily, and genuinely enjoy the process of creating my legacy.
>>70760327
Cult leader
Other people talk about the same topics without suggesting you abandon your friends and family. Just look at the comments section and the forums, it's depressing hearing these people give up their life for this guy. Don't get suckered in, he is very manipulative
>>70781018
>>70781009
>>70780944
>>70780882
>>70780354
JUST WHAT THE FUCK IS HIS EMAIL SCANDAL?
>>70780196
>ayn rand followers are socially savvy
:|
>>70781206
perhaps, as someone who is very good with words and being social in general, i have a bias that makes it so that i only associate with those who are socially savvy in the first place. that's a distinct possibility and an anecdote. it is, however, unfair to make them out to be some kind of group of neckbeards.
>>70761265
Yes, everyone in this thread are just shills who spend their time looking to discredit Stefan.
Read what you just implied out loud, while that doesn't suffice to prove they aren't, it should sound pretty absurd and with a lack of evidence go with the option that requires less assumptions.
>Anti-Stefan shills are patrolling pol to discredit him, despite Stefan not being a regular topic of discussion
Or
>People on /pol/ are aware of the broader internet community and are offering insight from personal onservations, which you asked for
Don't ask for an opinion if you only want someone to confirm your own.
>>70780882
>A human is not a thing
For one definition of "thing," sure. But by focusing on the semantics you're ignoring the point I made: "ownership" as a concept must include a subject and an object, or else it is incoherent. For example:
A owns B.
But:
A owns A
makes no sense. A is A, but A can not "own" A.
>Also there is no burden on me to prove self ownership, because in the absence of it I don't own my argument :^)
You still control yourself, but as I said, that does not imply any ownership relationship. It is "your" argument, but "your" in this case does not imply ownership. After all, how can you even own words or ideas? This is a limitation of language that we use the same words to describe attributes as we do ownership relationships.
>The assumption presented is that my property claim is correct but he has chosen to exclude certain things from that claim arbitrarily
Property claims *are* arbitrary. That was the point. And I'm aware that an-caps deny that IP can be owned, which is precisely why I included it.
>>70761265
Yes, everyone in this thread are just shills who spend their time looking to discredit Stefan.
Read what you just implied out loud, while that doesn't suffice to prove they aren't, it should sound pretty absurd and with a lack of evidence go with the option that requires less assumptions.
>Anti-Stefan shills are patrolling pol to discredit him, despite Stefan not being a regular topic of discussion
Or
>People on /pol/ are aware of the broader internet community and are offering insight from personal onservations, which you asked for
Don't ask for an opinion if you only want someone to confirm your own.
>>70761441
I've never engaged Molyneux, but I also haven't engaged Anita Sarkesian. I feel comfortable criticizing both without needing to be personally invested or involved in their community
Could someone please help me out with the against me argument? So basically it is saying the other person "wields the gun" so to speak because if I were to not economically support the welfare state, I would be thrown in prison. However, I can disagree with the welfare state and voice my opinion about it freely, but only go to prison if I refuse to pay taxes. How is this like having the freedom of press and not being able to type out an article, as Stefan says? Because I do have the opportunity and option to voice my opinion and disagreement, I just can't do it economically. I'm not trying to hate on Stefan, I am just trying to plug this potential hole in the argument. I would greatly appreciate some help.
>>70765231
Voluntarily.
British meme scientists are getting your cash by force to do not do anything.
![f55[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/t6RB3Jh.jpg "f55[1].jpg")
>>70760327
Stefan Monlyneux has a goatee, which means he has daddy issues. There isn't a man on this planet with a goatee that doesn't have daddy issues.
>>70780882
I honestly don't think you even read any of my posts judging by your replies. Especially now that you're just making up things and claiming they are my positions.
>don't waste your time discussing it.
And here we have the prime issue. Since anarchism is a proposed method of living, it is a relevant topic of discussion to any and all individuals who wish to have a say in how they live. Since anarchism is inherently damaging to any society where it is implemented, it is of critical importance to discuss it. You claiming that people who consider anarchism worthless to not discuss it is a perfect example of your only real method of implementing it, by silencing those who would prove it worthless. Anarchy's main problem is that since it is so anti-government it is far less capable of silencing that speech, compared to statism and communism that can organize and pass laws against such speech.
>>70781781
So go ahead. You can debate with him if you wanted, live on air.
Oh wait, you're probably the same shill who's going to say "oh but he's not even worth it!" or some other load of bullshit, just like on the last thread. Yup, we remember you.
>>70782088
>Stefan Monlyneux has a goatee
not an argument
AN ARGUMENT
>>70760468
> creepy
You're uncomfortable around people with different mannerisms than your own aren't you? Like how the Japanese see foreigners
>>70780882
> Read his hypothetical scenario again and again until you get it. The assumption presented is that my property claim is correct but he has chosen to exclude certain things from that claim arbitrarily. Among those things is an apple tree which in the absence of his arbitrary category would be assumed as my property.
Uh....
> Let's say I don't recognize certain things as being subject to property claims. Let's say, for example: people, air, water, intellectual property, and apple trees. Now let's say I take an apple from "your" apple tree (which in my view belongs to no one), and you use force to try to stop me, who is aggressing whom?
> Let's say I don't recognize certain things as being subject to property claims.
the default position isn't that you 'own' anything, he's clearly asking us to imagine a 'neutral ground' with no presuppositions towards the correctness of anyone's property claims...then asking what we grounds we hae for favoring your preferred set of claims.
nevermind
>>70782179
Learn how much mental/emotional disorders correlate to facial hair.
>>70760327
This isn't an argument but to me he's creepy as fuck and comes off as somehow either unhinged or manipulative. I don't trust him. He says a lot of correct things but the way he says it, the way he speaks, how he's so offended over single mothers, how he subtly tells people they should "not surround yourself with family that is fundamentally opposed to your beliefs", it's fucking weird.
>>70781380
On the other hand, my anecdotal experience confirms that all (but one) ayn rand followers I've met wore a trilby or fedora and talked in pseudo-verbose manners in inappropriate settings.
The only other preacher of the gospel of rand who didn't fit the mold was my roommates ex.
I don't have much against people who follow Rand/Molyneux, but I'm not going to agree that the ones who openly spoke of their views were socially savvy and were not particularly ambitious (but often quite grandiose). I think many conflate having grandiose desires for actually being ambitious, which would require they do more than state a desire to do something.
I also don't agree that ethical egoism is a valid normative ethical approach, but I don't care to eloborate and will let them think as they please. Same with ancaps, I have no qualms with them, I just don't find their arguments convincing enough.
ONE
>>70760778
>mac
Closed tab 3 seconds in
What was the therapy scandal about
>>70774850
never use our flag again faggot
you literally do not deserve to use the flag of the United States of America. you should be gifted a poor african nation's flag or canada for a shitpost of that caliber.
you should also uninstall your internet from your computer you double-digit chromosome possessing nigger. as a nigger you probably stole 30 of those chromosomes from an autistic white kid who jerks off to sonic doujins. the fact your spermcell surpassed the others proves your parents should also be lynched, you filthy degenerate.
uninstall everything from your computer, uninstall your life. you have no right to be using that flag you inbred buffalo
>>70782174
He studies his subjects way more than I do. Why are you so defensive? I never said that molyneux was a fraud or completely wrong, but that he is a manipulative person and that is a reason to avoid him, the individual, not the ideas he is espousing.
I haven't posted in a Molyneux thread, are you perhaps being a bit paranoid over having your beliefs challenged? I would find that troubling, but this is
>not an argument
So you can feel free to dismiss me if you want :)
>>70782565
Ok, one Ayn Rand follower we both know is Trump. Is Trump socially savvy? Yes. Is Trump hugely ambitious (and achieving his goals)? Yes.
And on the other hand, I don't make my identity "objectivist". It's something that knocks around in the back of my head some times. It's can give me a push to pursue some of my bigger goals from time to time. But do I parade it around? No. It's the same thing as atheists. A majority of the people who make atheism their identity come across as hugely socially maladjusted individuals cause all they spend their time obsessing over is... atheism. And we're supposed to be surprised about that?
No. It's the same for any ideology, really.
>>70764044
Wow 10/10 not bad
>>70764868
Yeah no that was perfect
>>70781754
Self-ownership implies both the property and the owner are one and the same. It's right there in the words. Your very issue with this is semantic, so I don't see why you find it necessary to point out that I'm focusing on semantics.
If A is capable of ownership, then A can own itself. A loaf of bread is not capable of ownership. A human on the other hand is - a human has moral agency which is the fundamental requirement for property ownership.
>You still control yourself
Right, but I do not own the consequences of my actions if I do not own myself.
If I do not own my argument, I am not responsible for proving it. Whoever owns it is.
>After all, how can you even own words or ideas?
I own ideas and words I produce, but that's about the point where the ownership ends because they aren't property. Intangible things cannot be property.
>Property claims *are* arbitrary.
For you they are, for me they are not. All claims are based on the principle of self ownership. I own my body and the consequences of my actions. That's not arbitrary.
>>70782425
>the default position isn't that you 'own' anything, he's clearly asking us to imagine a 'neutral ground' with no presuppositions towards the correctness of anyone's property claims...then asking what we grounds we hae for favoring your preferred set of claims.
If you presuppose that morality is not absolute and that property claims are arbitrary, then who owns that apple which he feels he is entitled to depends on who kills who.
>>70760327
Literally, who? If I hadn't seen him posted here, twice a day for the last couple years, I'd never have heard if him.
>and since I know of him from fucking /pol/, I'm not gonna check him out because ain't interested in finding out why you meme gobbling celebrity asshole worshippers like the motherfucker.
>>70760778
Not an argument
Stefan monologue lost to Peter Joseph of TZM of all fucking people. His arguments break down put under the tiniest amount of scrutiny.
Can't believe you faggots can't see past his bullshit.
>>70777177
Your definitions of "rational" and "self-interest" are very different to some other people's definitions.
You are generalizing by saying that it is in people's individual self-interest to free ride. It's the same with charity, or helping someone who will never pay you back - that warm fuzzy feeling is what you get. Nothing more, nothing less. Material reward isn't what everyone chases for.
Also, if individuals apparently act in self-interest, leading to a bad state of affairs, why does this go away when these individuals seize the reins of the state? Why will they suddenly not act in a predatory manner towards other people who are not "protected"?
>>it isn't enough that most 'normal' people couldn't or wouldn't act in such a way, only that there is the possibility of others doing so to them
This is why anarchy is fine on a small scale if you know everyone
>>free riders
If free riders are bad and should be prevented by forcing them to pay, why are homeless people/unemployed/people with no money afforded "protection" by state agencies?
>>70760327
Really like him. Does lots of well made presentations. Target demographic is 18-30.
Hates the welfare state. Plenty of redpills backed up with data and citations.
Politially he is ancap, a man can dream right? that's where the "not an argument" meme comes from. Used to have a relatively small audience that's recently blown up. I think he's redpilling himself about the ancap fantasy the more he caters to his new audience.
Sometimes he'll bring retards on his show and roast the fuck out of them.
Redpill me on the therapy session please.
Btw not one of the comments in this thread is a fucking argument, your move plebs.
