New Hampshire Underground

This Stef guy is being referenced here more and more.  He uses logic charm and humor to persuade people into free-market-anarcho-capitalism.  He emphasizes psychological healing, discourages political activities, and is the metaphor-making-machine.

Yeah you and stef make me loose sleep.

I must admit, I'm being convinced by Stef.  I'm on podcast 200 out of 930 something. 

Ayn Rand said psychologizing is not an argument, and dismissed psychology.  That is true but psychology seems to be the reason you can't convince people of simple logic.  Some mental scar is inhibiting their natural thought processes. 

Yep the scar, probably gets put there from soon
after birth. Then is reinforced regularly.
We are born helpless and ignorant.

Nature seems to have put a believe every thing
big people tell you, program in our heads, to
keep us from getting killed early on in life.

Trying to break free of that is a bitch.

His logic and his straightforwardness is great.  I'm not too much into the podcasts though.  I am a reading type of guy. 

He helped inspire the cartoon that I'm working on now. It should go up sometime early tomorrow; maybe even late tonight.

Quote from: dalebert on December 13, 2007, 10:28 PM NHFT
He helped inspire the cartoon that I'm working on now. It should go up sometime early tomorrow; maybe even late tonight.

Yay! great, awesome , terrific.

(you have to cheer Dale early and often he is a
very tempermental artist. He gets all pouty if ya don't.) ;D >:D

I have listened to a few hundred of his podcasts (maybe 400-600), and I used to participate on his forums (actually, I lurked and read there a lot, and posted a little). There is a lot of good, a lot of truth to be found at FDR, but there is a significant amount of danger, too. And I mean that literally. There is a forum called Liberating Minds (http://liberatingminds.com (http://liberatingminds.com)) where people (including a number of people Stef has banned from FDR*) are talking about the same issues, while helping each other avoid the pitfalls Stef is mired in. And he is mired in problems: defense mechanisms, hypocrisy, lies, double-standards, etc. It should be obvious that I am "anti-Stef," so read my words with a grain of salt. But if you seek truth, you can't dismiss my claims without evidence to the contrary. And there is plenty of evidence to support my claims. One of the forums on Liberating Minds discusses FDR, and there are numerous threads describing Stef's mistakes and problems, including many quotes from and references to FDR forum posts and Stef's podcasts. The goal of this forum of Liberating Minds is to expose FDR's problems, the contradictions, the mistakes, and extract the golden nuggets of truth that Stef reveals.

As you continue listening to FDR, please be very wary that if something sounds or feels wrong to you, it may be so! It took me over a year to fully realize that, as intelligent and correct and wonderful as Stef was, he did get some important things wrong, and lead a few (or maybe a lot of) people to cause themselves psychological damage and havoc in their personal relationships.

I hope you'll check out Liberating Minds (http://liberatingminds.com). You might like it, if you already like the topics Stef covers. We talk about psychology, AnCapism, Ron Paul, poetry, dogs vs. cats :), the NAP, rights...anything you want to bring up.

I'm a huge fan of the podcasts.  He has clearly taken from some of the best thinkers in psychology (there are deep veins of Alice Miller and Nathaniel Branden) and philosophy (Ayn Rand, Aristotle, and Socrates being the biggest influences).  Toss that together with a very healthy dose of libertarianism (especially Harry Browne), and you get very powerful, compelling ideas about the nature of statism, religion, and general disfunction in the world.

As for the liberating minds forum, I've perused it in the past.  The fact that they are ex-FDR members really interferes with it.  It's hard to get past the anger to really come up with anything productive in the way of critique of Stef.  There seems to be a lot of internal conflict about it, too.  I almost get the sense of a bunch of spurned lovers getting together to complain about how awful that man really was, all the while really mourning the fact that the man wasn't interested in them.  It's hard to take criticisms by ex-lovers very seriously, for obvious reasons.

Actually, the reasons aren't obvious. Or rather, the obvious reasons aren't rational. There is definitely a lot of anger and feelings of being spurned by LM members. But does that invalidate their arguments? It doesn't. Perhaps their arguments are incorrect on their own merit, but if you're dismissing their arguments merely because they were spurned or feel spurned, then you may as well say that every person that has ever been spurned is in the wrong.

First, there are LM participants who were never FDR participants. Second, not all the people who were FDR participants were banned from FDR - some still participate. Third, not all the exFDRers feel spurned. I didn't feel spurned, but I was definitely angry for a while - you may have read some of my posts. But thanks to some of the discussions there I learned how that was unproductive to me, and now I don't participate in those threads that are anti-FDR.

While Stef's philosophy indeed "takes from" Branded, Rand, Socrates, Mises, and other great minds, Stef has also said numerous times that those thinkers were failures, and he has even claimed that he reached his conclusions without the help of past thinkers. Have you heard or read any of that in Stef's work?

It's a shame you only perused Liberating Minds. You apparently saw some of the anger people had with Stef and nothing else (or you disregarded everything else). It's definitely true that there is anger, sadness, and even internal conflict, about FDR, but there is so much more there. Some of that is even directed towards itself in efforts to eliminate those negative feelings, and some of us have overcome them and can now see and accept the truth that Stef offers, without the negatives that we identified.

I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

There's a guy named Stefan Molyneux (http://freedomainradio.com) that podcasts prolifically about personal liberty. He's stronger with libertarian/ancap ideals, but he focuses on psychology. Some people tried to ask him questions about contradictions he's made or whatever, and he banned them. They (and others who weren't even involved with Stef) started participating in another forum (Liberating Minds (http://liberatingminds.com)) to discuss the same topics but without the banning or inconsistencies. That's all.

(http://anarchyinyourhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/no_more_kings.png)

To read the associated blog entry or to leave comments, click here (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2007/12/14/no-more-kings/). I encourage people to leave their comments, positive or negative, on my site so that everyone who sees the cartoon can get your take on it. It helps to clarify the message and most of them won't see your comments here. Also, I don't want to hijack a thread that's about Stefan.

If you like the cartoon, please digg it (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/No_More_Kings).

Well I said a lot of his pod-casts make me
think. I am not going to start a cult around him.

If your looking for perfect your gonna look a long time.

I'm rejecting the arguments on their own, and noting some of the dynamics at play in the liberating minds forum, so people know what they're walking into.

I didn't mean to turn Lauren's thread into an FDR-LiMi bitchfight, so I'm going to drop that bit of it for now.

Quote from: Mike in CA on December 13, 2007, 11:46 PM NHFT
While Stef's philosophy indeed "takes from" Branded, Rand, Socrates, Mises, and other great minds, Stef has also said numerous times that those thinkers were failures, and he has even claimed that he reached his conclusions without the help of past thinkers. Have you heard or read any of that in Stef's work?

I remember Stef saying several times the exact opposite of what I bolded.  It's the old "standing on the shoulders of giants" thing.  Stef has called those past thinkers failures relative to the truth they sought (Socrates, Rand) or the effects they desired (Mises, Hayek, etc.).  I don't think that's a terribly blasphemous thing to say.  Obviously he thinks his contributions are better than theirs, otherwise he wouldn't contradict them.  Most of the improvement stems from his ability to synthesize the different disciplines, but there's certainly no shortage of original thought in there.

Great cartoon, Dale :D  Damn, you're talented!

He's very repetitive. A lot of his videos could be boiled down to maybe 2 minutes. And I think he does come off as a jerk. If he truely has ground breaking ideas I haven't heard them and I'm sure someone with better communication skills will elaborate on them and make them more available. Some of the issues about Stefan discussed on the liberatingminds forum are pretty damaging, I'm not sure Stefan can ignore them for very long.

Stefan reminds me of the libertarian party. It too was great once but then lost its way.

Interesting video.  Watch to youtube video then go to the liberating mind link afterwards, where rather than discuss the contents of the video they talk about his laughing.   ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eacoZopXYY

http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomainradio-f26/stef-s-latest-video-infiltrating-the-mafia-t380.htm

btw, Russell you will like the video.   ;)

Quote from: Faber on December 14, 2007, 12:46 AM NHFT
Great cartoon, Dale :D  Damn, you're talented!

I see you're taking Pat's advice.  ;D

Quote from: Faber on December 14, 2007, 12:46 AM NHFTI didn't mean to turn Lauren's thread into an FDR-LiMi bitchfight, so I'm going to drop that bit of it for now.

Good idea. It was not my intent either. I just wanted people interested in Stef to know there was a place that discussed the same issues beyond the potential contradictions that Stef won't address. I'm done here, too.

Quote from: Mike in CA on December 14, 2007, 09:11 AM NHFT

Quote from: Faber on December 14, 2007, 12:46 AM NHFTI didn't mean to turn Lauren's thread into an FDR-LiMi bitchfight, so I'm going to drop that bit of it for now.

Good idea. It was not my intent either. I just wanted people interested in Stef to know there was a place that discussed the same issues beyond the potential contradictions that Stef won't address. I'm done here, too.

Not my intent either.  Those who don't like him, are simply pointing out that in the end he is an imperfect human being, just like the rest of us.  Except Lloyd, he's perfect.   ;)  But the rest of us aren't.  I would like to put some of his theories to the test in the near future, and if I miss big details that he or I overlooked in our zeal to have a somewhat stateless society, then it will be our own fault when problems occur.   :)

Why is there so much negativity towards Ron Paul among liberty loving folks?

I think of all the people that Ron Paul has woken up and turned to liberty and it just boggles the mind that so many pro-liberty folks resent him for that. Are you just upset at the idea that a politician is able to get people to think about less government?

I'm not saying to support Ron Paul but to actively discredit him? All the work he has done in engaging new people, encouraging people to get invovled in the liberty movement, getting people to THINK about what the role of government should be, he has written many excellent articles for Lew Rockwell and Ludwig von Mises (both of which are supposadely the intelectual havens of anti-government, anti-system and pro-free market, pro-liberty folks) he has said what many people don't want to hear about our government and the war.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that has promised to bring our troops home. If he does absolutely nothing else except bring our troops home he would be saving the lives of hundreds of thousand of people that our military would have killed in the next 4 or 8 years. And no amount of civil disobedience in NH is going to end the war in Iraq. Only Ron Paul can do that in the near future, if elected.

In fact, I have yet to meet a single Ron Paul supporter who believes that Ron Paul will achieve all of our goals of Freedom (Ron Paul himself has admited multiple times on camera that it is impossible for him to achieve all of his goals). And yet that is the whole argument in Stefs video - which leads me to believe that Stef has no idea what he's talking about and his whole show is purely for entertainment purposes and to make a quick buck (that show is his bread and better and he will do and say just about anything to cause controversy and get more people to listen to him and hopefuly buy his book or donate). His Hispanic group argument is completely irrelevent. Trying to get a group to hate itself is a lot different than Ron Paul trying to get people to love and respect themselves instead of asking for government handouts.

To be even more conservative, lets say that Ron Paul gets elected and gets hundreds of thousands more people on board with liberty over the next year, but then once elected Ron Paul turns into a Hillary or McRomney or what have you. The net gain from us supporting him is still positive because we would have had a bad guy in power anyways yet with Ron Pauls campaign we were able to reach a lot more awareness and even get a few more people to move to NH and work for liberty here. Ron Paul himself has said multiple times that his campaign is bigger than him. He understands that as president he wouldn't be able to do much but he's seeing the positive affects his campaign is having on people.

Those of you actively pursuing to discredit the Ron Paul revolution are being destructive to freedom in my opinion.

Whenever anything pro-liberty happens in NH we are always hoping that some MSM or national media outlet picks up the story and gets more people to read about it and hopefuly join the freedom movement here in NH. Many of you who are against Ron Paul seem to applaud when a national news outlet writes a positive article, yet Ron Paul is a perpetual pro-liberty marketing machine. Ron Paul doesn't matter, it's about the message.

I would hope that the least the Ron Paul antagonists could do is just use your energy on attack the other candidates or the system or going out and doing civil disobedience but to sit there and spend time coming up with ways to hurt the Ron Paul movement is just mind boggling to me.

People don't like when Jason Sorens or Seth bash the civil dis. folks and yet you're doing the same thing to the politicos. I thought you guys where better than that.

Dale, I loved your other cartoons and you have definitely put a lot of effort into the Ron Paul one but I have to ask: What do you hope to achieve for liberty as a result of this cartoon? Or was it purely negative and spiteful?

Speaking for myself I do not at all hate Ron Paul.  I am one that is happy when he gets good news.  But I agree with alot of what Stef had to say about him.  The gov't exists for the benifit of others.  The only time they pretend otherwise is during election years.  That is why not much gets done during election years. 
but I have lost faith that any politician, Dr. Paul or someone else will ever be given the power to strongly effect the milk teat of subsidies, regulations that hurt competition and favor existing business', social security, or the industrial military complex.  And that is if he went all the way and became Prez.  The Gov't does not represent you and I. 
I support Free trade.  It is clear to me the gov't does not represent you and I when I consider NAFTA, CAFTA, or any other 'free trade' agreement. 
That is why I spend time looking for solutions out side the system.  It is personally clear to me that it would be more productive.  I want to do something meaningful for liberty, to achieve it in my lifetime.  I see the poison and the parasitism in politics, and the long history of the freedom movement unable to do much more than slow it down. 
It is not a personal attack, against you or the Ron Paul movement.  It is just the way I view a harsh reality.
Power has never been our friend.  It has never been our ally in gov't or outside of gov't.  I am no longer comfortable waiting for a politician to come and save me.  Dr. Paul might very well be a great man worthy of my support.  But I do not trust the system that exists for the same reason the mouth on a leach does.  I can only control myself.  I have no control over the system.  I believe my personal efforts will be more effective with things I can control.

I consider many, many of the political porcs to be my friends.  I was saddened when Dawn, and Chathaleeninnh, and Rochelle, and others left the forum.  Do not take my dislike of politics personal.  Please point out when I have been disrespectful, and I promise to remedy it to my best ability. 

Quote from: David on December 14, 2007, 10:34 AM NHFT
I am no longer comfortable waiting for a politician to come and save me.  Dr. Paul might very well be a great man worthy of my support.

I don't think anyone has claimed that Ron Paul will 'save us'. The whole point of liberty is that we have to take it back ourselves.

We have to work towards personal freedom no matter who the president is or what type of anarchist society we have. There will always be someone trying to gain power and influence people. That's not as much a product of society as simple human nature I think, some people are simply born leaders. They are naturaly able to lead and for whatever reason other people naturally follow them. It's a fact of life, animals have the same types of roles within their groups. So, you should never, ever, stop working for personal freedom just because your leader happens to share some of your beliefs, since they cannot possibly ever share all of your beliefs (unless you're a sheeple in which case you don't have any beliefs that aren't also shared by your superior...).

Ron Paul is not a subsitute to everything the outside-the-system and inside-the-system folks are doing. He's merely one part of a decentralized push towards liberty. You may chose to support him or not is up to you and perfectly reasonable. The thing that bothers me is when people actively attack him.

The first video I ever saw of Stefan was his diatribe about why we shouldn't support Ron Paul. To quote him, he said that Ron Paul was a "disaster" for the freedom movement. My only response to that would be that Stefan is the real "disaster" to the freedom movement. He is only interested in monolog.

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 14, 2007, 09:57 AM NHFT
Dale, I loved your other cartoons and you have definitely put a lot of effort into the Ron Paul one but I have to ask: What do you hope to achieve for liberty as a result of this cartoon? Or was it purely negative and spiteful?

My impression from this statement is that you haven't read the associated blog entry. Click here (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2007/12/14/no-more-kings/). Also, I really wish if you want to comment on the cartoon that you use my site to do so. Why? Because others may be having the same misconceptions about what I'm trying to say as you and most of the people who see it won't see your comments here. The cartoon, while it may be imperfect, can be a tool for stimulating further dialog.

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 14, 2007, 09:57 AM NHFT

I think of all the people that Ron Paul has woken up and turned to liberty and it just boggles the mind that so many pro-liberty folks resent him for that. Are you just upset at the idea that a politician is able to get people to think about less government?

Has he turned people to liberty or has he just turned them to the delusion that they can actually change the nature government?

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 14, 2007, 09:57 AM NHFT
...getting people to THINK about what the role of government should be...

Ahhh, I guess that answers that question. The reason that people who care about liberty cannot support Ron Paul is that there is no place for government in liberty. Furthermore, it is not the state itself that is our enemy, but the moral philosophy that props it up. Attempting to change the nature of the state before attacking the moral philosophy driving it is putting the cart before the horse, is doomed to failure, and will only delay the real change that must occur for us to be free.

Lex, just to be clear, I'm not trying to dodge your questions. I'd actually really like it asked on my site so I can respond for others to see because I'm sure you're not the only one to misinterpret my message. I actually expected statements like that.

 Menger stated it well, that gov't has no place in liberty, and that an illusion of change will only delay the needed change.  If Dr. Paul manages to do everything that he promises to try to do, in effect if he is more successful than even he hopes to be, in the end he is one man.  After his presidency, the whole rotten system will still be there, to be used by its real patrons once again. 

Quote from: David on December 14, 2007, 11:35 AM NHFT
Menger stated it well, that gov't has no place in liberty, and that an illusion of change will only delay the needed change.  If Dr. Paul manages to do everything that he promises to try to do, in effect if he is more successful than even he hopes to be, in the end he is one man.  After his presidency, the whole rotten system will still be there, to be used by its real patrons once again. 

What do you think he has promised to do?

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on December 13, 2007, 09:45 PM NHFT
This Stef guy is being referenced here more and more.  He uses logic charm and humor to persuade people into free-market-anarcho-capitalism.  He emphasizes psychological healing, discourages political activities, and is the metaphor-making-machine.

Whoa!  I don't even know who he is and I wish I understood at least 1/4 of the words you used so I opt out of this poll. :crybaby2: :help: :duh: :Bolt: ;D

Quote from: MengerFan on December 14, 2007, 11:16 AM NHFT
Ahhh, I guess that answers that question. The reason that people who care about liberty cannot support Ron Paul is that there is no place for government in liberty. Furthermore, it is not the state itself that is our enemy, but the moral philosophy that props it up. Attempting to change the nature of the state before attacking the moral philosophy driving it is putting the cart before the horse, is doomed to failure, and will only delay the real change that must occur for us to be free.

I think you're shooting arguments in the dark hoping to hit something.

All Ron Paul talks about in almost every interview is about how people need to take things into their own hands. That the only way we will be able to reduce the size of government is if people stop asking for handouts.

Ron Paul is an admitted Ludwig von Mises scholar (he has even admitted it more than once in MSM interviews). He even stated more than once in MSM interviews that many of his supporters are Anarchists.

To say that Ron Paul is thinking that he can somehow make government better is not only absurd it's a lie. Ron Paul has never made such a promist, NEVER. All you hear him say is how government is evil! He doesn't say that if we just elect him it would be better!

Anyways, if you can find at least one string of evidence to the accusations you have made I would be very interested in seeing them, otherwise I think you're just making stuff up.

Quote from: dalebert on December 14, 2007, 11:20 AM NHFT
Lex, just to be clear, I'm not trying to dodge your questions. I'd actually really like it asked on my site so I can respond for others to see because I'm sure you're not the only one to misinterpret my message. I actually expected statements like that.

I posted a comment regarding your description. You can respond to it there but I will also post it here.

At the end of your description you state that if you are proven wrong you will appologize. But the problem is that what if you are wrong AND your (and others) efforts to discredit Ron Paul cause him to not get elected (hypothetically speaking)? Why attack him when in fact you admit that you are not certain if what you're doing is for the best? It's insane. Here we are all working to try and achieve liberty in our life times in our ways and you're attacking someone who's working very hard towards that goal because you have a hunch that maybe they will fail using their method?!? What the heck?

That's what Jason and Seth (and maybe others..) do to the civil disobedience movement. Don't you think they are a bit self-rightous to be so certain that the things the civil dis. folks are doing are causing more harm than good? Yet, somehow you are just as certain that Ron Paul would be a "disaster" (to use Stefans words)? Disaster compared to what? Hillary getting elected?

But lets look at your analogy, I completely agree that the ring exists. The only problem is that there is more than one ring and it cannot be removed. Some people are born with the ring and it stays with them for the rest of their life. Some use it for good but most use it to be manipulative. For thousands of years people have ruled and been ruled. Even if we get Anarcho-capitalism there will still be ignorant people following evil leaders, it's a given, you cannot deny this. Look at religions, those are voluntary, right? Yet you have religions that promote hatred and violence and you have people to voluntarily subscribe to those religions and you have people being oppressed by those religions. We will always be finding people with influence for eternity and in this case the enemy of our enemy is our friend: Ron Paul. He is fighting the same beast we are he's just using different means.

We must always strive for more freedom but we have to understand that we will never have total freedom, it is impossible. And the irony of this is that Stefan agrees that perfection is unnatainable (listen to his introduction on philosophy). So while he agrees that we cannot be perfect he suggests that we should always strive towards that direction. Ron Paul is NOT perfect but he IS undoubtedly better than Guilliani would you not agree? Stefan will probably say that no president is still better than Ron paul and I agree. But the reality is that we will have a new president elected in a year so and if by then we have an anarcho-capitalist society all those sheeple that we have today will still be electing some leader to try and bring government back.

Using Stefans logic: Not supporting Ron Paul is ok since Ron Paul is obviously not pure and thus if you want to reach purity you shouldn't support him. BUT supporting Ron Paul should also be okay because he's more pure than Hillary Clinton or Guilliani. Attacking Ron Paul on the other hand doesn't seem to fit with the philosophy of reaching perfection.

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 14, 2007, 12:22 PM NHFT
Ron Paul has never made such a promist, NEVER. All you hear him say is how government is evil! He doesn't say that if we just elect him it would be better!

Excellent. So he never talks about the government needing to provide "national defense" or "border security" or creating money? He has never used the words "my plan" with regard to fixing government programs?

That's funny, because my ears sure hear all of those thing just in the Stossel interview.

Quote from: MengerFan on December 14, 2007, 01:06 PM NHFT
Excellent. So he never talks about the government needing to provide "national defense" or "border security" or creating money?

National Defense - Show me a quote where Ron Paul says that our government does or can do a good job of maintaining our national security. You won't find it. But he does support 2nd Amendment rights and would support any groups of people that want to create militias.

Border Security - He doesn't want to build a wall or spend any significant amount of money on the border. He does preface every discussion on this subject by saying that if we got rid of welfare we could completely get rid of borders and let people come here. So, he has nothing against open border once welfare is eliminated. And if you look at his voting record and listen to him speak you'll know that getting rid of the welfare state is #1 on his priority list (along with bringing our troops home and ending the US empire).

Creating Money - You've got to be kidding me. All he talks about is getting rid of the IRS and Federal Reserve and privitizing the creation of money. He has mentioned going back to the gold standard but this would not preclude private currency. He wholeheartedly supports the Liberty Dollar effort. And was upset when he heard about them being raided.

Quote from: MengerFan on December 14, 2007, 01:06 PM NHFT
He has never used the words "my plan" with regard to fixing government programs?

Yeah, his plan is to get rid of them.

Quote from: MengerFan on December 14, 2007, 01:06 PM NHFT
That's funny, because my ears sure hear all of those thing just in the Stossel interview.

Link me.

It's on youtube and the ABC website.

Quote from: MengerFan on December 14, 2007, 01:33 PM NHFT
It's on youtube and the ABC website.

This one?

[youtube=425,350]UJz81lAwY0M[/youtube]

[youtube=425,350]ky3CTT7Hw4s[/youtube]

I'm not a big fan of Saint Stefan the Coffee Sipper.
With that said, I'm also not a big fan of anyone who comes off as a self-aggrandizing, narcissistic, armchair philosopher who cries crocodile tears with superfluous dignity while claiming imperfection and ultimately rejecting any criticisms directed at him. *excuse me...I need to sip my coffee...mmm..ok*

I also despise hypocrisy (especially my own). It's not that I'm wrong, but that my ideas are just not fully understood. *sip* Mmmm, see how that works ;)

If Ron Paul is Boromir, then I will liken Stefan to Denethor. Sitting on his gluttonous throne pontificating the glories of inaction and ultimate selfishness. No doubt, given the ring, Stefan...err...Denethor would grasp at it. Despite blustery arguments to the contrary.

I think Ron Paul would be better characterized as Gandalf if we're gonna get all geeky here.

:icon_pirat:

Quote from: David on December 13, 2007, 10:16 PM NHFT
His logic and his straightforwardness is great.  I'm not too much into the podcasts though.  I am a reading type of guy. 

I have read some of his columns on lewrockwell.com, and mostly enjoyed them. From the conversation in this thread, I've obviously missed a great deal that he's said, and I don't think what I've missed is anything I'd care for.

That said, the first time I listed to his podcast, I wanted to drive sharp things through my eardrums. Ack! It's not the content, nor the accent... it was like listening to Hugh Grant bumble and fumble and hem and haw and deprecate and dissemble. I'm sure the proper words were all there, but the delivery sucked, horribly.

Maybe I just picked a bad example.

If you drank as much coffee as he obviously does you'd probalby sound like that too  :D

Lex, I'm not just acting on a hunch any more than you are by supporting Ron Paul. You obviously believe your efforts are going to result in a good outcome. So do I. Disagree with me all you want, but I wouldn't be saying what I'm saying if I didn't have confidence in my beliefs. I don't want to just let things play out and see what happens because I think the whole think is ultimately setting us back. This whole campaign is mental masturbation for liberty lovers. It's making you all feel better for doing something while wasting a lot of energy and resources that could be better spent, all while teaching people that the path to liberty is to become part of the aggressive force that is government.

There's also another key factor here. Once again, without actually starting a whole new thread on the argument of the morality of political action, you know from things I have said before that my belief is that political action is a violation of the NAP. Again, not trying to start another endless thread to try to change minds on this subject right now (let's move on), but given that it's my belief that the action is not acceptable and given that I strongly believe it will do no good and quite likely do harm, the logical course of action for me is to speak out against such action. If I believe there is a 99% chance of a good result by taking a moral action and a 1% chance of a good result by taking the immoral action, what do you think I'm going to do? Now if others who disagree take such actions and it turns out I'm wrong, then yes, I will have to admit my mistake about the utility of said action. It still doesn't change my opinion about the morality of said action because I don't accept the premise that the end justifies the means. Move on and do what you feel justified to do. You will simply have to do it without my passive consent. I said in my post that I don't expect to stop you and that I only hope this will be a learning experience and perhaps some will look back in retrospect and reconsider what I've said.

Also, keep in mind that my arguments are primarily directed at anarchists. For those who are minarchists, we're not starting off from the same premises. If you believe in minimal government, then I have a problem with that, but at least you're not hypocritical by supporting Ron Paul. That's another debate entirely.

Okay, give me your vision for how the civil disobedience folks without any help from folks working within the system can end the government.

Lets say that you get every conscionable bureaucrat to quit their jobs. The guys that are left are going to be the same crooks that would otherwise be literally out commiting burglary and theft. Suddenly the barrier to entry into politics will become easier because no reasonable person would be running for office. So you're going to see crooks winning elections unchallenged with a thousand votes from their mafia friends in towns with a tens of thousands of voters (who would not be voting?).

Essentially what would happen is a gradual change from a mixture of ignorant, apathetic, some law abiding, some honest, some diabolical, etc bureaucrats being replaced with purely die hard criminals. This is what has happened in pretty much every third world countries where the government was oppressive, then overthrown by people and with or without their consent rebooted by thugs.

I don't know the right way to create a truely free society but I have a pretty strong gut feeling that working strictly outside the system is not going to do it. Non violent civil disobedience works only against governments that are trying to preserve a sence of legitimacy. The moment you replace every bureaucrat in government with a Guilliani for example any attempts to resemble legitimacy will be gone, it'll make the government brutality today like like a walk in the park.

Gandhi was successful because he was battling Britian and the Brits were self-righteous and believed that they were doing the right things. Gandhi won only because the Brits had some dignity. You think a Gandhi would have been successful under a Nazi regime or under a Soviet Russia? He would have been dead the same day, no questions asked.

The only way I see success is if we have civil disobedience going on and friendly politicos in government nudging their apathetic and ignorant fellow bureaucrats to notice the protests and use that as a way to change things. Otherwise without allies on the inside you're doomed to fail and would only make things worse by convincing anyone with any bit of consciounce left to quit and inevitably having some former criminal take their spot.

Quote from: dalebert on December 14, 2007, 03:29 PM NHFT
Also, keep in mind that my arguments are primarily directed at anarchists. For those who are minarchists, we're not starting off from the same premises. If you believe in minimal government, then I have a problem with that, but at least you're not hypocritical by supporting Ron Paul. That's another debate entirely.

I used to have the label Anarcho-Capitalist in my profile but decided to remove it because it was too limiting.

My direction is the system of society argued by Ludwig von Mises which is essentially Anarcho-Capitalism (a system that Ron Paul believes in as well). But I don't think being completely ignorant of the political process will get us there. I think it is impossible without having allies inside the system.

Also, some people would argue that Gandhi replaced evil rule with even more evil rule and in the end created much more human suffering.

That is the problem with a completely bottom up approach. As soon as the local thugs got into power Gandhi became irrelevent. The same will happen here once you guilt trip all of the liberty minded bureaucrats out of office.

you have to have a little "top down" approach activity?
how much?

That appearance of legitimacy is exactly the source of their power though. You take that away, and you take away the power and the threat that accompanies it. I can print a sticker with "president" on it and go order some army personnel around. Without legitimacy, military personal will not feel compelled to follow my orders. Without legitimacy, people won't feel compelled to pay taxes that support that military, report on their neighbors, etc. Government survives because we all fuel it with both moral and tangible support. If we stop fueling it, the legitimacy and the threat diminishes and we want to diminish it as much as we possibly can with a (perhaps asymptotic) goal of zero. Without legitimacy, whoever assumes the then meaningless role of governor, or mayor, or whatever, has gained no power from that worthless title. They may as well print their own sticker. In such a scenario with no legitimacy, government has failed to provide the thug with any power he didn't already have. A government with no appearance of legitimacy is no threat at all.

If Ron Paul is this anarchist that you claim he is, why does he talk about the "limited role of government"? Why is an anarchist saying there is a role for government?

sometimes guys that call themselves anarchists ... like having some government .... it keeps them out of trouble with the thugs

Faber is a "he" :D

Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 15, 2007, 12:57 AM NHFT
you have to have a little "top down" approach activity?

I think so.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 15, 2007, 12:57 AM NHFT
how much?

There is obviously no right answer to this. But you can always defer to the free market and let those that want to take the approach via politics to do so.

Quote from: dalebert on December 15, 2007, 01:05 AM NHFT
That appearance of legitimacy is exactly the source of their power though. You take that away, and you take away the power and the threat that accompanies it. I can print a sticker with "president" on it and go order some army personnel around. Without legitimacy, military personal will not feel compelled to follow my orders. Without legitimacy, people won't feel compelled to pay taxes that support that military, report on their neighbors, etc. Government survives because we all fuel it with both moral and tangible support. If we stop fueling it, the legitimacy and the threat diminishes and we want to diminish it as much as we possibly can with a (perhaps asymptotic) goal of zero. Without legitimacy, whoever assumes the then meaningless role of governor, or mayor, or whatever, has gained no power from that worthless title. They may as well print their own sticker. In such a scenario with no legitimacy, government has failed to provide the thug with any power he didn't already have. A government with no appearance of legitimacy is no threat at all.

We don't live in a pure democracy. A majority of Americans can disagree with something the government is doing and still nothing may change. Ron Paul has suggested that 70% of Americans are against the war and it's a telling sign that the government doesn't need majority approval to do very evil things.

Are you suggesting that if a majority of Americans stopped voting the government would somehow stop functioning?

Or how do you foresee the elimination of government unfolding?

The idea that the government needs a sense of legitimacy to function is fairy tales. All they need is to have more guns than you.

Which brings up another question, how will you liquidate the government assets, all those guns? Who will do the liquidation and where will the proceeds go?

Quote from: dalebert on December 15, 2007, 01:08 AM NHFT
If Ron Paul is this anarchist that you claim he is, why does he talk about the "limited role of government"? Why is an anarchist saying there is a role for government?

I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question because we both know full well that in order to even become invovled in politics you have to consciously agree to compromise some of your principles.

I'm also a strong believer that anarchy is a direction, not a destination. Ron Paul definitely believes in Austrian economics and that is the direction he has been going, consistently.

Sure you can start getting into a debate of the end doesn't justify the means, but as I have said above there is no end, there are only the means. We have to think strategically not in absolutes.

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 15, 2007, 08:19 AM NHFT
The idea that the government needs a sense of legitimacy to function is fairy tales. All they need is to have more guns than you.

Then go order armies into war against other nations. Go out to some army base and boss soldiers around and see what happens. Without that sense of legitimacy, those guns are carried by a bunch of individuals with individual will, and they will laugh at you or anyone else who orders them around unless they have bought into the B.S. that the person ordering them around has legitimate authority to do so! It is that appearance of legitimacy and nothing else that separates them from any other petty gang of criminals. It is that and that alone that allows them to form enormous functional armies that carry out the will of a few elites. They fund those armies with tax dollars that people hand over to them because they've been indoctrinated to believe it's not theft. Not voting is just one piece of the equation. We make it SO easy for them to control us. If we stopped cooperating constantly, tyranny would become more and more burdensome. It doesn't take many people not going along with it to start throwing a serious wrench in the gears.

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 15, 2007, 08:23 AM NHFT

Quote from: dalebert on December 15, 2007, 01:08 AM NHFT
If Ron Paul is this anarchist that you claim he is, why does he talk about the "limited role of government"? Why is an anarchist saying there is a role for government?

I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question because we both know full well that in order to even become invovled in politics you have to consciously agree to compromise some of your principles.

So you're suggesting that Ron Paul is really an anarchist and he's lying to get into a position of power over our lives? Well, I don't buy that. I think he's attempting to portray himself honestly.

An apparently unsolicited review of Stefan Molyneux's three books:

[youtube=425,350]YKS0Qz1eeOs[/youtube]

(sorry to drag this thread back on topic ;) )

Quote from: dalebert on December 15, 2007, 09:08 AM NHFT
Then go order armies into war against other nations.

If I was savvy enough I could probably pull it off by making up some story about being from a new secret national security bureau that has authority to start wars, blah, blah.

Don't underestimate the effectivness of social hacking. Especially on such a large scale where nobody would be expecting it.

Quote from: dalebert on December 15, 2007, 09:08 AM NHFT
Go out to some army base and boss soldiers around and see what happens. Without that sense of legitimacy, those guns are carried by a bunch of individuals with individual will, and they will laugh at you or anyone else who orders them around unless they have bought into the B.S. that the person ordering them around has legitimate authority to do so!

Given a proper uniform and some coaching on how to talk the talk it can probably be done. A lower rank soldier is unlikely to question an order from what appears to be a superior officer.

Quote from: dalebert on December 15, 2007, 09:08 AM NHFT
It is that appearance of legitimacy and nothing else that separates them from any other petty gang of criminals. It is that and that alone that allows them to form enormous functional armies that carry out the will of a few elites.

Fear is another method of creating armies - legitimacy not required. And of course money is a third option. Some soldier wouldn't care who they're shooting at as long as they get their paycheck at the end of the day.

Quote from: dalebert on December 15, 2007, 09:08 AM NHFT
They fund those armies with tax dollars that people hand over to them because they've been indoctrinated to believe it's not theft. Not voting is just one piece of the equation. We make it SO easy for them to control us. If we stopped cooperating constantly, tyranny would become more and more burdensome. It doesn't take many people not going along with it to start throwing a serious wrench in the gears.

They'll just take away everyones wrenches and fix the gears. Unless you have mechanics on the inside help keep the gears from working.

To get back on subject:

Listen to this podcast about self-defense: http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/traffic_jam_1.mp3

He argues against self-defense... by equating personal defense with government wars ::)

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 15, 2007, 07:46 PM NHFTA lower rank soldier is unlikely to question an order from what appears to be a superior officer.

So you would use the appearance of legitimacy to manipulate them... exactly as I said.

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 14, 2007, 09:57 AM NHFT
I would hope that the least the Ron Paul antagonists could do is just use your energy on attack the other candidates or the system or going out and doing civil disobedience but to sit there and spend time coming up with ways to hurt the Ron Paul movement is just mind boggling to me.

This is how most idealistic social/political movements usually end up collapsing: The purists within the group start attacking those that aren't, wasting everyone's time. Ultimately, two or more factions emerge, each a fraction of the strength of the previous group.

Why purists have to behave in such a manner, I don't know. Perhaps it's because they think it's easier to convert people who are "almost there" than it is to convert people who are completely opposed to them. Perhaps it's because it's more maddening to keep quiet about someone who shares your worldview except for one or two minor points, than it is to keep quiet about someone who's so different that you can't relate at all to them.

And there's no good way to respond to them: You can waste your time engaging in their arguments with them (have you noticed just how many of the threads on this forum recently have been nothing more than debate?), or you can split from them—which is the starting point of the factionalism I mentioned earlier. Either way, nothing is accomplished except everyone involved getting pissed at everyone else.

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 15, 2007, 09:18 PM NHFT
To get back on subject:

Listen to this podcast about self-defense: http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/traffic_jam_1.mp3

He argues against self-defense... by equating personal defense with government wars ::)

He said "personal defense against a mugger is the same as a government war"?  I didn't hear him say that.  I heard him say that the need for personal self-defense is rare.  I've got a few decades under my belt and I've never had to use self-defense.  I credit that with good fortune, but mostly good decisions.  And if I was mugged or whatever, I'd hand over my wallet and call it a day; it'd probably cost me less than buying a gun. 

Self-defense also tends to be ambiguous and lead to escalation.  And I heard him draw the analogy to the World Wars in showing that escalation and ambiguity thing, which is where you might have gotten lost.  But I also heard him say that self-defense is a morally valid concept.  People twist that concept into "Well what about World War II, HUH?!", which he finds obnoxious and historically ignorant (as do I).  It's also hypocritical, of course, because if self-defense is a valid option, then the first form of self-defense should be defense against a government that taxes.

As far as I know, having listened to the podcasts and read the books, he's never called personal self-defense immoral.

Quote from: Faber on December 16, 2007, 05:22 AM NHFT

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 15, 2007, 09:18 PM NHFT
To get back on subject:

Listen to this podcast about self-defense: http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/traffic_jam_1.mp3

He argues against self-defense... by equating personal defense with government wars ::)

He said "personal defense against a mugger is the same as a government war"?  I didn't hear him say that.

And you guys just demonstrated the (on-topic) post I was about to make:— ;D

I am not hooked on Stefan Molyneux, nor will I be, until he learns to pick up a keyboard and bloody write articles instead of speak them. I don't want to waste forty-five minutes listening to someone say something, when I could've read the same in five minutes. When an article is textual, I can skip around, jump back and re-read something if a later paragraph referenced something earlier, and so on. I can't do that easily with audio or video recordings. Finally, I often like to save articles that I like—I'm not saving dozens of 80MiB flash videos that could've been 10KiB HTML files.

And most importantly, for purposes of discussion and debate, it's nigh impossible to quote anything he said—unless you're a stenographer.

J, I'm going to respond to you in the anti-politics thread to keep from further hijacking this thread.

Yes, indeedy, Stef has hooked me with Freedomain Radio. I've listened to about 350 of the podcasts so far and read a good number of his articles and both of his philosophy books (On Truth: The Tyrrany of Illusion and Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics). I like his arguments because they're not his arguments. He is very clear when he's working out a theory for discussion, and when he's putting forward something he considers a logical proof. When something is a logical proof, it stands on its own no matter who says it. The philosophy major inside me appreciates the logical bits enormously. If you're self-taught on philosophy, you have no idea of the confusion that can be caused by a liberal arts "education" in philosophy. The professors all taught about logic and rationality beautifully, but then we went through the history of philosophy (most of which is irrational) and never bothered to concentrate on any sort of logical conclusions. After all, as educators, they're incentivized to provide us with confusion, not conclusions.

Stefan Molyneux's philosophy is interested in real conclusions, real answers, and effective action. I hear a lot of people talking about how his philosophy is a lofty ideal, and how it's all well and good, but striving for perfection leads to inaction. I can say with certainty that this is untrue. It did take a lot of time and listening, and I feel for those who don't like Stef's rambling podcasts (I happen to enjoy it, and am fortunate to be able to listen to podcasts while I work). I'd be completely willing to put together the "short course" of what I've heard so far, or I'd suggest just skipping around. I've watched the 4-video youtube series on Ron Paul, and particularly appreciated the third one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z-fhCFkISM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z-fhCFkISM). It's aimed at answering questions like, "If Ron Paul won't bring me freedom, what will?"

While I disagree with Stefan on self-defense and politics I would like to point out that I really enjoyed his discussion of parenting, all three parts:

Parenting Part 1 Credibility: http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_196_Parenting_Part_1_Credibility.mp3
Parenting Part 2 Authority: http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_197_Parenting_Part_2_Authority.mp3
Parenting Part 3 Communication: http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_198_Parenting_Part_3_Communication.mp3

I've listened now to 'several' podacasts, watched several vidcasts, and read several articles.  I'm impressed when he sitcks to logical proofs.  I'm not impressed when he talks about self defense.  I wasn't impressed by his overwrought strawman argument against Ron Paul.  As a podcaster I'm impressed by how prolific he is.... 900+ eps is a mighty fucking opus.  I have suggested him to others.  I think there is fodder for debate in his work, especially when he gets to means and methods.   But I think it is the self defense issue that really sticks in the craw for most folks arguing on this list.  I feel like many of the anarchist here believe in a lofty ideal of self defense but are squeamish.  Perhaps they've never had to defend themselves, or they chose not to and feel guilty (that was my impression of Stefan), but I think we might all benefit from a discussion about what self defense is, what means can be used etc. 

I know I listened to one of Stefan's podcasts, talking about self defense and his abusive mother, and how he couldn't defend himself, and then when he was older and more capable felt he shouldn't defend himself.  I think he is a little emotionally crippled there and it colors his philosophy in a way that makes it often distasteful to me.  The truth of the matter is most 10 or 12 year old boys could defend against their mothers but don't out of a sense of obligation and fear... I think, and I've never discussed it here but on the FTL board it is a riotous debate, the rights of a child come in here.  A child is also sovereign if equipped with sufficient reason to act responsibly.  Don't know where I'm going with this.

Anyway.  Have to fill my zune with something.  I look forward to hearing more of what he has to say.

Quote from: Eli on December 18, 2007, 12:42 PM NHFT
I've listened now to 'several' podacasts, watched several vidcasts, and read several articles.  I'm impressed when he sitcks to logical proofs.  I'm not impressed when he talks about self defense.  I wasn't impressed by his overwrought strawman argument against Ron Paul.  As a podcaster I'm impressed by how prolific he is.... 900+ eps is a mighty fucking opus.  I have suggested him to others.  I think there is fodder for debate in his work, especially when he gets to means and methods.   But I think it is the self defense issue that really sticks in the craw for most folks arguing on this list.  I feel like many of the anarchist here believe in a lofty ideal of self defense but are squeamish.  Perhaps they've never had to defend themselves, or they chose not to and feel guilty (that was my impression of Stefan), but I think we might all benefit from a discussion about what self defense is, what means can be used etc. 

I know I listened to one of Stefan's podcasts, talking about self defense and his abusive mother, and how he couldn't defend himself, and then when he was older and more capable felt he shouldn't defend himself.  I think he is a little emotionally crippled there and it colors his philosophy in a way that makes it often distasteful to me.  The truth of the matter is most 10 or 12 year old boys could defend against their mothers but don't out of a sense of obligation and fear... I think, and I've never discussed it here but on the FTL board it is a riotous debate, the rights of a child come in here.  A child is also sovereign if equipped with sufficient reason to act responsibly.  Don't know where I'm going with this.

Anyway.  Have to fill my zune with something.  I look forward to hearing more of what he has to say.

Stef's initial stuff on self-defense is pretty dismissive. He says it is a tiny, tiny issue for a free society. Later on (and I believe in his book "Universally Preferable Behavior") he addresses it to some extent. I haven't listened to the whole series...what are the views of self-defense with which folks are taking issue? I know he doesn't out-and-out refuse the legitimacy of self-defense, but maybe he's said some weird things about it that I just haven't heard yet?

Also, to address the child thing: He has mentioned a few times that when he was a teenager and bigger than his mom, that he told her to stop hitting him or he'd hit her back (which led to her calling the police, interestingly enough).

The podcast Lex cited in particular was the one that put me off.  He basically says "Yes self defense is valid, but no I'd never defend myself."   To me any one who wouldn't defend themselves is not someone who values themselves enough for me to value their opinion.  It also seems he doesn't really value self defense. Connotatively he seems willing to accept it 'for the sake of argument.'  He seems to be a pacifist, which, to me is a crippling and bankrupt philosophy, but having grown up with it I am extra cynical about it.

Have you ever had to fend off a lethal attack, Eli?

I've had to fend off people with lethal intent.  A black belt allowed me to do it without serious injury to any party.


That and the timely intervention of others.

You can learn some interesting things in public school.

Quote from: Eli on December 18, 2007, 02:13 PM NHFT
The podcast Lex cited in particular was the one that put me off.  He basically says "Yes self defense is valid, but no I'd never defend myself."   To me any one who wouldn't defend themselves is not someone who values themselves enough for me to value their opinion.  It also seems he doesn't really value self defense. Connotatively he seems willing to accept it 'for the sake of argument.'  He seems to be a pacifist, which, to me is a crippling and bankrupt philosophy, but having grown up with it I am extra cynical about it.

I'd agree -- if pacifism was his philosophy.  But as you've noted, it's not.  I may be incorporating things beyond that particular podcast here (including the book where he lays out his moral framework, Universally Preferable Behavior).  He thinks it is better and more efficient and wise to avoid and defuse conflicts than to fight them.  And in the philosophy, there's a lot about avoiding troublesome people, which is where most of the threats come from (I have a friend who said that that's part of what they mentioned in one of his martial arts classes, is that true?).  Just pick up a newspaper in Manchester, and most of the reports of violence are related to feuds or gangs or conflicts, rather than random violence.  But of course, as he does a better job of emphasizing in the future podcasts and book, he wouldn't hesitate to use force if that's what it would take to defend himself or his wife (which may or may not be me, if you've been following the thread ;) ).  Still, he'd rather hand over his wallet than use force to protect himself, as a matter of personal preference.

I share your cynicism about totally pacifistic philosophies, too.  I think they tend to be very self-hating at a base level, and I wouldn't subscribe to a philosophy that denied self-defense as a moral option.

Quote from: Faber on December 18, 2007, 05:17 PM NHFT

Quote from: Eli on December 18, 2007, 02:13 PM NHFT
The podcast Lex cited in particular was the one that put me off.  He basically says "Yes self defense is valid, but no I'd never defend myself."   To me any one who wouldn't defend themselves is not someone who values themselves enough for me to value their opinion.  It also seems he doesn't really value self defense. Connotatively he seems willing to accept it 'for the sake of argument.'  He seems to be a pacifist, which, to me is a crippling and bankrupt philosophy, but having grown up with it I am extra cynical about it.

I'd agree -- if pacifism was his philosophy.  But as you've noted, it's not.  I may be incorporating things beyond that particular podcast here (including the book where he lays out his moral framework, Universally Preferable Behavior).  He thinks it is better and more efficient and wise to avoid and defuse conflicts than to fight them.  And in the philosophy, there's a lot about avoiding troublesome people, which is where most of the threats come from (I have a friend who said that that's part of what they mentioned in one of his martial arts classes, is that true?).  Just pick up a newspaper in Manchester, and most of the reports of violence are related to feuds or gangs or conflicts, rather than random violence.  But of course, as he does a better job of emphasizing in the future podcasts and book, he wouldn't hesitate to use force if that's what it would take to defend himself or his wife (which may or may not be me, if you've been following the thread ;) ).  Still, he'd rather hand over his wallet than use force to protect himself, as a matter of personal preference.

I share your cynicism about totally pacifistic philosophies, too.  I think they tend to be very self-hating at a base level, and I wouldn't subscribe to a philosophy that denied self-defense as a moral option.

I'm glad someone else can verify my understanding of his ethics book, and can verify that more recent podcasts are clearer on self-defense. I wasn't particularly concerned about him basically not addressing it for the most part, because it logically follows from his ethical theory of UPB that forceful self-defense is not morally wrong. I agree, advocating pure pacifism for everyone is a scary scary thing.

I'm glad to know that Stefan's commentary on self defense becomes less distasteful.  Like I said I look forward to listening to more and have only listened to several.   It's just listening, especially to the traffic jam one, I got the creepy sensation that the next step in his moral philosophy was gonna be pacifism, like the oh so many times I saw this rhetorical switch and bait at church.  Made me uncomfortable in his tones and connotations, rather than in the substance of his argument.

I've been thinking about picking up UPB but 30 bucks is a pretty high price point.  Lulu is a real boondoggle.

I think UPB is $22, and his novel (an absolute tome, The God of Atheists) is upwards of $30.  But maybe when you factor in shipping, it ends up closer to $30 for UPB.  I downloaded the PDF for $15 or so (and no shipping) and read it off the computer; it's 200 pages, but it goes a lot quicker than most of the stuff I end up reading.  I hear he's got it in audiobook format as well, but I hear his voice in my head enough as it is.

Yeah.   I buy a lot of books in PDF format.  I think 15 buck would be the most I've ever paid.  Thats the full cost of a market trade size paperback in a book store.  I'm sure I'll break down eventually but sheesh.

I certainly agree about the value of avoiding conflict when you can.  In fact in my dojo we were told to give up our wallets rather than fighting a mugger.  But we don't live in a world of chosen voluntary associations.  We live in a world were we are thrust together with people by our employers, the government and mall planners (I've been threatened with violence in situations from all three of those sources).  WE do not (at least here in Baltimore) live in a world were one can expect to never be threatened with violence.  Just recently my wife and I were harrassed in the parkinglot of the local theatre.  By somone I literally had to hold off while my wife got into the car.  When I listen to Stefan it is like he lives in a whole different world.  Well he does live in canada?

Quote from: Eli on December 18, 2007, 12:42 PM NHFTI wasn't impressed by his overwrought strawman argument against Ron Paul. 

I haven't listened to his stuff, but I don't understand why anyone would spend time arguing against Ron Paul. He sure isn't a big problem. :)

Quote from: Eli on December 18, 2007, 02:13 PM NHFT
The podcast Lex cited in particular was the one that put me off.  He basically says "Yes self defense is valid, but no I'd never defend myself."   To me any one who wouldn't defend themselves is not someone who values themselves enough for me to value their opinion.  It also seems he doesn't really value self defense. Connotatively he seems willing to accept it 'for the sake of argument.'  He seems to be a pacifist, which, to me is a crippling and bankrupt philosophy, but having grown up with it I am extra cynical about it.

Sounds like I would agree with him on loads of stuff. :)

Quote from: Faber on December 18, 2007, 05:17 PM NHFT
I share your cynicism about totally pacifistic philosophies, too.  I think they tend to be very self-hating at a base level, and I wouldn't subscribe to a philosophy that denied self-defense as a moral option.

No pacifists I know hate themselves. In fact most of us are really full of ourselves ... ask around. ;)

Most of the Pacifists I've known where church pacifists.  Loved Jesus more than themselves and where horribly burdened by "I'm white and middle class and therefore evil" guilt.  I could appreciate their passion and courage, but not their unwillingness to defend themselves.  I find that embrace of death disturbing.  I've never had the faith to embrace the philosophy.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 20, 2007, 09:23 AM NHFT

Quote from: Eli on December 18, 2007, 12:42 PM NHFTI wasn't impressed by his overwrought strawman argument against Ron Paul.

I haven't listened to his stuff, but I don't understand why anyone would spend time arguing against Ron Paul. He sure isn't a big problem. :)

Me neither.  Never should have taken the bait.  All that arguing really took energy from both sides.  In the end no ones position changed an inch. 

why would restraining from hurting people .... even in defense .... be "embracing death"?

How many pacifists have you seen murdered?

Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 20, 2007, 11:01 AM NHFT
why would restraining from hurting people .... even in defense .... be "embracing death"?

How many pacifists have you seen murdered?

I wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure some of the holocaust victims were pacifists.  Of course I can only speculate as to whether it would have made any difference for them had they not been so.

Being a pacifist doesn't mean you can't take measures to keep yourself safe or avoid danger. There are lots of smart things the average person can do to avoid and/or reduce harm to themselves and their property short of violent defense. I think it's a bit of a leap to say that they're "embracing death".

I'm not a pacifist by the way. I have no moral reservations about blowing a hole through someone who's trying to kill me. On the other hand, I can't say with great confidence that I'll have it in me if and when the time comes, particularly if I have very little time to decide. I hope I never find out.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 20, 2007, 11:01 AM NHFT
why would restraining from hurting people .... even in defense .... be "embracing death"?

How many pacifists have you seen murdered?

I don't know - how many people get murdered every year because they don't believe in carrying guns or learning about self-defense?

How many people have been murdered by governments around the world because there were too many pacifists who couldn't stomach a violent revolution?

We could all just take seats in a stadium - hundreds of thousands of us - chanting Kumbaya while one single solitary psychopath raped and tortured and killed his way through the whole lot.  Because it would be wrong to stop him if force was involved.  Allowing hundreds of thousands of people to die in horrible ways is moral compared to possibly causing injury to ONE sicko.  Is that the moral, ethical, and philosophical basis of pacifism?  If it's not, and I'm sorely mistaken, then please explain how it's not, because I'm mystified.

"Don't worry Mr. Psycho - I'll just save you the trouble and mess and just kill myself."


Violence is never the answer - unless someone is trying to kill you and you don't have any other options.

Or you're Jesus Christ driving the money changers out of the Temple.


Did you do a lot of acid while you were in Kalifornia?
I LOVE you Russell, but you give me such a big damned headache.

Quote from: Eli on December 18, 2007, 02:13 PM NHFTThe podcast Lex cited in particular was the one that put me off.  He basically says "Yes self defense is valid, but no I'd never defend myself."   To me any one who wouldn't defend themselves is not someone who values themselves enough for me to value their opinion.  It also seems he doesn't really value self defense. Connotatively he seems willing to accept it 'for the sake of argument.'  He seems to be a pacifist, which, to me is a crippling and bankrupt philosophy, but having grown up with it I am extra cynical about it.

Indeed.  Not just valuing oneself, but valuing others, as well.  I'm under no moral obligation to defend others, but I sure have an aesthetic obligation that relates to me being able to look at myself in the mirror without cringing, which requires me to defend myself since it means also defending any future victims of that bad guy.  And to take reasonable steps to defend others, if I know they need it.

Quote from: Bald Eagle on December 22, 2007, 02:34 PM NHFT"Don't worry Mr. Psycho - I'll just save you the trouble and mess and just kill myself."

How dare you interfere with Mr. Psyho's fun.  How can he torture and rape you, if you kill yourself before he gets to you?  You have a duty to remain alive so that he can fully enjoy murdering you!

Joe

And a perfectly self interested one.  If I value the people around me I will defend them purely out of self interest.

Merry christmas folks.

Quote from: Eli on December 24, 2007, 11:10 AM NHFTAnd a perfectly self interested one.  If I value the people around me I will defend them purely out of self interest.

Merry christmas folks.

Indeed.  There's no moral obligation, but it's pretty silly to let evil folks run around loose, when you could easily stop them - they're likely to victimize you at some point, too.

Joe

After listening to 14~15 Molyneux podcasts, I must say they are very good, and I find them comforting in a Harry Browne sort of way.  Has he covered the subject of the Free State Project?  If so, I'd listen to that podcast next.  Otherwise I'll continue in a semi-chronological order.

How many here, who claim to be pacifists, would idly allow some innocent to be raped, tortured, murdered, etc?

Do me the favor and post, so I can save my time and ammo for defending someone, who would appreciate the assistance, if such should threaten them or their loved ones.

I sure wouldn't want to infringe on their freedom to suffer.


IMHO, pacifists are extremely selfish people.

You can keep your distance from me.

Quote from: EJinNH on January 03, 2008, 02:08 PM NHFTDo me the favor and post, so I can save my time and ammo for defending someone, who would appreciate the assistance, if such should threaten them or their loved ones.

Heh.  That's not a bad idea.  I think this came up before, when there was loose talk about breaking Russell out of prison (or, rather, there was loose talk among the Feds about others potentially trying that).  "Freeing" him in that way would not be according to his wishes, so why would we do it?

Some cases (eg, Russell) are obvious, but it might not be a bad idea for any pacifists to make sure it is known that they don't want help if it involves violence.

Joe

Quote from: Barterer on January 03, 2008, 12:50 PM NHFTHas he covered the subject of the Free State Project?  If so, I'd listen to that podcast next.

He has.  I don't recall which podcasts, but the topic has come up a number of times.  In general, he's against it for being pointless.

Yeah, in this FTL interview (http://www.freetalklive.com/files/molyneux.mp3) he thought the Free State Project was a political movement.

The same mistake a lot of Porcs make, too ;D

Quote from: EJinNH on January 03, 2008, 02:08 PM NHFT
How many here, who claim to be pacifists, would idly allow some innocent to be raped, tortured, murdered, etc?

Do me the favor and post, so I can save my time and ammo for defending someone, who would appreciate the assistance, if such should threaten them or their loved ones.

I sure wouldn't want to infringe on their freedom to suffer.

IMHO, pacifists are extremely selfish people.

why are you so angry about "pacifists"?
I guess you should consider me one of those people you will not be defending. I hadn't known that you had previously promised to protect us.
When did any of us say that we wanted to suffer.
How are we selfish? Is that something bad for you?

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on January 04, 2008, 08:03 AM NHFT
Yeah, in this FTL interview (http://www.freetalklive.com/files/molyneux.mp3) he thought the Free State Project was a political movement.

For his definitions, it is.  The goal of the FSP is to reduce the size of the NH government, though whatever means.  The goal of FDR is to encourage personal liberty because we have no control over political liberty, even at the state or city level.

Quote from: EJinNH on January 03, 2008, 02:08 PM NHFT
How many here, who claim to be pacifists, would idly allow some innocent to be raped, tortured, murdered, etc?

Do me the favor and post, so I can save my time and ammo for defending someone, who would appreciate the assistance, if such should threaten them or their loved ones.

I sure wouldn't want to infringe on their freedom to suffer.


IMHO, pacifists are extremely selfish people.

Do you have a questionair for people to complete who might want to be protected by you?
Or maybe so you don't waist your time or ammo on someone you don't think is worthy?

When one acts in the defense of another, he does so for his own well being.

I don't see how someone who is saving you time and ammo can be considered selfish.

Quote from: Perilous on January 04, 2008, 06:42 PM NHFTThe goal of the FSP is to reduce the size of the NH government, though whatever means.  The goal of FDR is to encourage personal liberty because we have no control over political liberty, even at the state or city level.

I look at it a little differently. You might reduce the size of the rotten government by your personal liberty decisions. Your daily decisions might effecty the whole political structure indirectly. :)
I would tell anybody thinking like this Stefan guy ... that there is nothing inherently incompatible about his approach with the FSP. 8)

Very good roundtable discussion at strike the root, with Wendy McElroy, Brad Sprangler, and Stefan Molyneux. 
http://www.strike-the-root.com/
Labeled 'Anarchist Round Table: 'The Ron Paul Revolution'
A little awkward at first, but gets good within a few minutes. 

Brad posted this on the LL2 yahoo list.   I can't say that there was anything new in it that we haven't been over here.  Though the economic argument, that the money would be better spent on agorist causes, is an interesting one.  More profit in it.  Although I'm not sure what brad menat by agorist, maybe agorist educational efforts (like his).  Counter economic efforts ought to support themselves. But I digress.  For me the RP thing crystilized this morning.  Education and other non political efforts (though I believe political efforts can have educational benefits) are like buying a product or investing.  Political efforts are like the lottery.  As a person who never throws money away on a lottery I should have known better than to get caught up in the RP maelstrom.  The true benefits to the RP campaign will all be in their educational value. 

After todays disappointment there are going to be a lot of disheartened, even angry RP supporters.  I hope you non political types take some time today to win as many of them over to your side as you can.  Sometimes someone wins the lottery, but statistically almost everyone loses.  Poor people, desperate people, buy tickets anyway.  We are poor in liberty, desperate for a chance to win it.  Magical thinking.  Today reminded me that those dollars would be better saved, spent, invested.  Burned.  Rather I gave them to the state.  The analogy holds there too.  Stupid.  I realize this today.

Some folks won't realize it.  Take a few minutes today to talk to a ticket buyer.  Talk about better ways to waste that dollar rather than on the political lottery.  Tell them about the Liberty Scholarship Fund, The Libertarian Enterprise, or whatever, a lot of liberty projects out there.  Talk them up.  Today.  Before people wast more money on tickets.

Very well stated.  I had not thought of the 'lottery ticket' angle. 

Mean either until I
1) heard Brad make the economic argument and
2) realized today just how slim the chances were the whole time.

Quote from: Eli on January 09, 2008, 10:48 AM NHFT
Brad posted this on the LL2 yahoo list. 

Where?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LeftLibertarian2/

Quote from: Eli on January 09, 2008, 10:48 AM NHFT
Brad posted this on the LL2 yahoo list.   I can't say that there was anything new in it that we haven't been over here.  Though the economic argument, that the money would be better spent on agorist causes, is an interesting one.  More profit in it.  Although I'm not sure what brad menat by agorist, maybe agorist educational efforts (like his).  Counter economic efforts ought to support themselves. But I digress.  For me the RP thing crystilized this morning.  Education and other non political efforts (though I believe political efforts can have educational benefits) are like buying a product or investing.  Political efforts are like the lottery.  As a person who never throws money away on a lottery I should have known better than to get caught up in the RP maelstrom.  The true benefits to the RP campaign will all be in their educational value. 

After todays disappointment there are going to be a lot of disheartened, even angry RP supporters.  I hope you non political types take some time today to win as many of them over to your side as you can.  Sometimes someone wins the lottery, but statistically almost everyone loses.  Poor people, desperate people, buy tickets anyway.  We are poor in liberty, desperate for a chance to win it.  Magical thinking.  Today reminded me that those dollars would be better saved, spent, invested.  Burned.  Rather I gave them to the state.  The analogy holds there too.  Stupid.  I realize this today.

Some folks won't realize it.  Take a few minutes today to talk to a ticket buyer.  Talk about better ways to waste that dollar rather than on the political lottery.  Tell them about the Liberty Scholarship Fund, The Libertarian Enterprise, or whatever, a lot of liberty projects out there.  Talk them up.  Today.  Before people wast more money on tickets.

I haven't talked about it that much except in passing- the notion that a lot of resources are being used on this that would be better used elsewhere, both time, effort, and money. On the other hand, some points I've made were made with the understanding that they would largely be rejected by my target audience, but that they may be reconsidered later with new information and new experience. That's why I said that people need to do this campaign, get it out of their systems so to speak, and then some of them will be more receptive to what I'm trying to say about political activism.

I think you're right about some good coming from the message. That was the most important thing from the start about the RP campaign. I do however, think it's important that we refine that message because it's still a message of statism. I think a lot of people were inspired about the idea of liberty, but now they need us to help them reach the realization of what it really means. The loss in NH can either be progress or a setback for liberty depending on how we handle it now. People need to understand that democracy is not freedom, that having a consensus does not make you right, and not having a consensus for Ron Paul did not mean he wasn't the best candidate. Someone other than Ron Paul is likely going to be our next president and perhaps many others that are nothing like Ron Paul are likely to follow. We need to get as many people as possible to understand that the basis for that authority is invalid. When Hillary, or Obama, or Rudy McRomney gets elected, we need to proclaim that (s)he is not my president no matter how many people supported him or her.

Quote from: David on January 09, 2008, 11:35 AM NHFT
Very well stated.  I had not thought of the 'lottery ticket' angle. 

and it also funds the government's activities

Quote from: Eli on January 09, 2008, 10:48 AM NHFTThe true benefits to the RP campaign will all be in their educational value.

I've argued this point with "purists" since the beginning.    Paul's political campaign has done much to expose a new generation to the message of liberty. 

QuoteToday reminded me that those dollars would be better saved, spent, invested.  Burned.  Rather I gave them to the state.  The analogy holds there too.  Stupid.  I realize this today.

How does the analogy hold?  Are these "tickets" votes? or campaign contributions?  Your contribution didn't enrich the state, it went to television stations and print shops.

The energy spent on this campaign wasn't about the purchase of "lottery tickets" -- it was invested in spreading ideas.

Skip the sanctimony over not voting -- unless you're also not legitimizing the state in other ways (submitting to licenses, registrations, fees and taxes).  If you aren't simply playing well-worn libertarian purity games and had conviction -- you would live your life according to these principles -- and ditch the licenses, registrations, fees and taxes.

I enjoy Molyneux occasionally -- his brand of dogmatic atomism isn't suited for every anarchist. 

Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 10, 2008, 12:27 PM NHFT

Quote from: David on January 09, 2008, 11:35 AM NHFT
Very well stated.  I had not thought of the 'lottery ticket' angle. 

and it also funds the government's activities

The irony wasn't lost on me.

Quote from: picaro on January 10, 2008, 03:31 PM NHFT

Quote from: Eli on January 09, 2008, 10:48 AM NHFTThe true benefits to the RP campaign will all be in their educational value.

I've argued this point with "purists" since the beginning.    Paul's political campaign has done much to expose a new generation to the message of liberty. 

QuoteToday reminded me that those dollars would be better saved, spent, invested.  Burned.  Rather I gave them to the state.  The analogy holds there too.  Stupid.  I realize this today.

How does the analogy hold?  Are these "tickets" votes? or campaign contributions?  Your contribution didn't enrich the state, it went to television stations and print shops.

The energy spent on this campaign wasn't about the purchase of "lottery tickets" -- it was invested in spreading ideas.

Skip the sanctimony over not voting -- unless you're also not legitimizing the state in other ways (submitting to licenses, registrations, fees and taxes).  If you aren't simply playing well-worn libertarian purity games and had conviction -- you would live your life according to these principles -- and ditch the licenses, registrations, fees and taxes.

I enjoy Molyneux occasionally -- his brand of dogmatic atomism isn't suited for every anarchist. 

The point of this comment was lost on me.

The point of my comment was that the money and energy I spent on RP was like money and energy spent buying lottery tickets.  Slim chance of success.  Would have been better spent on something more likely to become capital rather than waste paper.  Sanctimonius about voting?  You must have read someone else's posts. 

How does the Ron Paul campaign enrich the state?

Quote from: Scott Roth on January 14, 2008, 04:07 PM NHFT
Who the hell is Stefan Molyneux?

Funny, I was wondering the same thing! ;D

I agree with a lot of what he says, but I don't agree with his opinions that you should ostracize people who support government, or even that being involved with politics is bad. It doesn't matter how true it is that the government doesn't have the authority to pass laws, because the government will pass those laws and enforce them anyway. So if the government is going to enforce the laws it passes, you might as well email your politicians and vote for relatively pro-liberty candidates. If there is a law against owning marijuana, people will get arrested for it. If there is no law, people will not get arrested for it. So doing things that might lead to the law being abolished is a good thing. If you take part in civil disobedience, the point is to change public opinion to have the law changed.

Should you vote in UN elections or hope to someday represent a country to that organization? They pass resolutions and enforce them , so?

This is a great discussion; very thought-provoking.  And to answer Lauren's poll, I have listened to several of Molyneux' podcasts at this point, and look forward to listening to many more.

I would like to correct one error:

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 14, 2007, 01:30 PM NHFT

Quote from: MengerFan on December 14, 2007, 01:06 PM NHFT
Excellent. So he never talks about the government needing to provide "national defense" or "border security" or creating money?

Border Security - He doesn't want to build a wall or spend any significant amount of money on the border.

Paul's Congressional voting record would indicate otherwise.
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2006/pr091406.htm

Paul Votes for Stronger Border Security

September 14, 2006     

Washington, DC:  Congressman Ron Paul joined more than 280 of his House colleagues in voting to better secure our nation?s borders.  The House of Representatives passed the ?Secure Fence Act of 2006? yesterday, taking a needed step toward real immigration reform.

?The problems associated with illegal immigration cannot be addresses unless and until we gain physical control of our borders and coastlines,? Paul stated.  The number one priority for Congress should be securing our borders?no immigration reform is possible until then.  Once we have control over who is entering the country, we can begin to reform the legal immigration process.? 

?Amnesty for lawbreakers is not the answer, and it?s time to rethink birthright citizenship,? Paul added.

The bill passed yesterday requires the Homeland Security Department to gain "operational control" of the country's international borders, authorizes the construction of approximately 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border, requires a study of implementing security systems along the U.S.-Canadian border, and directs the department to evaluate the ability of personnel to stop fleeing vehicles at the border.

Paul has joined a group of colleagues demanding that the Senate pass border security legislation this year.  The House passed a strong border enforcement bill nearly one year ago, but the Senate has failed to act on the measure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnHP3W0rP2g

Hey!  Stefan's site Freedomainradio.com (http://freedomainradio.com) is showing up on the top ad. 
He's paying to catch our attention.  Isn't that flattering?

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on March 06, 2008, 10:00 PM NHFT
Hey!  Stefan's site Freedomainradio.com (http://freedomainradio.com) is showing up on the top ad. 
He's paying to catch our attention.  Isn't that flattering?

I believe that's Google Adwords, which chooses different sites based on their content. I don't think he chose our site personally. Speaking of Adwords, I got a call from them yesterday about a free consultation. I'll talk about it in another thread so as not to hijack this one.

No, he's not paying and it's not google.  I just made an ad for him cause I like him.

Quote from: dalebert on March 06, 2008, 10:25 PM NHFT
I believe that's Google Adwords, which chooses different sites based on their content. I don't think he chose our site personally.

everything is personal :icon_pirat:

Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 07, 2008, 05:29 AM NHFT
No, he's not paying and it's not google.  I just made an ad for him cause I like him.

Oh neat!

I enjoyed this podcast a great deal:

http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_481_Sunday_CallIn_4pm_Oct_26_2006.mp3

Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 07, 2008, 05:29 AM NHFT
No, he's not paying and it's not google.  I just made an ad for him cause I like him.

Aha!  That may be why the No State Project is showing up there, too.

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on March 07, 2008, 10:33 AM NHFT
I enjoyed this podcast a great deal:

http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_481_Sunday_CallIn_4pm_Oct_26_2006.mp3

OMG! That's a freakin' long podcast.

Quote from: dalebert on March 07, 2008, 12:57 PM NHFT

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on March 07, 2008, 10:33 AM NHFT
I enjoyed this podcast a great deal:

http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_481_Sunday_CallIn_4pm_Oct_26_2006.mp3

OMG! That's a freakin' long podcast.

I've listened to it at least three times in the last couple of weeks, I'm also thinking of buying his book on the same subject:

http://www.lulu.com/browse/book_view.php?fCID=1977080

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on March 07, 2008, 12:33 PM NHFT

Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 07, 2008, 05:29 AM NHFT
No, he's not paying and it's not google.  I just made an ad for him cause I like him.

Aha!  That may be why the No State Project is showing up there, too.

Yes, ma'am  :)

Quote from: dalebert on March 07, 2008, 12:57 PM NHFT

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on March 07, 2008, 10:33 AM NHFT
I enjoyed this podcast a great deal:

http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_481_Sunday_CallIn_4pm_Oct_26_2006.mp3

OMG! That's a freakin' long podcast.

Yes and many subjects mentioned:semen spray, harem intrigues, kidnapping cats. Which subject did you enjoy, Lex?

Quote from: dalebert on March 07, 2008, 12:57 PM NHFT

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on March 07, 2008, 10:33 AM NHFT
I enjoyed this podcast a great deal:

http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_481_Sunday_CallIn_4pm_Oct_26_2006.mp3

OMG! That's a freakin' long podcast.

His philosophy aside, the man is impressively prolific.  As a podcaster I am impressed by the number and length of his casts.  Just amazing.

I get the impression he likes to talk.  Highly unusual for a libertarian type.

I wonder why he talks so much about US politics?

Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 10, 2008, 02:52 PM NHFT
I wonder why he talks so much about US politics?

So does Luke12000, an anarchist who also lives in Canada. I thought that was odd also.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Luke12000

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on March 10, 2008, 10:58 AM NHFT
Yes and many subjects mentioned:semen spray, harem intrigues, kidnapping cats. Which subject did you enjoy, Lex?

Oh my goodness! I knew there was something I missed, I don't remember anything about kidnapping cats. I will have to listen to it again.

The verdict on what part I liked the most is still out on this one.

Ad?

We don't allow you to see the ads, Lloyd.  :P

Quote from: Lex Berezhny on March 10, 2008, 05:04 PM NHFT
I don't remember anything about kidnapping cats.

Cat burglars?

Quote from: Kat KanningI wonder why he talks so much about US politics?

My guess is that he realizes that most of his listeners/viewers/readers live in the U.S.

QuoteAgorist | Anarchist | Atheist | Extropian | Humanist | INTJ | Naturalist | Voluntaryist

What's the 'Naturalist' refer to?  I understand all the others.

It means that if you ever meet him, you will know some stuff about him that you don't know about most of us guys.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 10, 2008, 06:58 PM NHFT

QuoteAgorist | Anarchist | Atheist | Extropian | Humanist | INTJ | Naturalist | Voluntaryist

What's the 'Naturalist' refer to?  I understand all the others.

Wow, that's pretty good Kat. :)  I think the only one I understand is the naturalist.  I think it's somebody that likes to be naked and eat pure food.

Well, I thought it must be something else, cause every time I see him, he's got his clothes on.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 10, 2008, 07:17 PM NHFT
Well, I thought it must be something else, cause every time I see him, he's got his clothes on.

Oh, maybe it is then. :-\

Stef signed my blog.   :icon_pirat:

he was pretty funny on Free Talk Live on Friday .... I tried the forehead joke on him and he had another nickname guys give him

OK, this is prolly going to be way T.M.I., but I had a dream that Stephan was trying to sexually molest me. What does it mean?

Yes, it was.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 24, 2008, 12:44 PM NHFT
Yes, it was.

"T.M.I." should probably be my middle initials. And if you agree, I would advise against hanging out in the FTL chat room when I'm there.   :blush:

Quote from: dalebert on April 24, 2008, 11:38 AM NHFT
OK, this is prolly going to be way T.M.I., but I had a dream that Stephan was trying to sexually molest me. What does it mean?

Stef might ask, what happened the day before the dream?

Quote from: dalebert on April 24, 2008, 11:38 AM NHFT
OK, this is prolly going to be way T.M.I., but I had a dream that Stephan was trying to sexually molest me. What does it mean?

Who is Stephan most like in your life, now or in your past?

Well the only thing I can think of recently is all the talk about FDR being cult-like. There was a thread about it on FTL. He really isn't anything like anyone in my past that I can think of.

Stephan asks people to do some extreme things, like separate yourself from close people who do not believe the same as you.
The emotion felt to me a little like the emotion of unwanted sexual contact... molestation, because the feeling was not reciprocal but was asked by a person of "authority".

Maybe you just think he's hot?

Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 25, 2008, 06:57 AM NHFT
Maybe you just think he's hot?

Uh... no. I like him, but you know how they say "not in that way".

Quote from: dalebert on April 24, 2008, 11:38 AM NHFT
OK, this is prolly going to be way T.M.I., but I had a dream that Stephan was trying to sexually molest me. What does it mean?

Who knows, it could just be a dream. :-\   I have really strange dreams sometimes and drive myself nuts trying to put a meaning to it until I say maybe it was just a dream. :)

Hey. do Stephan and the anarchy boogie man look a bit alike?

Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 25, 2008, 10:35 AM NHFT
Hey. do Stephan and the anarchy boogie man look a bit alike?

Who the heck is this Stephan guy? :)

Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 25, 2008, 10:35 AM NHFT
Hey. do Stephan and the anarchy boogie man look a bit alike?

Oh, I think you have discovered the connection.

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on April 25, 2008, 09:20 PM NHFT
Oh, I think you have discovered the connection.

OMARM! I can't stop laughing! You should repost that on the FDR forums.

So does Beth get turned on by Stefan, like she does the ABM?  That would clich it.

Quote from: Mike in CA on December 13, 2007, 10:48 PM NHFT
I hope you'll check out Liberating Minds (http://liberatingminds.com). You might like it, if you already like the topics Stef covers. We talk about psychology, AnCapism, Ron Paul, poetry, dogs vs. cats :), the NAP, rights...anything you want to bring up.

I have checked out this site, and am blown away by some of the experiences other fans of FDR have had, and the ludicrously innocuous reasons for which some of them have been banned.  Wow.  I had noticed that many threads on the FDR forum are nothing but a Greek chorus of people telling Stef how wonderful he is.  I am up to podcast 103 and still like them a lot, overall, but I did skip ahead once to a podcast recommended by someone here and was quite taken aback by the difference in tone.  I actually turned it off after just a couple of minutes because I found the change too jarring.  Perhaps Stef has drunk one too many cups of his own Kool-Aid between late 2006 and now?   :dontknow:  I haven't listened to any of the call-in shows yet.

Quote from: Friday on April 29, 2008, 09:52 PM NHFT
Perhaps Stef has drunk one too many cups of his own Kool-Aid between late 2006 and now?   :dontknow:  I haven't listened to any of the call-in shows yet.

One of the things Dylboz has said, that kind of rings true is:

QuoteI have listened to over a thousand of them, and there is a definite trajectory, as his facility and confidence in the medium built, so did his following. As his following increased, so did his sense of the absolute accuracy and sufficiency of his analysis.

I'm not sure if this is exactly right, or if Stefan is just less patient with people who have criticisms now, and wants them to study his work to a much more sophisticated degree before opening their mouth. Maybe it is a little of both.. a sense of certainty stemming from decades of study and 1000+ podcasts, and annoyance with relative "noobs" with questions he may have already answered. But some of those "noobs" who have been tossed out (see DonnywithanA and Stewart) were almost talking over my head already, so I wanted to see their criticisms continue and their points addressed.  That guy "NonEntity" says he was booted just for commenting about Stefan on another board.. which I don't believe is the sole reason.  By that standard, I'd be gone too, for comments on the same board.

All that aside, I am only up to about FDR 400-something, and they still seem very humble and nice.  I have quit listening to the call-in and "therapy" shows though, because:
a) the audio quality and cross talk
b) they're not half as good as the straight-up podcasts, where only one person is responsible for tangents
c) I want to catch up to present-day podcasts sometime before I die.
d) I don't want to be lulled into trying to fit my situation crudely into someone else's.

I just listened to podcast #156, The Social Contract Part 2.  46 minutes of horror. Synopsis: "Taxes are used for murder."  :(  Every time I think I have no illusions left about the U.S.A., I realize how wrong I am. Oy vey.   :-\

One of my favorite questions is without government (which is really nothing more than a group trying to achieve the unachievable - social order) would you kill your neighbor?

If a person can go thousands of miles to kill someone that they have no history nor personal qualm with... why wouldn't they be willing to travel a mile to kill people they have a personal history and qualms with?

Big Chatty Forehead's coming to Liberty Forum.   :blahblah:

Quote from: Friday on February 10, 2009, 08:07 PM NHFT
Big Chatty Forehead's coming to Liberty Forum.   :blahblah:

I heard a rumor that Stefan's presence at the Forum is actually reversing the planned boycott of a certain FSP celebrity but I find it hard to believe so I need to hear it from other sources first.  :o

we have fsp celebrities?
I was thinking that they have plenty of good speakers this year and no real bad ones ... just one lawyer.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on February 11, 2009, 10:56 AM NHFT
we have fsp celebrities?

There's Glenn Jacobs. I believe Doug Stanhope used to be, but dropped out when NH was chosen.

Quote from: MengerFan on February 11, 2009, 12:21 PM NHFT
There's Glenn Jacobs. I believe Doug Stanhope used to be, but dropped out when NH was chosen.

You're the FSP celebrity I was referring to! So, is it true? Are you seriously considering coming now that Stefan is coming? I heard you were going to stay in a different hotel for obvious reasons.

Quote from: Friday on February 10, 2009, 08:07 PM NHFT
Big Chatty Forehead's coming to Liberty Forum.   :blahblah:

OMG
it's true!  I'm so there!

What I like best about Stef is when he points out perfectly obvious things about what someone has voluntarily admitted, then the admitter suddenly gets very stupid and can't see why Stef is saying that.

It makes it so obvious that the admitter has a mental block in that area.

Quote from: dalebert on February 11, 2009, 12:39 PM NHFT

Quote from: MengerFan on February 11, 2009, 12:21 PM NHFT
There's Glenn Jacobs. I believe Doug Stanhope used to be, but dropped out when NH was chosen.

You're the FSP celebrity I was referring to! So, is it true? Are you seriously considering coming now that Stefan is coming? I heard you were going to stay in a different hotel for obvious reasons.

I can neither confirm nor deny.

I'm getting into this kinda late, but I saw a youtube vid of his a while ago and dug it, but didn't agree with everything. Amazing multilateral analysis though. I went to his site for the first time last week, and was interested by some of the podcast titles and will likely dload them when I have time, but I found the layout of his site to be creepy cultish. Not that I think its a cult or anything like some peoples, but creepy nonetheless.

I'm :sad1: that I likely won't be making liberty forum this year. If The Molyneux's attending, he'd be yet another speaker worth meeting that I won't be there for.

Quote from: Giggan on February 11, 2009, 02:17 PM NHFT

I'm :sad1: that I likely won't be making liberty forum this year. If The Molyneux's attending, he'd be yet another speaker worth meeting that I won't be there for.

Giggan, why wouldn't you make it?  Is it an economic issue, or did you go off to college somewhere? 

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on February 11, 2009, 01:09 PM NHFT
What I like best about Stef is when he points out perfectly obvious things about what someone has voluntarily admitted, then the admitter suddenly gets very stupid and can't see why Stef is saying that.

It makes it so obvious that the admitter has a mental block in that area.

Tackle, are you referring to the call-in podcasts?  So far, I've only listened to one of those, and didn't find it nearly as interesting as a solo Stef-rant.  Am I missing the good stuph?

Quote from: MengerFan on February 11, 2009, 12:21 PM NHFT

Quote from: Russell Kanning on February 11, 2009, 10:56 AM NHFT
we have fsp celebrities?

There's Glenn Jacobs. I believe Doug Stanhope used to be, but dropped out when NH was chosen.

I don't know who jacobs is

One of the more eloquent, libertarian Professional...... An eloquent, libertarian Professional Wrestler.

will stephan come personally or will we see his big head displayed on a screen like oz?

Quote from: Russell Kanning on February 11, 2009, 05:29 PM NHFT
will stephan come personally or will we see his big head displayed on a screen like oz?

The Stefmeister will be in the building.   :drevil:

Quote from: Friday on February 11, 2009, 03:53 PM NHFT
Tackle, are you referring to the call-in podcasts?  So far, I've only listened to one of those, and didn't find it nearly as interesting as a solo Stef-rant.  Am I missing the good stuph?

The solo rants are very good, he always has an innovative view of things. 
The Sunday call-in shows are hit or miss, parts are genius, parts are boring, parts are too buzzy to listen to.
I prefer the listener convos,  the participants are usually ready to be cut open in public. and Stef splays out their psyches in a very polite way.  I end up feeling empathetic towards people with mental states I would otherwise condemn unthinkingly.

Quote from: Friday on February 11, 2009, 03:47 PM NHFT
Giggan, why wouldn't you make it?  Is it an economic issue, or did you go off to college somewhere? 

I'm currently in Sarasota, FL for college. Trip+LF tickets+Food+either transportation to nashua each day (from Concord) or housing in Nashua for the few days would be beyond my budget, since my income is around $0/week. I had a blast last year, but this year I'll just hold out for porcfest and burning porc.

Quote from: Giggan on February 11, 2009, 07:27 PM NHFT

Quote from: Friday on February 11, 2009, 03:47 PM NHFT
Giggan, why wouldn't you make it?  Is it an economic issue, or did you go off to college somewhere? 

I'm currently in Sarasota, FL for college. Trip+LF tickets+Food+either transportation to nashua each day (from Concord) or housing in Nashua for the few days would be beyond my budget, since my income is around $0/week. I had a blast last year, but this year I'll just hold out for porcfest and burning porc.

You at New College?

Right now, I'm at the New College library, but I go to USF Sarasota, down the street, and live in an old motel, now apartments between them.

Quote from: dalebert on February 11, 2009, 09:52 AM NHFT

Quote from: Friday on February 10, 2009, 08:07 PM NHFT
Big Chatty Forehead's coming to Liberty Forum.   :blahblah:

I heard a rumor that Stefan's presence at the Forum is actually reversing the planned boycott of a certain FSP celebrity but I find it hard to believe so I need to hear it from other sources first.  :o

What is/was the boycott about?

Quote from: Giggan on February 11, 2009, 07:27 PM NHFT

Quote from: Friday on February 11, 2009, 03:47 PM NHFT
Giggan, why wouldn't you make it?  Is it an economic issue, or did you go off to college somewhere? 

I'm currently in Sarasota, FL for college. Trip+LF tickets+Food+either transportation to nashua each day (from Concord) or housing in Nashua for the few days would be beyond my budget, since my income is around $0/week. I had a blast last year, but this year I'll just hold out for porcfest and burning porc.

In case you don't know, tickets are 50% off for college students. 

Yeah, I got the discount last year. I'll try and put money aside over the summer so I'll be set for LF'10.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on February 11, 2009, 05:29 PM NHFT
will stephan come personally or will we see his big head displayed on a screen like oz?

I think it will just be a large banner backdrop with a picture of his forehead behind the speakers.  Show up if that excites you.

For the most part, I'm a fan of Stefan, I think he gave an excellent talk at Liberty Forum today, introducing his powerful "Against Me" argument.

I recorded it (including Jesse's introduction) for those who could not attend. It's not the best quality, the recorder was around my neck so there is some jostling, but for those interested:

http://www.enigmacurry.com/tmp/Stefan_Molyneux_-_NH_Liberty_Forum_2009.wma

It's 52 MB, so its kind of big if you're on dialup, if that's a problem let me know and I can transcode it for you.

I've heard mixed reviews, but I thought both Jesse and Stefan did a great job.   :)

Thanks for the link, Ryan.  I passed it on to the freedomainradio.com forum (http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/p/19519/155817.aspx#155817) folks.  Hopefully we don't crash your server

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on March 08, 2009, 08:01 PM NHFT
Thanks for the link, Ryan.  I passed it on to the freedomainradio.com forum (http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/p/19519/155817.aspx#155817) folks.  Hopefully we don't crash your server

I doubt it will be a problem, I've never exceeded my server limits before. I'm glad people are finding it useful. :)

Quote from: Ryan McGuire on March 08, 2009, 05:04 PM NHFT
I recorded it (including Jesse's introduction) for those who could not attend. It's not the best quality, the recorder was around my neck so there is some jostling, but for those interested:

http://www.enigmacurry.com/tmp/Stefan_Molyneux_-_NH_Liberty_Forum_2009.wma

Thank you!! I had to run before the end of the talk, but definitely will download this once I'm back on broadband.  :)

I like his podcasts, I've been listening to them myself, but there are things I don't agree with.

Like his "proof" of atheism for one thing.  He's not intellectually honest about it -- like most atheists aren't. If you're an atheist it's because you "BELIEVE" concretely that there is no God. Only the agnostic is intellectually honest when he says his position is from pure logic.

I guess I haven't noticed any problems with psychology or whatever.

We even play select podcasts of his on our radio station.

Tracy

Quote from: Eli on December 20, 2007, 10:13 AM NHFT
Most of the Pacifists I've known where church pacifists.  Loved Jesus more than themselves and where horribly burdened by "I'm white and middle class and therefore evil" guilt.  I could appreciate their passion and courage, but not their unwillingness to defend themselves.  I find that embrace of death disturbing.  I've never had the faith to embrace the philosophy.

That sounds like a weird church to me.

Ephesians tells us to Love our wives and our children. And Love is defined in Ephesians as protecting and providing. I don't understand how you can protect your family if you're unwilling to defend yourself and them from aggression. I don't really understand Christian Pacifism.

Although, I do understand that you should try to deescalate and try to do everything you can to not need to use violence to defend yourself. It should be the last option.

I haven't listened to Stefan's podcasts (well, the 1st three. And I foud myself irritated, that the Lew Rockwell article of it was half a page, and I could have read and understood it in 5 minutes.) but I suspect his point is that -- from a strictly utilitarian perspective, in a free society you make a lot more money from honest work, and there's more honest work to do because there wouldn't be any black markets. (although there might be grey markets) And social presures would be more severe to prevent violent tendencies. Certainly, all else being equal, if the drug war and gun laws were repealed there would be a lot less violence. Right? So, maybe he's just saying that learning self defense is less of a necessity in a free society then now?

I don't know, I'm making stuff up right now, I haven't listened to the podcasts your talking about.

Tracy

Quote from: tracysaboe on July 02, 2009, 01:47 AM NHFT
I like his podcasts, I've been listening to them myself, but there are things I don't agree with.

Like his "proof" of atheism for one thing.  He's not intellectually honest about it -- like most atheists aren't. If you're an atheist it's because you "BELIEVE" concretely that there is no God. Only the agnostic is intellectually honest when he says his position is from pure logic.

I guess I haven't noticed any problems with psychology or whatever.

We even play select podcasts of his on our radio station.

Tracy

I also had issues with his proof of atheism youtube vid. He makes some great points and shows the immense probability against the idea of a God, but is cheating to say he has disproven the possibility.

The Dawkins has a great piece in his documentary 'The Root of All Evil?' where he relates atheism to Bertrand Russell's Teapot analogy (I know he also talks about the teapot in 'The God Delusion', but I don't remember specifically if he makes the following point). He admits that scientifically speaking we would all be 'objective agnostics' to the idea of a celestial teapot, but for all intents and purposes, we are teapot atheists. Granted, the teapot analogy does not fill a gap the way a creator does, so it is not the best analogy, but is probably the most well-known. But speaking of gaps, Dawkins never fails to mention that even the God idea fills no gap, because the existence of such a being does not explain its own existence.

Quote from: Giggan on July 04, 2009, 02:26 PM NHFT
The Dawkins has a great piece in his documentary 'The Root of All Evil?' ...

Dawkins made a documentary?!  How did I miss that?

18 years of Catholic school + Sunday school + religion homeschool vs The Selfish Gene (http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246742616&sr=8-1)... guess who won?   :fencing:

Well. God is eternal -- meaning that such an entity never had a beginning.

Fred Hoyal, and Robert Jastro were great physicists. Jastro openly stated he was an agnostic. Hoyal was a devout atheist. I say Devout, because in one physics experiemnt he discovered that the probability that life could evolve (a 6 celled protists -- even though empirically no protists are that small today.)was like 1 in 10 to the 10,000 power -- even if the entire UNIVERSE was some great primordial ooze. He said his Atheism was severely shaken when he discovered that. He chose to remain an atheist on faith.

Personally for me, it takes more faith to believe in no god then to believe in a god.

But getting back to my initial sentence. Something has to be eternal. Either God, or the Universe just always was. Well, the universe is only about 16 Billion years old based on current Hubble constant measurements. So, something either started it, or it's been expanding and contracting for eternity. Most physicists though state that each successive expansion would be more chaotic then the last if such a thing were happening. I think Dawkins likes to ignore the law of entropy.

But other then his Atheist proofs I can't say I've had a lot of problems with Molyneux.

TRacy

Quote from: Friday on July 04, 2009, 04:24 PM NHFT
Dawkins made a documentary?!  How did I miss that?

I highly recommend it. You can catch it on youtube in 2 5-part episodes, about 90 minutes in total. I think the only place you can get the DVD is Dawkins' website. First part:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_1Gpt6dKFo

Quote from: tracysaboe on July 04, 2009, 11:48 PM NHFT
Personally for me, it takes more faith to believe in no god then to believe in a god.

The probability of evolution being so low is crazy to think about, but imagine, even if the probability was half of what it is, had it not happened, it isn't like we'd be around to think about it.

As for thinking it takes more faith not to believe in a God than to believe in one, I used to believe this, but now I honestly couldn't understand it if I tried. I think one seems more faith-based than the other based on upbringing. If throughout life, you believed in what you saw and did not create further explanations, creating a third party would seem random, whereas most of us were raised thinking what you see is not real, something mystical out there is 'real-er' and thus, it seems viscerally deviant to not think this way. After all, filling the gaps in knowledge with 'God' does not answer any questions itself, it just passes them off to a being that all evidence suggests does not exist.

The idea of a 'creator', something acting as the prime mover of the universe, I'm an agnostic of leaning towards atheist, but of the gods created by man so far, I'm Hard-A.

This was posted on Facebook with the following caption:

"YOU HAVE ANGERED THE GREAT GLOWING HEAD OF MOLYNEUX"

Thought you might be amused. :)

Run away! Run away!

that is funny
beware if his messages  are offered more interactively than just sight and sound .... the lightning bolts will get you

and if you have any primordial goo hanging around it will start to grow into another civilization

This was a very interesting thread to read, thank you so much to everyone who posted their thoughts and opinions on the show, it was very interesting and useful to read! :)

For those who expressed some interest in my books -- and some reservations about their cost -- I fully understand, and I just wanted to mention that they are all available for free now, in PDF and audio book format, and you might want to check them out!

Http://www.freedomainradio.com/free (Http://www.freedomainradio.com/free)

Also, I will be a keynote speaker at the Libertopia Festival in San Francisco, July 1-4, 2010, along with some truly amazing libertarian thinkers, I hope you will be able to come.

http://libertopia.org/ (http://libertopia.org/)

Best wishes!

Stef

oh no .... the long arm of freedomainradio has reached us
there is nowhere to hide any more .... the speaking head sees, hears, and reads all! ;)

In the movie Stef will be used by the (1984)AI as the talking head that convinces people to serve the "good".  See Origanal Star Trek: Patterns of Force
http://www.tv.com/video/sUiu9xHmhSYm7PTQXyzUhSQhoaRAlY5u/patterns-of-force?o=cbs&tag=container;video_table (http://www.tv.com/video/sUiu9xHmhSYm7PTQXyzUhSQhoaRAlY5u/patterns-of-force?o=cbs&tag=container;video_table)

Mature Content: nudity, violence, strong language, intellectual tirades.

I started listening to one of the anarchy books yesterday.  His voice is hypnotic.  I guess I shouldn't listen while driving.  :o