Stefan Molyneux's keynote speech at the Liberty Forum - high quality...

[FreedomainRadio]

"'Against Me' - How to Win Political Arguments in Two Minutes or Less"

A speech by Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio, followed by audience participation - the closing keynote address at the 2009 Liberty Forum in Nashua, New Hampshire, March 8 2009.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1290_Stefs_NHLibertyForum_Speech.mp3

Enjoy! 

[dalebert]

Thanx for posting that, FDR! I watched the speech and most of the Q&A that followed and thought it was quite good.

[Tunga]

Anarchy is for people who don't know how to say thank you.

Please move to Mexico if you think lawlessness and discourtesy is anyway to live.

The drug lords would love to have you and your brains for breakfast.

Toast!!!

[Tunga]

would love to have you and your brains for breakfast.

Everyone put on your sailin' shoes! - Robert Palmer

[Russell Kanning]

I have tunga on ignore ... should I make him disappear?

I missed the speech ... and I could have used the ideas, since i always lose political arguments ... sometimes with handcuffs.

[Friday]

I have tunga on ignore ... should I make him disappear?

Naw, I like Tunga.  He's like the human equivalent of a Cylon hybrid, spewing seemingly random nonsense statements within which are embedded the key to ultimate peace amongst all races.  Or not.

There's a hole in the bucket, Eliza!

[Pat McCotter]

I have tunga on ignore ... should I make him disappear?

Naw, I like Tunga.  He's like the human equivalent of a Cylon hybrid, spewing seemingly random nonsense statements within which are embedded the key to ultimate peace amongst all races.  Or not.

There's a hole in the bucket, Eliza!

Then mend it, dear Henry!

[Tunga]

I have tunga on ignore ... should I make him disappear?

Naw, I like Tunga.  He's like the human equivalent of a Cylon hybrid, spewing seemingly random nonsense statements within which are embedded the key to ultimate peace amongst all races.  Or not.

There's a hole in the bucket, Eliza!

Thanks Friday.


Your cool too.

How does Russell know what the Tunga is saying if he has us on ignore? 

More stuff to keep us up at night.

[SethCohn]

A good time was had by all, listening to Stefan 'Monty Python' Molyneux. (His british-y accent and the content strongly reminded me of Dennis the anarchosyndicalist serf in MP and the HolyGrail: "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system." [ http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/mphg.htm#Scene%203 ]

In discussion with some folks after, we felt that while his technique was useful, the problem was that for some cases, including the common ones I asked about (Just call me Hagrid), essentially his answer was 'well, then I'd stop talking to them, because they aren't willing to debate...'  I think this strategy is, in part, one of the reasons he draws criticism from some (ie the cult-y thing) for encouraging this sort of withdrawal, from family/friends/etc. "You won't validate my view, so I'll stop dealing with you", which among teens is pretty universal: Teens have always felt that their parents didn't 'get it',  and like it or not, many individualist leaning folk tend to have the same sort of problem in relating to others... so a philosophy that validates the Gulching solution to social relationships feeds that tendency, which, IMHO, isn't doing anyone any good.  One advantage of the FSP as a solution is that we aren't isolating, we're building community, and despite the bumpy road, folks tend to be forced through the frequent social interactions to stretch those social muscles more often.

I do understand his appeal (and plan on reading the book he gave me, and the others that Lauren handed me on CD).  But so far, based on what I've seen, I didn't feel he's going to convince any folks who aren't already drinking from the same well.  (Powered drink mix or not)

[TackleTheWorld]

What do you think the abolitionists did when they met a slave broker?  I'm thinking they didn't try and talk them out of it - they knew the broker's life, loves, and future all depend on continued slavery - but turned their backs on them.  I could be wrong, but if one is serious about a moral ideal, they won't spend a lot of time sloshing around with those who reject ideals.

[dalebert]

TackleTheWorld put it well and succinctly when she said "Put down the gun and we'll talk." Someone holding a gun pointed at you isn't very interested in discussion. To be a bit more accurate, what they're doing when they appear to engage in a discussion is trying to get you to concede somewhat to their violence so they don't experience cognitive dissonance over it. It takes many repetitive rituals to maintain a deluded belief system and they are trying to convince themselves more than they're trying to convince you.

[D Stewart]

A good time was had by all, listening to Stefan 'Monty Python' Molyneux. (His british-y accent and the content strongly reminded me of Dennis the anarchosyndicalist serf in MP and the HolyGrail: "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system." [ http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/mphg.htm#Scene%203 ]

In discussion with some folks after, we felt that while his technique was useful, the problem was that for some cases, including the common ones I asked about (Just call me Hagrid), essentially his answer was 'well, then I'd stop talking to them, because they aren't willing to debate...'  I think this strategy is, in part, one of the reasons he draws criticism from some (ie the cult-y thing) for encouraging this sort of withdrawal, from family/friends/etc. "You won't validate my view, so I'll stop dealing with you", which among teens is pretty universal: Teens have always felt that their parents didn't 'get it',  and like it or not, many individualist leaning folk tend to have the same sort of problem in relating to others... so a philosophy that validates the Gulching solution to social relationships feeds that tendency, which, IMHO, isn't doing anyone any good.  One advantage of the FSP as a solution is that we aren't isolating, we're building community, and despite the bumpy road, folks tend to be forced through the frequent social interactions to stretch those social muscles more often.

I do understand his appeal (and plan on reading the book he gave me, and the others that Lauren handed me on CD).  But so far, based on what I've seen, I didn't feel he's going to convince any folks who aren't already drinking from the same well.  (Powered drink mix or not)

+1

Put down the gun and we'll talk

now we see the gun in the room

gun...gun...violence....gun...gun

Yes, I learned two things from all this.  First, I suspect the guy has an issue with guns.  Secondly, as soon as you declare any belief in any government at all, however limited, he (when utilizing this argument, which admittedly he said was only one element of his arsenal) declares it tantamount to a gun having been drawn and pointed at his head.  And then, it seems, people actually expect this argument to work on rational human beings who just happen to have a differing viewpoint.

I will flip through the book he gave me and see if he's more rational in print.  He's certainly entertaining, but I found this argument barely persuasive even when he was espousing things with which I agree.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

There are SOME points at which ending the conversation is warranted. Mine is when someone rejects self-ownership. Owning oneself is SO basic in my eyes that if that can't be established, then I can't argue anything for liberty. I'd love to have some way to not have that limitation.

[Puke]

I've never watched any of Molyneux's videos but his speech was very good and entertaining.
He's a funny man.

[dalebert]

Secondly, as soon as you declare any belief in any government at all, however limited, he declares it tantamount to a gun having been drawn and pointed at his head.

As soon as it's a violently imposed government, then the notion of it being limited is not very rational. The only way to limit it is to have it not be a monopoly on violence which makes it fundamentally different than just about anything we'd call government today.

And then, it seems, people actually expect this argument to work on rational human beings who just happen to have a differing viewpoint.

Yes, rational human beings, but not people who insist on this ridiculous belief in a violently imposed monopoly government. He admitted as much and said that if they won't acknowledge the violence, then they're not worth your time. The point of the hard, objective analogy of the gun is to help them to snap out of their indoctrinated viewpoint for a moment so they can see how irrational it is. In fact, I haven't listened to much of his podcasts yet, but I believe he spends a fair amount of time talking about how such people are worthy of some degree of ostracism at least until they demonstrate some ability for reason and respect peaceful means.

I'm probably a lot more patient than he is in dealing with such people (statists), because I realize they are suffering from multi-generational indoctrination and brain-washing. They have the raw ability, at least, for rational thought if they can ever escape the mindset that they've been trained into. It's not easy to break through such a wall but I'm trying to chip away at it.