Molyneux' FDR controversy is going too far

[dalebert]

Do you consider the military a cult?

Absolutely!

I have to agree with Caleb on that at least.

You are making some good points, Caleb. I don't feel I know enough about FDR to apply those points to him specifically though. So far the only case of separation I'd heard of seemed reasonable. Also, I understand that if someone is exercising undo influence, you should assert yourself. However, if someone is constantly putting you down, humiliating or disrespecting you, that's actually emotionally harmful to listen to, particularly from someone who claims to love you as a friend or family member. That's emotional abuse and you shouldn't stick around for that.

[MengerFan]

Now, if you were to declare yourself a "philosopher," build a group surrounding yourself where you are unquestionably the "leader", such that you become considered an authority within the group, then yes, the power dynamic permits you some degree of power over others.  Here is what I will grant:  Your power over others is only to the extent that they let you have power over them. But that's why victims of cults are vulnerable people, people who don't have a sense of empowerment in their own lives. Exploiting vulnerable people is hardly morally defensible just because one doesn't physically coerce them.

Hold on now. Earlier, you clearly stated that 100% of people who help others isolate others from their family are cults. Now you are adding more criteria. So it is possible to help someone leave an abusive relationship without being a cult, just like it is possible to be black and not a basketball player, yes?

[Caleb]

You're hilarious.  No, you're twisting what I'm saying. When you get to the point where you are influencing the person, by definition you have become influential.  Why would someone of influence want to use that influence to someone else's detriment? It's like this: you can say whatever crazy thing you want to say, but until the person takes you seriously, you haven't done any damage.

There's the problem, though, it's in your very language:

So it is possible to help someone leave an abusive relationship without being a cult, just like it is possible to be black and not a basketball player, yes?

This is the key factor:  you see someone ending close family relationships as "helping them".  It's no help at all. Even if tragically necessary in the case of physical abuse (and I emphasize PHYSICAL abuse, to prevent someone extending the concept to other types of so-called "abuse") there is still emotional fallout. Particularly in the parent/child dynamic. Think about the extent to which one forms ones identity in the earliest, formative, years based on this relationship. 

Granted that the relationship can become skewed. In this case, the solution is not ending the relationship (a relationship which is psychologically necessary to both parent and child) but in helping the person involved to make the relationship more healthy. In so doing, you actually liberate the person.

Dale's point is good:  at times people use emotionally destructive language, namecalling, etc.  In this case, once again, the solution is to set firm boundaries. "I expect to be treated with respect. No namecalling. If you can't express yourself respectfully, then I will go home." Then maintain this practice every time it occurs.  This is healthy boundary setting. And everyone needs to learn it, mainly because there is no arbitrary line where a parent goes from being the child's protector into another relationship. What works for the parent when the child is 4 doesn't work when the adult is 19. The relationship needs to change, and there aren't arbitrary boundary points where that happens, so it must be a steadily increasing process of the individual CLAIMING his adulthood. This is a sort of rite of passage, and you destroy that involvement by avoiding it.

By isolating the person from this necessary conflict, by withdrawing him from it, the person never learns to set boundaries and is thus kept in the more submissive (childlike) state. He is thus easier to manipulate. That's why it is so effective, and why almost all cults use it.

SIGH.  This is rather basic psychology. If we would learn to understand mind control techniques, we will be more immune to them. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time I have encountered basic antagonism to psychology among libertarians. It's this sort of simplistic idea of coercion as being limited to "force or fraud" that creates the problem, mainly because libertarians need objective standards (such as the NAP) to decide moral questions. Psychology is too complex to fit into this simplistic box, so libertarians tend to be dismissive of it because it doesn't fit neatly into the paradigm.

[dalebert]

I think you're giving too much credit to some parents to be able to be sort of trained by an adult son or daughter into not being emotionally abusive. Maybe some people are too quick to end a relationship that can be salvaged for the benefit of both parties, but it sounds like you would take it to the extreme in the other direction.

In my case, I feel the early attachment you speak of simply wasn't there and that was the problem. Trying to make it happen in adulthood with this person who was essentially a stranger to me simply because we were blood related seems unhealthy.

[Tom Sawyer]

(Caleb drink the kool-aid)

[MengerFan]

I can dig what you're saying there, Caleb. At the end of the day, though, I just don't see how one could possibly get to the conclusion that it is a good thing to allow yourself to be enslaved to unchosen positive obligations.

Suppose I initiate a relationship where I occasionally drop by your house uninvited and proceed to tell dirty jokes and pass gas all afternoon. I am not committing physical violence against you, but you're clearly getting the short end of the stick on this one. Even if I do leave when asked, how could it be good for your mental health to call and see how my day is going or invite me over for holiday dinner?

[Jacobus]

I remember when I was a strict NAPist libertarian coming to the conclusion that most of the people around me advocated for evil to be done to me.  This is the logical conclusion of deriving rights, drawing lines based on those rights, and defining good and evil as whether people believe those lines ought to be crossed.  The irony is that even libertarians don't agree where those lines should be drawn, so if you are going to isolate yourself from people who you think support the infringement of your rights, you are going to be awfully lonely.

I don't know if the above is relevant to the situation discussed in the thread, but it occurred to me that maybe this young man is basing his actions at least in part on such a derivation of right and wrong. 

There is danger in attempting to rely solely upon reason to guide your morality.  If I had the choice of a strict NAPist libertarian as a neighbor, and your common yokel, I would not choose the libertarian.  I'd be afraid that one day he'd "discover" that some arbitrary level of noise emanating from my land was an infringement on his property rights and that he therefore can "defend" his property using force.

[dalebert]

There is danger in attempting to rely solely upon reason to guide your morality.  If I had the choice of a strict NAPist libertarian as a neighbor, and your common yokel, I would not choose the libertarian.  I'd be afraid that one day he'd "discover" that some arbitrary level of noise emanating from my land was an infringement on his property rights and that he therefore can "defend" his property using force.

You're not in NH yet, are you? I live with and interact regularly with some of the most hardcore anarchists you can imagine and they don't act that way. I don't even hear them talking that way; at least not the vast majority. I've certainly heard some defend the right to use force to defend your property, but even then, the notion is tempered with reason. Saying you have a right to do something is not the same as it being the best response. Most libertarians I know find violence very disturbing. It's why they're libertarians. Having interacted with a number of them personally, I would absolutely feel more comfortable living near or doing business with other libertarians over the average statist.

In fact, most of the people I talk to, when I've actually had the time to explore the subject thoroughly, don't really believe in deadly force over property. Mostly they reserve deadly force for the protection of their own physical being. The preferred method for dealing with property rights violations is ostracism with a healthy dose of hope for restitution and forgiveness.

[Jacobus]

I live with and interact regularly with some of the most hardcore anarchists you can imagine and they don't act that way. I don't even hear them talking that way; at least not the vast majority.

I am glad to hear that the anarchists you know do not actually behave like I described the "strict NAPist" might.  However, the behavior I described is a tendency that I observe in the online behavior of libertarians - thinking of everything in terms of property rights and making the NAP central over values such as compassion or non-violence.   

[Jacobus]

Also, maybe you just happen to hang with the cool crowd   

[Tom Sawyer]

The on-line "community" is the problem. Some weasely little guy in his pajamas becomes macho super-dude in his on-line persona. (A few characters we have dealt with here come to mind )

The difference in the underground is that many of us actually interact in the real world and pretty quickly someone that acts like an idiot gets ignored and has only himself for an audience.

[error]

Who cares what a bunch of debatatarians say on some other forum, anyway? They aren't here on the ground actually doing anything about statism.

[Giggan]

Question:

NAPist?

DeFOOing?

I'm not incredibly familiar with Molyneux, I've just read some of his articles and watched stuff on youtube. He's no doubt intellegent, but I'm turned off by anyone who labels themselves a philosopher. It's like someone making a point of saying they're a black belt. Labels like that are to be applied by others, so show, don't tell.

I think calling anything a cult in which the leader does not have direct association with the individual is using a label which strikes fear in people rather than being creative enough to describe precisely what it is that's wrong with a particular situation. I'm thinking this is a mountain out of a molehill, and if you really don't like what the guy does, counter it by investing your time and energy into something else. Nothing is more of an endorsement than extreme feelings toward an issue one way or another, whether they be love or hate. Not caring immediately makes an issue worthless.

This has piqued my interest enough to read the thread, and has made me want to see what it is that's going on, which I wouldn't have done without it.

[memenode]

Regarding the "cult" label, I think Giggan just nailed it. Instead of throwing labels around that have the effect of discouraging people from even touching Stefan's work therefore throwing the baby out with the bathwater, address what you think is wrong and get over it.

What I also want to point out with regards to Caleb's points is that the real problem, clearly, is people not thinking for themselves. If you are vulnerable and cannot make decisions for yourself you do not need Stefan Molyneux to tell you what you do. Just about anyone who seems like making sense would do. These people fail, sooner or later, and by "fail" I mean "outsource their decision making to someone else". So as much as you can blame Stef for supposedly taking advantage of this you can blame those vulnerable people for being so vulnerable. People who thus accuse Stefan of being a cultist might have a better time trying to be a counter-influential themselves, talking to people whom they perceive as vulnerable and trying to prop their mental strength and decision making power.

That said, I wouldn't be so sure Stef actually desires to be manipulative. It may simply be something that just happens, and he either fails to recognize it, or does recognize it, but feels confident enough about his beliefs being helpful to those people whom he influences to not feel too pressured to do something about it. It's like putting two objects next two each other, one is so huge that its gravity attracts the other. The larger object can't help being attractive. That's it's nature. If I talk to somebody who has never ever seriously thought about some deep issues and get into a discussion with him, it might actually be hard for me NOT to influence that guy somehow, even if I tried! I simply have more experience and more confidence about the topic than he does, and that shows and that inspires people, and that's simply natural.

There's also something to be said about the fact that a lot of his philosophy is exactly about enhancing people's ability to think for themselves and therefore making them *less* vulnerable.

So it's not all so clear cut. I think it's disingenuous to look at some cases where he seems manipulative and then take that as enough provocation to label all of his work by that ugly "cult" flag.

As for being the NAPist, ever since becoming convinced of voluntaryism I do see non-coercion principle to be the ultimate moral standard. It has made me see as "fine" things that I might have otherwise considered as immoral. I can now differentiate personal preferences from actual morals. However, I completely agree that NAP should not be the sole criteria for decision making, especially when it comes to relationships. It is merely a fundamental, but it doesn't answer the more complicated questions that arise once you answered that first question: "if I do this am I going to initiate force?". If the answer to that is no and thus your decision will be moral, you still have a whole lot more questions to answer before you can actually make a good decision. Take hold of your feelings and values and preferences. Be who you are as an individual and make decisions as that individual.

That's the beauty of individualism. It's not a rule that says "ostracize everyone who still doesn't know the virtue of NAP". It says "do and choose whatever YOU wish, so long as YOU don't initiate force". This can make it possible for you to not feel guilty even if you fall in love with the murdering thug of the state. It's not YOU who stole or killed and therefore it actually is moral for you to stay in that relationship if you value the effects of breaking it LESS than you value the company of that person. And within that relationship you can influence that person to change his or her ways.

[Giggan]

Oh...duh, non-aggression principle.

I don't think ostrification is successful when you're on the other side of the current moral zeitgeist. If people believe in aggression, you're potentially just making a hermit out of yourself, giving them reason to think you 'wrong'. Instead, interact and win them over using good old fashioned human communication skills.

So my final question is what is 'deFOOing'?