TFoot vs. Molyneux...

[Endo]

So this happened. At this point, we should just have a running "Tf00t vs ___" thread.

Just several months ago (from about a year ago to just 2 months ago), Stefan Molyneux's ideals and philosophies had quite a large sway over me and my thoughts. I was what an outsider would consider one of the "Youtube crowd", I hadn't spent any time on his website. Then, I got into a discussion with a classmate about these ideas in a very very casual manner, this other person had no idea what I was talking about, had no exposure to the subject. At that point, I decided to dive in deeper and see what I felt about all of this closer to the core. So, I went to the forum site. I spent about an hour there before leaving, having decided to not go back. What got me was a discussion about martial arts as a source of violence, with the discussion leading to the conclusion that martial arts were bad for the community, and that plain old exercise had far more benefits and did everything that martial arts could claim. What DIDN'T come up in that conversation was the concept of self-defense, which for this crowd was a pretty big thing. I found that to be very odd that no one would defend the concept of martial arts as a means of low-level self-defense despite that being a very large part of their brand of anarcho-capitalism. And then I decided to come back here and join back up.

TL;DR: I liked this guy, but then I didn't. Now Tf00t's firing a salvo at this guy.

What do you think about all of this?

[pocaracas]

I think this guy is a lunatic.
How on earth did you ever get to like him?!

[TaraJo]

It's pretty damn rare that I meet a libertarian who isn't batshit crazy. Stefan is just following the trend.

[Endo]

I think this guy is a lunatic.
How on earth did you ever get to like him?!

The videos he was putting out at the time matched up with a lot of what I thought at the time. His stance may have been a bit more aggressive than I entirely agreed with, but I took that in stride, understanding that he was further along the spectrum than most. He was putting out a lot of anti-spanking and anti-child-abuse media at the time, and that caught my attention.

It's pretty damn rare that I meet a libertarian who isn't batshit crazy. Stefan is just following the trend.

Perhaps because the crazy ones are always the most vocal? Molyneux is the most vocal of "his kind", and as was discussed in another current thread, it's not fair to disregard the message, motives, or goals of a wider group based on the vocal fringe.

[TaraJo]

Perhaps because the crazy ones are always the most vocal? Molyneux is the most vocal of "his kind", and as was discussed in another current thread, it's not fair to disregard the message, motives, or goals of a wider group based on the vocal fringe.

Until and unless they make an effort to differentiate themselves from the crazy ones, yes, it is a fair assessment to make.

[Exian]

I was left confused about Molyneux's position after watching this video. Is he measuring all transgressions against his willingness to shoot somebody over it, or is he saying all transgressions are worth being shot over, or is he saying no transgression is punishable at all and if you disagree you might as well wish to shoot somebody over any transgression no matter the severity?

I get he's against governance, I'm just lost on this shooting thing. Does he suggest replacing government with armed citizens with the power to kill at their own discretion? Or is he suggesting that by removing government, the people will fall in line and form a utopia?

It's funny because any one of these scenarios is wrong.

[Endo]

I was left confused about Molyneux's position after watching this video. Is he measuring all transgressions against his willingness to shoot somebody over it, or is he saying all transgressions are worth being shot over, or is he saying no transgression is punishable at all and if you disagree you might as well wish to shoot somebody over any transgression no matter the severity?

None of the above, actually. The video that TF00t is referencing is an explanation of Molyneux's "Against Me" argument, which breaks down to basically say:

"Why do you support (Insert Government/Tax-Sponsored Activity Here) if you know that the government will use force to collect taxes? Do you really support the use of force against me?"

That's what Molyneux's hyperbolic statements in the referenced video work out to be when you actually look at his base arguments. He is also attempting to work in some references to self-defense and violence on the micro-scale in order to protect personal property, shown in his statements about shooting someone who's touching your car.

I get he's against governance, I'm just lost on this shooting thing. Does he suggest replacing government with armed citizens with the power to kill at their own discretion? Or is he suggesting that by removing government, the people will fall in line and form a utopia?

It's funny because any one of these scenarios is wrong.

He is advocating violence in and only in the case of self- or public- defense. Self defense including the protection of personal property, and public-defense being the military actions of a group in response to another group's aggression or a person/group of person's actions in response to a specific or generalized threat (such as preventing someone assaulting another in broad daylight or stopping a bomb threat at a school). So "yes" to both. See, a citizen can already kill another at their discretion, and then they'll have to go through a trial to show that it was a proper action to take in that situation. He's not advocating the removal of the judicial system, but is saying that the community would be able to deal with governmental tasks.

Please note that these positions are not mine, just my understanding of his.

[Exian]

Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[stonedape]

Yeah Molyneaux is a fucking cultist. Speaking of cult leaders.........

Hitchens didn't really know the difference between an objectivist and a libertarian. Most people don't. Many objectivist libertarians don't. But there is a big difference. A communist can be a libertarian. An objectivist can be a war mongerer. But you can't be a libertarian war mongerer.

Until and unless they make an effort to differentiate themselves from the crazy ones, yes, it is a fair assessment to make.

There are plenty of libertarians that do not associate with the coocoos and some that are a different breed of coocoo. Some of us even vote for democrats. Here's a list of libertarians for you.
Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Penn and Teller. Hunter S Thompson. Chris Rock. David Letterman. Bill Hicks. David Lynch. Jonny Rotten. Joe Rogan. John Molkovich. Doug Stanhope. Dax Shephard. Frank Zappa. Big Boi. Lewis Black. Bill Maher was a libertarian until 911.

[Dolorian]

Yawn, more Thunderf00t melodrama...I think it is time to unsub from that channel.