Brainpolice:I don't think you understand what's meant by failure. Failure in light of what goals? Did Mises's work have the causal effect of actually decreasing the power of the state? No, it didn't, and hence in light of that goal he gailed. Did Mises's calculation argument actually have the effect of making people abandon the ideology of socialism? No, it didn't (the socialists just shifted to technocratic arguments and continued to insist on having the moral highground), and hence in light of that goal he failed. That's what Stefan is talking about with regaurd to failure, I.E. not necessarily that such people are incorrect but that they have not been effective at achieving their ends and their arguments have been weak at convincing people.
Right back at Molyneux to be honest.
Mises' works have laid the foundation for the modern Austrian school, so yes actually they have.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Yeah, and not to shabby indeed have been Mises results. This website, the institute, the books (Jeff Tucker said at the gold conference book sales were near 6 figures annually in volume).
Obviously it's a pretty good spam target for Stef too! You don't see Jeffrey Tucker posting to FreeDomainRadio!
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Woah, what is this, fallacy fest or something?
GilesStratton: It's nothing to do with partisanship, and everything to do with purging bad elements from a movment.
It's nothing to do with partisanship, and everything to do with purging bad elements from a movment.
Then why use ad hominems over reasoned argument?
Or at the very least, not associating ourselves with them.
Again, why do you need to use ad hominems to not associate yourself with someone?
If you want to waste your time with fools like this who rant about the evil of the family and religion
Are you calling all atheists fools? Perhaps there is something bad about our current family structure and religion. Again, no need for ad hominems.
do their best to make a cult out of themself
Do you have concrete evidence that he is trying to establish a cult? Can you read his mind (genetic fallacy)?
teaching and universities and insult any philosophy or economist who has done more than him (most) so be it.
So are you willing to take this statement to its logical conclusion and claim that you have no right to attack any economist (Krugman), philosopher (Marx), or anyone else who has done more than you (Lange, Lerner, etc.).
Me on the other hand? I'll stick to the real libertarians, not the cult leaders. It's not as if he has anything to offer anyway.
He isn't a real libertarian? Didn't you say Brainpolice was using a straw man when he accused you of saying that?
Please, uncalled for? You should look into the attacks this idiot has made on people. How appropriate a name FDR is all things considered
I've never heard/seen him engage in personal attacks on anyone.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
krazy kaju:Woah, what is this, fallacy fest or something?
Woah, what is this, sensitivity training? So what, I posted a few ad homs, and congratulations, you pointed them out. It's not as if they were subtle.
krazy kaju:Then why use ad hominems over reasoned argument?
Why draw attention from the reasoned argument to the ad homs?
krazy kaju:Are you calling all atheists fools? Perhaps there is something bad about our current family structure and religion. Again, no need for ad hominems.
You're correct, there is something wrong about the state of the family and religion. The culprit isn't difficult to find either.
krazy kaju:Do you have concrete evidence that he is trying to establish a cult? Can you read his mind (genetic fallacy)?
Do I have to be able to read his mind to point out that he's creating a cult? Somewhere in this thread somebody posted a list of traits indicative of cults. Read it.
Molyneux does his best to teach children of the dangers of all other forms of authority to place himself in that position. Dissent is crushed whenever possible, he refrains from posting on here except to advertise shamelessly. I could carry on, but it's easy enough to draw a few obvious conclusions from this alone.
krazy kaju:So are you willing to take this statement to its logical conclusion and claim that you have no right to attack any economist (Krugman), philosopher (Marx), or anyone else who has done more than you (Lange, Lerner, etc.).
No actually, that's just you posting a strawman.
krazy kaju:He isn't a real libertarian? Didn't you say Brainpolice was using a straw man when he accused you of saying that?
No, I said BP took it out of context. He's a libertarian, he just needs to relegate himself to his appopriate rank: a nobody. The real libertarians are the like of Hoppe, Rothbard, Mises etc.
krazy kaju:I've never heard/seen him engage in personal attacks on anyone.
Adolf Hitler:Well I never saw them killing any jews
It's not a very convincing argument.
Katja 328 wrote:
Here is my opinion on Stefan's influence, for what it's worth.
It appears that most of the young people drawn to FDR are emotionally distressed. It seems that young adults and teenagers generally have a problem with their parents telling them what to do. Parents doing their job has nothing to do with abuse. I often tell my daughter she can't do certain things. I don't see anything abusive telling my daughter that she's not going to get a rabbit when we already have two dogs and a cat.
Continuously telling teenagers and young adults that parents are bad. That their father is the devil and their mother pretty much gave birth to them so she can hand them to the devil is lunacy. I have not read a single positive thing about parents on his site.
Let's be honest, who amongst us hasn't had some experience when they were young where their parents were yelling at them, got grounded or received a spanking. In Stefan's world that was straight up abuse. I am sorry, while I most certainly am against any kind of spanking or physical punishment, I do not view the rest as abuse.
Raising a child is hard work. Children do not rules in place. Maybe you all think I am wrong on this, but I believe that there need to be certain boundaries established for children.
To get to the point, Stefan suggesting to these kids that their parents are evil and that they need to "defoo" is not helping us or the libertarian movement. All it does is turn the parents against the movement and especially against anarchy. I often have discussions with friends who think of blood shed in the streets and burnt out cars, robbed houses and raped women when I speak of anarchy. That is exactly what these parents think when kids, who are systematically told that they parents are evil eventually go up to them, full of anger and rage and pretty much tell them that they will never see them again.
He might think that he is promoting the NAP. You can't tell me, that feeding you some b/s about how you were essentially sacrificed to the devil by your own mother won't make you angry. Have 20 other "clowns" on the board feed you the same line, of course you are going to get angry and eventually let that anger out on your "foo".
That is where I see the real problem. He might be a libertarian alright, but he's pretty f*ed up in the head for his psychobabble crap that he puts out there. And the last thing we need are more people thinking that libertarians are all nut cases with low self esteem, flocking to a site to have some self proclaimed Wittgenstein reincarnation tell them what to do and how to life their lives.
I agree with you Katja. I don't think Molyneux should have a voice in this forum. He should have a voice only to be exposed and he cannot be exposed in a virtual place, he can always escape, stay silent, arrange the truth. he should be exposed in a socratic way, in a physical place where discussion should end only by exposing one truth. I find Danny brave to confront him on forums and to read his sick material, but this is little help, Molyneux will always get away with the truth and try to turn this exposure to his advantage and to sell his distorted theories about freedom, liberty and philosophy on which he knows nearly nothing. At least the sophists did not pretend to pursue the truth, they openly claimed the pursuit of power.
Funny, you didn't seem to mind so much when it was other members wanting to "purge the parlour revolutionaries". Not that I mind, it's necessary to remove bad elements from a movement. Which is exactly what the libertarian movement should be doing to non Austrians and the likes of Molyneux. Lenin was exactly right in this regard. Nonetheless, you have double standards.
Funny, you didn't seem to mind so much when it was other members wanting to "purge the parlour revolutionaries". Not that I mind, it's necessary to remove bad elements from a movement. Which is exactly what the libertarian movement should be doing to non Austrians and the likes of Molyneux. Lenin was exactly right in this regard.
Nonetheless, you have double standards.
I never specifically cheered on Niccolo about that, although I admit, I found his rhetoric hilarious.
I'm sorry, but absolute adherance to Austrian methodology is not a prerequisite to being a libertarian (unless you want to deny that people like David Friedman are libertarians). Neither is sharing your cultural preferance a prerequisite to being a libertarian. If you think libertarianism is going to succeed by excluding it to a small elite of conservatives, then you're fooling yourself.
Funny that you appeal to Lenin of all people.
Indeed, posting "ROFL" to a most unamusing post by somebody you've gone to great lengths to defend (wrongly) in the past, especially when this individuals in question in one in regards to whom you have double standards, that is not in the least bit "fanboyish".
No, it really isn't, but I find it funny that you dwell on such petty things.
That is an exagerration. In any case, the leap is hardly a huge one. Not to mention, you assume FDR is good for the movment. It isn't.We need to move beyond Youtube.
I only claimed that he's brought people into the movement (most of which do not exclusively stick to him), something you should see as good. Any spread of ideas and interactions is good for the movement. As for your swipe at youtube, you just seem to be making low blows.
Of course, you know who did get beyond Youtube and converted thousands more than your idol? Ron Paul, I wonder why you're not fond of him. Is it because of his cultural conservatism or the fact that he proved the political process to be effective.
Molyneux isn't my idol, I'm just defending him from your sweeping axe grinding. You're being assumptive and contrarian for the sake of it.
As for Ron Paul, could it be that I find him a half-assed libertarian, given that he's a minarchist? Could it also be that he's a politician, and hence should be trusted with a grain of salt? As for the political process being effective, he didn't prove that, considering that he didn't get anywhere with it and has yet to succeed at getting anything libertarian to occur by trying to work within the state.
He can have a place in regards to the libertarian movement: outside it. We don't need bloggers, we need serious thinkers.
Oh, come on. Drop the reactionary nonsense.
There's no cult around Rothbard, he's deeply respected within the movement and rightly so when one considers both his academic and strategic work. Likewise, it's no doubt the Mises is respected, he is the beginning of the modern Austrian school.
The point is that they are sometimes used as rhetorical authorites to stifle polycentrism and new ideas in libertarianism. That's no fault of their own.
Ron Paul should be highly respected, instead fools like yourself would put Molyneux a second rate thinker and egocentric moron above a genuine libertarian.
Wait, so a minarchist politician is a genuine libertarian, while a radical anarchist isn't? You have your standard backwards.
What a digrace. What does he represent for the movement anyway? The usual marxist tirade against family and religion? That has no place in society let alone the libertarian movement.
You're being a conservative reactionary, and you continue to disingenously throw around the term Marxist when noone in question is one. People don't have to share your extreme cultural conservatism to be libertarians, and nor does it make them marxists by default if they don't share it.
The bottom line is Molyneux needs to be purged from the movementl
Nonsense, you're on a retarded crusade.
How is he completely correct? Rothbard is the founded of the modern libertarian movement, and he quite clearly favoured an alliance with statists.
There was also a debate between Rothbard and his primary heir, Konkin, over politics and strategy. I think Konkin won. I don't indiscrimiately follow everything Rothbard ever said down to the detail. Rothbard's alliance with statists also failed, and he eventually ditched the libertarian party.
How many people visit the Mises institute founded by the dreaded paleocons you hate?
The Mises Institute wasn't founded by paleocons.
Far more than visit his woeful website, how many people have read The Revolution: A Manifesto? Thankfully more than have ever read his poor excuse of a book.
You're just making an arguementum ad populum now.
He's jealous that he isn't getting in on this, that's what it is.
An armchair psychoanalysis.
You have one set of standard for Molyneux, another for Paul. Which is fine, just don't pretend to be promoting libertarianism when you do.
Actually I hold them both to the same standard, and clearly Paul is not as radical of a libertarian compared to ANY anarchist, Molyneux or otherwise.
You're being highly vitrolic and disingenous.
Brainpolice: As for Ron Paul, could it be that I find him a half-assed libertarian, given that he's a minarchist? Could it also be that he's a politician, and hence should be trusted with a grain of salt? As for the political process being effective, he didn't prove that, considering that he didn't get anywhere with it and has yet to succeed at getting anything libertarian to occur by trying to work within the state.
Whether you consider RP a half-assed libertarian or not, the fact is that in a very short amount of time he has introduce more people to libertarianism than 20 Molyneux' will ever be able to in their lifetime. RP has done a lot for this movement whether we all agree with him or not. Frankly, he has done more than all of us combined.
Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side
katja328: Brainpolice: As for Ron Paul, could it be that I find him a half-assed libertarian, given that he's a minarchist? Could it also be that he's a politician, and hence should be trusted with a grain of salt? As for the political process being effective, he didn't prove that, considering that he didn't get anywhere with it and has yet to succeed at getting anything libertarian to occur by trying to work within the state. Whether you consider RP a half-assed libertarian or not, the fact is that in a very short amount of time he has introduce more people to libertarianism than 20 Molyneux' will ever be able to in their lifetime. RP has done a lot for this movement whether we all agree with him or not. Frankly, he has done more than all of us combined.
But, again, this is just a raw arguementum ad populum.
Brainpolice: katja328: Brainpolice: As for Ron Paul, could it be that I find him a half-assed libertarian, given that he's a minarchist? Could it also be that he's a politician, and hence should be trusted with a grain of salt? As for the political process being effective, he didn't prove that, considering that he didn't get anywhere with it and has yet to succeed at getting anything libertarian to occur by trying to work within the state. Whether you consider RP a half-assed libertarian or not, the fact is that in a very short amount of time he has introduce more people to libertarianism than 20 Molyneux' will ever be able to in their lifetime. RP has done a lot for this movement whether we all agree with him or not. Frankly, he has done more than all of us combined. But, again, this is just a raw arguementum ad populum.
I'll get to the rest later. But are you really saying that when discussing the contributions of two people, number of people converted is not relevant?
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: katja328: Brainpolice: As for Ron Paul, could it be that I find him a half-assed libertarian, given that he's a minarchist? Could it also be that he's a politician, and hence should be trusted with a grain of salt? As for the political process being effective, he didn't prove that, considering that he didn't get anywhere with it and has yet to succeed at getting anything libertarian to occur by trying to work within the state. Whether you consider RP a half-assed libertarian or not, the fact is that in a very short amount of time he has introduce more people to libertarianism than 20 Molyneux' will ever be able to in their lifetime. RP has done a lot for this movement whether we all agree with him or not. Frankly, he has done more than all of us combined. But, again, this is just a raw arguementum ad populum. I'll get to the rest later. But are you really saying that when discussing the contributions of two people, number of people converted is not relevant?
It's not relevant to the validity of their ideas. The amount of people who believe or support something in and of itself is not an indication of the truth value of the ideas in question or the moral worth of the people in question.
Brainpolice: It's not relevant to the validity of their ideas. The amount of people who believe or support something in and of itself is not an indication of the truth value of the ideas in question or the moral worth of the people in question.
The validity of their ideas might not be relevant. It seems to me though, that you essentially stated that Molyneux's contribution to libertarianism is greater than RP's and I find that to be faulty.
Then why would you use it as a PRO for FDR, claiming that he has brought a lot of people to libertarianism?
Sounds like a double standard to me. FDR may or may not be a cult. Ron Paul is a politician minarchist. If you're going to credit Stef for bringing people to libertarianism, than on that point, Paul is vastly superior.
Unless of course you are finally ready to answer for the earlier strawman of proclaiming that Paul has converted people from a philosophy of liberty to a philosophy of statism by providing us with examples. Do you finally have some examples to back up your earlier claim?
katja328: Brainpolice: It's not relevant to the validity of their ideas. The amount of people who believe or support something in and of itself is not an indication of the truth value of the ideas in question or the moral worth of the people in question. The validity of their ideas might not be relevant. It seems to me though, that you essentially stated that Molyneux's contribution to libertarianism is greater than RP's and I find that to be faulty.
I never stated that. All I implied is that he has, in fact, brought people into libertarianism, many of whom move on from him. As for contributions in terms of ideas, yes, I will claim that Molyneux has contributed more, because Ron Paul has in fact not produced any new ideas for libertarianism, while Molyneux has.
I've been through most of Stef's podcasts, but I've never heard him agree with the fundamentals of Austrian Economics. He uses an empirical approach to economics, but somehow reaches praxeological, Austrian conclusions. He has never explained this discrepancy and so I must hold everything he says at arm's length.
He says that he doesn't understand or believe that the analytic/synthetic dichotomy is valid; however isn't this the very dualism that allows for Mises' a priori reasoning?
Recently, after comparing the Mises Institutes' Conference on the Gold Standard and listening about the depth and history of the Austrian intellectual tradition, and then reading Stef's half-hysterical scribe against the libertarian movement, combined with the lack of hard economic theory that I find at Mises, I felt as though Stef had jumped into the deep end of the pool without arms. In order for him to have such sweeping conclusions, he really must produce much more rigorous proofs. His critique of libertarianism is funny: we always have such huge resources and audiences at our disposal, but still completely always losing.
I bet if market anarchists owned all the major news networks, then Stef wouldn't be blaming Mises and Rothbard for lack of success.
Stef's psychology is interesting the way that TV drama can be interesting; but, without deriving any of it from a sound praxeological framework, I can't help believe that it's all pretty much coming off the top of his head. If psychology could be based on the logical fundamentals of the human condition, like Austrian Economics is, I would definitely be open to learning more.
Don't get me wrong, Stef is brilliant and funny and entertaining and a really powerful speaker; I enjoy his work. I just wish his ideas were more grounded.
I haven't posted here before- though I do keep up- but I feel compelled to ask what this negative preoccupation with Mr. Molyneux is about? He seems to base all of his thinking on the non-aggresion principle, and though he can get overzealous about the family thing, he is absolutley correct in his premise that relationships are volutary. Family is not an inherent good or evil, that depends on the people involved. Also, emotionally and intellectually vulnerable people are going to get pulled in by someone, better Molyneux than Obama, at least he is not promoting the initiation of force against others.
colemanhealth: relationships are volutary.
relationships are volutary.
I doubt anybody is going to disagree with that. The question is, whether the person Molyneux (including his psychology sessions) is helpful to the libertarian movement.
If a person is critical of the libertarian movement, see/read/listens to Molyneux's "family lunacy" to get a deeper understanding of what libertarians are all about, what do you think their reaction is?
colemanhealth:Also, emotionally and intellectually vulnerable people are going to get pulled in by someone, better Molyneux than Obama, at least he is not promoting the initiation of force against others.
Bad and subjective argument. Sounds like "the lesser of two evils".
katja328: colemanhealth: relationships are volutary. I doubt anybody is going to disagree with that. The question is, whether the person Molyneux (including his psychology sessions) is helpful to the libertarian movement. If a person is critical of the libertarian movement, see/read/listens to Molyneux's "family lunacy" to get a deeper understanding of what libertarians are all about, what do you think their reaction is?
I can understand that, and I certainly believe that dissent is very valuable. However, I would argue that caution must be taken in how one critiques. Certain people here are very reasonable, and others seem petty and personally invested, which only makes Molyneux look better. What affect does that have on the libertarian movement? It all seems a bit volatile, which always worries me. Also, shouldn't the question be concerning whether or not Molyneux is correct in his assertions? If he is incorrect, then he should be debunked with superior logic, if he is correct, then who cares? whether or not his members are "culty" is irrelvant to the point, and almost completely outside of your control. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to make them see the error in their ways, just that attacking them with the "cult" label is not productive and only satisfies people who already don't like him.
liberty student: colemanhealth:Also, emotionally and intellectually vulnerable people are going to get pulled in by someone, better Molyneux than Obama, at least he is not promoting the initiation of force against others. Bad and subjective argument. Sounds like "the lesser of two evils".
good point, I am sorry.
Brainpolice, you point out that Stefan's contributions to the libertarian movement stem from his novel ideas, but I have to ask, which ideas are those? And if he contributed some valuable new ideas, but also led a large group of libertarians to accept a number of untenable and implausible ideas, would that be a net gain? I don't think the answer is obviously yes.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap