Saying he "rejects evolution" is a blanket statement. There are many theories of evolution which have been rejected. Darwinian theory will simply be the latest in a long line of rejected theories, inevitably.
Evolution happens in leaps, not gradually as Darwin proposes.
As far as Ron Paul believing in creation goes, I'm not sure of the specifics with this regard, but if it is simply a belief in a Prime Mover or a First Cause, then he is right. Causality must have a First Cause, logically
All authority and acts of aggression are bad, right?
So without the gov., what's stopping anyone else from becoming authoritarian and using aggression?
So it still goes on, and ideally, if you could make the government a central organization that only used force to stop others from using force, an authority to prevent authority, isn't that the best way to go?
Because even without government, there's always gonna be power abuse.
You simply can't knock them all. A person may need to swallow their pride and commit. Commit and fight for our natural rights. As close as they are expressed in this modern day by an individual that is willing to sacrifice his treasury for the cause. A reeducation of the populace can not happen all at ounce with such little power the Libertarian possesses at this juncture.
Understand the populace. It's a game of persuasion that's been around since before this country's inception. Let's affect change. I like, but let us start from somewhere. Somewhere that reminds us of the basic principles of this Country. You are undoubtably versed in these principles. But make them assessable to us all! Make them understand! Persuade us to a viable candidate!
That's how government was designed after the 18th century philosophers and the Founding Fathers writ. If Ron Paul is not to your liking in total, you really should consider settling among the "better" candidates. There aren't many alternatives at this point. If you have alternatives, please give them. We are hungry for them. We are hungry for those that are actually electable
"libertarians" love nothing more than arcane purity arguments, wherein they measure dicks and generally brawl over minutiae. I do this as well (Hoppean here) but it's so unseemly when other libertarians are doing it.
Stef, dude, you're a philosophy geek like I am. All my degrees are in the social sciences. From what I have been able to discern, so are yours. You criticize Dr. Paul, who has a degree in Medicine for belief in God, where your unbelief is based on merely a philosophical argument and upon scientists who accept the same a priori as you. It seems to me that your position is based upon circular reasoning. If you're going to be that sloppy expect to be called out on it. Other than that, we're allies.
I believe individuals are missing the point on the core values! Individuals should left free. Walter stefan block believe in these same principles in freedom.
He's like if Paul wins "people will remember that a libertarian was in-charge when world went in flames" And does think there will chance of bringing liberty back on the table if Paul does NOT become president. It's going to come crash anyway but if Paul comes to power then he's in the best & most powerful position to EDUCATE people & thereby rebuild the whole thing If Obama, Romney or whoever wins, there'll be totalitariasm & destitution & in such conditions people will coddle the State more
And what a RIDICULOUS thing to expect that every libertarian must be non-religious & believe in evolution, etc...SERIOUSLY??? This shows how narrow-minded you are.
The ONLY necessity as I see for someone to be "libertarian" is the belief in non-agression principle & right to life, liberty & property! So long as they believe in that the rest of their beliefs about religion, evolution or whatever shoud NOT matter. As I've said, I'm agnostic & I know many religious people who support non-agression
The argument that Paul "may" have repelled "some" people from libertarianism is outright childish! Does Stef think that people were flocking to libertarinism before Paul? NO, he "may" have turned off "some" but the NET number of people that he has brought to libertarianism & continues to do is HUGE!
Plus, vast majorty of people in US are....Christian! And I personally know & have "converted" many Christians towards libertarisnism, non-agression by using Paul as a spring-board.
The analogy about gang & state is inconsistent. In a criminal gang, firstly, there's no democratic process, secondly, to change the system, one has to gain acceptance of "exploiters"........on the other hand, to change system within the State, one has to gain acceptance of the "EXPLOITED" (that is, people at large)....aaaand....that's the whole point of freedomainradio, isn't it? - To get people at large to think critically about the nature of the State! Only THEN can one talk of its abolition!
While reading the article I had this spontaneous goosebump inducing orgy of an epiphany! The presidential pardon for all non violent offenders could make the elimination of taxation possible under a RP presidency. So, now really quickly that feeling has worn off like a night of anonymous drunken fluid swapping weirdness with a girl i will never see or recognize to be aware of seeing again, it was a thrilling thought though.
If there's a gathering of libertarians, and they had Ron Paul as a speaker, I'd want to attend. I'm also an anarchist and not a believer in constitutions. If Stefan Molyneux was a speaker, I wouldn't attend. Stef is a dick. Too bad not many of you can see that.
"If there's a gathering of libertarians, and they had Ron Paul as a speaker, I'd want to attend. I'm also an anarchist and not a believer in constitutions. If Stefan Molyneux was a speaker, I wouldn't attend. Stef is a dick. Too bad not many of you can see that"
I agree, Stefan is too full of himself, unlike Ron.
So I take it that you always ask your physician/surgeon/pharmacist/etc what they believe in terms of their religion and their appeal to your brand of evolution? If they do not pass your check then you of course refuse their services right? If not, you would simply be a hypocrite. Now don't get me wrong I know why you wouldn't ask as it is entirely irrelevant to their ability to do their job, but you brought it up. /watch?v=MjWArYwsUuY&feature
Stefan, you make some compelling points as to why we should live and promote the non-aggression principle with those we live among and not focus on trying to make the state smaller and kinder with the understanding that it is fundamentally a corrupt institution which necessarily centralizes and legitimizes and tries to make a monopoly of aggression. However, because of the fractal nature of reality, I feel that we have to work on all levels. All fights for freedom are part of a larger whole.
@Ishpeck The point about debt not representing money taken from Paul's constituents seems wrong to me. The state makes all persons liable for its debts so that debt seems, to me, to be a form of theft.
I loudly applaud this video, which I wish I had watched before Stef's video on 'Voting for Ron Paul', it makes many excellent points about politics vs philosophy.
The only road to personal freedom is through personal actions, yes, but personal actions together with your peers in an important caveat. Nothing changes in this country or world unless people are together as one unit consisting of many individuals. Unfortunately, voting and the political process is all that is available to the American citizens…..continued
The only road to personal freedom is through personal actions, yes, but personal actions together with your peers in an important caveat. Nothing changes in this country or world unless people are together as one unit consisting of many individuals. Unfortunately, voting and the political process is all that is available to the American citizens…..continued
The only road to personal freedom is through personal actions, yes, but personal actions together with your peers in an important caveat. Nothing changes in this country or world unless people are together as one unit consisting of many individuals. Unfortunately, voting and the political process is all that is available to the American citizens…..continued
The only road to personal freedom is through personal actions, yes, but personal actions together with your peers in an important caveat. Nothing changes in this country or world unless people are together as one unit consisting of many individuals. Unfortunately, voting and the political process is all that is available to the American citizens…..continued
…..that will not get them placed on a list of enemies of the state, arrested or killed now with the assassination of American citizens now a acceptable option. Until Ron Paul came along, I felt the need to withdraw from the corrupt system but since Ron, I at least feel that with him, there is the slightest chance that things can be reversed and that this nation will once again thrive. No he can't fix everything but we must start somewhere.
@maineronyt Maybe that should make you suspicious. Think about it. If they didn't have ANYONE then there would be no hope for people and they wouldn't be distracted and under control. You really think one man can get in there and fix politics? Nothing against Ron Paul I'm just saying...
@maineronyt Maybe that should make you suspicious. Think about it. If they didn't have ANYONE then there would be no hope for people and they wouldn't be distracted and under control. You really think one man can get in there and fix politics? Nothing against Ron Paul I'm just saying...
@maineronyt And that's the point isn't it? I can't really give credit to a system that rejects the current one to the point where there is nowhere to start. It makes the entire philosophy merely academic and can be dismissed as such. It's fanciful conversation and not much else. Ron Paul has at least enough sense to build the foundation of a pragmatic approach to Libertarianism within the context of the world as it exists.
I find it that SM posits false premises and then attacks them. Ron Paul never made any statement that he was going to turn a criminal organization like the Federal Government into a virtuous one. Like Walter Block, I find no reason to go further than the false premise you posit at the beginning of the video.
The question is: Is it possible to have personal moral beliefs and be libertarian? Ron Paul does not foist his personal religious beliefs on others. He states his beliefs, but also states that he doesn't believe it's right to force anyone to do anything unless it is in self defense....or at least relegates the power to the states. This allows others to live in an environment of their choosing.
One could make the same argument about Stefan's atheist beliefs. Atheism is a religion.
@shadowbankers Militant atheist/ libertarians are much like fundamentalist christian conservatives. What do I mean? Christian fundamentalists want a Republican party fee of gays, atheists, and Muslims. Molyneux wants a libertarian movement free of theists, elected officials,. and supporters of the constitution. So they want to to build a movement by excluding people.
@shadowbankers The problem is that you have to build a coalition. It's hard to build a coalition when you insist on excluding people. This guy wants nothing with religious people and people who favor the constitution. Well good luck with that.
So if I don't discipline my child and he ends up not learning much (and he wont) and he ends up being dependent on the state, how does that help the cause of libertarianism? The state of California is a pretty good example of this I might add.
Even if you go for the argument that anarchism is to be started by a revolution or some other non-official political means, you have to admit it is easier in a small/restrained government than when the president has the right to throw you in prison for arbitrary accusing you of terrorism.
People should support Ron Paul to get him noticed by others. Paul's political career should be seen as a way to educate others, not as a means to create a virtuous state. In the end it's the dominant philosophy in society that matters. Besides, Paul's campaigns already are educational rather than political.
For example I'm 95% sure I wouldn't be an anarchist if it weren't for Ron Paul. In fact I would've probably become a typical social democrat.
Stefbot is wrong that we shouldn't allow liberty to enter into politics, it has already and has been successful. The National Reciprocity Act, Constitutional Carry, and a few other VERY controversial civil-liberties cases have already won, and we are seeing the net-benefit. Paul has drafted enough credible legislation to promote liberty to merit his potential as executive, his vocal opposition to Corporate Personhood alone makes him the only viable candidate.
Come on Stefan, it's really just the 'does the slave accept a meal from his master' argument that you have previously said 'Yes!' to. The only meal on the table for people who want liberty is Paul. The spread of freedom will not suddenly happen overnight, the state has been built into the current behemoth incrementally over a great period of time. If you ACTUALLY want liberty for your children you will do what you can to get him elected because the alternative is the conveyor belt to serfdom.
Fact: A president *will* elected. All things being equal, Ron Paul represents the best chance of movement toward freedom. If nothing else, ending the oppressing grip of the Fed would put us light-years ahead..
Stefan, I have truly grown to adore your podcasts. Your central tenet to the argument is that there is no evidence or example that someone can rise to the top of a criminal enterprise and ultimately reduce its evil. Well, there are two excellent examples available: Boris Yeltsin and Deng Xiaoping. Did they END the repressive, violent states that they became leaders of? Hell no. Did they improve them? The empirical evidence is overwhelming.
@caveatemptor27 And so here's my challenge to you: You have openly stated that you believe the sunset of the state is a multi-generational effort. We simply will not have a stateless society in your lifetime or mine. The only hope is to bring forth a generation who regards aggression and falsehood like the worship of stone gods -- simply ridiculous and stupid vestiges of history.
Well, if it's a multi-generational effort, then how do we survive through those generations?
@caveatemptor27 Is it through an INCREASE in the oppressive behavior of the state? Or a DECREASE?
If Ron Paul were elected president, the US military adventurism could, and likely would, cease within a few weeks or months. (Dr. Paul's voting record is an overwhelming indicator of his future behavior.) This would save thousands of lives and trillions of deficit dollars, both of which lessen the whips that will ultimately be lashed upon our daughters. (Mine is about 3 months younger than yours.)
@caveatemptor27 (And I'd love to introduce them, by the way.)
So if Dr. Paul is a great educator and a man of remarkable integrity, and he were to ascend to the highest acknowledged office in the land, and immediately start dismantling it -- how can that possibly be bad? It's not like we're going to elect John Galt instead (he refused Ben Bernake's job, remember?) -- we simply have the opportunity of selecting a very good, though not-perfect choice. You hired people as an entrepreneur, yes?
Isn't it easier to get rid of government when it is small? Isn't it worth it to elect Ron Paul to end the wars and the Federal Reserve? Isn't Ron Paul's campaign at least a great avenue to spread the philosophy of liberty?
Is there actually any response from Walter Block to this? I like both Block and Molyneux and personally think that Block just went wrong on this one. I know that there is an argument among many libertarians whether it's ethical to use politics to achieve some of the libertarian goals (at least partially), but I wouldn't like to see it causing some major split in the libertarian movement.
Mr. Molyneux I find it interesting that you would make the case that Libertarianism and the political process won't work, yet at other times, when someone makes the case to you that Voluntaryism or another form of anarchism(form lol) you say that it is perfectly acceptable to say something like "well this is new, so I can't provide an example of how this would work" and discuss it merely upon the merits. Also, relative to the oath the POTUS takes, evolution is irrelevant. Respecfully...
@getsetrecords That is to say, Goldwater didn't win, did he? Hard to make the case that Libertarianism in the White House failed then, is it not? Losing an election might mean society isn't ready for a particular ideology. If they won't VOTE for Libertarianism, I would say we're talking hundreds of years before anarchy would be possible or practical on any level at large.I'm not saying that you are wrong. Coercion is still coercion. But we will have a President in 2013... "pray" for Ron Paul!
hey Stef, you might wanna watch?v=NwWoY3OuBYA - Gary North vs Walter Block -- Gary's speech includes exactly your moral arguments against pursuing an academic career, and you can see how Walter responds to it. Loved Gary's speech it has the same clarity of your own talks :P
Ron Paul has stated that he will not use executive order to legislate, but he certainly will use it to get the US military out of foreign wars. For this reason alone - the saving of lives, I support Ron Paul's campaign.
I don't think politics is a distraction, I think politics is the arena where you can make political change. I don't think you can dismiss other tactics for political change. Yes I do think for instance people could take over the NAACP and make it advocate against black peoples benefits, in fact it already has. Most government programs, like financial regulation, benefits big bizz. Ignorance is more dangerous as evident by this fact than what people actually say they advocate and what they do.
I don't think politics is a distraction, I think politics is the arena where you can make political change. I don't think you can dismiss other tactics for political change. Yes I do think for instance people could take over the NAACP and make it advocate against black peoples benefits, in fact it already has. Most government programs, like financial regulation, benefits big bizz. Ignorance is more dangerous as evident by this fact than what people actually say they advocate and what they do.
I don't think politics is a distraction, I think politics is the arena where you can make political change. I don't think you can dismiss other tactics for political change. Yes I do think for instance people could take over the NAACP and make it advocate against black peoples benefits, in fact it already has. Most government programs, like financial regulation, benefits big bizz. Ignorance is more dangerous as evident by this fact than what people actually say they advocate and what they do.
Ron Paul is also horribly inconsistent in terms of his "libertarianism." Take his opposition to illegal immigration: it is absolutely incoherent for a free-market libertarian to want the government to restrict immigration; they are fundamentally incompatible! You cannot be against the government's affecting people's lives and for the government's telling people where to live!
im an anarchist voluntaryist! that's why i want to violently rule over everyone and enforce my preferred values on everone else using the guns of the state! pfffff.
With all due respect, Stefan. Ron Paul simply states that "Evolution" is a theory that requires more scientific investigation, that neither side of the debate has definitive proof. That seems to me that he is not pushing any ideology. I think you need to do more study of his position in this matter. Peace.
I do understand your point about RP's religious beliefs. However remember you grew up in the UK and Canada, both countries that find American religous fervor bizarre. By US standards RP is simply normal. On the rest I respect your points and they were well-made, leaving me supporting BOTH of you (and Walter). As an aside, one single area I part company with libertarians is IP rights. We can disagree on HOW enforced but I still support one's rights to IP.
@genghisdon1 "... you are SO right that we aren't ready"
Hey, speak for yourself. I'm ready. We need to keep our eye on the goal that Molyneux articulates well, but freedom is a project that must be accomplished incrementally. Every step toward a free society is a step in the right direction. Ron Paul offers us that. Left to Molyneux, we get nowhere. His position is untenable and self-defeating.
Stefan, you can keep waiting for a spontaneous conversion of the world to anarcho-capitalism or you can get real. I find coffeehouse libertarians extremely boring. They jabber on about liberty as an abstract aesthetic with no expectation of ever seeing it realized. Paul admits he isn't perfect, but he is actually *doing* something... not just waxing poetic on the virtues of freedom. Everyone who cares about liberty needs to rally around Paul... and set aside the whole religion thing for now.
@ZeerosFate I did and I don't agree. Somehow, Molyneux's anarcho-Eden project will simply and spontaneously come into being once the world's ignorant masses have been sufficiently enlightened. The proposition is self-defeating. Ron Paul offers a tangible step toward greater freedom. Left to Molyneux, there shouldn't have been an American Revolution. He'd have argued instead in favor of the tyrannical King because the Colonists just weren't ready for his anarcho-paradise... Perverse logic indeed.
I can sense the horror in your closing remarks, Stef. I believe you are correct to say that if Paul wins, and his politicizing of philosophical libertarianism takes hold in the current milieu....it may very well be the end of libertarian thought forever. The Orwellian dystopia will appear to be a Disney theme park by contrast. Thanks for posting.
Well, then, there's no way he can be taken seriously on any other issue!
And what's that you say?
Dr. Paul does not agree with the State-crafted, State-enforced theories on evolution?
Egad!
Lynch him! (But not violently, of course. Let's merely make caricatures of his actual positions and stated intentions, then set them ablaze with ahistorical nirvana comparisons and other such "rationale.")
Stefan, with your point "if we can take over the state, let's test it out on something smaller first," but there are plenty of examples of governments changing course towards respecting individual freedom--maybe not rejected the state entirely, but changing in the right direction. Like the repeal of national prohibition in the US--the legalization of drugs we're seeing now at the state level. Then the privatisation of industry under Margaret thatcher. Small changes are better than nothing.
Fully agree with Stef that there is NO savior out there; great a man as Ron Paul is, he alone, cannot save the system. Unfortunately the system CANNOT be saved.
The same points Stef makes with regards to a 1776-like government applies to anarchism as well. Eventually, a small government will arise and this small government that develops will eventually become a large government.
Christ is the ONLY savior world has...therefore, from an atheist perspective, this world is SCREWED.
what in the world? because ron paul rejects evolution, therefore we cannot trust him with regards to his belief in freedom? attacking his political philosophy because of his religious ideas is a red herring, non sequiter and an ad hominem. It's like saying only atheists can love freedom.
Stefan - you come across as a very pessimistic person. I suppose that's because you feel that you are an atheist. I don't get how a person can promote himself as an atheist and claim to believe in Liberty for all people. Since atheism is a non-belief system, it is actively denying the beliefs of others who believe in God. When I was got my M.A. in 1968, I did not affirm belief in God. I discounted God as unprovable so I affirmed belief in myself as desiring only goodness. I deny all fear in me.
Have you ever considered trying to meditate on a topic from a completely unbiased attitude? Have you ever been able to free yourself from the negative feeling of atheism? Have you ever questioned your "intuitive" feeling that God does not exist? Are you able to think about a subject from a state of pure joyful feelings WITHOUT SENSING ANY NEGATIVE FEELINGS AT ALL? Think about his - the true self of man feels only joy - non-joyful feelings do not originate in the human. Tyranny over the mind!
You are more than a philosophical anarchist - YOU ARE A PESSIMIST - Negative feelings control the direction of your thinking. The primary negative feeling that controls your thinking processes is the feeling that you experience that there is no God. By calling yourself an Atheist strictly because you feel negative toward the concept of God shows that you are unable to think positive about any concept of human unity. Negative feelings do not originate in the human true self but come from without.
No, it's just that stefbot is a TRUE atheist.. i.e., he is a nihilist. Without God, you cannot be anything except a nihilist as we are nothing more than a collection of cells and life has no meaning apart from the purpose of existence that all animals have- to reproduce. Those who happen to not be nihilist atheists are those who either a) haven't thought deeply about the implications of their atheism or b) they sensed it, and decided to reject it.
btw, stefbot is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT about the point that we CANNOT effect change via the political process; it is only through our relationships that change can be effected (and from a Theist perspective, ONLY God can affect any change in this system).
Even if Ron Paul is elected, and even if he is able to RESIST the attacks and pressures upon him to do what is needed, the NEXT guy will undo all of that. For any REAL change you have to change the PEOPLE who vote or will vote one day
@marcdaddy33 Change comes through communication; firstly with our own internal communication with our true self. This true self is the self of LIBERTY and as such its confidence is JOY. This true self is created equal and endowed by the Creator with CERTAIN unalienable rights. Being equally free to pursue our own happiness is a very personal, intimate relationship with every single person that we know. Politics is a word without meaning when you are truly free. Society is politics. Peace is true
Stefan, even though I disagree with you on some points, I always appreciate how you debate an issue. You are a person who exudes confidence in his stances and never compromises on being honest. I have only been listening to you for a year or so, and I have learned more about how to shape an argument and be a decent person than I have from most thinkers. Thank you.
I give Ron Paul (and Tom Woods) credit for introducing me to the libertarian (non-aggression) way of thinking about the world - I was a lefty statist when I read "The Revolution: A Manifesto" by Paul and "The Church and the Market" by Woods and it was as if a window was thrown open on a darkened room. Credit goes to Walter Block, Hans Hoppe, and Stefan Molyneux for bringing a nascent libertarian fully into the anarchist perspective. Thanks to all for guiding me in my intellectual journey.
Could you please explain more your beliefs towards intellectual property? I found your comment about that in this vid interesting and how it led to you releasing your materials for free. Or maybe you could point me to a link to a video in which you go into the reason more (if you have made a video about it that is). You have quite a lot of vids and I have yet to get through all of them but would like to listen to this topic about intellectual property more. Thanks.
Yeah 10 minutes into this and i gotta stop listening to you. You talk about freedom and damn him for religious beliefs in the next breath. If you study the man then you would know he wants the state out of your beliefs. To toss someone aside because they believe in a god. Your about some kinda freedom that isnt freedom at all. You look down your nose at people thats easly proven.
@Edgrot Have you heard Ron Paul's Iowa straw poll speech? Listening to it is like sitting through mass. I wouldn't simplify it as a mere belief in God either. We're talking about someone who is a Doctor yet believes planet earth is a few thousand years old because the bible says so. It would be dishonest for him to be in charge and at the same time not be guided by his religious convictions
@ZeerosFate Smart one are you. So whom do we look too? Doctors how about that science oh yeah they treat only 13% of illnesess on the planet. How about these evolution guys or science in general? Oh yeah yet again a mountain of people with no provablr facts. No one has the answers but because they have some white paper on the wall they are light years ahead of Ron Paul? This is a age old debate and still stupid and pointless because neither side has and raw facts.
@ZeerosFate I am vers in many fields of science and my belief or disbelief in a god is pointless. I know and I am honest and intel enough to know 80% of science is speculation. So when your higher then thou ass gets a better then 20% rate of knowledge call me and maybe then you get a soap box. This is the problem humans are a joke. Always claiming how they are better then others yeah have been sized weighted and found wanting.
@Edgrot So you're "vers" on many fields of science and conclude that 80% of it is speculation? My guess is you're as honest and "vers" as Ron Paul is. The one thing that can make beliefs and dis-beliefs less pointless is learning a little something called reduction of bias, which is in part of oh yeah, that's right. The scientific method. That's your next step after you get your medal from all the fields you are an expert at.
@ZeerosFate By the way, I meant "More Pointless." Don't think you'll read the entire comment but if you're the kind of person who does, I extend the courtesy to correct myself to spare the confusion.
@ZeerosFate First..."To know a thing is to create a thing." who said it and hes a man of science. So therefore you claim to know then recreate for me now human life without childirth........ah not so easy to know a thing anymore is it? Make me a universe hell do anything other then blow hot gas. Lets be real thats Alberts responce when people asked him if he knew he was correct. Then he said I can not create it therefore I honestly don't know....learn boy learn.
@Edgrot So you think the belief there are no absolutes is a weakness of science, and to compensate for this "weakness" you believe in absolutes? Why am I not surprised.
@ZeerosFate I will also point out That Science is flawed and goes along with proven outdated crap for the masses. Yes on purpose. Like base 10 math is a complete crap system and anyone in high end math knows it. Base 8 towers above it. So why spend billions teaching morons in public school base 10 in the first place? Well I hope for a minute you actualy thought about my argument. Basing the worth of someone on your own code of beliefs is wrong. Stef believs in cloths but I dont damn him.
@Edgrot Wait, so science spends billions on teaching outdated stuff? Sorry, if I cut this one a little short because a gulp of pepsi just went out my nose lol I'll be back.
@Edgrot Ok, I'm back. Even though you just caused me over ten minutes of agonizing pain I'm willing to work with you even if we keep going backwards. I'm optimistic we're reaching some form of agreeable premise to work from unless you're some kind of troll or lunatic happy to have someone's attention, but I won't make any assumptions. My question now is, do you know what Science is? If not you can just read up on it and we can start over.
@ZeerosFate Look spend all your time showing me what your student loan bought in the way of a vocabulary. This does not make you smart, intelligent, or right. You have already said all I need to discard you because you have not adressed . Thank you for your time.
@Edgrot This was never about vocabulary. Although your initial claim to knowledge and condescending response was too tempting to not scrutinize, this was more about your dishonest claim that somehow someone's belief system doesn't influence his behavior, specially a fundamentalist. But I digress, you have nothing to offer to a rational argument so it is best you move along. Cheers.
@ZeerosFate No you have nothing to offer you moron. The bible you simple minded moron is about free chice. A true christian knows that and not the liar imposters. Ergo no matter what at the bottom of Ron Paul is always the root principle of free will. You hate and view these people as your inferior. You cover that by spouting intelectual pontifications. Now if you want me to brake down your mental structure for all too see I can. Your problem remains even if you chose to not face it. Bigot!
@Edgrot Ah, I find displays of emotional prowess charming, although I think you sounded smarter when you made an effort to sound condescending. Not by much though. Thank you for proving my last point, you cannot engage on a rational argument.
Feel free to "brake" down my mental structure for "all to see". Although I'm aware you don't represent all Christians, you've given me decent satire to share with my bible hating, satanic-atheist friends.
@ZeerosFate Hello again bigot. I said good day which means your shut down. No you can not talk to me because your incapable. Second I am not a christian but you assumed because I defended one. Your a simple minded bigot period end of story. You think yourself superior and that's plain to see. Now like most superior mindset humans you go on and on now about winning or bashing or what ever ave you wish to take. You proved with your own words that I am right. Have a great life!
@Edgrot I'm sorry I haven't replied lately but I'm back. Let's see how I respond to this one... I think I'd have to adjust to the intellectual caliber of your argument so you can also benefit from it. Here it goes:
I think the problem is you go on about the US constitution but never speak of the American Constitution. Do you even know the difference or do you even care. I like you videos but even you think inside a box without answers.
I'd argue that our movement has been going since America was founded. There have always been libertarian thinkers, they just weren't called libertarians. I don't think it'll take as long to have this revolution because you're basing it on the idea that there is a uniformity in revolutions. Tons of people are getting on board and things are getting very bad.
Mr. Molyneux: Very thoughtfully and articulately put, as always – but, as a fellow libertarian and atheist, I disagree with you here. I hope to create a video soon where I will respond to your points.
I agree with you Stefan, but I dont see how America can be restored without the help of Ron Paul and his views... The worst that can happen is a Marxist Resource based idea to take place...
Just look at Italy and Greece, over there you can see communist banners in the streets... Remember that Ron Paul is a gateway to your views...
Ok I admit I didn't watch your video ... but I don't understand why YOU don't understand that Ron Paul is doing a great job for our side. Ron Paul is educating millions of people about libertarianism. Your not living in the real world if you think we can't do anything practical to help our cause.
I love that you are strong advocate for children - I think if children could all grow up in a loving caring environment it would go a long way to putting a stop to war, humiliation and the need for world domination ;)
Moly, you've lost it man. What does RP's religious beliefs have to do with his Austrian Economic beliefs? If you agree with his economics then what else matters? Economics puts bread on the table, not his god and he knows that. Do you?
Walter Block is the most one-dimensional thinker I know. Every moral issue for him seems to boil down to the NAP (Give money to disaster victims? As long as there's no coercion, who cares?), he criticizes people without understanding their positions and builds ridiculous strawmen (Kevin Carson a Marxist? Reason Magazine a beltway publication? Fuck off.). He lacks all context in the larger battle for freedom, so it's not surprising that he would consider Ron Paul The Answer.
@revron77 I didn't say Ron Paul as the POTUS would necessarily be a bad thing, although as Stefan said, if he tried to implement some of his more unpopular policies, the statist population might get enraged. However, he's not the Messiah of the libertarian movement, because any true change must be a thoroughly grassroots operation. If Paul gets elected and the people expect him to bring liberty, they are forgetting that only people themselves (through nonviolent resistance) can free themselves.
I feel that we are who we are is based mostly on our environment.... changing that could change people..
Look at how people are based on that we accepted capitalism... we are all mindless drones caring about the next pay check. If you change the environment then you change the people.
I'd rather Ron over anyone right now. At least he’s taking an extreme approach to an extreme situation.
Also people right now are too brainwashed to be peaceful.... its scary.
He’s not a scientist but he has a PhD in medicine. So to some degree he is an expert in one field of science. That being Human Biology.
I feel that should get him some degree of respect. And the fact he’s been in congress for decades. Making him not only an expert in the field of medicine by political as well.
If Block spent two seconds perusing your channel, the one thing that would leap off the browser would be "Stefan Molyneux * hates * the state with a fiery passion"
Stefan, I love your videos and respect your opinion. But know that I am only agnostic, not really religious. I was always a liberal, and I became a libertarian because of Ron Paul. Though because of you, I am not right on the fence between anarchism and libertarianism. I feel like I will vote for Ron Paul, but aside from him I support the idea of a truly free, voluntary society.
Ad hominems like "self-hating libertarian" are signs of a poor argument, which is surprising coming from Block, i.e. "your logic is invalid because you hate yourself."
I think your response to that article was very judicious given that the only critiques contained therein were misrepresentations and the man did not even take your speech seriously enough to listen to all of it.
As for Ron Paul as a potential president, I'll be voting for him for even the slightest chance that he could turn the US toward liberty.
I know your anti-consent argument but I feel personal change ideas are easier to spread if people are a bit less dependent on big brother.
Well, I think the point is that if you're going to vote, then vote for Paul. However, don't old your breath for change, because of the reasons Stef laid out.
One thing though Stef - even if Paul can't deliver on all these promises, he can at least demonstrate your point and further the cause for freedom. That, or make us all look silly. Either way, it seems better than doing nothing at all.
One of the reasons I follow you is that you never compromise your principals. Even though I do support Ron Paul, I would lose some respect for you if you did.
Stef, you do recognize that fact that you nor FSP alone can decide to live in an anarcho-capitalist society when the Barbarians are at the Gates constantly, right?
You do realize you can't 'free minds' by just keep preaching to the choir, right?
You do realize that there are multiple ways to approach your aims, right?
You do realize that, frankly you have the 'luxury' of attracting many more AnCaps BECAUSE someone like Ron Paul made at least 80% of those ideas more publicly palatable, right?
Ron Pauls for Gay Rights...... I don't see what the problem is from the atheists side. He said that he doesn't want a church and state based on that it wouldn't be fair to other beliefs and/or lack of belief....
@revron77 Atheists aren't going to accept Paul, because they view theism as something that needs to be erradicated. I used to be emotionally unwilling to tolerate the fact that atheism as a philosophy exists as well; but then I realised that I was in the process of becoming what I hate. It's still very difficult for me to feel emotionally positive towards atheism, but I have to tell myself that I hold the moral high ground when I do so.
Well if atheists won’t accept him based on his association with a group even when he is an equal and fair man then I guess that makes them sectarians which is on the same lines as racism, sexism, ageism.... etc.
I love hearing atheist ideals from REAL rational atheists. BUT I will not tolerate those who only seek to harm and destroy others and their group because it doesn't adhere to their little world. These atheists are just like a socially accepted KKK clan.
I don't think you're being completely fair to Paul here either though, Stef. I've said repeatedly that I'm willing to overlook the fact that you're an atheist in order to listen to you, because we have other points of commonality. That isn't a lack of integrity; it's called tolerance.
@petrus4 "Fair" doesn't exist in reality. You can't claim consistency to reason and evidence (virtue) while making exceptions for reason and evidence (e.g. social/familial approval). Atheism isn't a subjective preference such as "I like red." You can "overlook" "I like red," because whether or not I like red is not binding upon you. Overlooking the assertion that square-circles don't exist or 2+2=4 is nonsense. What you are really overlooking are your own internal contradictions.
@kihjin that is something that atheists refuse to accept. Christians base their own intolerance on their belief that they are right, as well; as does anyone else with any other kind of philosophy on the planet. Using your belief in the supposed exclusive validity of your own worldview, to justify bigotry really doesn't work...although I'm aware that atheists will never be convinced of that, because "we have Science on our side!"
@petrus4 What do atheists refuse to accept? I said a lot of things, which of them do atheists specifically refuse to accept? I am an atheist, am I refusing to accept something I said? A Christian's belief in their correctness is not based on any objective methodology but rather an appeal to authority and hearsay. This isn't philosophy, just semi-organized opinion. Whether I like red or not is not binding upon you, but 2+2=4 is. If you reject this, then you are not interested in truth.
@petrus4 Either objective truth exists or it does not. If it does exist, the way to arrive at objective truth is with an objective methodology of discerning truth from falsehood. The notion that 2+2=4 is not a belief. While the symbols are conceptual instances of cardinality, they remain objectively derived from the consistency of the universe.
@petrus4 If you believe it does not exist, then you would first need to show that this is the case, and there isn't any way of doing this without appealing to logic and reason. But if objective truth does not exist, then statements such as 2+2=4 and their observable counterparts are meaningless. 2 and 2 apples could be a plane. But this isn't the case. Bigotry is a rejection of reason, not an intolerance of opinion. I was an agnostic and I was incorrect. Either something exists, or it does not.
You seem to believe that he is is just a Gary Johnson with a few more hardcore views, but this is not accurate and if you think you are right on this you should demonstrate it rather than assuming negatively of him. I've written more on this in a post that links to your video from the Bastiat Institute. Unfortunately youtube comments like to have errors when I try to link...
I don't care who you are. I don't care what you think you believe. If you support Ron Paul, you are not an anarchist. Paul is a candidate for becoming the leader (figurehead, in reality) of the American state. You work out the rest.
And, no one cares who you are. And, no one cares what you think you believe, either.
Now obviously, I haven't asked everyone in the world to justify such a broad a-priori assumptions. But just singing your unjustifiable narrative flow. Sounds just as silly, don't it?
Those who's observing long term have 'work[ed] out the rest.' RP is an interim step. Think u alone 'principled' in your basement is gonna inspire Oz minds?
Well now, that settles it don't it, Mr.Libertarian Eugenicist?
@RosenKrantz666 No, Paul isn't an "interim step," and you are just as brainwashed and deluded as anyone else who tells themselves that. Paul is only a means to pacify you and lead you back, willingly, into the statist fold, the same as Obama was. Every time Americans get an abusive President, they continue to fall for the idea that next time, things will be different.
@petrus4 LOL Unless u're aware of RP's place in 'Am.LibertyMovement' since 70's u got NO clue what u're talking about. U're deluding 'respecting some1' as mindless 'blind worship.' U're like some1 watching a car slow down from 100 to 0 & proclaim @45mph mark 'there's no perceptible change!' Unless u live here now u got no intelligible way2 gauge current VoxPopuli.
In purest sense, u nor I'd ever see a truly voluntarist society in our life time. So ur pt. on what is or is not 'interim' is moot.
@petrus4 Real question is, what have you personally done to promote principles of liberty? IF you're educating yourself/others? Good. But howTF do you think we'd get there w/out people like RP introducing these ideas to the masses? You think these ideas are gonna spread w/you bitching at people on YouTube?
But, you know WHO IS 'brainwashed and deluded?" Someone who rationalizes their collectivist eugenicist tendencies & 'purport' to expounding liberty principles.
This has been flagged as spam show
Saying he "rejects evolution" is a blanket statement. There are many theories of evolution which have been rejected. Darwinian theory will simply be the latest in a long line of rejected theories, inevitably.
Evolution happens in leaps, not gradually as Darwin proposes.
As far as Ron Paul believing in creation goes, I'm not sure of the specifics with this regard, but if it is simply a belief in a Prime Mover or a First Cause, then he is right. Causality must have a First Cause, logically
eleutheromaniac 2 days ago
Comment removed
eleutheromaniac 2 days ago
Comment removed
eleutheromaniac 2 days ago
Here's what I don't get about anarchists.
All authority and acts of aggression are bad, right?
So without the gov., what's stopping anyone else from becoming authoritarian and using aggression?
So it still goes on, and ideally, if you could make the government a central organization that only used force to stop others from using force, an authority to prevent authority, isn't that the best way to go?
Because even without government, there's always gonna be power abuse.
heatbucspies55 2 days ago
You simply can't knock them all. A person may need to swallow their pride and commit. Commit and fight for our natural rights. As close as they are expressed in this modern day by an individual that is willing to sacrifice his treasury for the cause. A reeducation of the populace can not happen all at ounce with such little power the Libertarian possesses at this juncture.
klink287 3 days ago
Understand the populace. It's a game of persuasion that's been around since before this country's inception. Let's affect change. I like, but let us start from somewhere. Somewhere that reminds us of the basic principles of this Country. You are undoubtably versed in these principles. But make them assessable to us all! Make them understand! Persuade us to a viable candidate!
klink287 3 days ago
In American politics one must compromise.
That's how government was designed after the 18th century philosophers and the Founding Fathers writ. If Ron Paul is not to your liking in total, you really should consider settling among the "better" candidates. There aren't many alternatives at this point. If you have alternatives, please give them. We are hungry for them. We are hungry for those that are actually electable
klink287 3 days ago
I have no issue with your man boobs.
klink287 3 days ago
Ron Paul 2012!
He can put us in the right direction.
MrTitiez 5 days ago
"libertarians" love nothing more than arcane purity arguments, wherein they measure dicks and generally brawl over minutiae. I do this as well (Hoppean here) but it's so unseemly when other libertarians are doing it.
032125 1 week ago
Stef, dude, you're a philosophy geek like I am. All my degrees are in the social sciences. From what I have been able to discern, so are yours. You criticize Dr. Paul, who has a degree in Medicine for belief in God, where your unbelief is based on merely a philosophical argument and upon scientists who accept the same a priori as you. It seems to me that your position is based upon circular reasoning. If you're going to be that sloppy expect to be called out on it. Other than that, we're allies.
steve0281 2 weeks ago
I believe individuals are missing the point on the core values! Individuals should left free. Walter stefan block believe in these same principles in freedom.
Bigturns33 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He's like if Paul wins "people will remember that a libertarian was in-charge when world went in flames" And does think there will chance of bringing liberty back on the table if Paul does NOT become president. It's going to come crash anyway but if Paul comes to power then he's in the best & most powerful position to EDUCATE people & thereby rebuild the whole thing If Obama, Romney or whoever wins, there'll be totalitariasm & destitution & in such conditions people will coddle the State more
tjtomkins 1 month ago
Comment removed
tjtomkins 1 month ago
And what's up with saying, "let's say we go back to 1776, small State & everything.......and yet we'll end up with a big State again.."
Oh ok that can certainly happen, no doubt........but then the same could be argued for anarchy!
The reasoning is ridiculously BIASED & flawed!
tjtomkins 1 month ago
And what a RIDICULOUS thing to expect that every libertarian must be non-religious & believe in evolution, etc...SERIOUSLY??? This shows how narrow-minded you are.
The ONLY necessity as I see for someone to be "libertarian" is the belief in non-agression principle & right to life, liberty & property! So long as they believe in that the rest of their beliefs about religion, evolution or whatever shoud NOT matter. As I've said, I'm agnostic & I know many religious people who support non-agression
tjtomkins 1 month ago
The argument that Paul "may" have repelled "some" people from libertarianism is outright childish! Does Stef think that people were flocking to libertarinism before Paul? NO, he "may" have turned off "some" but the NET number of people that he has brought to libertarianism & continues to do is HUGE!
Plus, vast majorty of people in US are....Christian! And I personally know & have "converted" many Christians towards libertarisnism, non-agression by using Paul as a spring-board.
tjtomkins 1 month ago
The analogy about gang & state is inconsistent. In a criminal gang, firstly, there's no democratic process, secondly, to change the system, one has to gain acceptance of "exploiters"........on the other hand, to change system within the State, one has to gain acceptance of the "EXPLOITED" (that is, people at large)....aaaand....that's the whole point of freedomainradio, isn't it? - To get people at large to think critically about the nature of the State! Only THEN can one talk of its abolition!
tjtomkins 1 month ago
While reading the article I had this spontaneous goosebump inducing orgy of an epiphany! The presidential pardon for all non violent offenders could make the elimination of taxation possible under a RP presidency. So, now really quickly that feeling has worn off like a night of anonymous drunken fluid swapping weirdness with a girl i will never see or recognize to be aware of seeing again, it was a thrilling thought though.
Depletethestate 1 month ago
If there's a gathering of libertarians, and they had Ron Paul as a speaker, I'd want to attend. I'm also an anarchist and not a believer in constitutions. If Stefan Molyneux was a speaker, I wouldn't attend. Stef is a dick. Too bad not many of you can see that.
hagbard72 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hagbard72
"If there's a gathering of libertarians, and they had Ron Paul as a speaker, I'd want to attend. I'm also an anarchist and not a believer in constitutions. If Stefan Molyneux was a speaker, I wouldn't attend. Stef is a dick. Too bad not many of you can see that"
I agree, Stefan is too full of himself, unlike Ron.
tjtomkins 1 month ago
6:00
Natural Law and Rights vs Positive Law.
Natural Law is what resolves this seeming `contradiction'. Your rights come from your humanity, or your Creator.
The alternative is Positive Law, upon which the state is built. In this case your rights come from lawyers.
It's very simple and actually self-consistent.
CRAPCANNONS 1 month ago
So I take it that you always ask your physician/surgeon/pharmacist/etc what they believe in terms of their religion and their appeal to your brand of evolution? If they do not pass your check then you of course refuse their services right? If not, you would simply be a hypocrite. Now don't get me wrong I know why you wouldn't ask as it is entirely irrelevant to their ability to do their job, but you brought it up. /watch?v=MjWArYwsUuY&feature
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
Stefan, you make some compelling points as to why we should live and promote the non-aggression principle with those we live among and not focus on trying to make the state smaller and kinder with the understanding that it is fundamentally a corrupt institution which necessarily centralizes and legitimizes and tries to make a monopoly of aggression. However, because of the fractal nature of reality, I feel that we have to work on all levels. All fights for freedom are part of a larger whole.
chrispmar 1 month ago
Ron Paul is not an enemy of statism. He is a statist through and through. He is a minarchical statist. But a statist still the same.
Ishpeck 1 month ago
@Ishpeck The point about debt not representing money taken from Paul's constituents seems wrong to me. The state makes all persons liable for its debts so that debt seems, to me, to be a form of theft.
Ishpeck 1 month ago
I loudly applaud this video, which I wish I had watched before Stef's video on 'Voting for Ron Paul', it makes many excellent points about politics vs philosophy.
BenettFreeman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only road to personal freedom is through personal actions, yes, but personal actions together with your peers in an important caveat. Nothing changes in this country or world unless people are together as one unit consisting of many individuals. Unfortunately, voting and the political process is all that is available to the American citizens…..continued
maineronyt 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only road to personal freedom is through personal actions, yes, but personal actions together with your peers in an important caveat. Nothing changes in this country or world unless people are together as one unit consisting of many individuals. Unfortunately, voting and the political process is all that is available to the American citizens…..continued
maineronyt 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only road to personal freedom is through personal actions, yes, but personal actions together with your peers in an important caveat. Nothing changes in this country or world unless people are together as one unit consisting of many individuals. Unfortunately, voting and the political process is all that is available to the American citizens…..continued
maineronyt 1 month ago
The only road to personal freedom is through personal actions, yes, but personal actions together with your peers in an important caveat. Nothing changes in this country or world unless people are together as one unit consisting of many individuals. Unfortunately, voting and the political process is all that is available to the American citizens…..continued
maineronyt 1 month ago
…..that will not get them placed on a list of enemies of the state, arrested or killed now with the assassination of American citizens now a acceptable option. Until Ron Paul came along, I felt the need to withdraw from the corrupt system but since Ron, I at least feel that with him, there is the slightest chance that things can be reversed and that this nation will once again thrive. No he can't fix everything but we must start somewhere.
maineronyt 1 month ago
@maineronyt Maybe that should make you suspicious. Think about it. If they didn't have ANYONE then there would be no hope for people and they wouldn't be distracted and under control. You really think one man can get in there and fix politics? Nothing against Ron Paul I'm just saying...
RedBullBanana 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maineronyt Maybe that should make you suspicious. Think about it. If they didn't have ANYONE then there would be no hope for people and they wouldn't be distracted and under control. You really think one man can get in there and fix politics? Nothing against Ron Paul I'm just saying...
RedBullBanana 1 month ago
@maineronyt And that's the point isn't it? I can't really give credit to a system that rejects the current one to the point where there is nowhere to start. It makes the entire philosophy merely academic and can be dismissed as such. It's fanciful conversation and not much else. Ron Paul has at least enough sense to build the foundation of a pragmatic approach to Libertarianism within the context of the world as it exists.
deziistheone 1 week ago
I find it that SM posits false premises and then attacks them. Ron Paul never made any statement that he was going to turn a criminal organization like the Federal Government into a virtuous one. Like Walter Block, I find no reason to go further than the false premise you posit at the beginning of the video.
Michaelbenoit7 1 month ago
@Michaelbenoit7 "Ron Paul never made any statement "
*rolls eyes*
And SM never claims that he did. What SM does is give a description of what Dr. Paul's actions mean.
jeffiek 1 month ago
he makes some good points but his opposition to Ron Paul is silly and intellectually inconsistent...
rgs11 1 month ago
The question is: Is it possible to have personal moral beliefs and be libertarian? Ron Paul does not foist his personal religious beliefs on others. He states his beliefs, but also states that he doesn't believe it's right to force anyone to do anything unless it is in self defense....or at least relegates the power to the states. This allows others to live in an environment of their choosing.
One could make the same argument about Stefan's atheist beliefs. Atheism is a religion.
shadowbankers 2 months ago
Comment removed
thedeadpelican 2 months ago
Comment removed
thedeadpelican 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shadowbankers Militant atheist/ libertarians are much like fundamentalist christian conservatives. What do I mean? Christian fundamentalists want a Republican party fee of gays, atheists, and Muslims. Molyneux wants a libertarian movement free of theists, elected officials,. and supporters of the constitution. So they want to to build a movement by excluding people.
thedeadpelican 2 months ago
@shadowbankers The problem is that you have to build a coalition. It's hard to build a coalition when you insist on excluding people. This guy wants nothing with religious people and people who favor the constitution. Well good luck with that.
streakerbabe 1 month ago
I like the explanation of seen vs. unseen effects of policy.
shadowbankers 2 months ago
So if I don't discipline my child and he ends up not learning much (and he wont) and he ends up being dependent on the state, how does that help the cause of libertarianism? The state of California is a pretty good example of this I might add.
clintcastle 2 months ago
Even if you go for the argument that anarchism is to be started by a revolution or some other non-official political means, you have to admit it is easier in a small/restrained government than when the president has the right to throw you in prison for arbitrary accusing you of terrorism.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
People should support Ron Paul to get him noticed by others. Paul's political career should be seen as a way to educate others, not as a means to create a virtuous state. In the end it's the dominant philosophy in society that matters. Besides, Paul's campaigns already are educational rather than political.
For example I'm 95% sure I wouldn't be an anarchist if it weren't for Ron Paul. In fact I would've probably become a typical social democrat.
Xasew 2 months ago
Stefbot is wrong that we shouldn't allow liberty to enter into politics, it has already and has been successful. The National Reciprocity Act, Constitutional Carry, and a few other VERY controversial civil-liberties cases have already won, and we are seeing the net-benefit. Paul has drafted enough credible legislation to promote liberty to merit his potential as executive, his vocal opposition to Corporate Personhood alone makes him the only viable candidate.
xxxxAXIxxxx 2 months ago
Come on Stefan, it's really just the 'does the slave accept a meal from his master' argument that you have previously said 'Yes!' to. The only meal on the table for people who want liberty is Paul. The spread of freedom will not suddenly happen overnight, the state has been built into the current behemoth incrementally over a great period of time. If you ACTUALLY want liberty for your children you will do what you can to get him elected because the alternative is the conveyor belt to serfdom.
Pinkers28 2 months ago
Fact: A president *will* elected. All things being equal, Ron Paul represents the best chance of movement toward freedom. If nothing else, ending the oppressing grip of the Fed would put us light-years ahead..
randytate 2 months ago
Stefan, I have truly grown to adore your podcasts. Your central tenet to the argument is that there is no evidence or example that someone can rise to the top of a criminal enterprise and ultimately reduce its evil. Well, there are two excellent examples available: Boris Yeltsin and Deng Xiaoping. Did they END the repressive, violent states that they became leaders of? Hell no. Did they improve them? The empirical evidence is overwhelming.
caveatemptor27 2 months ago
@caveatemptor27 And so here's my challenge to you: You have openly stated that you believe the sunset of the state is a multi-generational effort. We simply will not have a stateless society in your lifetime or mine. The only hope is to bring forth a generation who regards aggression and falsehood like the worship of stone gods -- simply ridiculous and stupid vestiges of history.
Well, if it's a multi-generational effort, then how do we survive through those generations?
caveatemptor27 2 months ago
@caveatemptor27 Is it through an INCREASE in the oppressive behavior of the state? Or a DECREASE?
If Ron Paul were elected president, the US military adventurism could, and likely would, cease within a few weeks or months. (Dr. Paul's voting record is an overwhelming indicator of his future behavior.) This would save thousands of lives and trillions of deficit dollars, both of which lessen the whips that will ultimately be lashed upon our daughters. (Mine is about 3 months younger than yours.)
caveatemptor27 2 months ago
@caveatemptor27 (And I'd love to introduce them, by the way.)
So if Dr. Paul is a great educator and a man of remarkable integrity, and he were to ascend to the highest acknowledged office in the land, and immediately start dismantling it -- how can that possibly be bad? It's not like we're going to elect John Galt instead (he refused Ben Bernake's job, remember?) -- we simply have the opportunity of selecting a very good, though not-perfect choice. You hired people as an entrepreneur, yes?
caveatemptor27 2 months ago
Isn't it easier to get rid of government when it is small? Isn't it worth it to elect Ron Paul to end the wars and the Federal Reserve? Isn't Ron Paul's campaign at least a great avenue to spread the philosophy of liberty?
thekoollemon 3 months ago
Is there actually any response from Walter Block to this? I like both Block and Molyneux and personally think that Block just went wrong on this one. I know that there is an argument among many libertarians whether it's ethical to use politics to achieve some of the libertarian goals (at least partially), but I wouldn't like to see it causing some major split in the libertarian movement.
karas89 3 months ago
One thing though, if you stood away from the camera more it would be less of a close-up shot and look more professional and comfortable to watch.
dubified89 4 months ago
Really good points!
dubified89 4 months ago
Comment removed
dubified89 4 months ago
But substance wise this is great
dubified89 4 months ago
Mr. Molyneux I find it interesting that you would make the case that Libertarianism and the political process won't work, yet at other times, when someone makes the case to you that Voluntaryism or another form of anarchism(form lol) you say that it is perfectly acceptable to say something like "well this is new, so I can't provide an example of how this would work" and discuss it merely upon the merits. Also, relative to the oath the POTUS takes, evolution is irrelevant. Respecfully...
getsetrecords 4 months ago
@getsetrecords That is to say, Goldwater didn't win, did he? Hard to make the case that Libertarianism in the White House failed then, is it not? Losing an election might mean society isn't ready for a particular ideology. If they won't VOTE for Libertarianism, I would say we're talking hundreds of years before anarchy would be possible or practical on any level at large.I'm not saying that you are wrong. Coercion is still coercion. But we will have a President in 2013... "pray" for Ron Paul!
getsetrecords 4 months ago
Block is definitely wrong here.
qwertypoiu4321 4 months ago
hey Stef, you might wanna watch?v=NwWoY3OuBYA - Gary North vs Walter Block -- Gary's speech includes exactly your moral arguments against pursuing an academic career, and you can see how Walter responds to it. Loved Gary's speech it has the same clarity of your own talks :P
woodsmailbox1 4 months ago
Ron Paul has stated that he will not use executive order to legislate, but he certainly will use it to get the US military out of foreign wars. For this reason alone - the saving of lives, I support Ron Paul's campaign.
ostralopithicus 5 months ago
A Challenge to Stefan Molyneux's Critique of Ron Paul: watch?v=fN6odVEXsIQ
ostralopithicus 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't think politics is a distraction, I think politics is the arena where you can make political change. I don't think you can dismiss other tactics for political change. Yes I do think for instance people could take over the NAACP and make it advocate against black peoples benefits, in fact it already has. Most government programs, like financial regulation, benefits big bizz. Ignorance is more dangerous as evident by this fact than what people actually say they advocate and what they do.
Visfen 5 months ago
I don't think politics is a distraction, I think politics is the arena where you can make political change. I don't think you can dismiss other tactics for political change. Yes I do think for instance people could take over the NAACP and make it advocate against black peoples benefits, in fact it already has. Most government programs, like financial regulation, benefits big bizz. Ignorance is more dangerous as evident by this fact than what people actually say they advocate and what they do.
Visfen 5 months ago
I don't think politics is a distraction, I think politics is the arena where you can make political change. I don't think you can dismiss other tactics for political change. Yes I do think for instance people could take over the NAACP and make it advocate against black peoples benefits, in fact it already has. Most government programs, like financial regulation, benefits big bizz. Ignorance is more dangerous as evident by this fact than what people actually say they advocate and what they do.
Visfen 5 months ago
Ron Paul is also horribly inconsistent in terms of his "libertarianism." Take his opposition to illegal immigration: it is absolutely incoherent for a free-market libertarian to want the government to restrict immigration; they are fundamentally incompatible! You cannot be against the government's affecting people's lives and for the government's telling people where to live!
QuatFax 5 months ago
im an anarchist voluntaryist! that's why i want to violently rule over everyone and enforce my preferred values on everone else using the guns of the state! pfffff.
AnarchoCapitalistTV 5 months ago
"One of the greatest enemies of statism the world has ever known"? Ron Paul? What on earth...
PurpleHoneyBear 5 months ago
With all due respect, Stefan. Ron Paul simply states that "Evolution" is a theory that requires more scientific investigation, that neither side of the debate has definitive proof. That seems to me that he is not pushing any ideology. I think you need to do more study of his position in this matter. Peace.
nwaustx2011 5 months ago
I do understand your point about RP's religious beliefs. However remember you grew up in the UK and Canada, both countries that find American religous fervor bizarre. By US standards RP is simply normal. On the rest I respect your points and they were well-made, leaving me supporting BOTH of you (and Walter). As an aside, one single area I part company with libertarians is IP rights. We can disagree on HOW enforced but I still support one's rights to IP.
bigglyguy 5 months ago
I'm glad I watched this one...you are SO right that we aren't ready
genghisdon1 5 months ago
@genghisdon1 "... you are SO right that we aren't ready"
Hey, speak for yourself. I'm ready. We need to keep our eye on the goal that Molyneux articulates well, but freedom is a project that must be accomplished incrementally. Every step toward a free society is a step in the right direction. Ron Paul offers us that. Left to Molyneux, we get nowhere. His position is untenable and self-defeating.
pak88xbl 5 months ago
Stefan, you can keep waiting for a spontaneous conversion of the world to anarcho-capitalism or you can get real. I find coffeehouse libertarians extremely boring. They jabber on about liberty as an abstract aesthetic with no expectation of ever seeing it realized. Paul admits he isn't perfect, but he is actually *doing* something... not just waxing poetic on the virtues of freedom. Everyone who cares about liberty needs to rally around Paul... and set aside the whole religion thing for now.
pak88xbl 6 months ago
@pak88xbl @ 33:40 - Pay attention.
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
@ZeerosFate I did and I don't agree. Somehow, Molyneux's anarcho-Eden project will simply and spontaneously come into being once the world's ignorant masses have been sufficiently enlightened. The proposition is self-defeating. Ron Paul offers a tangible step toward greater freedom. Left to Molyneux, there shouldn't have been an American Revolution. He'd have argued instead in favor of the tyrannical King because the Colonists just weren't ready for his anarcho-paradise... Perverse logic indeed.
pak88xbl 6 months ago
To be an atheist IS to lack integrity in the most fundamental sense. (See Boethius, *The Consolations of Philosophy.)
NickDanger3 6 months ago
I can sense the horror in your closing remarks, Stef. I believe you are correct to say that if Paul wins, and his politicizing of philosophical libertarianism takes hold in the current milieu....it may very well be the end of libertarian thought forever. The Orwellian dystopia will appear to be a Disney theme park by contrast. Thanks for posting.
eyejudgeeverything 6 months ago
Stop the presses!
You mean to tell me that Ron Paul is a Christian?
Well, then, there's no way he can be taken seriously on any other issue!
And what's that you say?
Dr. Paul does not agree with the State-crafted, State-enforced theories on evolution?
Egad!
Lynch him! (But not violently, of course. Let's merely make caricatures of his actual positions and stated intentions, then set them ablaze with ahistorical nirvana comparisons and other such "rationale.")
MrDanAustin 6 months ago 2
@MrDanAustin "You mean to tell me that Ron Paul is a Christian? Well, then, there's no way he can be taken seriously on any other issue!"
Not the point. It's about inconsistencies. Pay attention.
"Dr. Paul does not agree with the State-crafted, State-enforced theories on evolution?"
Wow, I never thought of that. I now wonder what the evil state has to gain by promoting Darwinism.
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
Stefan, with your point "if we can take over the state, let's test it out on something smaller first," but there are plenty of examples of governments changing course towards respecting individual freedom--maybe not rejected the state entirely, but changing in the right direction. Like the repeal of national prohibition in the US--the legalization of drugs we're seeing now at the state level. Then the privatisation of industry under Margaret thatcher. Small changes are better than nothing.
Twichard 6 months ago
Fully agree with Stef that there is NO savior out there; great a man as Ron Paul is, he alone, cannot save the system. Unfortunately the system CANNOT be saved.
The same points Stef makes with regards to a 1776-like government applies to anarchism as well. Eventually, a small government will arise and this small government that develops will eventually become a large government.
Christ is the ONLY savior world has...therefore, from an atheist perspective, this world is SCREWED.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
I wonder what is your position on abortion, stef... considering your views of children being treated as adults.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
what in the world? because ron paul rejects evolution, therefore we cannot trust him with regards to his belief in freedom? attacking his political philosophy because of his religious ideas is a red herring, non sequiter and an ad hominem. It's like saying only atheists can love freedom.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
The United States does not exist? Does Europe exist or do towns exist, do streets names exist? I had to stop listening after that ridiculous comment.
willyswear 6 months ago
Stefan - you come across as a very pessimistic person. I suppose that's because you feel that you are an atheist. I don't get how a person can promote himself as an atheist and claim to believe in Liberty for all people. Since atheism is a non-belief system, it is actively denying the beliefs of others who believe in God. When I was got my M.A. in 1968, I did not affirm belief in God. I discounted God as unprovable so I affirmed belief in myself as desiring only goodness. I deny all fear in me.
PhoenixLightsUFO 6 months ago
Have you ever considered trying to meditate on a topic from a completely unbiased attitude? Have you ever been able to free yourself from the negative feeling of atheism? Have you ever questioned your "intuitive" feeling that God does not exist? Are you able to think about a subject from a state of pure joyful feelings WITHOUT SENSING ANY NEGATIVE FEELINGS AT ALL? Think about his - the true self of man feels only joy - non-joyful feelings do not originate in the human. Tyranny over the mind!
timoley 6 months ago
You are more than a philosophical anarchist - YOU ARE A PESSIMIST - Negative feelings control the direction of your thinking. The primary negative feeling that controls your thinking processes is the feeling that you experience that there is no God. By calling yourself an Atheist strictly because you feel negative toward the concept of God shows that you are unable to think positive about any concept of human unity. Negative feelings do not originate in the human true self but come from without.
Timelyjah 6 months ago
@Timelyjah
No, it's just that stefbot is a TRUE atheist.. i.e., he is a nihilist. Without God, you cannot be anything except a nihilist as we are nothing more than a collection of cells and life has no meaning apart from the purpose of existence that all animals have- to reproduce. Those who happen to not be nihilist atheists are those who either a) haven't thought deeply about the implications of their atheism or b) they sensed it, and decided to reject it.
Stef is an honest atheist.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
@Timelyjah
btw, stefbot is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT about the point that we CANNOT effect change via the political process; it is only through our relationships that change can be effected (and from a Theist perspective, ONLY God can affect any change in this system).
Even if Ron Paul is elected, and even if he is able to RESIST the attacks and pressures upon him to do what is needed, the NEXT guy will undo all of that. For any REAL change you have to change the PEOPLE who vote or will vote one day
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
@marcdaddy33 Change comes through communication; firstly with our own internal communication with our true self. This true self is the self of LIBERTY and as such its confidence is JOY. This true self is created equal and endowed by the Creator with CERTAIN unalienable rights. Being equally free to pursue our own happiness is a very personal, intimate relationship with every single person that we know. Politics is a word without meaning when you are truly free. Society is politics. Peace is true
Timelyjah 6 months ago
Stefan, even though I disagree with you on some points, I always appreciate how you debate an issue. You are a person who exudes confidence in his stances and never compromises on being honest. I have only been listening to you for a year or so, and I have learned more about how to shape an argument and be a decent person than I have from most thinkers. Thank you.
CKtestvids 6 months ago
I give Ron Paul (and Tom Woods) credit for introducing me to the libertarian (non-aggression) way of thinking about the world - I was a lefty statist when I read "The Revolution: A Manifesto" by Paul and "The Church and the Market" by Woods and it was as if a window was thrown open on a darkened room. Credit goes to Walter Block, Hans Hoppe, and Stefan Molyneux for bringing a nascent libertarian fully into the anarchist perspective. Thanks to all for guiding me in my intellectual journey.
totustuus11 6 months ago
Could you please explain more your beliefs towards intellectual property? I found your comment about that in this vid interesting and how it led to you releasing your materials for free. Or maybe you could point me to a link to a video in which you go into the reason more (if you have made a video about it that is). You have quite a lot of vids and I have yet to get through all of them but would like to listen to this topic about intellectual property more. Thanks.
frsupermoon 6 months ago
Yeah 10 minutes into this and i gotta stop listening to you. You talk about freedom and damn him for religious beliefs in the next breath. If you study the man then you would know he wants the state out of your beliefs. To toss someone aside because they believe in a god. Your about some kinda freedom that isnt freedom at all. You look down your nose at people thats easly proven.
Edgrot 6 months ago
@Edgrot Have you heard Ron Paul's Iowa straw poll speech? Listening to it is like sitting through mass. I wouldn't simplify it as a mere belief in God either. We're talking about someone who is a Doctor yet believes planet earth is a few thousand years old because the bible says so. It would be dishonest for him to be in charge and at the same time not be guided by his religious convictions
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
@ZeerosFate Smart one are you. So whom do we look too? Doctors how about that science oh yeah they treat only 13% of illnesess on the planet. How about these evolution guys or science in general? Oh yeah yet again a mountain of people with no provablr facts. No one has the answers but because they have some white paper on the wall they are light years ahead of Ron Paul? This is a age old debate and still stupid and pointless because neither side has and raw facts.
Edgrot 6 months ago
@Edgrot You're right. Since doctors only have 13% of the answers, let's make up the rest. You got me there.
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
@ZeerosFate I am vers in many fields of science and my belief or disbelief in a god is pointless. I know and I am honest and intel enough to know 80% of science is speculation. So when your higher then thou ass gets a better then 20% rate of knowledge call me and maybe then you get a soap box. This is the problem humans are a joke. Always claiming how they are better then others yeah have been sized weighted and found wanting.
Edgrot 6 months ago
@Edgrot So you're "vers" on many fields of science and conclude that 80% of it is speculation? My guess is you're as honest and "vers" as Ron Paul is. The one thing that can make beliefs and dis-beliefs less pointless is learning a little something called reduction of bias, which is in part of oh yeah, that's right. The scientific method. That's your next step after you get your medal from all the fields you are an expert at.
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
@ZeerosFate By the way, I meant "More Pointless." Don't think you'll read the entire comment but if you're the kind of person who does, I extend the courtesy to correct myself to spare the confusion.
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
@ZeerosFate First..."To know a thing is to create a thing." who said it and hes a man of science. So therefore you claim to know then recreate for me now human life without childirth........ah not so easy to know a thing anymore is it? Make me a universe hell do anything other then blow hot gas. Lets be real thats Alberts responce when people asked him if he knew he was correct. Then he said I can not create it therefore I honestly don't know....learn boy learn.
Edgrot 6 months ago
@Edgrot So you think the belief there are no absolutes is a weakness of science, and to compensate for this "weakness" you believe in absolutes? Why am I not surprised.
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
@ZeerosFate I will also point out That Science is flawed and goes along with proven outdated crap for the masses. Yes on purpose. Like base 10 math is a complete crap system and anyone in high end math knows it. Base 8 towers above it. So why spend billions teaching morons in public school base 10 in the first place? Well I hope for a minute you actualy thought about my argument. Basing the worth of someone on your own code of beliefs is wrong. Stef believs in cloths but I dont damn him.
Edgrot 6 months ago
@Edgrot Wait, so science spends billions on teaching outdated stuff? Sorry, if I cut this one a little short because a gulp of pepsi just went out my nose lol I'll be back.
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
@Edgrot Ok, I'm back. Even though you just caused me over ten minutes of agonizing pain I'm willing to work with you even if we keep going backwards. I'm optimistic we're reaching some form of agreeable premise to work from unless you're some kind of troll or lunatic happy to have someone's attention, but I won't make any assumptions. My question now is, do you know what Science is? If not you can just read up on it and we can start over.
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
@ZeerosFate Look spend all your time showing me what your student loan bought in the way of a vocabulary. This does not make you smart, intelligent, or right. You have already said all I need to discard you because you have not adressed . Thank you for your time.
Edgrot 6 months ago
@Edgrot This was never about vocabulary. Although your initial claim to knowledge and condescending response was too tempting to not scrutinize, this was more about your dishonest claim that somehow someone's belief system doesn't influence his behavior, specially a fundamentalist. But I digress, you have nothing to offer to a rational argument so it is best you move along. Cheers.
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
@ZeerosFate No you have nothing to offer you moron. The bible you simple minded moron is about free chice. A true christian knows that and not the liar imposters. Ergo no matter what at the bottom of Ron Paul is always the root principle of free will. You hate and view these people as your inferior. You cover that by spouting intelectual pontifications. Now if you want me to brake down your mental structure for all too see I can. Your problem remains even if you chose to not face it. Bigot!
Edgrot 6 months ago
@Edgrot Ah, I find displays of emotional prowess charming, although I think you sounded smarter when you made an effort to sound condescending. Not by much though. Thank you for proving my last point, you cannot engage on a rational argument.
Feel free to "brake" down my mental structure for "all to see". Although I'm aware you don't represent all Christians, you've given me decent satire to share with my bible hating, satanic-atheist friends.
Keep up the creativity.
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
@ZeerosFate Hello again bigot. I said good day which means your shut down. No you can not talk to me because your incapable. Second I am not a christian but you assumed because I defended one. Your a simple minded bigot period end of story. You think yourself superior and that's plain to see. Now like most superior mindset humans you go on and on now about winning or bashing or what ever ave you wish to take. You proved with your own words that I am right. Have a great life!
Edgrot 6 months ago
@Edgrot I'm sorry I haven't replied lately but I'm back. Let's see how I respond to this one... I think I'd have to adjust to the intellectual caliber of your argument so you can also benefit from it. Here it goes:
"I know you are but what am I!!"
Ah screw it. I can't do it.
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Edgrot P.S. "You have already said all I need to discard you because you have not adressed" is not even a full sentence.
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
I think the problem is you go on about the US constitution but never speak of the American Constitution. Do you even know the difference or do you even care. I like you videos but even you think inside a box without answers.
Edgrot 6 months ago
There have been many revolutions that have happened faster.
rg37 6 months ago
I'd argue that our movement has been going since America was founded. There have always been libertarian thinkers, they just weren't called libertarians. I don't think it'll take as long to have this revolution because you're basing it on the idea that there is a uniformity in revolutions. Tons of people are getting on board and things are getting very bad.
rg37 6 months ago
To vote for a man that believes "taxation is theft" is essentially a vote of 'no confidence,' not an endorsement of the state's rule.
studybox 6 months ago
@studybox A man who states 'taxation is theft' while also taking a salary based on that theft is exhibiting a vulgar hypocrisy.
bunabayashi 6 months ago 2
Mr. Molyneux: Very thoughtfully and articulately put, as always – but, as a fellow libertarian and atheist, I disagree with you here. I hope to create a video soon where I will respond to your points.
GStolyarovII 6 months ago
alright you mention lysander spooner in the first couple of minutes... i dont need to watch the rest of your video to agree with you....
johnbowen1973 6 months ago
I agree with you Stefan, but I dont see how America can be restored without the help of Ron Paul and his views... The worst that can happen is a Marxist Resource based idea to take place...
Just look at Italy and Greece, over there you can see communist banners in the streets... Remember that Ron Paul is a gateway to your views...
bjarnet3 6 months ago 3
I like Block, but he really crossed the line here.
ashane77 6 months ago
Ok I admit I didn't watch your video ... but I don't understand why YOU don't understand that Ron Paul is doing a great job for our side. Ron Paul is educating millions of people about libertarianism. Your not living in the real world if you think we can't do anything practical to help our cause.
jackson32 6 months ago
Block VS Molyneux debate...let's see it!
ashane77 6 months ago
I love that you are strong advocate for children - I think if children could all grow up in a loving caring environment it would go a long way to putting a stop to war, humiliation and the need for world domination ;)
TheDawnAmber 6 months ago
Moly, you've lost it man. What does RP's religious beliefs have to do with his Austrian Economic beliefs? If you agree with his economics then what else matters? Economics puts bread on the table, not his god and he knows that. Do you?
coolerdoncooper 6 months ago
Walter Block is the most one-dimensional thinker I know. Every moral issue for him seems to boil down to the NAP (Give money to disaster victims? As long as there's no coercion, who cares?), he criticizes people without understanding their positions and builds ridiculous strawmen (Kevin Carson a Marxist? Reason Magazine a beltway publication? Fuck off.). He lacks all context in the larger battle for freedom, so it's not surprising that he would consider Ron Paul The Answer.
ConscientiousMind 6 months ago
@ConscientiousMind
Ron wants to remove 50% of the government..... what would you rather... more state control or less????
What’s more rational to an anarchist at this stage?
revron77 6 months ago
@revron77 I didn't say Ron Paul as the POTUS would necessarily be a bad thing, although as Stefan said, if he tried to implement some of his more unpopular policies, the statist population might get enraged. However, he's not the Messiah of the libertarian movement, because any true change must be a thoroughly grassroots operation. If Paul gets elected and the people expect him to bring liberty, they are forgetting that only people themselves (through nonviolent resistance) can free themselves.
ConscientiousMind 6 months ago
@ConscientiousMind
I feel that we are who we are is based mostly on our environment.... changing that could change people..
Look at how people are based on that we accepted capitalism... we are all mindless drones caring about the next pay check. If you change the environment then you change the people.
I'd rather Ron over anyone right now. At least he’s taking an extreme approach to an extreme situation.
Also people right now are too brainwashed to be peaceful.... its scary.
revron77 6 months ago
Ron Paul is NOT a scientist as a matter of fact, maybe that's part of the problem...
dommarthal 6 months ago
@dommarthal
He’s not a scientist but he has a PhD in medicine. So to some degree he is an expert in one field of science. That being Human Biology.
I feel that should get him some degree of respect. And the fact he’s been in congress for decades. Making him not only an expert in the field of medicine by political as well.
revron77 6 months ago
Lets all join Yakuza so nice tattoos
Engravingsful 6 months ago
If Block spent two seconds perusing your channel, the one thing that would leap off the browser would be "Stefan Molyneux * hates * the state with a fiery passion"
AtheistAltar 6 months ago
Stefan, I love your videos and respect your opinion. But know that I am only agnostic, not really religious. I was always a liberal, and I became a libertarian because of Ron Paul. Though because of you, I am not right on the fence between anarchism and libertarianism. I feel like I will vote for Ron Paul, but aside from him I support the idea of a truly free, voluntary society.
frionelhero 6 months ago
Ad hominems like "self-hating libertarian" are signs of a poor argument, which is surprising coming from Block, i.e. "your logic is invalid because you hate yourself."
passerby26 6 months ago
Ron Paul is honest to a "fault."
jiveturkeyusa 6 months ago
I think your response to that article was very judicious given that the only critiques contained therein were misrepresentations and the man did not even take your speech seriously enough to listen to all of it.
As for Ron Paul as a potential president, I'll be voting for him for even the slightest chance that he could turn the US toward liberty.
I know your anti-consent argument but I feel personal change ideas are easier to spread if people are a bit less dependent on big brother.
AndreisEntaro 6 months ago
Well, I think the point is that if you're going to vote, then vote for Paul. However, don't old your breath for change, because of the reasons Stef laid out.
One thing though Stef - even if Paul can't deliver on all these promises, he can at least demonstrate your point and further the cause for freedom. That, or make us all look silly. Either way, it seems better than doing nothing at all.
CaptainLazerus 6 months ago
I've never heard a serious argument that starts "too long didn't read" before.
ariuszarim 6 months ago
One of the reasons I follow you is that you never compromise your principals. Even though I do support Ron Paul, I would lose some respect for you if you did.
All hail the shiny Forehead of knowledge
RogueSwordThesco 6 months ago
Stef, you do recognize that fact that you nor FSP alone can decide to live in an anarcho-capitalist society when the Barbarians are at the Gates constantly, right?
You do realize you can't 'free minds' by just keep preaching to the choir, right?
You do realize that there are multiple ways to approach your aims, right?
You do realize that, frankly you have the 'luxury' of attracting many more AnCaps BECAUSE someone like Ron Paul made at least 80% of those ideas more publicly palatable, right?
RosenKrantz666 6 months ago
Ron Pauls for Gay Rights...... I don't see what the problem is from the atheists side. He said that he doesn't want a church and state based on that it wouldn't be fair to other beliefs and/or lack of belief....
I don't get what the problem is.....
revron77 6 months ago
@revron77 Atheists aren't going to accept Paul, because they view theism as something that needs to be erradicated. I used to be emotionally unwilling to tolerate the fact that atheism as a philosophy exists as well; but then I realised that I was in the process of becoming what I hate. It's still very difficult for me to feel emotionally positive towards atheism, but I have to tell myself that I hold the moral high ground when I do so.
petrus4 6 months ago
@petrus4
Well if atheists won’t accept him based on his association with a group even when he is an equal and fair man then I guess that makes them sectarians which is on the same lines as racism, sexism, ageism.... etc.
I love hearing atheist ideals from REAL rational atheists. BUT I will not tolerate those who only seek to harm and destroy others and their group because it doesn't adhere to their little world. These atheists are just like a socially accepted KKK clan.
revron77 6 months ago
I think "War against tyranny" captures everything.
We need to start a group - "the anti tyranists"
lgarvey 6 months ago
I don't think you're being completely fair to Paul here either though, Stef. I've said repeatedly that I'm willing to overlook the fact that you're an atheist in order to listen to you, because we have other points of commonality. That isn't a lack of integrity; it's called tolerance.
petrus4 6 months ago 5
@petrus4 "Fair" doesn't exist in reality. You can't claim consistency to reason and evidence (virtue) while making exceptions for reason and evidence (e.g. social/familial approval). Atheism isn't a subjective preference such as "I like red." You can "overlook" "I like red," because whether or not I like red is not binding upon you. Overlooking the assertion that square-circles don't exist or 2+2=4 is nonsense. What you are really overlooking are your own internal contradictions.
kihjin 6 months ago
@kihjin that is something that atheists refuse to accept. Christians base their own intolerance on their belief that they are right, as well; as does anyone else with any other kind of philosophy on the planet. Using your belief in the supposed exclusive validity of your own worldview, to justify bigotry really doesn't work...although I'm aware that atheists will never be convinced of that, because "we have Science on our side!"
petrus4 6 months ago 2
@petrus4 What do atheists refuse to accept? I said a lot of things, which of them do atheists specifically refuse to accept? I am an atheist, am I refusing to accept something I said? A Christian's belief in their correctness is not based on any objective methodology but rather an appeal to authority and hearsay. This isn't philosophy, just semi-organized opinion. Whether I like red or not is not binding upon you, but 2+2=4 is. If you reject this, then you are not interested in truth.
kihjin 6 months ago
@petrus4 Either objective truth exists or it does not. If it does exist, the way to arrive at objective truth is with an objective methodology of discerning truth from falsehood. The notion that 2+2=4 is not a belief. While the symbols are conceptual instances of cardinality, they remain objectively derived from the consistency of the universe.
kihjin 6 months ago
@petrus4 If you believe it does not exist, then you would first need to show that this is the case, and there isn't any way of doing this without appealing to logic and reason. But if objective truth does not exist, then statements such as 2+2=4 and their observable counterparts are meaningless. 2 and 2 apples could be a plane. But this isn't the case. Bigotry is a rejection of reason, not an intolerance of opinion. I was an agnostic and I was incorrect. Either something exists, or it does not.
kihjin 6 months ago
Stefan,
You seem to believe that he is is just a Gary Johnson with a few more hardcore views, but this is not accurate and if you think you are right on this you should demonstrate it rather than assuming negatively of him. I've written more on this in a post that links to your video from the Bastiat Institute. Unfortunately youtube comments like to have errors when I try to link...
xanas3712 6 months ago
I don't care who you are. I don't care what you think you believe. If you support Ron Paul, you are not an anarchist. Paul is a candidate for becoming the leader (figurehead, in reality) of the American state. You work out the rest.
petrus4 6 months ago
@petrus4
And, no one cares who you are. And, no one cares what you think you believe, either.
Now obviously, I haven't asked everyone in the world to justify such a broad a-priori assumptions. But just singing your unjustifiable narrative flow. Sounds just as silly, don't it?
Those who's observing long term have 'work[ed] out the rest.' RP is an interim step. Think u alone 'principled' in your basement is gonna inspire Oz minds?
Well now, that settles it don't it, Mr.Libertarian Eugenicist?
RosenKrantz666 6 months ago
@RosenKrantz666 No, Paul isn't an "interim step," and you are just as brainwashed and deluded as anyone else who tells themselves that. Paul is only a means to pacify you and lead you back, willingly, into the statist fold, the same as Obama was. Every time Americans get an abusive President, they continue to fall for the idea that next time, things will be different.
petrus4 6 months ago
@petrus4 LOL Unless u're aware of RP's place in 'Am.LibertyMovement' since 70's u got NO clue what u're talking about. U're deluding 'respecting some1' as mindless 'blind worship.' U're like some1 watching a car slow down from 100 to 0 & proclaim @45mph mark 'there's no perceptible change!' Unless u live here now u got no intelligible way2 gauge current VoxPopuli.
In purest sense, u nor I'd ever see a truly voluntarist society in our life time. So ur pt. on what is or is not 'interim' is moot.
RosenKrantz666 6 months ago
@petrus4 Real question is, what have you personally done to promote principles of liberty? IF you're educating yourself/others? Good. But howTF do you think we'd get there w/out people like RP introducing these ideas to the masses? You think these ideas are gonna spread w/you bitching at people on YouTube?
But, you know WHO IS 'brainwashed and deluded?" Someone who rationalizes their collectivist eugenicist tendencies & 'purport' to expounding liberty principles.
Got cognitive dissonance much?
RosenKrantz666 6 months ago
@petrus4 stef