@stefbot you say to please stop lecturing others about your ethics yet here you are doing it yourself. So is it ok to talk about your ethics only if you live them then? and then if your ethics are that you don't associate with others that don't share them then you can never talk with someone who doesn't share them. So how do you effect change or promote liberty? You can't even show by example with out some measure of association. Needs clarification because as is it is a huge logical fallacy
@stefbot All I have to say is I appreciate the effort but your criticism of Ron Paul supporters and libertarians on the grounds of them not living by their ethics rings hallow and hypocritical considering that just by using the internet and producing this podcast implies you are seeking association with people you would deem evil as well. I full well agree you need to live by your ethics that you preach and all but your argument on this seems incomplete at best. Further clarification needed.
@stefbot , I just found this video but I still find it VERY interesting and, at times, very challenging. I do have a question, does this video (and you, I still assume) advocate the disassociation of yourself from family members or friends simply on the grounds that they are rabid statists? My brother (an admitted "radical leftist") is one of the few people who I know that is intelligent enough to argue with about things that we both are passionate about.
I would disagree that Libertarianism has made no progress whatsoever. The Ron Paul movement is still going, and doing better from what I can tell, and it has influenced me despite the fact that I was a liberal democratic voter and haven't made any commitments to Paul politically. More people are waking up to why this system doesn't work in it's current misuse. Why you feel that talking about it doesn't help (and yet here you are), is kindof baffling.
Wait, now you're ranting about 'evil'?? Hardly seems rational to me. Sure, the gov't might be said to be evil for taxing/aggression, etc, but your cousin who doesn't quite get your reasoning (yet) about why it's evil ISN'T. He's just not as far along. You're making the assumption in your argument that ALL people must reach the same conclusions at the same time, or alienate each other for lack of agreement. Those 'empty intellectual discussions' are what this is about. LEARNING is necessary,
And how do intellectual conversations about liberty (14:00 ) not help the cause of liberty? If we are to free ourselves, (through philosophy) does it not help to develop understanding, knowledge and opinions? Movements, and changes in a society are brought about by the meeting of minds. I don't understand why you, as a philosopher, feel this is 'empty'. I guess I just don't know where you're going with this. I'll watch on.
I'd like to see vids on your take in this new race(for 2012). Do you still feel the same? Personally I feel that I've made advancements in critical thinking over the past years & the course of the Obama presidency. My ideas have changed a lot. I understand what you've been saying about freeing ourselves / not depending on any leader, but what would it hurt to put a man in office who seems to sincerely want to help us w/ that by re framing our perspective as a citizenry & on the role of gov,t?
Really? I like his message because he does seem to have rational and consistent arguments. I find him a very reasonable and logical man. I don't agree with him on everything, I used to call myself a liberal. I like him because he seems reasonable, seems consistent and honest, and tho I disagree on some subjects, I can respect his positions as thought out. I also feel like he's helped me learn a lot.
ron paul revolution hasnt done or accomplished anything and its over? You suck your nwo or just not helping and not worth listening to. the fundamentals of the constitution still apply. your also categorizing people. and you dont sound like an american. all of my libertarian friend are pumped. and were not stupid like your sure we are. try reading one of his books smarty pants
Stefan, I get your points about his campaign not being an educational outreach program, but just to let you know - I learned about Libertarianism through Ron Paul. I began as one of the emotional ones you spoke of, but here I stand before you, watching your videos and critically thinking in ways I never thought I would have 4 years ago. I think this point is incorrect. The more libertarians there are, the more likely some turn to voluntaryism / agorism etc.
Alright, we libertarians are conflicted. Everyone is conflicted. In an anarchist society how could a group causing third party harm be held responsible without force. It is a necessary evil. My point is that we libertarians realize that some government is a necessary evil and it always seems to get out of control. No doubt about it Stefan makes great points. I can only do my best to limit evil and live with the reality that we are imperfect and it can never be eliminated.
I agree w/a lot of your stuff, but not the cutting people off.
You seem to believe that it's either convince them now in a one-time argument, if they don't get it they're unworthy, immoral people. Why not be the argumentative kook at the get-togethers? You don't have to compromise your principles. People shake their heads, until one day they realize that your past predictions keep coming true, and then maybe they slowly start to realize the validity of your arguments.
I believe cutting people off simply because you have a disagreement in values is very ineffective and should only be used as a last resort. I have a tough time believing you actually believe what you are saying.
.
It's very easy to advocate to others that they should sever their family relationships, but will you cut off all contact with your child if she becomes politically active?
.
I donated $25 to you on 9/26. Answering this simple question will show me that you value my contribution.
And, on your argument that intellectual reasons are useless for libertarianism, don't you just self-contradict ? Because, what are doing all this time by your freedomainradio?
And your argument at the end about rejecting our neighbors over personal disagreements is very clearly rooted in the same altruist morality which has led to our current situation, has been used by the Statists throughout history to justify their policies, and which has obstructed the human race's development toward a more civilized world.
Okay, I'm going to be blunt about my position on this. I agree that the government should be minimal in size, but I think that it is immoral to place unattainable principles such as anarchy before obvious practical reasoning, like the fact that without taxes our national defense and infrastructure would collapse, and also the fact that every nation in history that has shown tolerance to illegal immigrants has been overrun by foreign invaders.
It simply isn't possible to not have a military. You can deny it all you like in order to make your philosophy more "consistent", but making your philosophy UNREALISTIC, is just as bad.
If you don't have force to defend yourself then no matter how consistent your philosophy is, someone is going to ignore your words and shoot you.
The military/national defense is a public good, everyone benefits from it even if they don't pay for it. Voluntary choices do NOT pay for such goods sufficiently.
They are 'fighting' (in the sense of courageously standing up for peace in these times where independent thought is criticized and attacked ad hominem) on completely different 'fronts', so to speak. I was a Ron Paul supporter (verbally as well as financially), but I see now it's more of an outlet for people who are completely dependent on politics for their voice. Pandering for someone else to transform my life will always bring mixed results, at best, & tyrannical results at worst...
This rant seems to be an ego thing. Stefan Molyneux sounds quite jealous.
It is easy to understand SF's criticism of RP Revolution's "lack of succes." After all Stefan Molyneux certainly shook up the political establishment, gained more massive media attention than anyone previously, inspired hundreds of thousands of activists, spread the message of liberty to so many people throughout the USA and the world, and laid a foundation for future liberty activists. -- (NOT!)
lol, you're so sarcastically logical, it's hilarious. I like Ron Paul, but I believe I observed him being untrue to himself (over & over during that campaign) with the belief that this would keep him in his position in the political arena. Had he based his message in morality rather than politicized issues things might have been a little different. This is definitely a fair analysis of what went wrong.
I like many of your points, but after watching many of your videos over the years, I only seem to know what you dislike - can you please focus a bit on solutions. Do you feel that anarchy is the answer as you seem to allude? If so, I suppose there are numerous criticisms anyone could raise against your philosophy. "We need to be more moral" is not a valid or particularly intellectual "solution" either.
I'm a little disappointed in the philosopher on this one. To be sure, the Ron Paul rEVOLution did not fare as well as we had hoped, but a lot of that had to do with the relentless anti-Paul drum pounding by the MSM. Paul wants to end the Fed and that's a big threat to the system, because it will also mean an end to the pernicious income tax system. This will, in effect, stop the feeding of the tyrannical beast government has become.
A soldier might lose his job? C'mon. Liberty is worth that.
When calling RP's campaign a failure he didn't look into his chrystal ball to see how things are now and if elections where held today RP would crush Obama. He could very well be the next President.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Damn, you really hate Ron Paul. And don't deny it. In your speech you go way out of your way to be overly critical and hateful and declare that Ron Paul was doing far more harm than good and may have even DOOMED liberalism by turning so many people off it. You show how far you'll get with your politics and character. I can imagine you starting to scream that people are evil who don't agree with you :D HAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAAAA :D :D :D Oh huhuh :D Damn, you really are a character :D :D
the LP was in fact founded _specifically_ for educational purposes, yet i will accept that ron paul's campaign was not, despite his continuance to accept interviews to spread libertarian ideas couched as paleoconservativism (often little difference, anyways) months after its end.
good point on complete consistency.
of, course, you know, this means the guns come out.
oh, also, he is Christian but isn't for a theocracy the way some overzealous folks are. And his stance on evolution wouldn't have anything to do with policy since education is a state responsibility and isn't supposed to be subject to federal regulation.
Ron Paul said we couldn't have amnesty and a welfare state at the same time and that without the welfare state we'd need as much immigration as possible and would make more of it legal (I'm guessing he also meant that eventually we'd get rid of having any immigration illegal and let folks in...though he never said that and it is certainly quite possible he wasn't/isn't for free immigration)
I'm soooo glad he didn't get nominated. It was funny when all of the morons behind him wouldn't stop posting "RON PAUL IS GONNA WIN LOL!!!" comments all over youtube, despite his winning a very slim margin of the votes in the caucuses and primaries.
I'm sorry.. There has been a mistake and One of my comments on religion has been posted here instead. Ive taken it off and apologise if it has insulted you. jake archer
In all the time that I spent talking to people about Ron Paul, I cannot remember a single time when someone asked me, "So then why does Ron Paul support letting the free market take over all government programs EXCEPT the military?" No. The reason Ron Paul failed was quite simple. People would rather be slaves to a state than live in a free and voluntary society.
ZAP. Right between the eyes. I do this. Everyone does. Almost everyone. Ideas and ideologies are things to debate around without making it personal or taking it personally. Objective civilized debate becomes presuming advocates of all positions are "good people" deserving respect. Certainly no one should be shunned for merely a strange idea. Right? No, not right at all. Ideas and ideals are made cheap by this practice. And we wonder why nothing changes. We have not changed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are an atheist. That says it all. Your own blind spot so informs and taints your objectivity that you have no credibility as an analyst of these events or those involved.
Do you have any evidence at all for your belief in a god(s)? If you do have evidence would you please share this evidence with us so that you may show us the light.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The evidence is in every blade of grass you see, every bird song you here,every moment of love or joy you know. One must distort all sense of reason within himself to not feel His presence. I cannot prove Him to you, He proves Himself. If you seek wisdom and truth, read the Bible. He will bless you if you seek Him with an open heart.
Have we ever had a stateless society before? Has human society ever existed without the organization known as the state? You do realize that we can have rules without having a state.
No answer needed Stef, as I have checkout your site and shall procede to verse myself with your works. I am quite excited and, lol, scared shitless by the excerts/previews. Nevertheless I would again like to thankyou for bringing out in me, what I have known was inside for many years(I'm only 20) - the potential and healthy need for philosophical and "deep" thought, rather than easy gratification via acceptance of untested logic, morals and beliefs. Cheers from
@stefbot I am curious Stefan if Ron Paul runs in 2012 and does better (which is almost guaranteed) will you see any progress in that or will you just try to explain it away? I really like some of the stuff you have to say, but I really think you are 100% completely wrong and really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to political action. I would try to explain it here, but I don't really have the room, and you seem to have your mind made up already & I doubt you would listen.
@Emil246 So what? Who cares about the bureaucrats? I am more worried about the end of the illegal wars, end of the emerging police state, and the end of the Federal Reserve. The post office and the other things Stefan talks about to discredit political action is small potatoes.
As an Australian who got tired of the Obama/Clinton crap, I felt quite compforted to discover Ron Paul despite not being able to vote. Sufficed to say you have turned my world upside down. I don't mind telling you that whilst it came as a jolt, I am glad I discovered your videos. I have been on a personal journey for about 6 months now. In that time I have gone from a christian, to an atheist to a nihilist. I feel very empty and need something to believe in. Any suggestions? Thankyou very much.
im glad to hear that. but i mean, do you think people will one day turn on CNN and see the headline "market anarchists worldwide form closed enclaves in major cities"...? im asking in terms of a global scale
Wonderful new... relationships? You give us all this powerful rhetoric about how we are slaves to the state, mere tax cattle and you boil our blood so much and then... The best thing you can suggest for us is to hold hands and send you donations?
You're just giving up. You've taken a look at the short burst of human existence, seen how we have yet to create a system that lives up to your high standards, and you've concluded it must be impossible. Such a disappointing message.
The People seek solutions. They HOPE the candidate will deliver on their promises; though they know it unlikely.
We do not need to get back to the original Constitution, we need to clear our political foundation (Declaration of Independence) and take the advise of our founders and rewrite our Constitution altogether.
We need to keep that which worked. Repair the loop holes which politicians use to corrupt our government.
I agree with you. It is unfortunate that the only force for liberty is collapse of government, which generally comes with a collapse in society. One such example is in New Zealand, which went bankrupt in the 80s, and so were finally forced to let in some free market forces. Or when the Chinese nearly starved to death in the height of their communism.
As for a personal approach to survival, the best is to look at the index of ecnomic freedom (heritage) and try to live in a blue country.
What you read or write is not as important as what you DO after you declare and write down such lofty ideals. I may say that Tyranny is evil..but I obviously don't mean it if I am tyrannical afterwards! I recommend checking more of Stefs stuff out, it's very reasonable against the enemies of reason,jake archer.
you're lecturing people about your ethics! do you not realize you're doing the very thing you accuse others of? you're anti-religious, while maintaining this awful sanctimony, the worst characteristic of average religious people! the key to change is to not judge. to scrutinize your subjects without condescending. "morality" has nothing to do with it!
i don't look down on you. i'm describing you. i'm striving for objectivity. isn't that the goal? you've critiqued others for "lecturing people", as if that's an awful thing. but that's what you do for a living. you talk about "a thousand other subjects" that are brought up ad infinitum, yet you offer no cogent rebuttal to these concerns, instead choosing to imply what we're all just a bunch of stupid robots.
that's condescension. it nullifies debate. no matter what i say, it's just something i picked up off the ron paul conveyer belt, right? i'm just a "bot" or something, taught by a machine to regurgitate little morsels of political science. hogwash. privacy, the rule of law, government subsidies for big business...i know, i know. sheesh. oh well, stefbot. i guess i'll just relax and try to enjoy the Brave New World we're hurtling toward.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation"
Your summation was good but the ending left me confused. Are we supposed to disassociate with those that are not as enlightened? I was waiting for your revelation on how to proceed but it did not come.
Even though according to you he was inconsistent in the libertarian sense (per the Jon Stewart comment) you neglect to mention that Dr. Paul chains himself to the constitution. A private military is not constitutional.
I appreciate your comments, both complimentary and critical. The ending was written solely out of frustration of some people on this site who don't even attempt to consider opinions contrary to their own (not that they HAVE to do so of course), no matter how reasoned or measured those opinions may be ("in your anus" being a good example of a comment of a person who is clearly aghast at the process of individual enlightenment!) As for consistency, I agree that (continued)
Congressman Paul is consistent in most (not all) of his policy proposals with the US constitution. But we must also consider the constitution itself in relation to lib/anarchistic politics. Although a private military, for example, may be unconstitutional, this hasn't prevented the US military from regularly acting in an egregiously unconstitutional fashion. If no-one has been able to reel-in this behaviour in the past 100 years, from where does the confidence that Dr.Paul could do so emanate?
The problem is that infection of the Republican Party, and any other political grouping, also emanates from other sources: usually those sources who will be rewarded post-election, as the inevitable splurge of public money is distributed to these very constituencies who will undergird the grouping once in public office. The evidence is there; for those people giving one-word, unvarnished-by-thought feedback, take some time to check it out!
The Revolution is NOT over, we will not be divided and conquered by the LP and CP. We will continue to infect the Republican Party with ethical ideals until such time the party actually represents limited government, no entangling alliances and personal liberties and freedom.
sefbot: There aren't "proofs" to these type of things. The Fabians for instance didn't KNOW they were going to win, and didn't...but DID, if you get my meaning. That's similar to what we are ATTEMPTING.
luk: Wow, you really are mr. luk: Wow, you really are mr. cutesy-pie. I assumed people here knew who the Fabians were. In the early part of the 20th century, in Britain & in the U.S., socialist parties never won the highest offices. They never had majorities, but today we live under almost every one of their idiotic ideas. Is that clear enough for you, smart guy?
Mr Molyneux: Have you ever played sports? Unless one tells himself he will win, he most probably won't. This is what winners do, & they always win or they are soon to right a setback. Your definitions of winning & losing are far too rigid. It's not an either/or. What we HAVE is in between. You talk of the "failure" of "libertarianism". That non-criminals have ANY freedom & property is the evidence of the great SUCCESS of what I call "liberalism" (let's take our damn word back, the egalitarian..
..socialists are through with it anyway) The great power & wealth of the country is of course greatly attributable to the Constitution. For its time it was a WILDLY liberal document. We have slipped back into times BEHIND 1787. Since there is still great respect for it, why not a movement to follow it? Just a few ideas here, this ISN't rigorous science, it's bizarre when you criticize the nebulousness of the Revolution's success & then seem pretty damn sure it was such an abject failure.
I think you falsely stereotype Ron Paul supporters. I'm atheist, believe in evolution, disagree with his abortion stance, etc., but he was the only candidate to simply raise, let alone understand, monetary policy and the tax code. His big issues are the ones from which all other problems are derived. I also heavily disagree with his racist immigration policies.
Stef, is there any way you'd suggest liberty be instilled without infiltrating the mafia? (Not in your personal sort of way)
Most of your videos that mention this subject usually delve into how you can have liberty in your personal life without trying to spread it via political alleys. Is there a way to spread it at all without using those alleys?
Which reminds me, I got to do my taxes and as such that makes me evil. In order to be good and not advoate taxes one must suffer prison time. Therefore it is more profitable to be evil, or injust.
There is a knock down for you, show how being good is more profitable and I'll do it.
It's a fact that you can be evil and appear good. Because it is the most profitable thing, advantege of appearing good while profiting from evil. I don't see how you can enforce goodness on to people when thier very nature seeks the self intreast. If your version of "goodness" does nothing for me intrinsically, then why follow it? Only through the law can one be compelled to do what they would not wish to do, and thus the only way to advance a position of goodness. Alienation feeds into evil.
What nonsense! Who is paying you? He won about half the straw polls, many taken at county fairs. They kept his name off many telephone polls. They kept his name of some of the actual polls. (See Rockland County, NY)The vote fraud was obvious! Several different kinds. The media ignored him then tried to make him look like a wingnut. We have a sham democracy. Now we all know.
the reason why ron paul did not win, is because america's mind and value system has not been changed. no amount of political positioning or campaigning can magically change people's core values or understanding of philosophy.
How is it right to disconnect yourself with someone who holds different views? That's a simply laughable concept.
Your world can NEVER be. Simply because of the fact you pretty much make it out that it's "My way or the highway." That is the kind of fundamentally flawed concept that causes conflict.
To shun someone because they think or feel differently than you only further divides the world. And with division there can never be peace. Perhaps in your own little tribe that thinks and feels just like you. But then whats to stop the tribe that doesn't from destroying your culture?
It is essentially the same thing as a religious zealot who claims if you don't behave exactly as their book demands you will burn in hell for eternity.
Suffering, and punishment.. Simply because of a difference..
Interesting, even if I disagree with much of it. Paul was inconsistent on immigration. On "The View" he said that illegals were being scapegoated, while in other forums he seemed to be one of the scappegoaters.
People will follow their own interests, which they deem as a good. Only will people follow the nauture of "nonevil" when it is forced by law. Alienation leads to stagnation, which ends in death. Proactive people who wish to change the law, do so inorder to change the nature of people who must follow it. Those who do not wish to change the law do so from their own self intreast, which they consider a good. Therefore, the desire you state as a good (the desire not to change the law) is evil.
Acting with integrity in perosnal relationships is when we reject those we define as "evil." The only qualifer seems to be those who advoate taxation among other "evils." Can someone then appear to be evil, when really not evil? If so, they are we then the best judges on who it is we are juding as evil? Can not the just man appear to be injust, and the injust man just? How should society be lead then? By those who are nonevil, or those who appear to be nonevil? Should we be pursuaded by them?
Education will "never" advance the cause of libertarianism? Are then saying that you not educating your audience in the hope to advance the cause, or are you saing that I am educating my audience and that I am not advancing a cause.
If you define someone as evil, and you associate with them, then your ethics mean nothing...
Then in a contract, landlord and leasee, and the subject reciving less then whats "due" to them have 'nonethics' as they are still associate themselves contractually to someone they define as evil.
If taxation is evil and those who advocate it are not, then ethics cease to exist.24:12
I fail to see how ethics exist then. Becauase there are plenty of good(non evil) people that advocate taxation (through payment), and a lot of evil people in state priosn (who don't pay taxes) whe, according to this Qualifier, would be deemed good.
Imagine trying to sum up everything you had to say here in half the time, or a third of the time. You wouldn't deliver the message in it's entirety and much of what you had to say that may have been crucial would now be lost. You might even look a little stupid. No one can explain a major change in policy in a 30 second sound byte. The topics that were being discussed weren't things that you could fully explain in 30 minutes. I am still disgusted with the media about many issues.
There was actually a news anchor who told Ron Paul on national television that he wasn't going to win. That is not unprecedented coverage. The coverage he has received has been negative and sparse. Things like "Oh hey you raised 6 million dollars in one day, but you're still going to lose nut job." The debates were a joke as well. I'd like to see anyone try to make any kind of argument while being laughed at. At the last debate he got to talk for about seven minutes of an hour and a half.
You talk about some of the polls and that Ron Paul only ever polled a few percentage points. That's not really the truth, as he has polled in the double digits in many states. People in this country are very lazy, ignorant and naive. They trust the headlines. They don't feel like doing more research because the headlines will tell them what they need to know. Apparently what they needed to know was Ron Paul is this kook with no chance of winning and he's a point of ridicule for many anchors.
I say the same thing about the Internet. Most people are using the Internet for entertainment purposes, or shopping. Not many people are seeing Ron Paul on their homepage when they log on. They get on Yahoo or MSN and they see headlines. They don't however see Ron Paul because he's not a "front runner." You would see Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani. I would certainly not call that unprecedented coverage.
You say Ron Paul had "unprecedented coverage in the mainstream media." Let's analyze the facts. Most Americans watch television for entertainment and news. The news is where they get most of their information about candidates running for president. If Ron Paul is rarely mentioned on the news, how would he be getting "unprecedented coverage?" You also talk about his on line support, which many times was a topic of ridicule on the news. We were often referred to as "spammers."
I doubt your plan of "shunning" non-libertarians will be effective at changing the world. Most likely it will only cause libertarians to become more isolated and misunderstood by those in the mainstream due to less contact. The only thing this method may achieve is building a small, insulated community, like the Amish, but the world won't join. I agree that there is no hope for libertarianism through political activism or education. I disagree that there is any hope at all. Sadly.
It is over. Nearly half of the states have voted and Ron Paul only has 14 delegates. He'll need miraculous 80-90% wins in nearly all the remaining states in order to get the nomination. It is lunacy to continue to pursue the failed course of political reformism.
It's cute how you continue to coddle RP supporters. RP is not a true libertarian and the long time base of his support are not libertarian. This "revolution" was bolstered by people who want out of iraq at all costs. Take those people out of the equation and all you have left is the same old disaffected 3-4% of the population who think they are libertarians, too.
You contradict yourself regarding the unwillingness of people to think as opposed to following their emotions vs. the need to sell libertarianism by being logically consistant instead of appealing to emotion.
Finally, you fail to consider poor results from other causes such as:
1. media bias time: 50 to 1 in minutes
2. media bias language: longshot candidate vs. America's Mayor
It is not over! I assure you Ron Paul is still in this fight! We are now down to just 3 (Paul, McCain, and Huck) and WE ARE GETTING DELEGATES! Don't believe the MSM or people that say it's over. Stay in touch with your meetups and stay updated EVEN AFTER YOUR STATE PRIMARY IS OVER! Things are going on that all Ron Paul supporters need to know about, so stay updated until the end!
1Raven4u:Completely wrong...really?The whole thing..huh?The logical conclusion you have come up with comes from...?Please tell me ?I want to believe in Ron Paul.I want freedom.Thanks
2 Gathering in D.C. on July 4th to show our numbers and strength, not just to the establishment, but to America and ourselves.
3. Creating the greatest Ron Paul rally in recorded history inside and out of the Convention in St. Paul Minnesota
4. Become a leader in your community in some way that will promote liberty. This could include being a precinct leader, meetup organizer, participate in local government and GOP functions.
misleading the Revolution, I don't buy it. I say we continue reaching out to our fellow Americans in new and inventive ways (our known trade marks). Isolating the movement will only reduce its size, dynamic and prosperity negatively. Some ideas that I think are good and would be well worth our collective efforts is,
1. Making Ron Paul's book a success, having a book tour and interviews surrounding the ideas and the movement, creating the buzz.
We want this movement to be about long term goals,right?we want this movement to be well thought through,right?we want to be truly free ,not just a little free,right?What is being said in this video that speaks against the true ideas of a freedom movement?
I was busy having a good time for fat tuesday and making trade deals at the local market. There is nothing like living and propagating freedom and anarchism with voluntary friends and open minded people. Especially while everyone else is at the polls like drones wasting time.
Stef, you're right on about Ron Paul, but U've got to tell you-- evolution is a bunk. Philosophical materialism has been refuted from first principles. You should probably stick to what you know best-- personal and political liberty. I'm still a fan regardless. Thanks for reading.
PS: I envy your brain and you've got another subscriber. Do you have any absolutes about evolution or anything else in your videos? I have been a lurker at Mises for quite a while and I think I've read quite a few of your posts there. Did you attend Mises?
Obama has been able to throw logic out the window and win over the general(ignorant)population with his personality and message of hope and change(what change give me a break).
You say Paul supporters are emotionally atached to his message due to preconcieved Ideas already beleived to be true, in my case this is not the truth. I used to be a hard core conservative, but as I grow intelectually I have become more open minded due to logic not emotion. Ron Paul to me has been the most logical candidate. I beleive the reason for his demise as a presidential candidate is due to the fact that he is charismatically akin to a mouse.
The Ron Paul campaign is over. No one can dispute that. It's frustrating how many Ron Paul supporters cling desperately to delusions of a glorious victory coming out of a "brokered convention."
The RP Revolution is not even close to being over. Sorry about that.
razerfish 3 days ago
@stefbot you say to please stop lecturing others about your ethics yet here you are doing it yourself. So is it ok to talk about your ethics only if you live them then? and then if your ethics are that you don't associate with others that don't share them then you can never talk with someone who doesn't share them. So how do you effect change or promote liberty? You can't even show by example with out some measure of association. Needs clarification because as is it is a huge logical fallacy
nuarBlack 1 month ago
@stefbot All I have to say is I appreciate the effort but your criticism of Ron Paul supporters and libertarians on the grounds of them not living by their ethics rings hallow and hypocritical considering that just by using the internet and producing this podcast implies you are seeking association with people you would deem evil as well. I full well agree you need to live by your ethics that you preach and all but your argument on this seems incomplete at best. Further clarification needed.
nuarBlack 1 month ago
@stefbot , I just found this video but I still find it VERY interesting and, at times, very challenging. I do have a question, does this video (and you, I still assume) advocate the disassociation of yourself from family members or friends simply on the grounds that they are rabid statists? My brother (an admitted "radical leftist") is one of the few people who I know that is intelligent enough to argue with about things that we both are passionate about.
dweber73609 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this they guy Dwight Schrute on the Office is based on? Youtube: kysRQP0ca7s
aelffin 2 months ago
Comment removed
aelffin 2 months ago
I would disagree that Libertarianism has made no progress whatsoever. The Ron Paul movement is still going, and doing better from what I can tell, and it has influenced me despite the fact that I was a liberal democratic voter and haven't made any commitments to Paul politically. More people are waking up to why this system doesn't work in it's current misuse. Why you feel that talking about it doesn't help (and yet here you are), is kindof baffling.
JennJenification 4 months ago
Wait, now you're ranting about 'evil'?? Hardly seems rational to me. Sure, the gov't might be said to be evil for taxing/aggression, etc, but your cousin who doesn't quite get your reasoning (yet) about why it's evil ISN'T. He's just not as far along. You're making the assumption in your argument that ALL people must reach the same conclusions at the same time, or alienate each other for lack of agreement. Those 'empty intellectual discussions' are what this is about. LEARNING is necessary,
JennJenification 4 months ago
And how do intellectual conversations about liberty (14:00 ) not help the cause of liberty? If we are to free ourselves, (through philosophy) does it not help to develop understanding, knowledge and opinions? Movements, and changes in a society are brought about by the meeting of minds. I don't understand why you, as a philosopher, feel this is 'empty'. I guess I just don't know where you're going with this. I'll watch on.
JennJenification 4 months ago
I'd like to see vids on your take in this new race(for 2012). Do you still feel the same? Personally I feel that I've made advancements in critical thinking over the past years & the course of the Obama presidency. My ideas have changed a lot. I understand what you've been saying about freeing ourselves / not depending on any leader, but what would it hurt to put a man in office who seems to sincerely want to help us w/ that by re framing our perspective as a citizenry & on the role of gov,t?
JennJenification 4 months ago
Really? I like his message because he does seem to have rational and consistent arguments. I find him a very reasonable and logical man. I don't agree with him on everything, I used to call myself a liberal. I like him because he seems reasonable, seems consistent and honest, and tho I disagree on some subjects, I can respect his positions as thought out. I also feel like he's helped me learn a lot.
JennJenification 4 months ago
ron paul revolution hasnt done or accomplished anything and its over? You suck your nwo or just not helping and not worth listening to. the fundamentals of the constitution still apply. your also categorizing people. and you dont sound like an american. all of my libertarian friend are pumped. and were not stupid like your sure we are. try reading one of his books smarty pants
riccisamurai 5 months ago in playlist 2011 0822
Stefan, I get your points about his campaign not being an educational outreach program, but just to let you know - I learned about Libertarianism through Ron Paul. I began as one of the emotional ones you spoke of, but here I stand before you, watching your videos and critically thinking in ways I never thought I would have 4 years ago. I think this point is incorrect. The more libertarians there are, the more likely some turn to voluntaryism / agorism etc.
munkyusm 5 months ago
Alright, we libertarians are conflicted. Everyone is conflicted. In an anarchist society how could a group causing third party harm be held responsible without force. It is a necessary evil. My point is that we libertarians realize that some government is a necessary evil and it always seems to get out of control. No doubt about it Stefan makes great points. I can only do my best to limit evil and live with the reality that we are imperfect and it can never be eliminated.
jpollard117 6 months ago
Much of this makes sense, but I would not know who Stefan Molyneux is if it wasn't first for being exposed to Ron Paul.
RandomUsername8236 7 months ago 2
I agree w/a lot of your stuff, but not the cutting people off.
You seem to believe that it's either convince them now in a one-time argument, if they don't get it they're unworthy, immoral people. Why not be the argumentative kook at the get-togethers? You don't have to compromise your principles. People shake their heads, until one day they realize that your past predictions keep coming true, and then maybe they slowly start to realize the validity of your arguments.
TreachMarkets 1 year ago 2
I believe cutting people off simply because you have a disagreement in values is very ineffective and should only be used as a last resort. I have a tough time believing you actually believe what you are saying.
.
It's very easy to advocate to others that they should sever their family relationships, but will you cut off all contact with your child if she becomes politically active?
.
I donated $25 to you on 9/26. Answering this simple question will show me that you value my contribution.
schulwitz 1 year ago
@schulwitz
.
How much does one have to donate to freedomain radio to get an answer to a basic yes-or-no philosophical question?
schulwitz 1 year ago
And, on your argument that intellectual reasons are useless for libertarianism, don't you just self-contradict ? Because, what are doing all this time by your freedomainradio?
metal87power 1 year ago
Back to these past law option, which has been saved a freedom, without highly unfreedom and evil things like slavery of blacks.
metal87power 1 year ago
And your argument at the end about rejecting our neighbors over personal disagreements is very clearly rooted in the same altruist morality which has led to our current situation, has been used by the Statists throughout history to justify their policies, and which has obstructed the human race's development toward a more civilized world.
Pericles461 1 year ago
Okay, I'm going to be blunt about my position on this. I agree that the government should be minimal in size, but I think that it is immoral to place unattainable principles such as anarchy before obvious practical reasoning, like the fact that without taxes our national defense and infrastructure would collapse, and also the fact that every nation in history that has shown tolerance to illegal immigrants has been overrun by foreign invaders.
Pericles461 1 year ago
It simply isn't possible to not have a military. You can deny it all you like in order to make your philosophy more "consistent", but making your philosophy UNREALISTIC, is just as bad.
If you don't have force to defend yourself then no matter how consistent your philosophy is, someone is going to ignore your words and shoot you.
The military/national defense is a public good, everyone benefits from it even if they don't pay for it. Voluntary choices do NOT pay for such goods sufficiently.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
looks like the Ron Paul revolution isn't over...
freshdesh 1 year ago
@joesub
They are 'fighting' (in the sense of courageously standing up for peace in these times where independent thought is criticized and attacked ad hominem) on completely different 'fronts', so to speak. I was a Ron Paul supporter (verbally as well as financially), but I see now it's more of an outlet for people who are completely dependent on politics for their voice. Pandering for someone else to transform my life will always bring mixed results, at best, & tyrannical results at worst...
NemaselsNeo 1 year ago
This rant seems to be an ego thing. Stefan Molyneux sounds quite jealous.
It is easy to understand SF's criticism of RP Revolution's "lack of succes." After all Stefan Molyneux certainly shook up the political establishment, gained more massive media attention than anyone previously, inspired hundreds of thousands of activists, spread the message of liberty to so many people throughout the USA and the world, and laid a foundation for future liberty activists. -- (NOT!)
joesub 1 year ago
lol, you're so sarcastically logical, it's hilarious. I like Ron Paul, but I believe I observed him being untrue to himself (over & over during that campaign) with the belief that this would keep him in his position in the political arena. Had he based his message in morality rather than politicized issues things might have been a little different. This is definitely a fair analysis of what went wrong.
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
I like many of your points, but after watching many of your videos over the years, I only seem to know what you dislike - can you please focus a bit on solutions. Do you feel that anarchy is the answer as you seem to allude? If so, I suppose there are numerous criticisms anyone could raise against your philosophy. "We need to be more moral" is not a valid or particularly intellectual "solution" either.
lorax2013 1 year ago
Statesman Ron Paul is one of the few leading men in the Nation who can lead the U.S. on the Wise & Prudent Path to American Strength.
Jenawahrheit 1 year ago
I'm a little disappointed in the philosopher on this one. To be sure, the Ron Paul rEVOLution did not fare as well as we had hoped, but a lot of that had to do with the relentless anti-Paul drum pounding by the MSM. Paul wants to end the Fed and that's a big threat to the system, because it will also mean an end to the pernicious income tax system. This will, in effect, stop the feeding of the tyrannical beast government has become.
A soldier might lose his job? C'mon. Liberty is worth that.
bgarri57 2 years ago 2
When calling RP's campaign a failure he didn't look into his chrystal ball to see how things are now and if elections where held today RP would crush Obama. He could very well be the next President.
aoshrom 2 years ago
Rand Paul for Senate 2010.
TurdFergisson 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Damn, you really hate Ron Paul. And don't deny it. In your speech you go way out of your way to be overly critical and hateful and declare that Ron Paul was doing far more harm than good and may have even DOOMED liberalism by turning so many people off it. You show how far you'll get with your politics and character. I can imagine you starting to scream that people are evil who don't agree with you :D HAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAAAA :D :D :D Oh huhuh :D Damn, you really are a character :D :D
Finn001abd 2 years ago
Lol, you think people who disagree with are evil? Haha, where have I heard this before?
AcidTrout 2 years ago
the LP was in fact founded _specifically_ for educational purposes, yet i will accept that ron paul's campaign was not, despite his continuance to accept interviews to spread libertarian ideas couched as paleoconservativism (often little difference, anyways) months after its end.
good point on complete consistency.
of, course, you know, this means the guns come out.
jonathans8 2 years ago
oh, also, he is Christian but isn't for a theocracy the way some overzealous folks are. And his stance on evolution wouldn't have anything to do with policy since education is a state responsibility and isn't supposed to be subject to federal regulation.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
Ron Paul said we couldn't have amnesty and a welfare state at the same time and that without the welfare state we'd need as much immigration as possible and would make more of it legal (I'm guessing he also meant that eventually we'd get rid of having any immigration illegal and let folks in...though he never said that and it is certainly quite possible he wasn't/isn't for free immigration)
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ron paul sucks the fat cock.
I'm soooo glad he didn't get nominated. It was funny when all of the morons behind him wouldn't stop posting "RON PAUL IS GONNA WIN LOL!!!" comments all over youtube, despite his winning a very slim margin of the votes in the caucuses and primaries.
atoag 3 years ago
Comment removed
jakster72 2 years ago
what kind of a fucking loser replies to comments made 3 months ago?... stupid kids... "Jake Archer"... wow, dumbest name you could have -_-
atoag 2 years ago
I'm sorry.. There has been a mistake and One of my comments on religion has been posted here instead. Ive taken it off and apologise if it has insulted you. jake archer
jakster72 2 years ago
very good stuff but ron paul would still have been the best candidate than any of the other bozos running
mrgrieves9876 3 years ago 25
In all the time that I spent talking to people about Ron Paul, I cannot remember a single time when someone asked me, "So then why does Ron Paul support letting the free market take over all government programs EXCEPT the military?" No. The reason Ron Paul failed was quite simple. People would rather be slaves to a state than live in a free and voluntary society.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago 18
ZAP. Right between the eyes. I do this. Everyone does. Almost everyone. Ideas and ideologies are things to debate around without making it personal or taking it personally. Objective civilized debate becomes presuming advocates of all positions are "good people" deserving respect. Certainly no one should be shunned for merely a strange idea. Right? No, not right at all. Ideas and ideals are made cheap by this practice. And we wonder why nothing changes. We have not changed.
sjatkins 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are an atheist. That says it all. Your own blind spot so informs and taints your objectivity that you have no credibility as an analyst of these events or those involved.
fromthinair 3 years ago
Do you have any evidence at all for your belief in a god(s)? If you do have evidence would you please share this evidence with us so that you may show us the light.
asupcb 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The evidence is in every blade of grass you see, every bird song you here,every moment of love or joy you know. One must distort all sense of reason within himself to not feel His presence. I cannot prove Him to you, He proves Himself. If you seek wisdom and truth, read the Bible. He will bless you if you seek Him with an open heart.
fromthinair 3 years ago
The moment I understood that taxation was evil, I switched to anarchism.
someweirdgayguy 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
anarchism doesnt really work stop reading your fantasy novel and such and wake up to the real world.
bigcatz4455 3 years ago
Have we ever had a stateless society before? Has human society ever existed without the organization known as the state? You do realize that we can have rules without having a state.
asupcb 3 years ago
of course you can have rules without a state thats like saying everyone is evil and we need the state to make them good.
bigcatz4455 3 years ago
It's over? Heck I'm still going.
It's a Marathon baby.
chewbaca1989 3 years ago
No answer needed Stef, as I have checkout your site and shall procede to verse myself with your works. I am quite excited and, lol, scared shitless by the excerts/previews. Nevertheless I would again like to thankyou for bringing out in me, what I have known was inside for many years(I'm only 20) - the potential and healthy need for philosophical and "deep" thought, rather than easy gratification via acceptance of untested logic, morals and beliefs. Cheers from
QwidgyboMan 3 years ago
Thanks, I do hope that you enjoy the material, and I appreciate your interest in philosophy! :)
stefbot 3 years ago
@stefbot I am curious Stefan if Ron Paul runs in 2012 and does better (which is almost guaranteed) will you see any progress in that or will you just try to explain it away? I really like some of the stuff you have to say, but I really think you are 100% completely wrong and really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to political action. I would try to explain it here, but I don't really have the room, and you seem to have your mind made up already & I doubt you would listen.
Richman6625 11 months ago
Comment removed
Emil246 11 months ago
@Emil246 So what? Who cares about the bureaucrats? I am more worried about the end of the illegal wars, end of the emerging police state, and the end of the Federal Reserve. The post office and the other things Stefan talks about to discredit political action is small potatoes.
Richman6625 11 months ago 2
As an Australian who got tired of the Obama/Clinton crap, I felt quite compforted to discover Ron Paul despite not being able to vote. Sufficed to say you have turned my world upside down. I don't mind telling you that whilst it came as a jolt, I am glad I discovered your videos. I have been on a personal journey for about 6 months now. In that time I have gone from a christian, to an atheist to a nihilist. I feel very empty and need something to believe in. Any suggestions? Thankyou very much.
QwidgyboMan 3 years ago
Wow this sounds pretty lonely if you have to write off everyone who disagrees when that means 97% of society apparantly.
jacobssandy 3 years ago 3
Yes, it is about quality, not quantity, for sure... :)
stefbot 3 years ago
so what'll happen when enough of us reject morally evil people in our lives? sounds kinda cool, i'd like to hear where you think this might go...
kimuraftw 3 years ago 2
Well, I do know the answer, since I started this about 10 years ago - it leads to all sorts of wonderful new relationships... :)
stefbot 3 years ago
im glad to hear that. but i mean, do you think people will one day turn on CNN and see the headline "market anarchists worldwide form closed enclaves in major cities"...? im asking in terms of a global scale
kimuraftw 3 years ago
@stefbot
Wonderful new... relationships? You give us all this powerful rhetoric about how we are slaves to the state, mere tax cattle and you boil our blood so much and then... The best thing you can suggest for us is to hold hands and send you donations?
You're just giving up. You've taken a look at the short burst of human existence, seen how we have yet to create a system that lives up to your high standards, and you've concluded it must be impossible. Such a disappointing message.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@kimuraftw Answer: Isolationism, bubble think, and a failure to teach or learn from others. Yee-haw. I'm disappointed, Stef.
JennJenification 4 months ago
(continued comment)
You can find many of my plans for the USA at WorldWideWeb(dot)PortablePublishing(dot)com.
Do not discard the value of our Declaration of Independence.
When properly maintained, the U.S. political system is a great Social Contract that works.
Like any mechanical devise, when left without frequent maintenance it will soon fail.
The People are the maintenance crew.
What are you doing to repair the USA government?
When we work together, we win!
Kingery4President 3 years ago
The People seek solutions. They HOPE the candidate will deliver on their promises; though they know it unlikely.
We do not need to get back to the original Constitution, we need to clear our political foundation (Declaration of Independence) and take the advise of our founders and rewrite our Constitution altogether.
We need to keep that which worked. Repair the loop holes which politicians use to corrupt our government.
I have those plans the People seek.
(continued in next comment)
Kingery4President 3 years ago
Hey, postmortems are for dead things. The revolution is not even close to being dead. At worst it is uncoordinated.
dwcarkuff 3 years ago
I agree with you. It is unfortunate that the only force for liberty is collapse of government, which generally comes with a collapse in society. One such example is in New Zealand, which went bankrupt in the 80s, and so were finally forced to let in some free market forces. Or when the Chinese nearly starved to death in the height of their communism.
As for a personal approach to survival, the best is to look at the index of ecnomic freedom (heritage) and try to live in a blue country.
BrightAnarchist 3 years ago 2
hahaha too true.
lukeev 3 years ago
Forget the hurst The Ron Paul Revolution will never die!!!!!
NEVER NEVER NEVER
RON PAUL REVOLUTION FOREVER
Live Free or Die!!!!
Give me liberty or Ill get off my computer and go get it my fucking self!
RON PAUl or REVOLUTION /OR/ the key word
bigsmallfish 3 years ago
already has.
lukeev 3 years ago
Maybe it never lived!?
jakster72 3 years ago
It did. Read the constitution, read Benjamin Franklin's or Thomas Jefferson's writings.
dneuens 2 years ago
What you read or write is not as important as what you DO after you declare and write down such lofty ideals. I may say that Tyranny is evil..but I obviously don't mean it if I am tyrannical afterwards! I recommend checking more of Stefs stuff out, it's very reasonable against the enemies of reason,jake archer.
jakster72 2 years ago 2
you're lecturing people about your ethics! do you not realize you're doing the very thing you accuse others of? you're anti-religious, while maintaining this awful sanctimony, the worst characteristic of average religious people! the key to change is to not judge. to scrutinize your subjects without condescending. "morality" has nothing to do with it!
chronicremorse 3 years ago
"the key to change is to not judge"?!$? - haha - What do you think you're doing to me? Lord spare me! :(
stefbot 3 years ago
i don't look down on you. i'm describing you. i'm striving for objectivity. isn't that the goal? you've critiqued others for "lecturing people", as if that's an awful thing. but that's what you do for a living. you talk about "a thousand other subjects" that are brought up ad infinitum, yet you offer no cogent rebuttal to these concerns, instead choosing to imply what we're all just a bunch of stupid robots.
chronicremorse 3 years ago
that's condescension. it nullifies debate. no matter what i say, it's just something i picked up off the ron paul conveyer belt, right? i'm just a "bot" or something, taught by a machine to regurgitate little morsels of political science. hogwash. privacy, the rule of law, government subsidies for big business...i know, i know. sheesh. oh well, stefbot. i guess i'll just relax and try to enjoy the Brave New World we're hurtling toward.
chronicremorse 3 years ago
You're talking absolute gibberish, what on earth is your point?!
lukeev 3 years ago
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation"
~ Herbert Spencer
mpolzkill 3 years ago
Your summation was good but the ending left me confused. Are we supposed to disassociate with those that are not as enlightened? I was waiting for your revelation on how to proceed but it did not come.
Even though according to you he was inconsistent in the libertarian sense (per the Jon Stewart comment) you neglect to mention that Dr. Paul chains himself to the constitution. A private military is not constitutional.
salrand58 3 years ago
I appreciate your comments, both complimentary and critical. The ending was written solely out of frustration of some people on this site who don't even attempt to consider opinions contrary to their own (not that they HAVE to do so of course), no matter how reasoned or measured those opinions may be ("in your anus" being a good example of a comment of a person who is clearly aghast at the process of individual enlightenment!) As for consistency, I agree that (continued)
peapodrod 3 years ago
Congressman Paul is consistent in most (not all) of his policy proposals with the US constitution. But we must also consider the constitution itself in relation to lib/anarchistic politics. Although a private military, for example, may be unconstitutional, this hasn't prevented the US military from regularly acting in an egregiously unconstitutional fashion. If no-one has been able to reel-in this behaviour in the past 100 years, from where does the confidence that Dr.Paul could do so emanate?
peapodrod 3 years ago
The problem is that infection of the Republican Party, and any other political grouping, also emanates from other sources: usually those sources who will be rewarded post-election, as the inevitable splurge of public money is distributed to these very constituencies who will undergird the grouping once in public office. The evidence is there; for those people giving one-word, unvarnished-by-thought feedback, take some time to check it out!
peapodrod 4 years ago
The Revolution is NOT over, we will not be divided and conquered by the LP and CP. We will continue to infect the Republican Party with ethical ideals until such time the party actually represents limited government, no entangling alliances and personal liberties and freedom.
lfuboi 4 years ago
Where is your proof?
stefbot 4 years ago
in your anus
sokoboo 3 years ago
sefbot: There aren't "proofs" to these type of things. The Fabians for instance didn't KNOW they were going to win, and didn't...but DID, if you get my meaning. That's similar to what we are ATTEMPTING.
mpolzkill 3 years ago
Why did someone give me a check for my innocuous comment?!? Who? Why?
mpolzkill 3 years ago
Probably because you don't make any sense.
lukeev 3 years ago
luk: Wow, you really are mr. luk: Wow, you really are mr. cutesy-pie. I assumed people here knew who the Fabians were. In the early part of the 20th century, in Britain & in the U.S., socialist parties never won the highest offices. They never had majorities, but today we live under almost every one of their idiotic ideas. Is that clear enough for you, smart guy?
mpolzkill 3 years ago
why do you say the revolution is over??? it's not over. it's just
really getting going. i really do NOT understand how you can make a ridiculous statement like that.....
itsmesunny 4 years ago
Well your lack of understanding is self-willed then, since I go into great detail...
stefbot 4 years ago
Mr Molyneux: Have you ever played sports? Unless one tells himself he will win, he most probably won't. This is what winners do, & they always win or they are soon to right a setback. Your definitions of winning & losing are far too rigid. It's not an either/or. What we HAVE is in between. You talk of the "failure" of "libertarianism". That non-criminals have ANY freedom & property is the evidence of the great SUCCESS of what I call "liberalism" (let's take our damn word back, the egalitarian..
mpolzkill 3 years ago
..socialists are through with it anyway) The great power & wealth of the country is of course greatly attributable to the Constitution. For its time it was a WILDLY liberal document. We have slipped back into times BEHIND 1787. Since there is still great respect for it, why not a movement to follow it? Just a few ideas here, this ISN't rigorous science, it's bizarre when you criticize the nebulousness of the Revolution's success & then seem pretty damn sure it was such an abject failure.
mpolzkill 3 years ago
A piece of paper doesn't stop wars. Otherwise it would have.
lukeev 3 years ago
lukeev: "A piece of paper..."
Smug & facile crap, that I've heard about a thousand times.
mpolzkill 3 years ago
Because it's true, smug or no. You do realize a piece of paper won't stop bullets, right?
lukeev 3 years ago
No, I'm a moron. Thank you so much.
mpolzkill 3 years ago
Poppycock.
cstarsoft2000 4 years ago
I stand corrected by your drugged chicken.
stefbot 4 years ago
I think you falsely stereotype Ron Paul supporters. I'm atheist, believe in evolution, disagree with his abortion stance, etc., but he was the only candidate to simply raise, let alone understand, monetary policy and the tax code. His big issues are the ones from which all other problems are derived. I also heavily disagree with his racist immigration policies.
Stef, is there any way you'd suggest liberty be instilled without infiltrating the mafia? (Not in your personal sort of way)
snipa4lyfe 4 years ago
"My personal sort of way"? What do you mean?
stefbot 4 years ago
Most of your videos that mention this subject usually delve into how you can have liberty in your personal life without trying to spread it via political alleys. Is there a way to spread it at all without using those alleys?
snipa4lyfe 4 years ago
Which reminds me, I got to do my taxes and as such that makes me evil. In order to be good and not advoate taxes one must suffer prison time. Therefore it is more profitable to be evil, or injust.
There is a knock down for you, show how being good is more profitable and I'll do it.
Explitiv3 4 years ago
I fail to see why paying taxes is advocating taxation. Is being stolen from advocating theft?
5ys 4 years ago
It's a fact that you can be evil and appear good. Because it is the most profitable thing, advantege of appearing good while profiting from evil. I don't see how you can enforce goodness on to people when thier very nature seeks the self intreast. If your version of "goodness" does nothing for me intrinsically, then why follow it? Only through the law can one be compelled to do what they would not wish to do, and thus the only way to advance a position of goodness. Alienation feeds into evil.
Explitiv3 4 years ago
What nonsense! Who is paying you? He won about half the straw polls, many taken at county fairs. They kept his name off many telephone polls. They kept his name of some of the actual polls. (See Rockland County, NY)The vote fraud was obvious! Several different kinds. The media ignored him then tried to make him look like a wingnut. We have a sham democracy. Now we all know.
baubosophia 4 years ago
Exactly - so look to philosophy, not political time-wasting - to set you free. :)
stefbot 4 years ago
the reason why ron paul did not win, is because america's mind and value system has not been changed. no amount of political positioning or campaigning can magically change people's core values or understanding of philosophy.
davidngo4415 4 years ago 3
get over it
lukeev 3 years ago
How is it right to disconnect yourself with someone who holds different views? That's a simply laughable concept.
Your world can NEVER be. Simply because of the fact you pretty much make it out that it's "My way or the highway." That is the kind of fundamentally flawed concept that causes conflict.
millgiass 4 years ago
To shun someone because they think or feel differently than you only further divides the world. And with division there can never be peace. Perhaps in your own little tribe that thinks and feels just like you. But then whats to stop the tribe that doesn't from destroying your culture?
It is essentially the same thing as a religious zealot who claims if you don't behave exactly as their book demands you will burn in hell for eternity.
Suffering, and punishment.. Simply because of a difference..
millgiass 4 years ago
Haha you do realize that you're doing exactly what you criticize, right?
stefbot 4 years ago
I don't really agree. He was pretty much pushed out of the MSM and every time he was on there someone would demonize him.
millgiass 4 years ago
Interesting, even if I disagree with much of it. Paul was inconsistent on immigration. On "The View" he said that illegals were being scapegoated, while in other forums he seemed to be one of the scappegoaters.
nicmart 4 years ago 2
People will follow their own interests, which they deem as a good. Only will people follow the nauture of "nonevil" when it is forced by law. Alienation leads to stagnation, which ends in death. Proactive people who wish to change the law, do so inorder to change the nature of people who must follow it. Those who do not wish to change the law do so from their own self intreast, which they consider a good. Therefore, the desire you state as a good (the desire not to change the law) is evil.
Explitiv3 4 years ago
Acting with integrity in perosnal relationships is when we reject those we define as "evil." The only qualifer seems to be those who advoate taxation among other "evils." Can someone then appear to be evil, when really not evil? If so, they are we then the best judges on who it is we are juding as evil? Can not the just man appear to be injust, and the injust man just? How should society be lead then? By those who are nonevil, or those who appear to be nonevil? Should we be pursuaded by them?
Explitiv3 4 years ago
Education will "never" advance the cause of libertarianism? Are then saying that you not educating your audience in the hope to advance the cause, or are you saing that I am educating my audience and that I am not advancing a cause.
Explitiv3 4 years ago
If you define someone as evil, and you associate with them, then your ethics mean nothing...
Then in a contract, landlord and leasee, and the subject reciving less then whats "due" to them have 'nonethics' as they are still associate themselves contractually to someone they define as evil.
Explitiv3 4 years ago
If taxation is evil and those who advocate it are not, then ethics cease to exist.24:12
I fail to see how ethics exist then. Becauase there are plenty of good(non evil) people that advocate taxation (through payment), and a lot of evil people in state priosn (who don't pay taxes) whe, according to this Qualifier, would be deemed good.
Explitiv3 4 years ago
I'm not sure if I understand, but do you mean that paying taxes is advocating taxation?
5ys 4 years ago
Imagine trying to sum up everything you had to say here in half the time, or a third of the time. You wouldn't deliver the message in it's entirety and much of what you had to say that may have been crucial would now be lost. You might even look a little stupid. No one can explain a major change in policy in a 30 second sound byte. The topics that were being discussed weren't things that you could fully explain in 30 minutes. I am still disgusted with the media about many issues.
Jabonez471 4 years ago 2
There was actually a news anchor who told Ron Paul on national television that he wasn't going to win. That is not unprecedented coverage. The coverage he has received has been negative and sparse. Things like "Oh hey you raised 6 million dollars in one day, but you're still going to lose nut job." The debates were a joke as well. I'd like to see anyone try to make any kind of argument while being laughed at. At the last debate he got to talk for about seven minutes of an hour and a half.
Jabonez471 4 years ago 2
You talk about some of the polls and that Ron Paul only ever polled a few percentage points. That's not really the truth, as he has polled in the double digits in many states. People in this country are very lazy, ignorant and naive. They trust the headlines. They don't feel like doing more research because the headlines will tell them what they need to know. Apparently what they needed to know was Ron Paul is this kook with no chance of winning and he's a point of ridicule for many anchors.
Jabonez471 4 years ago 3
I say the same thing about the Internet. Most people are using the Internet for entertainment purposes, or shopping. Not many people are seeing Ron Paul on their homepage when they log on. They get on Yahoo or MSN and they see headlines. They don't however see Ron Paul because he's not a "front runner." You would see Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani. I would certainly not call that unprecedented coverage.
Jabonez471 4 years ago
You say Ron Paul had "unprecedented coverage in the mainstream media." Let's analyze the facts. Most Americans watch television for entertainment and news. The news is where they get most of their information about candidates running for president. If Ron Paul is rarely mentioned on the news, how would he be getting "unprecedented coverage?" You also talk about his on line support, which many times was a topic of ridicule on the news. We were often referred to as "spammers."
Jabonez471 4 years ago 3
"Third party baby"
If he runs as a third party candidate then you KNOW the jig is up.
neothomist1275 4 years ago
I doubt your plan of "shunning" non-libertarians will be effective at changing the world. Most likely it will only cause libertarians to become more isolated and misunderstood by those in the mainstream due to less contact. The only thing this method may achieve is building a small, insulated community, like the Amish, but the world won't join. I agree that there is no hope for libertarianism through political activism or education. I disagree that there is any hope at all. Sadly.
ErikthaBlack 4 years ago
It is over. Nearly half of the states have voted and Ron Paul only has 14 delegates. He'll need miraculous 80-90% wins in nearly all the remaining states in order to get the nomination. It is lunacy to continue to pursue the failed course of political reformism.
Orenazt 4 years ago 6
Just search ( CFR ) to know the TRUTH
johnreon 4 years ago
i got an email today from ron paul saying that he isnt going to run 3rd party
supadupadennis 4 years ago
Its not over.
seanmc30 4 years ago
LoL. Yea, let's do talk about long shots. 3rd party? Bad joke!
FaceForRadio63 4 years ago
It's cute how you continue to coddle RP supporters. RP is not a true libertarian and the long time base of his support are not libertarian. This "revolution" was bolstered by people who want out of iraq at all costs. Take those people out of the equation and all you have left is the same old disaffected 3-4% of the population who think they are libertarians, too.
FaceForRadio63 4 years ago
Wow, so many moronic comments.
Ron Paul supporters are truly delusional.
Orenazt 4 years ago
Why respond to their comments?
DoctorFist 4 years ago
Please wear a turtle neck sweater next time... I want to see you looking as much like a talking floppy penis as you sound. Peace.
vivianheadstock 4 years ago
It ain't over yet!
ameliorable 4 years ago
We ain't done yet, your jumping the gun again.
RP..08
RundoeTX
rundoetx 4 years ago
Did you get a tan?
great video.......
livythecanuck 4 years ago
28 minutes: Save time. Read this summation:
1 Ron Paul is not libertarian enough
2 We shouldn't use logic to appeal to people who only respond to emotion.
3 We should be consistant with pure logic because people are turned off by inconsistency and illogic (here Stefbot contradicts himself)
4 Politics can never work so you should follow me, although I don't know what to do either
5 I, Stefbot, am a perfect liber/anarch/something person/god so you should be like me
6 Please send me money
WonjuEnglishSchool 4 years ago 4
that's how you set up a straw man ladies and gentlemen.
Trandofir 4 years ago
WonjuEnglishSchool: that's how you set up a straw man ladies and gentlemen.
Trandofir 4 years ago
That's how you let the air out of some big head's hot air balloon.
Stefbot has 2 minutes of material and talks for 28 minutes. He could filabuster a mite into a mountain.
WonjuEnglishSchool 4 years ago
Too verbose, again.
You contradict yourself regarding the unwillingness of people to think as opposed to following their emotions vs. the need to sell libertarianism by being logically consistant instead of appealing to emotion.
Finally, you fail to consider poor results from other causes such as:
1. media bias time: 50 to 1 in minutes
2. media bias language: longshot candidate vs. America's Mayor
3. poor marketing due to lack of campaign skill
And you overestimate your own import
WonjuEnglishSchool 4 years ago
It is not over! I assure you Ron Paul is still in this fight! We are now down to just 3 (Paul, McCain, and Huck) and WE ARE GETTING DELEGATES! Don't believe the MSM or people that say it's over. Stay in touch with your meetups and stay updated EVEN AFTER YOUR STATE PRIMARY IS OVER! Things are going on that all Ron Paul supporters need to know about, so stay updated until the end!
The guy in this video is completely wrong!
1Raven4u 4 years ago
1Raven4u:Completely wrong...really?The whole thing..huh?The logical conclusion you have come up with comes from...?Please tell me ?I want to believe in Ron Paul.I want freedom.Thanks
mole6674 4 years ago
lol
lukeev 4 years ago
Wow i get dugg down for laughing. Those crazy RP supporters!
lukeev 3 years ago
72, and it remains to be seen whether this will fizzle when he's dead.
murphycline 4 years ago
Who the fvck said it's over?? Get the hell out, we refuse to give up.
freesexywallpaper 4 years ago
2 Gathering in D.C. on July 4th to show our numbers and strength, not just to the establishment, but to America and ourselves.
3. Creating the greatest Ron Paul rally in recorded history inside and out of the Convention in St. Paul Minnesota
4. Become a leader in your community in some way that will promote liberty. This could include being a precinct leader, meetup organizer, participate in local government and GOP functions.
tribalredemption 4 years ago
misleading the Revolution, I don't buy it. I say we continue reaching out to our fellow Americans in new and inventive ways (our known trade marks). Isolating the movement will only reduce its size, dynamic and prosperity negatively. Some ideas that I think are good and would be well worth our collective efforts is,
1. Making Ron Paul's book a success, having a book tour and interviews surrounding the ideas and the movement, creating the buzz.
tribalredemption 4 years ago
We want this movement to be about long term goals,right?we want this movement to be well thought through,right?we want to be truly free ,not just a little free,right?What is being said in this video that speaks against the true ideas of a freedom movement?
mole6674 4 years ago 3
I was busy having a good time for fat tuesday and making trade deals at the local market. There is nothing like living and propagating freedom and anarchism with voluntary friends and open minded people. Especially while everyone else is at the polls like drones wasting time.
TruthHidden 4 years ago
wow 25 minutes of complaining and then we are revealed the true way to change the world, stop associating with people who don't think like us.
also Ron Paul lost because he didn't want to privatize the military.....insane. That's how he would have gotten ten times less votes.
Making a difference by not talking anyone that supports taxation. Yeah thats gonna change the world.....
Reznor892 4 years ago
Thanks for saving me 27 minutes of my life. I got about 2-3 sentences in, when he declared the r3V0Lution dead.
"So long, Stefan! Got work to do for Dr Paul!"
lastnymleft 4 years ago
Become a delegate. Donate. Canvass. Signup.
manofcommonsense . com
We have not yet begun to fight!
IAmForRonPaul 4 years ago
The RPR3Volution is over when we give up!
WolverineInk 4 years ago
the fat lady most definitely did not sing.
qazol2 4 years ago
The arguments for political activists just got "PWNED" :p
neutrinoide 4 years ago
Stef, you're right on about Ron Paul, but U've got to tell you-- evolution is a bunk. Philosophical materialism has been refuted from first principles. You should probably stick to what you know best-- personal and political liberty. I'm still a fan regardless. Thanks for reading.
DionysusAlS 4 years ago
Ha! Molyneux is a neocon!
Orenazt 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what a load of shit you neoCon with a voice like Stewie.
Go suck the sweat off evelyn rothschilds balls.
Cantwetalk 4 years ago
LOL. Oh, Margaret! Stef is probably the furthest thing from a Neocon you can get. Get a toupee with some brains in it, would you?
DionysusAlS 4 years ago
PS: I envy your brain and you've got another subscriber. Do you have any absolutes about evolution or anything else in your videos? I have been a lurker at Mises for quite a while and I think I've read quite a few of your posts there. Did you attend Mises?
Thanks -Kevin
exanchorite 4 years ago 2
Obama has been able to throw logic out the window and win over the general(ignorant)population with his personality and message of hope and change(what change give me a break).
exanchorite 4 years ago 4
You say Paul supporters are emotionally atached to his message due to preconcieved Ideas already beleived to be true, in my case this is not the truth. I used to be a hard core conservative, but as I grow intelectually I have become more open minded due to logic not emotion. Ron Paul to me has been the most logical candidate. I beleive the reason for his demise as a presidential candidate is due to the fact that he is charismatically akin to a mouse.
exanchorite 4 years ago
The Ron Paul campaign is over. No one can dispute that. It's frustrating how many Ron Paul supporters cling desperately to delusions of a glorious victory coming out of a "brokered convention."
Orenazt 4 years ago
It's not over, it's a waiting game at this moment, Huckabee or McCain will drop out before Ron Paul, trust me.
AnyeongF91 4 years ago