"How to Win Political Arguments" Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio Speaks in New Hampshire

Audio of the speech: http://fdrurl.com/nhspeech -
Stefan Molyneux, author and host of Freedomain Radio describes the "Against Me" argument - the most powerful way to win political debates - and takes questions from audience members at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• new
• hampshire
• liberty
• forum
• stefan
• molyneux
• freedomain
• radio
• free
• state
• project
• libertarian

[DestroyerX61]

lol adam kokesh out of fuckin nowhere

[nurbSoldier]

@crud4 Actually the confused person here is you. Nothing you said here of Adam Kokesh is true. He is vehemently against the military industrial complex and the misuse of American soldiers, as well as how they waste american taxpayer money and destroy nations.

Also, I roll my eyes when people say libertarians are right wingers. Right wingers are for outlawing abortion, drugs and whores, for abstinence taught in schools, strong police/military, police state, strong prosecutors, perpetual war.

[SomebodyPickaName]

Comment as I watch: At 54 min, he asks about roads. The answer to his proposition goes as follows: When you put gas in your car, there is included tax in the price at the pump. That gas tax is what pays for our roads and bridges. You are thereby volunteering to pay for the roads by putting gas in your car to drive on them. When you don't own a car, you don't pay gas tax (no gas needed obviously) and you are therefore not required to pay for the roads.

[WhackTheWax]

I already used this argument after watching some of your other videos.

[chisleu]

New Hampshire libertarian chicks are HOT! If I get divorced, I'm coming and bringing my guns and beard with me!!!!

[Theobrothers]

@Deadwind002

Life is crazy complicated. If you think you don't deserve some of the blame for the slaughter and starvation of people in far off lands, you are ignorant.

Complacency causes people to not do the due diligence necessary to vet every company they may do business with. Whether it's purchasing groceries, clothing, or computer parts. Thousands of people have died as a nearly direct result of your choices and business dealings.

They don't have the right to kill you?

[Theobrothers]

@Deadwind002

A war is entered through new legislation, against the agreements of the UN. Bombs are made, and dropped, many innocent civilians in a far off land die. People who's families have been murdered, rise up, they fight back. Sometimes they take civilian contractors and kill them. At one point they hijack planes and kill thousands of people, many of whom work for some of these companies who own the media, the military contracts and politicians.

Who are the aggressors?

[Theobrothers]

@Deadwind002

Hmmm, let's see how confused I am and how clear you seem to think this logic is.

A group of people, own a majority stake in a company. That company owns a majority stake in Television Media, which propagates lies as to give reason for war. They also own Military Construction and give donations to various politicians which pass legislation to go to war and award government contracts to the military companies.

Thousands are employed and turn a blind eye to these connections.

[Deadwind002]

@Theobrothers: You're being a smart ass. You're not differentiating between the initiation of force and self defensive force. They are different. If someone attacks you, that person is the aggressor. If you defend yourself, you are justified. There is a big difference. No-aggression is different than pacifism just as body guards are different than assassins. You are seriously confused.

[Theobrothers]

@45:01

This is the counter to your "me" argument. Who is to say what is self defence, what situations require self defence. This is where the position of "not being violent" becomes quite foggy.

There are far too many reasonings for that which, indirectly harms us and which is the consequence of another's acted upon belief, leading to just as many reasonings for, preemptive defence.

I'm not currently sure if you can resolve this logical flaw, I'll have to get back to you after thinking on it

[Theobrothers]

I believe personalizing the argument is correct. However, the logic, wording and analogies you use, I think, are flawed.

If you haven't understood why I say this, or perhaps disagree, I'll wait for you to say as much before going further with my argument.

[Theobrothers]

@20:42

"I would never dream of using violence to prevent you from acting upon your beliefs..."

So you wouldn't use violence if the belief acted upon harms you?

Isn't this a self induced strawman, and if not, I would have to infer that you are a practitioner of absolute Pacifism, or more likely, a liar. Concluding that, we are not the same, nor do we share an agenda, and could not "accord you the same respect".

I'm confused on how someone would so quickly allow that assertion to be validated.