The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Cognitive Dissident on February 01, 2012, 10:32:12 AM
-
An Open Letter to Stefan Molyneux and Other Anti-Feminists (http://dissentingleftist.blogspot.com/2012/01/open-letter-to-stefan-molyneux-and.html)
Stefan Molyneux’s recent video, a defense of his statement that “feminism is socialism with panties” (from which he takes his title) is not so much an enlightening philosophical speech as an ill-informed rant. The title of the video is intellectually dishonest, dismissing generations of women and men struggling for equality as panty-wearing socialists. The title panders to vulgar misogynists and is insulting to all women, feminists or not, and to anyone else who believes in equality between the sexes. The ideas expressed in this video and other videos of his that discuss feminism in a negative way are not only inaccurate but also dangerous, negatively influencing society’s perception of what feminism really is.
Because Molyneux’s anti-feminist views are unfortunately shared by many libertarian men and some libertarian women, we think it is important to take a stand and point out what is wrong and misguided about these views. Each one of the individuals signing this document has seen libertarian and conservative men attacking feminism without knowing what it means; men who have read nothing more than a few newspapers articles or anti-feminist rants by others and have no idea of feminism’s rich and varied history. Their views, founded on little more than opinion, are merely knee-jerk “politically incorrect” responses that lack critical thinking and thoughtful analysis.
Anti-feminist libertarian and conservative comments abound on Facebook and other social media. These include the usual clichés such as “man-hater,” and “feminazis” as well as such claims as, for example, “feminists are so trapped in their victimhood thinking that they see potential male oppressors everywhere and blame everything that is wrong with their lives on ‘sexism’ and ‘patriarchy.’” Men who are supportive of feminist concerns are attacked as “little wussy boys” and “worse” than the feminists themselves. One man even called the Association of Libertarian Feminists an “oxymoron.” These childish and uninformed remarks by anti-feminist men not only show how little they know about feminism, but how little regard they have for women and women’s rights.
Some anti-feminists even call feminism “collectivist” because it is a movement. This is a strange misuse of the term. They confuse “collective action” with “collectivism.” The former simply means individuals working together for a common purpose, as for example, libertarianism or abolitionism. The philosophy of “collectivism” says that group goals are more important than individual goals. But the raison d'etre of feminism is to achieve equal individual rights for every woman; to allow individual women to pursue their lives as they see fit rather than submit to cultural stereotypes.
Feminism is, by common definition, “the belief that women and men are equal and should be equally valued as human beings and have equal rights.” From a libertarian point of view, this stance should not be in the least controversial since libertarians also believe in equal rights for all. Indeed, given this definition of feminism, all libertarians, if they are consistent, should also be feminists. This definition is the essence of feminism to which every stripe of feminist from Marxist to libertarian, from radical to liberal, will agree. What feminists differ upon is how to achieve this goal of equality and equal rights. But the anti-feminist libertarians, knowing little about the wide range of views within feminism, selectively choose those feminist views they find abhorrent and attack those views as if they represented all of feminism. Yet when liberals do the same to libertarians, misrepresenting a few of the most uncompassionate as representative of the whole, these same anti-feminist libertarians howl. This is an inconsistent, hypocritical, and unfair treatment of both of these rich and vibrant intellectual traditions.
Molyneux is only the latest in a long line of these uncritical anti-feminists. We use his videos as a starting point for analysis only because he is currently one of the most visible anti-feminist libertarians. Like other anti-feminists, he fails to actually define feminism before he attacks. He simply implies that the ones he selectively chooses to talk about constitute feminism. Though Molyneux admits it isn’t accurate to say that all feminists are socialists, he still defends his statement that “feminism is socialism with panties” and continues to talk as if all feminists are indeed socialists. This is more than an offensive accusation unsupported by sound reasoning; it represents the kind of sexist thinking feminism tries to combat. By using this sleight-of-hand, he continues to encourage his listeners to systematically categorize all "feminist" concerns as pitiful socialist garbage to be derided and dismissed.
In representing feminism as a primarily socialist-dominated movement, Molyneux ignores feminists of any other political ideology, including a long history of individualist feminists. His definition of socialism is as unclear as his definition of feminism; he uses the term interchangeably with “Marxism” without qualifying exactly what kind of socialists he is accusing feminists of being. What is clear is his belief that socialists of any kind are unappealing and deserving of ridicule.
Molyneux also uses the term “gender” incorrectly. He talks about the “two genders” but “gender” is not interchangeable with “sex.” Social scientists generally define “gender” in terms of psychological factors, i.e., societal views of gender, one’s self-perception, etc. In fact there is a whole range of non-binary gender perceptions; including “transgender” people who do not fit into the standard “male” and “female” categories. Even the term “sex,” which refers to anatomical distinctions, is more complex than simply “male” and “female” because some people are “intersex” with physiological elements of both female and male reproductive characteristics. These people may call themselves “male” or “female” for convenience but many do not feel comfortable doing so.
There is a belief among such anti-feminists that feminism is inherently sexist because it emphasizes women. This is like saying that those who oppose discrimination against people of color are racists. Such anti-feminist thinking then assumes that women must desire preferential treatment. This is a typical claim made by anti-feminist men in articles and posts in social media, couched under the misdirecting plea, “but we’re all individuals.” It is similar to the claim that LGBTQ folks want preferential treatment simply because they want the same marriage rights as anyone else. Yet it is important to note that it is not women who have created the gender rights gap; it is a culture and society that has long seen women as secondary to men. Both culture and the government have been the biggest challenges feminists have faced in seeking equality. Government, reflecting the historical cultural prejudices against women, has enforced laws (opinions backed with guns, as Molyneux muses) against women since the beginning of the United States. Feminists, in working for equality, are therefore not working to support the state but rather desire to change it in order to eliminate the need for feminism. However, if libertarians categorically reject every attempt to challenge the presence of privilege in our culture, we should not be too shocked when feminists believe that the force of law is required to create a more humane and bearable space in which to exist.
Contrary to what the anti-feminists such as Molyneux claim, feminists have in fact played a major role in some of the most significant triumphs for individual liberty against state and private aggression in the last two centuries. In the 19th century, they were in the forefront of major movements for individual freedom, including abolitionism, suffrage for women, individual conscience in regard to religion and sexual activity, and the protection of minority rights. Every woman today who has a college education, owns property, or votes can thank these feminists. In the 20th century, feminists were in the forefront of not only the vote for women and the civil rights movement, but also in the fight against discriminatory laws that kept women from having credit in their own name, police policies that treat victims of rape and domestic abuse as responsible for their own victimization, actions and laws that harm people whose identities, sexual preferences, and orientations do not match the mainstream, and let us not forget reproductive freedom!
The radical feminist activists that Molyneux and other anti-feminists so unthinkingly sneer at have almost always been primarily concerned with challenging and resisting patriarchal laws—abortion laws, rather famously—and with building non-state grassroots institutions (e.g., consciousness raising groups, battered women's shelters, rape crisis centers, underground abortion networks, women's self-help clinics, and an array of critical “awareness”/anti-sexist cultural campaigns and groups), a number of which, especially the medically-focused efforts, were in fact constantly targeted by the regulatory state for criminalization and destruction.
In his “feminists are socialists in panties” video, Molyneux states that feminists are state-serving “creatures” and “Frankensteins,” whose primary agenda is receiving preferential treatment from the government and society, an erroneous and insulting view. He commits the error that Frédéric Bastiat defines as the core error of socialists, by “confusing the distinction between government and society.” He misrepresents the feminist stance as categorically anti-family and requiring state intervention to fulfill. No matter that many feminists have actually long discussed how to apply their feminist views to marriage and family, with the intent to raise children in a non-stereotypical way that affords them the richest opportunities as adults. Their aim is not to raise children through the state as Plato asserted, but typically to raise them healthfully in an individual family with two parents. Only a handful of feminists have actually seriously talked about dismantling the family, primarily during the Second Wave, contrary to what anti-feminists like Molyneux claim.
Molyneux portrays feminists as ruthless women, quick to cut each other down and unwilling to support successful women who deviate from the underlying socialist ideology of feminism. He claims that this is why feminists never discuss Ayn Rand or Margaret Thatcher, who he sees as “neo-conservatives” that are “anti-government” and therefore can be dismissed. In actuality, Rand, is not a neo-conservative; her importance for women has even led to a scholarly book, Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, published by a prestigious and well-known university press. In his rant against “ruthless” feminists, Molyneux even implies that because they did not rally to the cause of Bachmann’s candidacy that this is further proof of their cutthroat ideology. He thus implies that women should unconditionally support and praise each other despite differences in political views, even when the women themselves hold anti-feminist positions. The fact that Molyneux himself does nothing of the sort—he frequently attacks Ron Paul, a man, for example—is apparently beside the point. But unbeknownst to Molyneux, many feminists did in fact defend Bachmann, Clinton, and Palin from charges that veered from political disagreement to overt sexist dismissal.
In his video “The Life and Death of Radical Feminism,” Molyneux propounds the belligerently conservative argument that women taking on paid jobs won’t spend enough time with their children and thus will harm their development. This argument is fallacious on several grounds. First, it mysteriously leaves out one parent from the equation—the father. In fact, social science research shows that fathers have considerable impact on their children and that more interaction with their children is desirable. Second, there is a copious social science literature showing that children are not harmed when the mother works outside the home. A more important factor is whether the mother is satisfied with her situation, whether working outside the home or within. Third, it denies individual autonomy to women, chastising them for wanting to have a life or career outside the home and asserting that they should sacrifice their aspirations in order to allegedly achieve anti-authoritarian kids. Once again, this bears no resemblance to actual psychological research findings. The factors that have the most impact on authoritarian or anti-authoritarian views in children are warmth and non-punitive childrearing methods that teach empathy, not whether or not the mother stays at home. To blame moms for everything bad that happens to the children is yet another example of not only sexism but outright misogyny.
Molyneux, like many conservatives, seems to think that the 1950s was a golden age for families. The idea that the 1950s nuclear family was a model for liberated childhood or somehow ushered in the social movements of the 1960s is simply bizarre. Spanking, the abusive disciplinary action that Molyneux abhors, was far more prevalent in the 50s than it is now. In the 1950s, the spanking rate was 99%; the rate has been going down ever since. Isn’t this a curiously contradictory view? Furthermore, in the books and research about the student movements of the 60s, the main correlation between activism and parenting was having a parent who was also a political or social activist, not having a traditional nuclear family.
Anti-feminists have no idea what feminists really want. Feminists are not women who want to be treated as men. Feminists are people who want to be treated as people, people who should not be discriminated against. Feminism isn’t socialism. Feminism is actually more about individualism and the desire to be evaluated based on one’s merit’s and not on one’s sex or gender.
Yes, there are feminists who are socialists. There are also feminists who are anarchists and feminists who are libertarians and feminists who really have no political ideology but know that they deserve to be treated equally to men. There are feminists who wear panties and feminists who wear boxers because not all feminists have an underwear preference and not all feminists are women.
The majority of Molyneux’s arguments against feminism as well as his accusation that “feminism is socialism with panties” are grounded in flawed and misogynistic rhetoric as are the arguments of other anti-feminists. In reality, feminism attracts a diverse group of people just as any other idea or philosophy does. To attempt to diminish the impact of feminism and redefine it as an objectionable philosophy is repugnant. The statement itself is inherently sexist and is the kind of thinking that feminism—true feminism—works to change.
This is a collective rejoinder written and agreed upon by the following signers
1-31-2012.
Ankur Chawla
Amanda Davis
Christine-Marie L. Dixon
Nathan Goodman
Charles H. Johnson
Ross Kenyon
Matt Mortellaro
Nicholas O’Connell
James Peron
CBP
Sharon Presley
-
Personally, I'm an anti-feminist for its collectivist name. it's about as silly as "masculism."
FWIW, I haven't fully read it yet because I have a headache, but as soon as I saw it in my email from a fellow traveller, I knew others would want to see it.
-
This not a comment on the open letter, but something about that guy activates my "Be on guard with this guy" radar.
-
He's obviously brilliant, but some of his views are a bit "out there." Maybe he's that far ahead of the curve. I don't know, but yeah, I view what he says a bit guardedly. I think most fellow travelers must--probably why he seems to be a bit controversial, even in these circles.
-
I agree he's obviously brilliant. The cult like following may be what sets off my radar.
-
Well someone has their panties in a bunch.
-
I'll admit, "libertarian feminist" does sound quite strange.
I guess it makes sense if feminism isn't just about rights. I don't know much about the movement, but I certainly don't agree with 90% of the "feminists" that I've come across. I know this is going to piss some people off, but "man haters" seemed to be a good description. In college, there was a self described "feminist" who'd always blab about how wonderful the US would be if women were in charge of congress, the courts, and the presidency. Sure, sure....it would be paradise.................
I remember her saying that 90% of the prison population being men isn't the result of sexism, but the fact that most big businesses are led by men is of course the result of sexism. Oh dear.
PS Walter Block has given many good lectures on the supposed "glass ceiling."
-
It may not be his fault. He might be too brilliant for his own good and could be suffering from the same thing as George Lucas. He's surrounded by people so enamored of his brilliance that no one ever questions anything he says... evar.
-
Stefan seems pretty modest and grounded to me.
You should hear my anti- feminist speech. The letter those bitches would write to me would have at least a couple of death threats if I did a podcast about it.
That letter is signed more then half by male names anyway. Would anyone take it seriously?
-
Is Molyneux a conservative?
-
You should hear my anti- feminist speech. The letter those bitches would write to me...
Do you actually have a beef with something in that article? Seems solid to me.
-
Is Molyneux a conservative?
I'm not sure he has anything at all in common with conservatives, except perhaps their supposed adherence to good monetary policy--and even then, I think they'd call him a radical.
-
Is Molyneux a conservative?
I'm not sure he has anything at all in common with conservatives, except perhaps their supposed adherence to good monetary policy--and even then, I think they'd call him a radical.
He's written books called "Practical Anarchy" and "Everyday Anarchy" He's not a conservative.
He did, however, come from the Objectivist end of the spectrum, like me. Some Objectivists will sometimes self label as "Conservative".
Dude is a market anarchist. Not only that, but if you watch the video that is the source of the complaints, he's specifically talking about the leaders of the modern feminist movement and how they all identify as fairly hard leftists.
FWIW, back in the day he used to actually use the phrase "Modern feminism is just socialism with tits."
Hehe. He's softened the message.
-
It may not be his fault. He might be too brilliant for his own good and could be suffering from the same thing as George Lucas. He's surrounded by people so enamored of his brilliance that no one ever questions anything he says... evar.
Switch out brilliant for charismatic, and I agree.
I don't pay much attention to him because he turns me off on a personal level, and I think his rhetoric is fueled in a virtuous circle of sycophancy. This reminds me of just about every cult leader I've ever seen, and therefore out of self-preservation, I distance myself not caring if he's correct or not.
Lots of cultish personalities often make accurate statements. Thats why people are attracted to them, they strike a chord similarly believed and agreed upon by the audience.
More out of respect for my friends and acquaintances here than for him, I've stopped bagging on his spiel. As a stepping stone for personal growth, if people benefit from his opinions, he has inherent value. But he ain't for me.
-
Is Molyneux a conservative?
I'm not sure he has anything at all in common with conservatives, except perhaps their supposed adherence to good monetary policy--and even then, I think they'd call him a radical.
He's written books called "Practical Anarchy" and "Everyday Anarchy" He's not a conservative.
He did, however, come from the Objectivist end of the spectrum, like me. Some Objectivists will sometimes self label as "Conservative".
Dude is a market anarchist. Not only that, but if you watch the video that is the source of the complaints, he's specifically talking about the leaders of the modern feminist movement and how they all identify as fairly hard leftists.
FWIW, back in the day he used to actually use the phrase "Modern feminism is just socialism with tits."
Hehe. He's softened the message.
I have a problem with both "left libertarian" and "right libertarian" (the latter of which seems to be the assumption if you're not going with "left.") Libertarianism, in its proper sense, is neither left nor right, since left and right are indicators of how you think government should be used to control people, while libertarianism, in its proper sense, is a matter of not using government to control people. The less you think government should be used to control people, the more libertarian you are. It's kinda like a pork-loving vegan versus a beef-loving vegan.
-
I have a problem with both "left libertarian" and "right libertarian" (the latter of which seems to be the assumption if you're not going with "left.") Libertarianism, in its proper sense, is neither left nor right, since left and right are indicators of how you think government should be used to control people, while libertarianism, in its proper sense, is a matter of not using government to control people. The less you think government should be used to control people, the more libertarian you are. It's kinda like a pork-loving vegan versus a beef-loving vegan.
But again, you're attributing where someone came from versus who they are now.
<<<Was once an Objectivist. Is now a market anarchist or Anarcho-Capitalist. I refuse to call myself voluntariest because I think it sounds evasive and kinda wussy.
Molyneux - Was once an Objectivist, is now a market anarchist. (Although I guess he has a thing about self identifying as a "Conclusion" and prefers to refer to himself as a philosopher.
-
On the topic of Stefbot as a person, I've worked with him three times on videos and I've noticed a few things.
1. He's not good about answering emails and getting back to you. Also seems maybe a little forgetful about interactions with others. Might just be due to how many people he talks to though.
2. Once you get hold of him everything is cool and he's a pretty friendly guy.
3. He's a person who is obviously used to taking the lead on things, but if you are more of an authority (Knowledge-wise) on a subject and you are willing to treat him as an equal and butt heads with him he will immediately back down and listen to what you have to say*. I kept cutting dead air our of the voiceover he did for this video -
The Story of Our Unenslavement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzyogKiXhEA#ws)
He had a bunch of long pauses and the whole thing sorta dragged a little bit. I went through and chopped every pause that was more than say a second long. He was certain that the audience needed that time to process the information he was giving. I told him that I couldn't in good conscience put my name on a video that dragged out like that. He thanked me for butting heads with him and I did it my way and the video turned out great. He seemed to be happy with it in the end. Unfortunately the video does a lot of comparing religion to the state and it didn't pick up viewer traction like "The Sunset of the State" which I also made. People don't like sharing this vid with friends and family who may still have a god chip on their shoulder so it didn't get the same attention even though it's probably a better vid.
Shit happens.
Anyway, I've dealt with the dude directly several times and found him to be a reasonable person.
Everybody has their quirks. I have a beef with crazy people and I'm not much of a human interaction person unless I know the crowd well. Other people have their own things. Molyneux is obviously a geek like a lot of us are, (Some of his podcasts are peppered with D&D jokes and so on.) and I think he's got some of the classic geek 'foibles'. Very direct and to the point, has to pick things apart and verify, a little obsessive about his topics of interest. You know, like a lot of geeks are. Another geek trait - Being slightly hyper focused and oblivious to our surroundings unless directly addressed. I noticed that a bit as well when we met him at Porcfest. Again, this is little shit.
The fact that he compensates for those little flaws with his obviously amazing oratory skills is perfectly natural. Certain types of people who are maybe a little more impressionable will tend to congregate around a person like that. Also only natural.
But bruh-man be constantly trying to shrug off the "Cult" crap by requesting fairly consistently that people look at the ideas and not the person. I dunno how many times I've heard someone thank him for this and that and he poo poos it for his part.
As for "Charisma", I kinda see what Brasky be getting at, but actually his voice and demeanor were initially a turnoff to me, and definitely a turnoff to Mel. Sometimes the force of a person's personality... Well, we aren't all aware of it, you know? If you've got kinda a big mouth and a swagger people will sometimes be drawn to you. It's happened to me before IRL. How one deals with that sort of thing is more of a measure of "Cultiness" than just being charismatic or having a big personality.
And I wanna make clear that I'm not talking about how I'm all awesome and shit. It's just... Shit that happens. I know that if I sit down with a group of people at a social occasion, and I start talking about something I'm passionate about, ten minutes later, no matter the configuration of the room, people will have turned around and faced me. I don't seek it, it just happens. And we all know it's not about my amazing smile or anything. It's just... I dunno.
I know this though, there were a couple times in my life when I used that attribute to my advantage and it caused some serious fucking disasters for other people. I knocked that shit off about 12 years ago. Molyneux doesn't seem to be the type to pull that sort of shit deliberately. Dude barely notices people he already knows standing three feet away from him, so I can't imagine him working the mojo on people just for the control-freakery of it all.
*I am exactly the same way in regards to this and I know it annoys the shit out of people sometimes. I just sorta take the lead if I think I'm the person who knows best, and it often comes off as arrogance. However, if I don't know what the fuck about something I either never chime in or just listen to and ask advice from the person who does.
-
I know addressing the cultyness of Molyneux tends to irritate the people who enjoy his "body of work."
In my experience, I agree with you as far as people who are charismatic are typically unable to turn it off purposely. They just organically adjust to their surroundings, kinda like a plant photosynthesizes in the sunshine. I know this from knowing several type-A leaders, bosses, who I respected, and thats just how they are.
It doesn't mean they're that way 24-7, they have downtime, too. I get that. They don't spontaneously erupt into oration at the movies.
The indictment of cultyness is more of a admonishment of the people who blindly follow. And this does tend to fuel the person, otherwise, they wouldn't have the urge to orate. If I had a fucking nickel for every nitwit who said "Stefan says" and/or "Ian says", I'd be a rich fucking dude.
I don't purposely harbor suspicion, any more than that guy (might) read the vibe that he can captivate the room or not.
But once my suspicion is aroused, it takes a lot to change my perception. I might not ever, even if I'm reasoned with til blue in the face. Because some people are super-good liars, and that's usually a personality trait of people who are comfortable in debates, publicly speaking, and generally interacting with random people.
I know what I am, so belaboring the topic is moot - and in fact, when people attempt to engage me in discussion of it, I might get a little touchy if I feel like I'm being A) swayed or B) recruited.
If the person isn't exactly sure what the fuck they are, I'm more likely to elaborate - to give a little perspective on what I believe is the correct philosophy. I have no desire to change people who are set in their beliefs. ...which is why I never involve myself in the "changing Democrats" kinda convos.
-
I totally feel ya on the "Follower" thing.
And that's the sort of stumbling block a charismatic person can run across. Like, in my case, I could sorta see (Only after it was pointed out to me by others) how other people tended to react to me (People almost unanimously either really like me or hate my fucking guts IRL because of my personality.) and when you are just hanging out with peeps, and it starts to seem like someone is sorta maybe hanging on your words, there's only three ways you can go, you ignore them completely, which will bum them out, you can start to take advantage of them, or you can trend toward looking down your nose at them and eventually start getting kinda abusive.
When I was more of an asshole I tended toward option 3. I would get irritated at people hanging on my words and would start to kinda snipe at them and get impatient. This wasn't deliberate or anything, there wasn't any malice aforethought, it was just sorta how things could end up going until I became aware of it.
Option 2 happened maybe once or twice, but I was more aware of that sort of thing and tried to avoid it. Once in a while I still do it, but I feel like shit afterward, for what it's worth.
Option 1 has slowly become my standard. There's sorta another option, which is self deprecating humor, which Molyneux tends toward, but I grew up with enough people busting my fucking balls for one thing or another and I try my best not to do it to myself now that I'm a grownup and don't have to put up with that sort of boolsheet.
As for the follower thing, well, there's not much he can do about it, you know? I mean, ever see "Life of Brian"?
BRIAN: YOU ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!
CROWD: YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!!!
ONE DUDE IN BACK: I'm not.
ANOTHER PERSON IN BACK: SHHH!
-
I totally feel ya on the "Follower" thing.
[...]
As for the follower thing, well, there's not much he can do about it, you know?
Ya. My main question is, why do it at all?
Theres "Spreading the Word".
And theres the fame associated.
And there is, of course, the potential to expand the audience, and eventually make a living from it.
I don't know enough about his fanbase, numbers, books, projects, finances, and IRL employment, etc. to make any valid statements, so I won't bother to guess motives. Its none of my business why he does what he does.
I only know why I do what I do. And that varies from situation to situation.
-
I don't know enough about his fanbase, numbers, books, projects, finances, and IRL employment, etc. to make any valid statements, so I won't bother to guess motives. Its none of my business why he does what he does.
He quit his jerb as a software exec at a company he started to do FDR full time a couple years ago. He's spreading the liberty word pretty much. Also for the money. S'how he makes his living.
So my assessment would be promoting liberty and making cash. As I understand it he makes a living wage but nothing spectacular. Much less than at the company he left.
Promoting liberty and making cash is awesome, of course.
-
I don't know enough about his fanbase, numbers, books, projects, finances, and IRL employment, etc. to make any valid statements, so I won't bother to guess motives. Its none of my business why he does what he does.
He quit his jerb as a software exec at a company he started to do FDR full time a couple years ago. He's spreading the liberty word pretty much. Also for the money. S'how he makes his living.
So my assessment would be promoting liberty and making cash. As I understand it he makes a living wage but nothing spectacular. Much less than at the company he left.
Promoting liberty and making cash is awesome, of course.
Do what you love, love what you do.
Of course, this does require regularly generating content, maintaining fanbase, and so forth.
In so many words, it is essentially a "job". He can't exactly have a dry spell, or spend a year in exile wandering Tibet.
I'm just being conversational, not dicky. Its a different sort of media than I tend to envision, I'm not quite geared to be interactive in the arts. I'm a bit of a purist when it comes to creativity and stuff like that. An author can spend two-three years on the down-low, so can a filmmaker, for that matter.
When I investigate into people who preach things, it's usually more bookish, philosophies and films.
So cultivating fame is entirely necessary, for him to succeed. (Again, I stress, not being dicky) This does tend to stray into the arena of cultyness.
To be honest, I never realized his show was regularly broadcast. I thought he just put out stuff when he felt like it, and this thing of his was more or less a side project.
I have listened to about a half-dozen podcasts, maybe more. I know he shows up at events. His style being kind of aggressive, it kinda turns me off, and because of that, I just don't follow - like I said, none of my business. I guess you could call that ignorance, but I just don't bother with his "stuff".
-
You should hear my anti- feminist speech. The letter those bitches would write to me...
Do you actually have a beef with something in that article? Seems solid to me.
I quite reading the article after a little bit. Being a Napster I have the where with all to do just that and not be a hypocrite. I defend individuals and go after generalizations, hence my siding with the underdog most of the time. If I see American feminists going after gold diggers and other evil women who use the inherent sympathy for the "weaker" sex to gain money and power I will take it seriously. I respect the Norwegian feminist because they are very consistant on the being equal thing.
-
I have a problem with both "left libertarian" and "right libertarian" (the latter of which seems to be the assumption if you're not going with "left.") Libertarianism, in its proper sense, is neither left nor right, since left and right are indicators of how you think government should be used to control people, while libertarianism, in its proper sense, is a matter of not using government to control people. The less you think government should be used to control people, the more libertarian you are. It's kinda like a pork-loving vegan versus a beef-loving vegan.
But again, you're attributing where someone came from versus who they are now.
<<<Was once an Objectivist. Is now a market anarchist or Anarcho-Capitalist. I refuse to call myself voluntariest because I think it sounds evasive and kinda wussy.
Molyneux - Was once an Objectivist, is now a market anarchist. (Although I guess he has a thing about self identifying as a "Conclusion" and prefers to refer to himself as a philosopher.
\
No, I'm not, really. A "left libertarian" implies someone who IS left AND libertarian. I'm saying there's no such thing (just like right libertarian.)
-
I donno man, if you check the Wiki - which seems to change daily - they claim theres a whole spectrum of Libertarianism.
Seems to me, Libertarian Left would imply a person who believes in a certain amount of social programs. Take it further, you get into Anarcho-socialist, which I always thought was oxymoronic to the Nth degree.
However, if you recall the serious OWS protesters, they kinda had that vibe. So, it's not like they don't exist. I think they're out there in large numbers, confused, and prepared to claim half your shit non-violently, through force they claim to despise.
-
If feminism had anything to do with “the belief that women and men are equal and should be equally valued as human beings and have equal rights", then it would not be called "feminism".
Maybe "equalism" or "personism" or some such.
-
You should hear my anti- feminist speech. The letter those bitches would write to me...
Do you actually have a beef with something in that article? Seems solid to me.
Hey Dale, pardon my utter stupidity, but were you serious in your defense of the feminist article or were you being facetious?
-
Pay 'em a dollar at a time, right between the tits.
-
I donno man, if you check the Wiki - which seems to change daily - they claim theres a whole spectrum of Libertarianism.
Seems to me, Libertarian Left would imply a person who believes in a certain amount of social programs. Take it further, you get into Anarcho-socialist, which I always thought was oxymoronic to the Nth degree.
However, if you recall the serious OWS protesters, they kinda had that vibe. So, it's not like they don't exist. I think they're out there in large numbers, confused, and prepared to claim half your shit non-violently, through force they claim to despise.
I'd call them libertarianISH confused lefties.
-
If feminism had anything to do with “the belief that women and men are equal and should be equally valued as human beings and have equal rights", then it would not be called "feminism".
Maybe "equalism" or "personism" or some such.
This is my biggest problem with feminism, in this apparent context. If they mean it that way, they've defined themselves incorrectly from the start.
-
Seems to me, Libertarian Left would imply a person who believes in a certain amount of social programs.
I often self-describe as a left libertarian. Based on my experience with others who self-describe that way, it means sharing the goals of the left but not the tactics and libertarianism is all about tactics. It's not about where you're trying to go. It's about how you're willing to get there and what you believe will both be ethical and can actually work.
Read this article and you might get an idea why I'd might sometimes choose the term "left libertarian" or "classical liberal" to self-describe.
http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-libertarians-need-to-talk-to-left.html (http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-libertarians-need-to-talk-to-left.html)
-
Do you actually have a beef with something in that article? Seems solid to me.
Hey Dale, pardon my utter stupidity, but were you serious in your defense of the feminist article or were you being facetious?
So I'm going to interpret that as a "no", that you can't actually find anything in the article that you can actually logically dispute but rather you're just having a knee-jerk reaction to an article by feminists.
I repeat. It was very well-written and made very good points. No, not being facetious. I sincerely liked the article.
-
I'm surprised you guys would doubt my sincerity on the subject of feminism and counting myself as a feminist. It's not like I'm doing it to impress women. I don't need to. I don't need shit from them.
I understand not liking the word for the reasons given but if you obsess too much over the word, you just sound like you're making excuses to be dismissive of the actual issues, which are real. That's the word people are using. Go ahead and try to change it, but throw a bone to the issues if you want to be taken seriously.
-
Congrats. Having had "feminists" and other progressives try and use force on me I may admit a certain dislike of the ilk. I also can not stand to hear those bitches wanting to ruin men's lives over minutia like many crazies in WOW are want to do. But if you would like to die on a hill defending a article obviously written by a bunch of clueless pussy whipped men more power to ya. In a way we kind of agree. I think libertarian leftist who claim a disdain for property rights are idiots, but many bought the argument that they were welcome to build any fucking commie Paradise they wanted as long as it was voluntary in a free society. Maybe they are salvageable. The ones that just want to squat any old place are lost causes in my opinion, but hey good luck.
I happen to believe that the loony right could maybe be persuaded to follow the NAP as well. They are repugnant, but like That Freedoms Phoenix guy says "Freedom is the answer whats the question." I admit my goals are simpler because I certainly couldn't hide my thoughts on the importance of property rights. Now I would never ask you to read a article defending those shitheads while shitting on a famous libertarian, because I believe you don't like those people very much, and I don't want to waste your time. We should have the same finish line, a free society. I would argue we need to be as inclusive as possible. I would also like to add most of the loony right people I have known were very into keeping their word.
-
I think libertarian leftist who claim a disdain for property rights are idiots, but many bought the argument that they were welcome to build any fucking commie Paradise they wanted as long as it was voluntary in a free society. Maybe they are salvageable. The ones that just want to squat any old place are lost causes in my opinion, but hey good luck.
I would agree but I have met anyone who self-describes as left libertarian who doesn't respect property rights. So far, it just sounds like a straw man by people describing what they think a LL is.
We should have the same finish line, a free society.
That's just it. That's not the finish line for me. It's just a very important step in the process. We need a free society to have prosperity and to lift people out of poverty and to resolve our differences peacefully and evolve our cultures in a positive way.
For instance, I would love to end discrimination laws because they're wrong and they actually interfere with social progress. However, if we get to that point, I'll be using every peaceful, free market means at my disposal to end bad discriminatory practices. We aren't at MY notion of the finish line until we're living in a society without racism, misandry, misogyny, homophobia, poverty, etc.
And then think about this. If someone else shares my notion of the finish line (a leftist), you're not going to have as much success in persuading them of the value of a free society (that crucial step as I described it) if you aren't good at persuading them that it will help them get to their finish line better than statism will. If you're spouting off only about the issues that the right cares about and being dismissive of their issues, it won't seem like it's helpful to them at all and they will be fighting you every step of the way.
-
Seems to me, Libertarian Left would imply a person who believes in a certain amount of *social programs*.
I often self-describe as a left libertarian. Based on my experience with others who self-describe that way, it means sharing the goals of the left *but not the tactics* and libertarianism is all about tactics. It's not about where you're trying to go. It's about how you're willing to get there and what you believe will both be ethical and can actually work.
Read this article and you might get an idea why I'd might sometimes choose the term "left libertarian" or "classical liberal" to self-describe.
http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-libertarians-need-to-talk-to-left.html (http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-libertarians-need-to-talk-to-left.html)
Right. (I mean "correct".)
I put asterisks where I inadvertently failed to elaborate, and where you seem to have filled the gap.
In other words, we agree in a hasty and not beaten-to-death kinda way.
I find myself leftist in certain aspects, and conservative in others.
The article says it nicely in the following:
Most rank and file members of the political left are not hard-core socialists. They aren’t particularly fond of high taxes, but they aren’t sure how else to achieve the just society that seek. Typically, their heart is in the right place, but they don’t understand economics and the incentives that Mises talked about in his book Bureaucracy. They want to do the right thing and don’t know any other way of doing it. They often believe people need to be helped and state power should be used to achieve that.
In modern society, I feel this is basically the "norm" of our culture. Social platforms that are available, and the availability is ensured through taxation and force.
Its almost as inarguable as gravity. It simply exists. People have evolved into that basic structure.
It is because of this that I am a minarchist, out of surrender to an irresistible force of modern human sociology, and an acknowledgement that since it already exists (and is not going away) we might as well utilize the structure to provide for those who are unable to fend for themselves.
I don't argue that it is entirely correct in its purist philosophical form, but it is probably correct in our modern reality.
This is moral relativism in action, and its unlikely that I'll ever evolve beyond that because society dictates it impractical. I don't allow myself a lot of fanciful philosophical what-ifs. I'm a realist, and this is our reality. My philosophy is to keep it in-check, rather than see it achieve its ultimate ends.
The comment I made toward Ken reflects a disdain towards the further left-reaching socialists, who I believe would allow a pure Socialist utopia, who believe themselves to be "left-libertarians", and will continue to drift towards the leftist extreme.
-
So I'm going to interpret that as a "no", that you can't actually find anything in the article that you can actually logically dispute but rather you're just having a knee-jerk reaction to an article by feminists.
I repeat. It was very well-written and made very good points. No, not being facetious. I sincerely liked the article.
Hold on there, buddy. All I did was ask if you were serious. What part of my question seemed like a "knee jerk reaction?"
-
I think libertarian leftist who claim a disdain for property rights are idiots, but many bought the argument that they were welcome to build any fucking commie Paradise they wanted as long as it was voluntary in a free society. Maybe they are salvageable. The ones that just want to squat any old place are lost causes in my opinion, but hey good luck.
I would agree but I have met anyone who self-describes as left libertarian who doesn't respect property rights. So far, it just sounds like a straw man by people describing what they think a LL is.
We should have the same finish line, a free society.
That's just it. That's not the finish line for me. It's just a very important step in the process. We need a free society to have prosperity and to lift people out of poverty and to resolve our differences peacefully and evolve our cultures in a positive way.
For instance, I would love to end discrimination laws because they're wrong and they actually interfere with social progress. However, if we get to that point, I'll be using every peaceful, free market means at my disposal to end bad discriminatory practices. We aren't at MY notion of the finish line until we're living in a society without racism, misandry, misogyny, homophobia, poverty, etc.
And then think about this. If someone else shares my notion of the finish line (a leftist), you're not going to have as much success in persuading them of the value of a free society (that crucial step as I described it) if you aren't good at persuading them that it will help them get to their finish line better than statism will. If you're spouting off only about the issues that the right cares about and being dismissive of their issues, it won't seem like it's helpful to them at all and they will be fighting you every step of the way.
I look around and find the know it alls just as annoying and quick on the draw as the racists. You find a way to get charisma and group think out of the mix and I'll help you out. You should leave the echo chamber now and then, there are plenty of anarcho commies who hate property rights. One was trolling this board a while back in fact.
-
Hold on there, buddy. All I did was ask if you were serious. What part of my question seemed like a "knee jerk reaction?"
The part where there's an excellent article and instead of saying "They're wrong about X and here's why..." which I've yet to see anyone really do yet who's complaining about it, you just see "something something feminism something" and when I say it's a very well-written article, you think I'm being facetious.
Well, except for people complaining that they're using the word "feminism", and I understand the beef about that but I think it's an argument over semantics that's dodging the substance.
-
You find a way to get charisma and group think out of the mix and I'll help you out. You should leave the echo chamber now and then,
What do you even mean by that? What echo chamber am I in? The FSP?
there are plenty of anarcho commies who hate property rights. One was trolling this board a while back in fact.
Hold on there. This person specifically self-described as "left libertarian" or you are labeling him that because left libertarian means commie in your mind? It's sounds like more straw mans to me.
-
Theres only one kind of Libertarian, really. The kind of person that wants to live how they choose and wants other people do the same.
Anything else is just a bastardization of the term. Its something else entirely, which is fine. Just pick some other name to call yourself without putting the L in the title.
-
LEAVEMETHEFUCKALONIAN
I Stand by this label until all liberty people adopt it. No ambiguity.
I also kinda use "Liberty people" and "Liberty type people" a lot. Those are good ones.
LEAVEMETHEFUCKALONIANISM is also acceptable. LEAVEMETHEHECK... and LEAVEMETHEHELL... should probably also be good if kids are around.
Use it. You will never have one of these sidecar conversations picking away at all of the several hundred variations of "You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone."* floating around. All that matters is the "leaving alone" part, anyhow.
*Interesting note - When I was a lil' shit, like, maybe eight or so, (This would have been eight years before I first heard of the liberty thing from my hero, Mark Scott, at sixteen.) the phrase "You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone." was my default verbal defense against bullies. It didn't stop them of course, because they were fuckin' bullies, but it was the first internalization of the concept of the NAP that I came up with on my own. I rarely say that phrase aloud anymore because it comes off sorta juvenile, but it will forever be the default response in my internal monologue as a response to bad people.
My inner child is a pimp and always sez the right thing. My inner child sez "Why can't you just leave me alone and mind your own business?" which is just as valid and coherent question as any that the heavy hitters of the liberty movement have come up with. I mean, all the other stuff is just... explanations. Explanations are important of course, but that core issue of "You leave me alone and I leave you alone." may have been the most intelligent and insightful thing my brain has ever come up with without outside influence. Annoying that it happened when I was eight, but you know, shit happens and there's no accounting for inspiration.
-
Theres only one kind of Libertarian, really. The kind of person that wants to live how they choose and wants other people do the same.
Anything else is just a bastardization of the term. Its something else entirely, which is fine. Just pick some other name to call yourself without putting the L in the title.
He shoots and scores!
-
You find a way to get charisma and group think out of the mix and I'll help you out. You should leave the echo chamber now and then,
What do you even mean by that? What echo chamber am I in? The FSP?
there are plenty of anarcho commies who hate property rights. One was trolling this board a while back in fact.
Hold on there. This person specifically self-described as "left libertarian" or you are labeling him that because left libertarian means commie in your mind? It's sounds like more straw mans to me.
I mean Zhwazi.
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/mises'-jeff-riggenbach-shreds-zeitgeist-(sort-of)/ (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/mises'-jeff-riggenbach-shreds-zeitgeist-(sort-of)/)
Comments on youtube and fark are full of anarcho communists who want no money or private property is what I meant about echo chamber.
Why are you being so defensive lately Dale?
-
Well I don't hang around any such echo chamber. You know what my echo chamber is? You guys and people like you. I've been here for years and you guys know very well I believe in private property and money. I'm a libertarian just as you describe.
You guys all just spouted a bunch of libertarian platitudes. You've been shouting "leave me alone" for how long now and is it getting you anywhere? Is it actually converting people to libertarians who ought to be so that some people might actually take that advice and actually leave you alone? You may as well pray to the libertarian fairy.
All those platitudes completely ignored everything in both articles and all the points I was trying to make which have to do with convincing other people why the tool/tactic of libertarianism is the best way for all of us to reach our goals, even though we have different goals. You're not going to be very persuasive when your communication amounts to demanding that people leave you alone from your bunker in the woods full of guns. There are plenty of people on the left who ought to be libertarians but they want to live in the city with a bunch of people who work together and care for each other. They just don't yet realize that libertarianism is good for that too and people shouting "leave me alone!" aren't going to help them figure that out.
Someone comes along trying to offer some constructive criticism, like the kind in both those articles, and this is the kneejerk response. It's no surprise that the philosophy seems mostly isolated to a fairly specific type. You seem dead set on keeping it this exclusive private club and slapping evil intentions and convenient labels on anyone who isn't there yet. Those of us who don't fit the stereotypical libertarian type, gays, women, racial minorities--we're your ambassadors to the left. These people were once pretty damned close to what we are until socialists hijacked all their issues, and that happened fairly recently.
It just means I can be a bridge. It doesn't mean I'm smarter. I might be completely wrong about any particular topic. But fucking show some respect for my intelligence and have something substantive to say in response to my intended-to-be-constructive criticisms. You guys know I'm no idiot. I'm no anarcho-syndicalist or commie or whatever and I don't need a lesson in what libertarianism is.
So once again, I'll ask it. Does anyone have a substantive disagreement with the article that they can verbalize and respond to? I don't think I've heard even one yet.
-
For what its worth Dale, I had no problem with what was communicated in the article. Its so true!
-
+1
-
Well I don't hang around any such echo chamber. You know what my echo chamber is? You guys and people like you. I've been here for years and you guys know very well I believe in private property and money. I'm a libertarian just as you describe.
You guys all just spouted a bunch of libertarian platitudes. You've been shouting "leave me alone" for how long now and is it getting you anywhere? Is it actually converting people to libertarians who ought to be so that some people might actually take that advice and actually leave you alone? You may as well pray to the libertarian fairy.
All those platitudes completely ignored everything in both articles and all the points I was trying to make which have to do with convincing other people why the tool/tactic of libertarianism is the best way for all of us to reach our goals, even though we have different goals. You're not going to be very persuasive when your communication amounts to demanding that people leave you alone from your bunker in the woods full of guns. There are plenty of people on the left who ought to be libertarians but they want to live in the city with a bunch of people who work together and care for each other. They just don't yet realize that libertarianism is good for that too and people shouting "leave me alone!" aren't going to help them figure that out.
Someone comes along trying to offer some constructive criticism, like the kind in both those articles, and this is the kneejerk response. It's no surprise that the philosophy seems mostly isolated to a fairly specific type. You seem dead set on keeping it this exclusive private club and slapping evil intentions and convenient labels on anyone who isn't there yet. Those of us who don't fit the stereotypical libertarian type, gays, women, racial minorities--we're your ambassadors to the left. These people were once pretty damned close to what we are until socialists hijacked all their issues, and that happened fairly recently.
It just means I can be a bridge. It doesn't mean I'm smarter. I might be completely wrong about any particular topic. But fucking show some respect for my intelligence and have something substantive to say in response to my intended-to-be-constructive criticisms. You guys know I'm no idiot. I'm no anarcho-syndicalist or commie or whatever and I don't need a lesson in what libertarianism is.
So once again, I'll ask it. Does anyone have a substantive disagreement with the article that they can verbalize and respond to? I don't think I've heard even one yet.
You accused me of using straw men. I know you are smart and all that hoo haw. I also know you're stubborn as a fucking mule and don't like to hear dissenting opinion. Neither does Ian. The article says Molyneux is a conservative stuck in the '50s and we all know he himself stays home and raises his daughter. Liberals use straw men all the time "State a weak related argument and defend that instead of the real strong one" (Tutorial on liberty kids) I recognised a couple and quite waisting my time reading that drivel. Doesn't mean someone who gives a damn, won't find a important point or two in it.
I meant your friends, fellow free staters, are the echo chamber. This board is more of a shouting and insult and ban chamber. Not a lot of echo in all this racket. Besides all I meant was many of us are guilty of thinking people are not as stupid as they are because we communicate with so many libertarians. I still look at a lot of conservative stuff (most practical books are written from that angle) and it makes me wince a lot. I meet liberals all the time. I live in a socialist country remember? I have lunch with people who think the world needs ordained kings.
If I showed you disrespect I didn't mean too.
But hey you basically called me a liar a post or two ago and I am not all hurt about it.
Lets call it even OK? I don't like to do wall of text type posts.
-
So once again, I'll ask it. Does anyone have a substantive disagreement with the article that they can verbalize and respond to? I don't think I've heard even one yet.
I also know you're stubborn as a fucking mule and don't like to hear dissenting opinion.
I was dying to hear an actual opinion on something in the article instead of the usual dismissiveness just because they were defending (certain flavors of) feminism. Thank you for finally providing something. However, that said...
The article says Molyneux is a conservative stuck in the '50s and we all know he himself stays home and raises his daughter.
True, but I think they do show elements to back that up based on things he says.
Liberals use straw men all the time "State a weak related argument and defend that instead of the real strong one" (Tutorial on liberty kids) I recognised a couple and quite waisting my time reading that drivel.
One, these aren't liberals, and two, what are the straw men?
I meet liberals all the time. I live in a socialist country remember?
Why do you keep mentioning liberals? These are people who are largely in agreement with us on libertarian principles with arguably constructive feedback. They're watching Stefan's videos. They clearly agree with much of what he says. I agree with much of what he says in the very video they're referencing but they have good points. He can make all those good points without the sweeping dismissiveness of all feminism and reach more people with the message.
But hey you basically called me a liar a post or two ago...
wut
-
Molyneux generalises liberals? I have never heard him do that.
I know what you mean, :) Generalising is a bad idea anytime. I hate being refeared to as "You conservatives". Maybe when one has a soap box as large as his it would be a good idea to be as specific as possible when criticising. "The platform of NOW is..." and so forth. So you win Dale, I submit to your brilliance.
-
Say what you want about Stefan Moly-knox.
The guy can sing.
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_UDIwZAxomYk/TFQjx6AYSZI/AAAAAAAAAr0/BUeH6eW7ipw/61-phil-collins-balding-01.jpg)
-
Say what you want about Stefan Moly-knox.
Have you been listening to Wheels off Liberty?
-
Say what you want about Stefan Moly-knox.
Have you been listening to Wheels off Liberty?
Actually that was the last one that I listened to, when he was a guest, with Osama Bin Laden in heaven.
-
I lost interest in him when he became a 9-11 Truther.
-
Hold on there, buddy. All I did was ask if you were serious. What part of my question seemed like a "knee jerk reaction?"
The part where there's an excellent article and instead of saying "They're wrong about X and here's why..." which I've yet to see anyone really do yet who's complaining about it, you just see "something something feminism something" and when I say it's a very well-written article, you think I'm being facetious.
Well, except for people complaining that they're using the word "feminism", and I understand the beef about that but I think it's an argument over semantics that's dodging the substance.
I didn't write anything bad about the article. Nothing! You freaked out over my trying to ascertain if you were being serious or sarcastic.
Perhaps you should have written, "Here's why you're wrong Tom (or bob, or jim)." All you saw in my post was, "something something anti-feminism."
-
I lost interest in him when he became a 9-11 Truther.
Dude, that is absolutely untrue.
He went on Alex Jones's show a couple times. He is not a conspiracy person.
I already refuted this with you at length (With a bunch of direct quotes) the last time you said it and you never responded.
And here is the link -
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/freedomain-radio-is-basically-a-cult/msg641478/#msg641478 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/freedomain-radio-is-basically-a-cult/msg641478/#msg641478)
-
I didn't write anything bad about the article. Nothing! You freaked out over my trying to ascertain if you were being serious or sarcastic.
Hold on there buddy. You're calling this (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/today's-wtf-left-libertarian-feminists-strike-back-at-molyneux/msg651631/#msg651631) a freak out?
Perhaps you should have written, "Here's why you're wrong Tom (or bob, or jim)." All you saw in my post was, "something something anti-feminism."
Honestly, how else am I supposed to interpret it? I said it was a good article and you asked if I was being facetious which any reasonable person would interpret as you calling it a horrible article. ...yes? This is a not reasonable interpretation?
And as far as pointing out "where you're wrong" for not liking it... am I supposed to go fishing for what you disagreed with?
Pfft.
I'm still quite willing to discuss any actual and substantive criticisms when they're forthcoming.
-
Dude, you didn't even give me a "Oh yeah him" comment when I gave you the anti- property rights liberal. You got mad at me a while back when I busted on you and all the other clueless non- parents giving parental advice. Most of us regulars don't bother arguing with you more then once. If somebody went through that article and broke down all the BS in it just for your sake you would ignore any proof in it and go after some minutia in the post.
-
Dude, you didn't even give me a "Oh yeah him" comment when I gave you the anti- property rights liberal.
Don't read too much into that. All you did was link to a 7 page thread. I didn't particularly want to sift through 7 pages to find the part you were talking about where someone self-describes as a left-libertarian but doesn't believe in property rights.
I'll concede that some people do that and it sux if you'll concede that the people who wrote this article aren't the ones doing it, which would unfortunately bring us back to trying to actually talk about this article and not straw manning by talking about some other non-libertarian feminists, which was exactly the point of the article.
You got mad at me a while back when I busted on you and all the other clueless non- parents giving parental advice for expressing your opinions.
FTFY
How dare I get mad just because you told me to shut up and keep my opinions to myself. In both cases, then and now, I'm just supposed to accept that I'm wrong because... well because I just am, obviously. I mean, it would take effort to argue how I'm wrong because I'll make arguments back and stuph.
-
Of course that article only mentioned the positive things many women fought for, I could have taken it even further and pointed out how many whores and madams gained true power and freedom over history against some really nasty statist. What it didn't do was mention a lot of the evil shit they call for now, like any other liberal cause that survived beyond its goals.
I already conceded that Molyneux shouldn't collectivise them.
-
An Open Letter to Stefan Molyneux and Other anti Nazis
Stefan Molyneux’s recent video, a defense of his statement that “Nazis are big time Doo Doo Heads” (from which he takes his title) is not so much an enlightening philosophical speech as an ill-informed rant. The title of the video is intellectually dishonest, dismissing Nazis struggling for equality as panty-wearing socialists. The title panders to vulgar crunchies. The ideas expressed in this video and other videos of his that discuss National Socialism in a negative way are not only inaccurate but also dangerous, negatively influencing society's perception of what Nazism really is.
Because Molyneux’s anti-Nazi views are unfortunately shared by many libertarian men and women, we think it is important to take a stand and point out what is wrong and misguided about these views. Each one of the individuals signing this document has seen libertarians attacking Nazis without knowing what it means; people who have read nothing more than a few newspapers articles or anti-Nazi rants by others and have no idea of Nazisms rich and varied history. Their views, founded on little more than opinion, are merely knee-jerk “politically incorrect” responses that lack critical thinking and thoughtful analysis.
Anti-Nazi libertarian and conservative comments abound on Facebook and other social media. These include the usual clichés such as “Fascist,” and “Mass murderers” as well as such claims as, for example, Nazis are so trapped in their victimhood thinking that they see potential Nazi oppressors everywhere and blame everything that is wrong with their lives on ‘liberty’ and ‘wanting to have fun.’” Men who are supportive of Nazi concerns are attacked as “douchebags” and “bigger problems” than the Nazis themselves. One man even called the Association of Libertarian National Socialist an “oxymoron.” These childish and uninformed remarks by anti-Nazi people not only show how little they know about Nazism, but how little regard they have for bigots and bigots rights.
Some anti-Nazies even call Nazis “collectivist”. This is a strange misuse of the term. They confuse “collective action” with “collectivism.” The former simply means individuals working together for a common purpose, as for example, libertarianism or abolitionism. The philosophy of “collectivism” says that group goals are more important than individual goals. But the raison d'etre of Nazism is to achieve equal individual rights for every white Protestant man; to allow individual wasps to pursue their lives as they see fit rather than submit to cultural stereotypes.
Nazism is, by common definition, "Societies should do what it takes no matter what for planned human progress.” From a libertarian point of view, this stance should not be in the least controversial since libertarians also believe in equal rights for elites. Indeed, given this definition of Nazism, all libertarians, if they are consistent, should accept their arguments. This definition is the essence of Nazism to which every stripe of Nazi from Marxist to libertarian, from radical to liberal, will agree. What Nazis differ upon is how to achieve this goal of equality and equal rights. But the anti-Nazi libertarians, knowing little about the wide range of views within Nazism, selectively choose those Nazi views they find abhorrent and attack those views as if they represented all of fascism. Yet when liberals do the same to libertarians, misrepresenting a few of the most uncompassionate as representative of the whole, these same anti-Nazi libertarians howl. This is an inconsistent, hypocritical, and unfair treatment of both of these rich and vibrant intellectual traditions.
Molyneux is only the latest in a long line of these uncritical anti-Nazies. We use his videos as a starting point for analysis only because he is currently one of the most visible anti-Nazi libertarians. Like other anti-Nazi believers, he fails to actually define National Socialists before he attacks. He simply implies that the ones he selectively chooses to talk about constitute Nazism. Though Molyneux admits it isn’t accurate to say that all Nazis are doo-doo heads, he still defends his statement that Nazis are mass murderers and continues to talk as if all Nazis are indeed genocidal maniacs. This is more than an offensive accusation unsupported by sound reasoning; it represents the kind of close minded thinking Nazism tries to combat. By using this sleight-of-hand, he continues to encourage his listeners to systematically categorize all "Nazi" concerns as pitiful socialist garbage to be derided and dismissed.
In representing Nazism as a primarily socialist-dominated movement, Molyneux ignores Nazis of any other political ideology, including a long history of individualist Nazis. His definition of socialism is as unclear as his definition of Nazism; he uses the term interchangeably with “Marxism” without qualifying exactly what kind of socialists he is accusing Nazis of being. What is clear is his belief that socialists of any kind are unappealing and deserving of ridicule.
There is a belief among such anti-Nazis that Nazism is inherently fascist because it emphasizes race. This is like saying that those who oppose discrimination against people of color are racists. Such anti-Nazi thinking then assumes that Nazis must desire preferential treatment. If libertarians categorically reject every attempt to challenge the presence of privilege in our culture, we should not be too shocked when Nazis believe that the force of law is required to create a more humane and bearable space in which to exist.
Contrary to what the anti-Nazis such as Molyneux claim, Nazis have in fact played a major role in some of the most significant triumphs for individual liberty against state and private aggression in the last two Melania. In the 20th century, they were in the forefront of major movements. Everyone today who has a college education, owns property, or votes can thank these Nazis. In the 20th century, Nazis radically speeded up human progress in munitions, flight and rocket technology, and knowledge of the human body.
The radical Nazi activists that Molyneux and other anti-Nazis so unthinkingly sneer at have almost always been primarily concerned with making cities and communities run smoothly and cooperatively and after a grace period peacefully. Critical progress, especially the medically-focused efforts, were in fact constantly targeted by the regulatory state for criminalization and destruction.
In his "Nazis are Big Time Doo doo Heads" video, Molyneux states that Nazis are state-serving “creatures” and “Frankensteins,” whose primary agenda is receiving preferential treatment from the government and society, an erroneous and insulting view. He commits the error that Frédéric Bastiat defines as the core error of socialists, by “confusing the distinction between government and society.” He misrepresents the Nazi stance as categorically anti-family and requiring state intervention to fulfill. No matter that many Nazis have actually long discussed how to apply their Nazi views to marriage and family, with the intent to raise children in a traditional way that affords them the richest opportunities as adults. Their aim is not to raise children through the state as Plato asserted, but typically to raise them healthfully in an individual family with two parents. Only a handful of Nazis have actually seriously talked about dismantling the family, primarily during the Second Wave, contrary to what anti-Nazis like Molyneux claim.
Molyneux portrays Nazis as ruthless fucks, quick to cut each other down and unwilling to support successful Nazis who deviate from the underlying socialist ideology of Nazism.
Anti-Nazis have no idea what Nazis really want. Nazis are not just people who systematically kill millions of people. Nazis are people who want to be treated as people, people who should not be discriminated against. Nazism is accepting people have different ways of living and should live with like minded people.. Nazism is actually more about individualism and the desire to be evaluated based on one’s merit.
Yes, there are Nazis who are killers. There are also Nazis who are anarchists and Nazis who are libertarian separatists and Nazis who really have no political ideology but know that they deserve to be treated equally to everybody else.
The majority of Molyneux’s arguments against Nazis as well as his accusation that "Nazis are big doo doo heads” are grounded in flawed and misguided rhetoric as are the arguments of other anti-Nazi people. In reality, Nazism attracts a diverse group of people just as any other idea or philosophy does. To attempt to diminish the impact of Nazism and redefine it as an objectionable philosophy is repugnant. The statement itself is inherently elitist and is the kind of thinking that Nazism—true Nazism—works and forces people, if possible, to change.
This is a collective rejoinder written and agreed upon by the following signers
1-31-2012.
Nobody, because this sort of paper is totally a joke.
-
You just spent was appears to be a lot of time to analogize two philosophies that are practically polar opposites. You compared a philosophy of equal rights to a philosophy of elitism and eugenics that attempted to commit genocide and mass murder of other undesirables.
So an article attempts to point out that a movement to stop treating women like property, that got them the right to vote, that's still working to get society to give them the same options as men and to be judged by similar standards, is basically a good idea that is sometimes hijacked by statists to get people to see the state as the solution to their problems, but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. An article like that is NO DIFFERENT than an article defending Nazis.
Is that the point you're hoping to make?
-
You just spent was appears to be a lot of time to analogize two philosophies that are practically polar opposites. You compared a philosophy of equal rights to a philosophy of elitism and eugenics that attempted to commit genocide and mass murder of other undesirables.
So an article attempt to point out that a movement to stop treating women like property, that got them the right to vote, that's still working to get society to give them the same options as men and to be judged by similar standards, is basically a good idea that is sometimes hijacked by statists to get people to see the state as the solution to their problems, but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. An article like that is NO DIFFERENT than an article defending Nazis.
Is that the point you're hoping to make?
Naw I just switched "Nazi" for "feminist" in the original article like a old Mad magizine do it yourself gag. I thought Nazi would be obvious enough. Took about half an hour.
-
Honestly, how else am I supposed to interpret it? I said it was a good article and you asked if I was being facetious which any reasonable person would interpret as you calling it a horrible article. ...yes? This is a not reasonable interpretation?
And as far as pointing out "where you're wrong" for not liking it... am I supposed to go fishing for what you disagreed with?
Pfft.
I'm still quite willing to discuss any actual and substantive criticisms when they're forthcoming.
This is the internet. Its hard to tell if people are being sarcastic. Asking if someone is serious or not doesn't mean anything other than.....asking if someone is being serious.
-
Surely, you jest.
-
No, and don't call me Shirley.
-
For the record, I agree in theory with the "Leave Me Alone" concept. But it doesn't work, because reality is currently in action, operating on a completely different conceptual plane.
Heres a gun analogy... Theres no reason for me to learn to target shoot with my scope doped for hundred-mph Westerly crosswinds, if they're consistently blowing 2mph to the right.
So, while the philosophy might be interesting, and even sound, in a political vacuum.. this is not a political vacuum - which makes the inspection of the philosophy a mental exercise in theory, and Reductio ad Absurdum in working theory as a path to practice.
Is mental exercise important, and understanding theory important? Sure, thats how evolution happens. As long as its understood evolution usually takes many generations, and people don't self-destruct because of the human aspect of unfulfilled gratification.
-
Still, as time passes, the world becomes more free as a whole, and more civilized in the terms of leavemethefuckaloneianism. If one propagates the idea that a greater world can be had if everyone supports leavingeveryonethefuckalone, I think the world can advance more quickly to the state it's apparently approaching.
-
Still, as time passes, the world becomes more free as a whole, and more civilized in the terms of leavemethefuckaloneianism. If one propagates the idea that a greater world can be had if everyone supports leavingeveryonethefuckalone, I think the world can advance more quickly to the state it's apparently approaching.
Thats a nice thought.
But theres perhaps dozens of facets to this theory. Lets examine just two of them...
Me versus you. We apparently agree with this theory. But a lot of people don't. A lot of people like to commit personal crimes, and/or use the state to infringe upon others whos philosophy differs - like the Moral Right, who want to interfere in your body, sex life, and thoughts. They want to regulate what you consume, who you have sex with and/or marry, and what you are legally allowed to read - what is taught in schools (evolution).
So right there, theres not much leaving alone.
Next, secondly - me versus the State. They're not getting smaller. In fact, the opposite. As they lean towards satisfying the Moral fucks, they enact more laws, which requires more policing, thus hiring more enforcers and bureaucrats, which requires more taxes. Thats a very big job generator.
So, not only are individuals encroaching on my civil liberties, but groups of legislative bodies, as well.
So, I don't think its getting more free, in concept or practice. I can wish for that, and my philosophy can be that, but that doesn't make it so.
I think we are being given the illusion of approaching more freedom by commercialism. Between social media and smartphones "freeing" us, splattering "free free free" on TV with people running through fields of daises because their dishwasher liquid kicks ass, and cars getting 10mpg more while gas doubles, I think its a sham.
The sad part is, college kids are licking it up like gravy, and the adults just don't fucking care anymore. It *IS* bread and circus, as much as I hate to use the term. People get repetedly exposed to something awful, they draw it back and re-introduce it a year later. And because its not so shocking the second time, it creates less outrage. And eventually, it is accepted.
If it was two steps forward, one step back, I'd be okay with it.
But its one step forward, two steps back, and that equals a negative. Eventually, they satiate people with a larger win, occasionally. Like civil rights, or the repeal of prohibition.
We get civil rights amendments, and theres actually a RISE in minorities in jail. We get a repeal in alcohol prohibition, and now theres actually ten-fold of people getting busted for alcohol infractions, as opposed to 1930. Much of that is due to technology. And I love technology, so that hurts to say, but it's true. We all know Moores Law. If legislative morality enforcement grows faster than societal tolerance, which it is, we will continue to get fucked in greater numbers by various methods of law enforcement faster than we can repeal antiquated concepts.
The only real answer on the individual level is to comply with the general will of society, and to be as subversive as possible to protect the self. We can "fight" for the future, but we have to live in the "now".
In a way, the fighting part is more like art than anything else, because it can please the self and the audience, or inflame them, but it usually does no appreciable good in the immediate sense. It creates discussion and controversy, which eventually leads to enlightenment. But it still takes many years to be fully absorbed and become a part of the larger movement. There are very few "masterpieces", instead, there are periods. And it is those periods that ultimately survive or fail, typically not the individual.
-
I appreciate that, but we tend to look at the world through a western, or even American, lens. It's undeniable the western world, and in particular, the US is in a decline of liberty, be it temporary or permanent. Yet, there are so many places in the world, such as China and previously Soviet Bloc countries, that are becoming more free.
Clearly, we are plunging into the dregs of corporate sewage here, but in places like those above, there's much less allegiance to corporate IP and ownership of so much, and rather a more early rebellion against it. The people who lived under failed state socialism (even in a place like China, where the government didn't fail, but the system clearly did) have a cynicism western libertarians can only dream their neighbors would have.
So yes, I understand the frustration here, which I, myself, share. Still, if you talk with many ISIL types, you'll find a much more upbeat perspective, because of this contrast, than those of us who are so closely focused on what happens here.
I truly think it is the western dependency on the state to provide "law and order" that allowed that "law and order" to go to the highest bidder in a new form of serfdom that Hayek predicted. I suspect as time passes, things will, gradually, get better as a whole. Of course, if this is correct, people have to see the state for what it is: a tool of the same lords that ran Europe before and through the enlightenment, not a "free" public.
As for technology, it slightly favors the independent mind, who can use it more creatively. The structure that the system puts on technology limits it in ways that free minds do not--look at "open software" versus corporate software. With the gobs of money put into corporate software, many of the most innovative uses (often illegal, which is no accident) are by those participating in the open software, and frankly, these people will probably eventually be instrumental in bringing down various states. I think these are the people you speak of, fighting for the future, and in the long term, I see them winning.
-
There's a documentary that examines this economic phenomenon. I think it might be Steal this Movie, but not sure. It talked about how the U.S., somewhere around the Clinton era, started to plan an economy based primarily on exports via IP and copyright and how it was such a horrible mistake that is backfiring.
-
There's a documentary that examines this economic phenomenon. I think it might be Steal this Movie, but not sure. It talked about how the U.S., somewhere around the Clinton era, started to plan an economy based primarily on exports via IP and copyright and how it was such a horrible mistake that is backfiring.
Hmm...that sounds interesting. I saw one called Steal this Movie, but it was the Abbie Hoffman documentary (he wrote a book entitled "Steal this Book," which was a sort of proto agorist thing.)