Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Truth Documentary--Trailer by Stefan Molyneux

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 5:37:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Molyneux talks about how language can be cleverly used to control people. The full documentary should be coming out soon.

What are your thoughts on the concepts discussed here?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 5:39:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Language has a transgressive effect on the subject? OMG revolutionary!!!!>!>
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 8:47:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2013 5:37:45 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Molyneux talks about how language can be cleverly used to control people. The full documentary should be coming out soon.



What are your thoughts on the concepts discussed here?

Funny how the first half of the video fits so perfect with Michelle Bachman and the Tea Party line, then it deviates to the opposite side of the spectrum when gets to the evils of the state.

I think there are some useful ideas and concepts here, but it is so filled with emotive language and unsubstantiated baseline assumptions that it is tough to take serious.

It looks like a great video if you want to commiserate with hard core libertarians, but nothing new here.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that "the state" exists in nature. It is human nature, animal nature, and even in the nature of living things that there is some type of order that the group must conform to. It is not just a matter of words. The state will always exist in some type of fashion, it is just a matter of who has the power over the group to create and enforce the rules.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 9:09:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2013 8:47:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/3/2013 5:37:45 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Molyneux talks about how language can be cleverly used to control people. The full documentary should be coming out soon.



What are your thoughts on the concepts discussed here?

Funny how the first half of the video fits so perfect with Michelle Bachman and the Tea Party line, then it deviates to the opposite side of the spectrum when gets to the evils of the state.

I think there are some useful ideas and concepts here, but it is so filled with emotive language and unsubstantiated baseline assumptions that it is tough to take serious.

It looks like a great video if you want to commiserate with hard core libertarians, but nothing new here.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that "the state" exists in nature. It is human nature, animal nature, and even in the nature of living things that there is some type of order that the group must conform to. It is not just a matter of words. The state will always exist in some type of fashion, it is just a matter of who has the power over the group to create and enforce the rules.

You define the State as "some type of order that the group must conform to"?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 11:03:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2013 9:09:01 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/3/2013 8:47:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/3/2013 5:37:45 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Molyneux talks about how language can be cleverly used to control people. The full documentary should be coming out soon.



What are your thoughts on the concepts discussed here?

Funny how the first half of the video fits so perfect with Michelle Bachman and the Tea Party line, then it deviates to the opposite side of the spectrum when gets to the evils of the state.

I think there are some useful ideas and concepts here, but it is so filled with emotive language and unsubstantiated baseline assumptions that it is tough to take serious.

It looks like a great video if you want to commiserate with hard core libertarians, but nothing new here.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that "the state" exists in nature. It is human nature, animal nature, and even in the nature of living things that there is some type of order that the group must conform to. It is not just a matter of words. The state will always exist in some type of fashion, it is just a matter of who has the power over the group to create and enforce the rules.

You define the State as "some type of order that the group must conform to"?

In a generic sense yes. The state can be a country that has the authority over an individual, a troop of baboons lead by the big cheese baboon that has authority over the individuals in the group, a hive of 50,000 honey bees, or even a commune of people living together.

Are all those examples where the "state" has the power to rule over the individuals in the group? Is that power/authority obtained merely from words?

When two or more people get together there is arguably always a "state".
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 12:48:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2013 11:03:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/3/2013 9:09:01 PM, Noumena wrote:
You define the State as "some type of order that the group must conform to"?

In a generic sense yes. The state can be a country that has the authority over an individual, a troop of baboons lead by the big cheese baboon that has authority over the individuals in the group, a hive of 50,000 honey bees, or even a commune of people living together.

Are all those examples where the "state" has the power to rule over the individuals in the group? Is that power/authority obtained merely from words?

When two or more people get together there is arguably always a "state".

gold
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 7:14:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2013 11:03:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/3/2013 9:09:01 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/3/2013 8:47:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/3/2013 5:37:45 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Molyneux talks about how language can be cleverly used to control people. The full documentary should be coming out soon.



What are your thoughts on the concepts discussed here?

Funny how the first half of the video fits so perfect with Michelle Bachman and the Tea Party line, then it deviates to the opposite side of the spectrum when gets to the evils of the state.

I think there are some useful ideas and concepts here, but it is so filled with emotive language and unsubstantiated baseline assumptions that it is tough to take serious.

It looks like a great video if you want to commiserate with hard core libertarians, but nothing new here.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that "the state" exists in nature. It is human nature, animal nature, and even in the nature of living things that there is some type of order that the group must conform to. It is not just a matter of words. The state will always exist in some type of fashion, it is just a matter of who has the power over the group to create and enforce the rules.

You define the State as "some type of order that the group must conform to"?

In a generic sense yes. The state can be a country that has the authority over an individual, a troop of baboons lead by the big cheese baboon that has authority over the individuals in the group, a hive of 50,000 honey bees, or even a commune of people living together.

Are all those examples where the "state" has the power to rule over the individuals in the group? Is that power/authority obtained merely from words?

When two or more people get together there is arguably always a "state".

Then it follows that you think there is only a non-State when one is in complete seclusion from the outside world correct?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 8:03:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 7:14:54 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/3/2013 11:03:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/3/2013 9:09:01 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/3/2013 8:47:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/3/2013 5:37:45 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Molyneux talks about how language can be cleverly used to control people. The full documentary should be coming out soon.



What are your thoughts on the concepts discussed here?

Funny how the first half of the video fits so perfect with Michelle Bachman and the Tea Party line, then it deviates to the opposite side of the spectrum when gets to the evils of the state.

I think there are some useful ideas and concepts here, but it is so filled with emotive language and unsubstantiated baseline assumptions that it is tough to take serious.

It looks like a great video if you want to commiserate with hard core libertarians, but nothing new here.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that "the state" exists in nature. It is human nature, animal nature, and even in the nature of living things that there is some type of order that the group must conform to. It is not just a matter of words. The state will always exist in some type of fashion, it is just a matter of who has the power over the group to create and enforce the rules.

You define the State as "some type of order that the group must conform to"?

In a generic sense yes. The state can be a country that has the authority over an individual, a troop of baboons lead by the big cheese baboon that has authority over the individuals in the group, a hive of 50,000 honey bees, or even a commune of people living together.

Are all those examples where the "state" has the power to rule over the individuals in the group? Is that power/authority obtained merely from words?

When two or more people get together there is arguably always a "state".

Then it follows that you think there is only a non-State when one is in complete seclusion from the outside world correct?

I'm ambivalent either way. I'm not certain I care what the definition of the state is. I'm speaking in terms of the video and it's definitions.

The video says the state is a collection of individuals who have the power to use legal violence. A commune that kicks out a member because they are stealing is exactly that. A father who spanks his child because he did something wrong is exactly that.

My point was that the state is not merely exist because of words. It exists because humanity is a social creature and there is no such thing as an anarchy that does not have some type of use of sanctioned "violence" or legal enforcement when people are in functional groups.

What this fundamentally means is that the focus should be on the restrictions that the state places upon itself to protect those it rules over from itself not on eliminating the state.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 8:04:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 7:14:54 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/3/2013 11:03:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/3/2013 9:09:01 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/3/2013 8:47:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/3/2013 5:37:45 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Molyneux talks about how language can be cleverly used to control people. The full documentary should be coming out soon.



What are your thoughts on the concepts discussed here?

Funny how the first half of the video fits so perfect with Michelle Bachman and the Tea Party line, then it deviates to the opposite side of the spectrum when gets to the evils of the state.

I think there are some useful ideas and concepts here, but it is so filled with emotive language and unsubstantiated baseline assumptions that it is tough to take serious.

It looks like a great video if you want to commiserate with hard core libertarians, but nothing new here.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that "the state" exists in nature. It is human nature, animal nature, and even in the nature of living things that there is some type of order that the group must conform to. It is not just a matter of words. The state will always exist in some type of fashion, it is just a matter of who has the power over the group to create and enforce the rules.

You define the State as "some type of order that the group must conform to"?

In a generic sense yes. The state can be a country that has the authority over an individual, a troop of baboons lead by the big cheese baboon that has authority over the individuals in the group, a hive of 50,000 honey bees, or even a commune of people living together.

Are all those examples where the "state" has the power to rule over the individuals in the group? Is that power/authority obtained merely from words?

When two or more people get together there is arguably always a "state".

Then it follows that you think there is only a non-State when one is in complete seclusion from the outside world correct?

No, there's a state even then. Even in isolation, things conform to physical laws.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 1:09:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think slo it the nail on the head. Molyneux starts out with an appeal to right-wing populism, utter ignorance coupled with strong opinion: "It seems like--" Stop right there, Molyneux. How exactly can national, let alone global policy, seem to have this or that national or global effect from the confined perspective of an individual? What he really means is of course that ideology dictates that, in this case, all intervention is futile. Not only can't he substantiate his claims, but indeed even his own examples are easily disproven: anti-poverty policies have the intended effect, not the opposite (http://www.lisdatacenter.org...); anti-drug policies, particularly on the demand-side, have the intended effect, not the opposite (http://en.wikipedia.org...); etc.

But kudos to Molyneux for next turning around and offending his right-wing populist audience by suggesting that the national identity they so often oppose to government is itself defined by government. The problem is, while first identifying government with ever-changing laws, he then identifies it with a monopoly on violence. Why does violence have to be monopolistic in order to impose ever-changing laws? Since monopoly is a term borrowed from economics, a case of market power, let me use a market analogy. In perfect competition, the antithesis of monopoly, the basic agent is said to be a price-taker. It has no discretion whatsoever. It's instead ruled, not by an identifiable (perchance made responsible) agency or legislature, but rather by the "invisible" (thus unaccountable) and unconscious decree of uncoordinated despots.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 2:28:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Molyneux is a plagiarising idiot (I use both terms independently - he steals from other philosophers Locke/Kant and claims it as his own ideas e.g. UPB, "self-detonating statements", etc. as well as claims things that are just plain mad e.g. his dialogues with David Gordon are demonstrable of this), and on the basis that with scarce time and a near infinite amount of good philosophy out there, going through his work can only work as a cathartic adventure.

To just deal with a few strawmen quickly now: I am not claiming his position of anarcho-capitalism is idiotic. I think an-cap has flaws, more so than some political philosophies, but less so than some of its rivals (e.g. absolute conservatism; Stirner's political philosophy). I think many an-caps have had great ideas, Rothbard being one of them. Moreover, I think Cody on this site puts forth a great defence of anarchism generally. To use an analogous case, however: I think Burke and Disraeli and Oakeshott did great work for conservatism, but Hooker for example[1] is someone I disdain for his writings, or Filmer similarly. I politely disagree with Rothbard, but I just downright disdain Molyneux.

Moreover, I do not claim Molyneux is an idiot in all respects. Indeed, one ought to study him for his great use of rhetoric, honed by many years if not decades of radio presentation. However, philosophically he writes a combination of re-invention of neologisms which already exist (such as the aforementioned "self-detonating statement"), rehashes arguments claiming innovation (his defences of UPB are almost entirely Kantian), or simply balderdash disguised as intelligent prose. Again, I would take detailed notes from a class he taught on rhetoric. However, in his political philosophy, I find him wanting to say the least. To be clear, this is not an ad hominem: I am not saying "Do not listen to him because he is an idiot" and that is all. I am saying "Do not listen to him, because his arguments are a combination of incredibly bad philosophy, combined with the work of his betters, with a touch of arrogance sprinkled over the whole argument." However, I am as an epiphenomena calling him, in regards to political philosophy, an idiot.

With that out of the way, let's talk about the power of language. Language convinces people of many things, including things they would normally not believe. Moreover, when combined with the normal populism of Molyneux and a great use of Manichean fearmongering, people can be made to believe practically anything with the right speaker. The difference is, we live in a society where every opinion can be voiced. The reason why some are not popular, however, is because different people react differently to the same piece of rhetoric. The phrase "you can people all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot please all of the people, all of the time" comes to mind. Thus, keep in mind that rhetoric works wonders but only at the right target audience.

1 - Conservatism due to its history generally has had quite strong writers, so I can only name one example from my head, though others can inform me of other conservatives to disdain I shall add them to the list
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 9:51:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 2:28:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Molyneux is a plagiarising idiot (I use both terms independently - he steals from other philosophers Locke/Kant and claims it as his own ideas e.g. UPB, "self-detonating statements", etc. as well as claims things that are just plain mad e.g. his dialogues with David Gordon are demonstrable of this)

Their dialogues were going on at the time when I was an Ancap and perused the Mises site frequently and even then I'd have agreed with you on that point. At the time I preferred Hoppe who, as bad as he might be, at least had the good sense to study under Habermas (gettin dat book learnin).

, and on the basis that with scarce time and a near infinite amount of good philosophy out there, going through his work can only work as a cathartic adventure.

To just deal with a few strawmen quickly now: I am not claiming his position of anarcho-capitalism is idiotic. I think an-cap has flaws, more so than some political philosophies, but less so than some of its rivals (e.g. absolute conservatism; Stirner's political philosophy)

I've only had limited experience with Stirner's philosophy but I see a lot of potential in it ready to be developed (well that's not entirely true, the poststructuralists seem to have a whirl with him); potential which, unfortunately, is masked by the obtuse ultra-individualism that he seems to put off. Even those who agree with him (Lk for example) seem to be mistaken as to what his 'intentions' and philosophical program were. Where many (who might well agree or disagree) might see an obvious case of "me, me, me!", one could instead interpret his philosophy as the search for a jumping off point in the resistance of power. That is, recognizing the external effects of power (though I disagree with his interpretations there i.e., seeing any and all external influence as corrosive-- I'm not in disagreement with those who recognize and disagree with this tenet of his thought) while at the same time searching for that internal point of departure in the individual psyche that would serve to make the entire project of resistance possible.

. I think many an-caps have had great ideas, Rothbard being one of them. Moreover, I think Cody on this site puts forth a great defence of anarchism generally. To use an analogous case, however: I think Burke and Disraeli and Oakeshott did great work for conservatism, but Hooker for example[1] is someone I disdain for his writings, or Filmer similarly. I politely disagree with Rothbard, but I just downright disdain Molyneux.

Rothbard is meh, though infinitely preferable to Molyneux. All I'll say is that whereas Molyneux's philosophy is a shallow blending of Lockean and Kantian ethics, Rothbard's is a coherent synthesis of Thomism, Aristotlianism, and Lockeanism. It goes without saying that Rothbard was much more finely tuned to the subtleties of the Scholastics and (possible) libertarian implications of Aristotle. His only problem was that the concepts he was working with were bad, not his understanding/application of them or the originality of his conclusions.

Moreover, I do not claim Molyneux is an idiot in all respects. Indeed, one ought to study him for his great use of rhetoric, honed by many years if not decades of radio presentation. However, philosophically he writes a combination of re-invention of neologisms which already exist (such as the aforementioned "self-detonating statement"), rehashes arguments claiming innovation (his defences of UPB are almost entirely Kantian), or simply balderdash disguised as intelligent prose. Again, I would take detailed notes from a class he taught on rhetoric. However, in his political philosophy, I find him wanting to say the least. To be clear, this is not an ad hominem: I am not saying "Do not listen to him because he is an idiot" and that is all. I am saying "Do not listen to him, because his arguments are a combination of incredibly bad philosophy, combined with the work of his betters, with a touch of arrogance sprinkled over the whole argument." However, I am as an epiphenomena calling him, in regards to political philosophy, an idiot.

Agreed.

With that out of the way, let's talk about the power of language. Language convinces people of many things, including things they would normally not believe. Moreover, when combined with the normal populism of Molyneux and a great use of Manichean fearmongering, people can be made to believe practically anything with the right speaker. The difference is, we live in a society where every opinion can be voiced. The reason why some are not popular, however, is because different people react differently to the same piece of rhetoric. The phrase "you can people all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot please all of the people, all of the time" comes to mind. Thus, keep in mind that rhetoric works wonders but only at the right target audience.

1 - Conservatism due to its history generally has had quite strong writers, so I can only name one example from my head, though others can inform me of other conservatives to disdain I shall add them to the list
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.