He didn’t actually read the article beforehand, but he began shooting a video anyway?
Anyway, as far as I know, RP’s constitutional position is relative; that is, he’d rather have a constitutional government than what there is now.
Also, Stefbot is being a hypocrite too for having a copyright notice on his website.
Btw, I never expected WB to write on Stefbot. I figured he had more important stuff to write about.
That, plus I don’t seem to remember anyone (certainly not Ron Paul) arguing that his goal was to turn the state into a virtuous organization. The whole thing sounds like a straw man to me.
I still haven’t had much exposure to him, but the more I get, the more Molyneux strikes me as a type of self-important Randian.
Have you watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fUYS_qimH ? It’s Stefbot on Adam Kokesh’s show on RT. What the hell is Stefbot doing to state-funded programming? Why isn’t he calling out Adam Kokesh for getting paid by the Russian government to host a TV show? Stefbot has lost brownie points with me.
That url doesn’t work, but I’m sorry, someone who is anti-state is supposed to stay away from state-funded things or they “lose brownie points”? I suppose Molyneux lost brownie points for driving on the state-funded road to purchase the equipment necessary to do his videos too, eh? Or how about attending state funded schools? He’s a worthless hypocrite I suppose?
“No” to all your questions.
Here’s the link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fUYS_qimH8
He lost brownie points for calling out RP and not AK (he hasn’t, as far as I know).
I thought this was funny.
That was awesome.
Great vid. Thanks for sharing.
Just in case you needed more proof that Ron Paul is a voluntarist (and a badass):
“…we endorse an idea of voluntarism and self-responsiblity…”
Stefan Molyneux has also been on the Keiser Report, and interviewed by a few RT reporters directly I think.
He’s a KGB agent, I tell you. He has secret briefings weekly with Vladimir Putin, and the robot zombie Stalin. RT itself is a psyop to make America hopelessly depressed, neurotic and paranoid, so that you will welcome your benevolent Soviet liberators. 
Seriously, he does miss the point about Ron Paul. The point is that the goal of a sectarian movement is to reach the tipping point from where it can potentially become common belief and general knowledge. Ron Paul puts the mainstream in a very awkward position. An idea is first widely ignored, then widely ridiculed, then widely accepted. You have to somehow get from step 1 to step 2, and you do it by forcing the mainstream to pay attention. Only someone in Ron Paul’s position can really do that.
First the weird cultish “split from your family” ideas, and now Molyneux is bashing Paul? Serious amount of respect lost. Of course he’s not going to out right call himself an anarchist. If Paul is elected, or his ideas spread because of his platform, we might not see the removal of the state, but we would see more liberty. More liberty > less liberty. You can’t expect anarchy to come all at once.
No one individual can bring about anarcho capitalism. At best, the choice we are all confronted with is less liberty or more liberty. As long as someone chooses the latter, they are helping us. Asking whether someone acts 100% by purist libertarian principles isn’t morally relevant - “should” implies “can”.
At best, the choice we are all confronted with is less liberty or more liberty. As long as someone chooses the former, they are helping us.
Other way around. Edit: Ok, fixed now.
No one individual can bring about anarcho capitalism.
Yep, it’s a mindset.
Check again. Trolololol.
Well, my quote keeps it in history 
Right, which is why even Ron Paul himself says it’s about people’s ideas of what the role of government ought to be (and no, that doesn’t mean he personally believes government even has a role to play…it’s just a figure of speech). He talks about ideas. And as Block said, Paul’s done more to change mindsets, and has changed more minds than someone like Molyneux could ever hope to, and so Molyneux spends all his time building straw men about Ron Paul being a “savior” who believes “the state can be turned to virtue”.
Really just watch the video. It oozes with indignation. He’s so pissed that he spends so much time trying to be what he thinks is consistent, begging for donations and peddling his stupid videos, while someone he considers (at least in some ways) a hypocrite gets all the attention and has made more of an impact than he ever will.
I don’t think molyneux has issues with attention/jealousy. Just intuitively.
“Intuitively” is an adverb. That last sentence isn’t really a sentence. I don’t get what you’re trying say.
Either way I think Molyneux’s position is obvious. You can’t be that self-righteous without having jealous tendencies. I’m not the only one who has likened him to Rand. Someone else in a private chat with me just yesterday called him “Rand 2.0”. That came only minutes after I made this post saying basically the same thing.
And then when I brought up Molyneux with someone else in a private chat, they said the same. Really, check my quick list of quibbles and tell me that guy doesn’t have issues.
I always confuse Ayn Rand and Rand Paul…
I meant that I just intuitively don’t think Molyneux has ego-issues with Ron Paul. I could be wrong though.
Your problems with Molyneux are mostly legitimate. Molyneux strikes me as very self absorbed, and even a little exhibitionist. Those aspects don’t really bother me, and I don’t think they mean that he’s jealous of others’ success. I can see him disliking people like Ron Paul and Block on cultural/personal grounds alone, but I don’t think its because he has a huge ego or is worried that they’re taking away from his audience. It probably has something about all the ultraviolent sociopath republicans that the teaparty attracts. “Durr durr the right to hunt is in the constitution” kind of self serving neurosis. I completely agree with the repulsiveness of most Paul supporters, and I think Molyneux projects their crudeness onto Paul. Hence anti-Paul.
My real issue with Molyneux is that I think he’s 90% right, but the liberty movement needs someone who is more like 98% right and openly recognizes the other 2%. Personally I’m open to the idea that I’m 5% “wrong”, and even maybe 80% “ignorant”. A good way to do this is like Bryan Caplan does - by considering several “even if” scenarios. This is different from what Molyneux does when he considers multiple possible objections, because they aren’t “layered”. They’re independent and if you pierce one you pierce the core. This is exacerbated in Molyneux because most of the standard anarcho-libertarian arguments aren’t that good in the first place.
(I am an anarcho libertarian)