He just had two recorded debates in the last week or so. Just email him or something.
I just realized that in addition to the similarities of UPB and Argumentation Ethics, Molyneux and Hoppe share a dislike of these rocker types. I think Molyneux has tried to argue something along the lines of tattoos, piercings and otherwise “countercultural” hairstyles, clothing etc is objectively bad and evidence that a person is damaged goods (referring to childhood abuse).
Which brings me to a good point on Molyneux: he has made some good contributions to libertarians, but he’s heading down the same loony cult leader path of Rand.
I think that is a major distortion as far as I know (though I don’t know how many times I’ve seen people make UPB into something strange that I never read when I happened to read this book). I have not really heard anything that extreme from Hoppe or Molyneux in regards to punk rockers. I would say they both reject the idea that we have to appeal to certain people by means of compromising. Hoppe probably disagree with the idea that libertarianism should be sold as “cool” to people who don’t have very mature minds. Hoppe and Molyneux are more concerned with what they think is correct than targeting fads and subcultures (Wilton Alston, I believe, said recently that if people can be too easily convinced of something then the person being convinced probably is far too easily swayed).
I respect this attitude on both of their parts. Because philosophically, people will tend be as smart and serious about something as you treat them in a conversation. You’d really be surprised. And that should be encouraged.
About it being “objectively bad” to have hair and clothing styles: UPB, as I understand it, is a way of testing certain theories instead of labeling individual actions. It is not something so specific. I think this idea should be better understood (it definitely doesn’t have anything to do with child abuse).
What I was referring to with Hoppe was only a brief comment (I think it was in an interview with someone) saying something to the effect of being fed up with there being too many drug using rock n rollers in the libertarian movement. I wouldn’ say this is all that extreme although I do disagree with it.
With Molyneux I was not referring to UPB, but rather things I have heard him say in podcasts and on the FDR board. I am glad you don’t think piercings and tattoos have anything to do with child abuse, but that is not Molyneux’s position. I’ve heard him say that people get them when they leave home and aren’t used to not being abused so they get tatts and piercings as a way to self mutilate.
Oh, I’m saying that UPB the book doesn’t have much to do with that position. Nor with child abuse.
And I agree with Hoppe and Molyneux that drug and alcohol abuse is bad. If those people are in the movement, I wish them the best of luck of getting over it and becoming healthy. I’m not certain what to think about people with tattoos and piercings, but I doubt that that is very far off from the truth. Maybe you could ask a psychologist. Though I don’t know what he said specifically (I’ll take your word for it).
Molyneux tends to be for helping these people or encouraging that they get help from professional therapy. Hoppe is an economics guy and I can understand if he doesn’t have an interest or time to address that issue.
Maybe there are some cases where this happens, but I’m not convinced that everyone with a nosering or a tat did it because they needed to reenact some childhood trauma.
I thought the whole emo scene’s basic function was admitting all of that.
Not to belittle them – I have major sympathy – but I thought much of this was already understood in pop culture.
Sounds like Hoppe and Molyneux are cantankerous old men, “Why, back in my day, only sailors had tatoos. And I walked over jagged volcanic glass to school with no shoes, uphill both ways.” When it comes to judging what kind of image to project, I don’t think we should take the advice of either; I mean, does anyone who is not already interested in these ideas ever hear their names? “I’m a little bit punk rock, I’m a little bit jazz and soul”. Anyway. Ramble.
Hoppe’s main objection is people confusing libertarianism with libertinism. I haven’t read DTGTF yet but from what I understand he says that the state is the main cause of the process of decivilization, hence the incoherence of paleoconservatism. Most of the arguments from Hoppe that I’ve read I agree with though, especially in regards to the family and “alternative lifestyles” that I really don’t think belong in a free society.
How ridiculous.
Libertinism is not a philosophically sound concept – it’s just a word social conservatives, like Hoppe, use to tag things they don’t like. Conservatism and libertarianism are polar opposites. A brief look at the history of western Enlightenment should make that clear.
As to Molyneux’s psychological theories, they’re a joke…
Because it hits too close to home for you and Giles.
Having objections to Jeebus AND the piercings both is just going to far, I imagine. Once you can’t be a cold distant conservative or a laissez faire libertine…
Of course, you can still be both. No one is going to spank you for it. Ha!
It seems to me that you have an irrational hatred of Molyneux, since everytime he comes up you go on a long tirade about how bad he allegedly is. And just because someone respects him or has gotten some influence from him doesn’t mean they are a total “fanboy”. Lighten up, you’re acting like you hava stick up your ass.
It “converted” just as many libertarians to paleoconservatives and anti-voting anarchists to political libertarians with restored faith in the political process and restored reverance for the constitution, so it’s hardly a one way street.
He just had a debate with an Objectivist.
I agree. Different strokes for different libertarian folks – if one is a rationalist and also not religious, then some authors will be appealing. Cut us some slack if we have other worldviews than the Judeo-Christian one… or other typical atheist ones. Both of those views tend to be implicit (and often times explicit) attacks on people, as well. Let us not forget that. And I certainly would not post here if I thought that Christians were absolutely immoral or unintelligent.
No. Having objections to tattoos and piercings is simply silly. I don’t see why Molyneux should get away with making irrational comments, regardless of the pseudo scientific psychological theories he might invoke.
I didn’t understand the rest of your message.
No such thing as a libertine, eh?
-Jon
Well, my objection to that comes through in simply not having tattoos or piercings. I do not find that to be silly.
Loser computer nerds? As opposed to what? Macho economics professors?
I notice a different trend. I notice that LewRockwell.com at least carries a certain lets call it a gentlemany flavour. For example there can barely pass a month without an article on ties. Just as Hoppe complains association of libertarianism with drug using rockers is impeding its growth someone else could phrase an argument that it is the association of libertarianism with ties loving middle-aged gentlemen that is impeding it.
I think this sort of value judgments should be kept seperate from the general message. I am not big on ties personally, but I don`t go around complaining that I would have a hard time converting any of my peers, because if I would recommend them to read LRC they would undoubtedly sooner or later stumble upon an eccentric essay arguing for more ties.
You mean, like your objection to the “closet monarchist” Hoppe? I don’t hate Molyneux, I dislike him but there’s nothing irrational about that. He’s arrogant fool who comes out with silly theories mainly centred around the evils of the family, and any other libertarians more successful than him (Ron Paul and the rest who teach at universities as opposed to spreading their wisdom through Youtube). Then there’s his ridiculous pyschological “explanations” for everything, when last time I checked he’s not particularly qualified in that area.
Then there’s his “militant atheism” and all that nonsense. But if that’s not enough his accent is extremely irritating.