Thurs. 12/07/05 18:18 EDT
.post #205
[url=David Gordon Layeth the Smackdown - #6 by John_James]
[url=*** August 2011 low content thread *** - #140 by John_James]
Molyneux might or might not be a “narcissist,” but to focus on his personality while ignoring his argument is argumentum ad hominem.
And what is Molyneux’s argument here? We need to start, not at 21:13, but earlier, at 20:50, where Molyneux reads from Walter Block’s article:
Although Block doesn’t say so directly, he insinuates, without substantiation, that Molyneux (one of Ron Paul’s “many critics”) is not “a man of principle.”
Molyneux responds to this by opining “I mean, I think I’m a pretty staunch man of principle…” and then offers as support for this opinion the fact that when it comes to earning one’s income in the free market, he practices what he preaches, i.e., Molyneux earns his income via voluntary exchange (unlike Block, who has “a tenured position, protected by the state, at a university”).
Molyneux’s point here is that Block’s insinuation is both incorrect and hypocritical.
But Molyneux neither states nor even implies that “everyone accepts the NAP in personal relationships.” You’ve misrepresented his position. Clearly, Molyneux is aware that many people have not accepted the NAP in personal relationships. It’s just that he does not include these people in the category of “sane, reasonable human beings.”
And one might realize that Molyneux, like Ron Paul, has been (successfully) promoting liberty, not only to those who have already accepted the NAP, but also to those who haven’t.
Or perhaps, even a third thing; see above.