So where is your gray line?
So you imagined you would find some friends here with that view?
Well can you start, after all that was the point of this thread…
I am not sure what point you are trying to make…?
Xelent,
The quotes aren’t mine.
I am surprised about how much time and talent is wasted here discussing Molyneux and his relation to the libertarian movement. Molyneux is using the movement as a decoy because it attracts young people.
so sinister
xelent, I’m not sure what you’re hoping to accomplish… I mean, I can see that you’re a member of Freedomain Radio, and your lone contribution to this board has been a post apparently calling out another poster (in a way that’s not entirely comprehensible) after she said something negative about Stefan. I’m not saying that you aren’t welcome here, or that you aren’t completely entitled to defend Stefan. But if you’re only here to attack people, and you aren’t interested in contributing any substantive opinions, then I guess I would find that a little weird.
I could be misinterpreting your motives, though; if you’re trying to get her to elucidate her views in an attempt to draw her into a Socratic-style discussion, then I’d suggest a personal message as a better way to have that sort of conversation. Public discussions make that kind of conversation difficult to follow.
Come on, so whom am I quoting?
You are quoting me, thank you very much! Except for the very last quote.
Whom have I attacked?
I am asking this women some questions
I think you weren’t very clear from the get go. You quoted the wrong person and the responses to the quotes made very little sense. So maybe, you can write up an argument and we’ll be glad to continue this discussion with you.
Well as I pointed out, I may well have misinterpreted your motives. If I did, I apologize. But you have to understand that when you engage people in such an abrupt tone, it can be taken as a sign of hostility. Add to that the fact that you’re a member of the community whose leader is being questioned by the individuals you’re questioning, and you might be able to see why I might come to wonder if you’re not exactly here to make friends. But coincidences happen, and I don’t want to come off as hostile. So again, I apologize if I misread the situation.
Apologies indeed, I did seem to misread the format of her post, so I will try to paraphrase the points you made
"Let’s be honest, who amongst us hasn’t had some experience when they were young where their parents were yelling at them, got grounded or received a spanking. In Stefan’s world that was straight up abuse, while I most certainly am against any kind of spanking or physical punishment, I do not view the rest as abuse."
So at which point does one decide a gray line has been crossed? Your statement seems contradictory, as you seemingly accept corporal punishment as the norm in one hand and then dismiss its use in the other. Surly, you must contend that abuse doesnt have to be just physical?
I am not sure why you are so interested in my posting, they were neither directed at you, nor misquoted by you even..
You seemingly make a lot of assumptions about me, in what can only be described as ‘questions’
Apologies indeed if I am now sounding abrupt, but it would seem that you were not the target for my question.
Just a strange first post is all. It sounded like you had come here in order to engage in a bit of destructive argumentation, and not to talk about philosophy and economics. As this is a community which is supposed to focus on working towards a better understanding of libertarian thought and Austrian economics, it would be unfortunate to find an influx of new members seeking to argue about Stefan Molyneux’s character and nothing else. I’m sorry if I seem particularly guarded against that possibility, but it’s not as if you’ve participated in any other discussion but this one. Assumptions are always risky, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, sometimes you come to find out that it was a duck all along.
You can interpret it as Danny making sure I won’t have to moderate you later on. [:D]
Likewise.
I’m not saying that being Austrian is a prerequisite to being libertarian, all I’m saying is that libertarianism would be far better off without the likes of David Friedman. Whatever his contributions to economics he does not defend libertarians on any grounds other than that we’d be better off without it. We need less of the likes of him and more modern day Albert Nock’s and Murray Rothbard’s.
Perhaps I was wrong in claiming that non Austrians need to be purged. What I meant was more along the lines that Austrians need to be the ones leading this movement, not following. The rest of them can fall in line behind.
I just found it funny.
Why should I rergard it as good to get some people into the movement who will contribute nothing, or even negatively. Molyneux is merely spreading around silly notions of the word on his anti family, anti religion tirade. Anybody who follows this fool can only be worse. Libertarians have enough trouble being taken seriously as it is, trying to get the word out through Youtube won’t help.
I’m just trying to people see Molyneux for the bad element he is.
Half - assed libertarian? In what sense this could be, I am a loss. Paul has converted thousands to libertarians, many of him will become or have already become anarchists. The rest have all become consistantly more anti statist. Not to mention Paul’s campaign may well have laid the groundwork for a possible future libertarian movement.
Granted, he was a politician, you failed to mention he’s an associate of Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, two of the founders of today’s libertarian movement. Not to mention he has a picture of Lysander Spooner in his office and has mentioned him on national TV.
As opposed to Molyneux, please tell me BP what were his contributions?
As I’ve said already, Molyneux needs to be purged by this movement and forgotten by serious libertarians.
Perhaps you could s top the strawmen.
Abolition of the family and church sounds somewhat Marxist to me, any libertarian society will be founded upon those two institutions so in a sense yes, one does need to be a cultural conservative to be a libertarian.
Haven’t you always called Rockwell a paleocon?
No, how can one compare the contribution they’ve made without looking at people converted.
Sorry, but not everyone subscribes to your very own personal subjective moral theory.
Radical anti statism, how horrible.
He has an allergy to anything non-subjectivist.