I discovered Stefan from members of the forum posting links to his youtube videos. I have probably only watched maybe 5% of Stefan’s videos and have very much enjoyed them. He certainly has a gift for presenting ideas.
I did a quick search of the site and his name pops up in blogs, but that’s about all that came up. Has he ever written in any capacity for Mises or had any of his videos shown here? Does he ever speak at Mises functons?
Frankly, not.
He’s not affiliated with Mises.org . He has talked about how he has learned many things from Mises.org and their (media) library during the time before he starting podcasting (which he started around the winter of 2005).
He does have a number of articles up on lewrockwell.com , but at one point his archives link was deleted (probably due to his outspoken atheism). You can still find them through the search box there.
“his archives link was deleted (probably due to his outspoken atheism).”
Walter Block is an atheist, but his column archive was not deleted.
I would assume Molyneux’ archives were deleted because of his wacky psychological theories, de facto anti-family stance and his tendency to troll other libertarian websites. He was also highly critical of Ron Paul, which seems mysteriously upsetting to a group of supposed anarchists.
Reckless speculation.
Gero,
But I don’t think Block has tried submitting atheist columns. In fact, after googling for 10 seconds, Block states in a LRC article that he is “a friend and supporter of religion”.
Edmund,
Molyneux is not anti-family. He has a family of his own. He is anti-abuse and anti-hanging out with abusers.
liberty student,
What is so reckless about my speculation?
Molyneux is not anti-family. He has a family of his own. He is anti-abuse and anti-hanging out with abusers
De jure, sure. De facto, he engages in reckless speculation and accusation mongering that tends to demonize parents for failing to be Stefan Molyneux. Molyneux plays very fast and loose with his psychological and social theories, and is pretty irresponsible in his assessments of other peoples’ situations. Not to flagellate the guy, but I think a combination of formal philosophical ignorance, a self-promoting environment that hounds people who deeply critical of his views (even if they agree with his conclusions) and a general overestimation of his own importance have seriously obstructed his own, and his followers’, actual advancement in an understanding of social theory.
Aren’t half the Mises staff members atheist? Rothbard, Mises and the like?
Aren’t half the Mises staff members atheist? Rothbard, Mises and the like?
Yeah, though there is a conservative and pro-religious bent to most of Lew Rockwell’s organizations. Not explicitly religious, of course, but they tend to want to court the religious right. Personally, I find this attracts a lot of dregs and crazies, but it’s not my money.
Molyneux isn’t super academic. He uses words like “retarded” all the time, often to describe religious people. I like molyneux, but he isn’t a good poster boy 
No, thank God.
Clayton -
There is a mysterious cultish element to his FreeDomain followers that I’ve noticed. I’m not indicting you, I’m just sayin’. I did see one of his articles on Dispute Resolution hosted on LRC.
Molyneux is not affiliated with the Mises Institute, he and some of his followers are kinda nutty/wacky, and he’s blatantly wrong about some issues. I remember watching a video of his where he tried to explain the Austrian theory of the business cycle but got it COMPLETELY wrong, by which I mean Paul Krugman probably has a better understanding of ABCT than Molyneux. I would advise that you stay away from him.
I would advise that you stay away from him.
I think one should take him with a big grain of salt and definitely not as a primary source on liberal anarchic theory. However, IMO he is much more realistic about Ron Paul and minarchist fantasies than many people I see on LRC and Mises; and he’s quite right that if some sort of liberal society emerges it’s not going to be a bloodless democratic coupe.
I have to admit, I did enjoy this much like I enjoyed Alex Jones’ Engame. In fact, I think you could combine the two with a dystopian plot and make one kick-ass Matrix-esque movie.
But yeah, from what I’ve observed, Molyneux seems to attract emotionally maladjusted adolescent males with poor relations with their parents (especially their fathers). Just sayin’.
Clayton -
You ought to differentiate between people who support RP because they think he can heal the word and people who support him because he gets the message out and leads people towards a view that frankly renders him useless.
Molyneux seems to attract emotionally maladjusted adolescent males with poor relations with their parents
Like most libertarians?
You ought to differentiate between people who support RP because they think he can heal the word and people who support him because he gets the message out and leads people towards a view that frankly renders him useless.
Like I might differentiate between cancer and AIDs. Both are counter-productive and objectively anti-libertarian.
How so?
How so?
Voting doesn’t work; Politics do not produce freedom; political activism legitimizes political institutions; pseudo-liberal politicians and parties legitimize the political order; pseudo-liberal politicians attract crazies and people who don’t understand liberalism into co-opting the movement; Ron Paul isn’t liberal at all, he’s a Taft Republican who defends local tyranny and the foul document that gave legitimacy to the North American Empire.
To get a bit Randian, there can be no compromise between good and evil. What Ron Paul does, day in and day out, is essentially legalized extortion and compulsion. Whatever his personal qualities his choices in life, political beliefs and actual behavior are repulsive.