Stefan Molyneux

[CaptainMurphy]

I’m sure many of you know about him, but I thought I’d make a thread for those who don’t. This guy is an anarcho-capitalist who rails against government and religion. He has great podcasts and youtube vids at

http://www.youtube.com/stefbot

[jimbojr]

I quite enjoy his work. He does a wonderful job of synthesizing massive amounts of material on economics, art, history, pyschology, etc. into the philosophy of freedom. And his original work on the family and relationships is fantastic.

[MacFall]

I love his commentary on most things, but he makes a lot of grossly incorrect assumptions and statements about Christians and Christian doctrine.

[Sage]

I like how he’s really strong on the immorality of government : if coercion is immoral then all government that uses coercion is immoral. None of this wussy limited goevrnment stuff.

[Praxeo]

Molyneux is an excellent anarcho-capitalist thinker and I easily sympathize with his opposition toward religion but this must cause some friction between him and the many Catholic anarcho-capitalists out there. Mises.org has a certain Catholic essence to it - it certainly doesn’t bother me (in regards to economics) but I wonder what atheist market anarchists and Catholic/Christian market anarchists think of each other.

[MacFall]

@Praxeo

…I wonder what atheist market anarchists and Catholic/Christian market anarchists think of each other.

I can’t speak for all Christian market anarchists, but I personally don’t have any problem being in the company (both intellectual and literal) of atheists. In fact, in some cases I prefer the company of atheist anarchists to fellow Christians who are statists.

The problem comes up when certain anarchists - Molyneux among them - assert that those like myself are not “true” anarchists because we believe in Jesus. I see that as an underhanded way to attack my faith rather than an argument for consistent anti-statism. It’s also an invocation of the No True Scotsman fallacy, which has always been a pet peeve of mine.

I have both Christian and atheist anarchist friends in real life, and when we get together there’s no problem. I don’t make an issue of their nonbelief, though given the proper time and setting I do argue for my faith. Likewise, they don’t make an issue of my faith.

I understand the hardline rationalism that drives people like Molyneux to their support for atheism. But I neither understand or tolerate in my company the outright hysteria that drives them to condemn believers as irrational and to equivocate us, morally, with statists.

I am an anarchist because I will be ruled only by God, and that of my own free will. I am not a theocrat or a Christofascist. There are many, many Christians who are like me. To lump us in with the Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelpses of the world is collectivist crap.

[ryanpatgray]

@MacFall

The problem comes up when certain anarchists - Molyneux among them - assert that those like myself are not “true” anarchists because we believe in Jesus.

That is not what he has said. I have listened to many of his podcasts and he has never made such an assertion (at least not in any of the podcasts I have listed to.) He does however; believe that a belief in a faith (ANY faith) is irrational. From what I have heard, his position is similar to what is sometimes called the “ignostic” position. Before you can logically debate the existence of God, you need to have a working definition of God. Otherwise, evasion can occur. The person being debated can claim “Well, that isn’t really what I meant by God.”

In his most recent podcasts he has been talking about family structure more than religion. One of his most controversial positions (and in my opinion most interesting) is that being raised in an abusive family situation can lead one to tolerate abuses from government.

[MacFall]

@ryanpatgray

@MacFall

The problem comes up when certain anarchists - Molyneux among them - assert that those like myself are not “true” anarchists because we believe in Jesus.

That is not what he has said. I have listened to many of his podcasts and he has never made such an assertion (at least not in any of the podcasts I have listed to.) He does however; believe that a belief in a faith (ANY faith) is irrational. From what I have heard, his position is similar to what is sometimes called the “ignostic” position. Before you can logically debate the existence of God, you need to have a working definition of God. Otherwise, evasion can occur. The person being debated can claim “Well, that isn’t really what I meant by God.”

One of his podcasts (I don’t remember which one) addresses Christians in particular, and he calls them out on their (as implied, inherent) irrationality. It boils down, frankly, to irrational prejudice against believers. As I said, that sort of thing is collectivism - akin to believing that all black people are thugs or that all hispanics steal car radios.

As for the particular equivocation of religious believers with statists, I may be confusing him with someone else.

EDIT: Actually, I’m not. I just did some looking to make sure I wasn’t committing the crime (lol) of libel. In his 82nd podcast in particular, but most prominently in his text writing he consistently implies (and sometimes even states) that religion is equivalent to statism.

In his most recent podcasts he has been talking about family structure more than religion. One of his most controversial positions (and in my opinion most interesting) is that being raised in an abusive family situation can lead one to tolerate abuses from government.

That’s probably true in some cases, but not in all by any means.

[ryanpatgray]

@MacFall

One of his podcasts (I don’t remember which one) addresses Christians in particular, and he calls them out on their (as implied, inherent) irrationality. It boils down, frankly, to irrational prejudice against believers. As I said, that sort of thing is collectivism - akin to believing that all black people are thugs or that all Hispanics steal car radios.

I view a religion as a collection of ideas and judge religions in the same way as I judge ideas about economics or anything else. Sure, many people get their religious beliefs from their families but many people also get their political beliefs from their families. People can and do change religions or give up religion altogether. Why should debating religion be any more taboo than debating politics? This is very different from judging people on the basis of physical characteristics such as dermal melanin or ancestry.

[Praxeo]

There is indeed a difference between Christian anarchists and John Hageeites. Lew Rockwell is clearly a Catholic and clearly an anarchist, a pro-law anarchist by the way, not a lawless one. All are susceptible to “acquired immuno-statism syndrome.”

[Nasikabatrachus]

"One of his podcasts (I don’t remember which one) addresses Christians in particular, and he calls them out on their (as implied, inherent) irrationality. It boils down, frankly, to irrational prejudice against believers. As I said, that sort of thing is collectivism - akin to believing that all black people are thugs or that all hispanics steal car radios.

That’s quite an accusation, Mac. What is your evidence that he is prejudiced in that area? Would you mind, for the sake of clarity in this discussion, putting into syllogistic form what you think his argument against religion is?

Thanks.

[ryanpatgray]

@MacFall

EDIT: Actually, I’m not. I just did some looking to make sure I wasn’t committing the crime (lol) of libel. In his 82nd podcast in particular, but most prominently in his text writing he consistently implies (and sometimes even states) that religion is equivalent to statism.

Can you tell us what exactly it was he said? This does not sound like him. He may have simply said both were equaly irrational or something. I will listen to 82 soon and get back with you.

[ryanpatgray]

@Praxeo

There is indeed a difference between Christian anarchists and John Hageeites. Lew Rockwell is clearly a Catholic and clearly an anarchist, a pro-law anarchist by the way, not a lawless one. All are susceptible to “acquired immuno-statism syndrome.”

Quite true; I would rather have Amish or members of the Society of Friends as neighbors than Maoists, Stalinists or National-Socialists.

Edit, the filter where I work substituted *s for another political term for National Socialists so I changed it to something that. I hate Internet filters.

[MacFall]

The word is actually censored by this forum.

Back on topic, citing specific examples:

In the column “A Personal History of Political Freedom”, thirteenth paragraph, Molyneux engages in a common atheist fallacy wherein they try to tell Christians what Christians actually believe:

Both the Old and New Testaments constantly command Christians to murder unbelievers. I do not pursue these conversations, since they tend to be very explosive, but if a man tells me that he is a Christian, I do have to ask him if he supports me being put to death for being an atheist. Very few Christians have actually read the Bible all the way through, so they are generally very surprised to hear that God instructs them to kill nonbelievers (of course they also believe that Islam is a violent religion!). They try to find any number of excuses to get their deity “off the hook” for making such evil commandments. They point out the virtues of certain Christians, or that the Bible is mistranslated, misinterpreted, misunderstood and so on.

In the first place, there’s NO SUCH COMMANDMENT in the New Testament, and it is New Testament doctrine that Christians follow. But that’s not allowed, apparently - if a Christian doesn’t support murder, why then he must not be a true Christian.

This is comparable to the common statement that “anarchists want chaos and destruction”. If countered with an earnest “that’s not true”, the attacker will simply state that you’re not a TRUE anarchist. That’s the No True Scotsman fallacy I mentioned. It’s a blatant logical fallacy, and for one who claims logic as his god, it’s a huge inconsistency.

The idea of God is socially deadly, because people take their own murky impulses as divine commandments, subject to no rational examination or empirical challenges. Since there is no God, all who receive replies from this void are hearing merely the echoes of their own madness.

During a plague, a doctor does no good by pretending that the sick are healthy. He will only aid the spread of the pathogen. As atheists, we must stop sanctioning religious ideas. We must always call this cancer by its name. The world is sick with God-fever. And the time has come for us to cure it, no matter what the cost.

Again, collectivist blanket statements and ad hominem. And the part in bold… when I read that, I stopped taking him seriously. Such has been the sentiment behind the worst statist attrocities in history.

I will also direct you to a number of his podcasts when I’m not about to go to class.

But just reading over his blog it ought to be apparent that he equates all Christianity with political Christianity, assumes that all religiously-derived morality is statist in nature, and believes all Christians to be either statists or hypocrites.

With all that said, I still respect him a great deal for his rational arguments and his secular-moral arguments against the state. But I won’t stand for being accused of statism, hypocricy, and worse just because I hold a belief that he does not share.

[DrunknMunky]

I dislike religion since I view it as a form of collectivism.

[Nasikabatrachus]

“In the first place, there’s NO SUCH COMMANDMENT in the New Testament, and it is New Testament doctrine that Christians follow.”

Well, he claims he’s cited the particular bit of scripture to people who’ve asked before. I’ve not bothered to look it up, but why don’t you ask him for it and tell us if he’s talking out of his no-sunshine region?

“But that’s not allowed, apparently - if a Christian doesn’t support murder, why then he must not be a true Christian.”

Actually he’s stated before that he doesn’t think there’s any such thing as a true Christian, given the thousands of mutually incompatible sects of it.

If I may present my understanding of his argument:

1. Chrisitans follow the moral edicts of the Bible

2. The Bible, in the new testament specifically, prescribes violence against non-Christians

3. From 1 and 2, Christians who follow the moral edicts of the Bible consistently should advocate violence against non-Christians

And hence he derives the conclusion that Christians cannot be anarchists, since anarchists oppose aggressive violence on principle, a subset of which is religion-based aggression.

I think this discussion should be best continued after finding the piece of scripture that he actually cites as evidence for this argument, no?

[Niccolo]

I publicly called him out once.

He subsequently banned my IP address from his website.

He’s not too smart though. He seems to forget what a proxy is.

[Niccolo]

@Nasikabatrachus

“In the first place, there’s NO SUCH COMMANDMENT in the New Testament, and it is New Testament doctrine that Christians follow.” Well, he claims he’s cited the particular bit of scripture to people who’ve asked before. I’ve not bothered to look it up, but why don’t you ask him for it and tell us if he’s talking out of his no-sunshine region? “But that’s not allowed, apparently - if a Christian doesn’t support murder, why then he must not be a true Christian.” Actually he’s stated before that he doesn’t think there’s any such thing as a true Christian, given the thousands of mutually incompatible sects of it. If I may present my understanding of his argument: 1) Chrisitans follow the moral edicts of the Bible 2) The Bible, in the new testament specifically, prescribes violence against non-Christians 3) From 1 and 2, Christians who follow the moral edicts of the Bible consistently should advocate violence against non-Christians And hence he derives the conclusion that Christians cannot be anarchists, since anarchists oppose aggressive violence on principle, a subset of which is religion-based aggression. I think this discussion should be best continued after finding the piece of scripture that he actually cites as evidence for this argument, no?

Oh God… [8-)]

[Niccolo]

@ryanpatgray

That is not what he has said. I have listened to many of his podcasts and he has never made such an assertion (at least not in any of the podcasts I have listed to.) He does however; believe that a belief in a faith (ANY faith) is irrational. From what I have heard, his position is similar to what is sometimes called the “ignostic” position. Before you can logically debate the existence of God, you need to have a working definition of God. Otherwise, evasion can occur. The person being debated can claim “Well, that isn’t really what I meant by God.”

In his most recent podcasts he has been talking about family structure more than religion. One of his most controversial positions (and in my opinion most interesting) is that being raised in an abusive family situation can lead one to tolerate abuses from government.

Yes, Molyneux is the type that when asked about Immanuel Kant, replies with some anti-Christian joke - confusing Immanuel with Emmanuel.

It’s the secular religion. Men used to rely on men in black robes for the words of truth, now they rely on men in white ones - there’s no difference.

[ryanpatgray]

@MacFall

The word is actually censored by this forum.

Back on topic, citing specific examples:

In the column “A Personal History of Political Freedom”, thirteenth paragraph, Molyneux engages in a common atheist fallacy wherein they try to tell Christians what Christians actually believe:

Both the Old and New Testaments constantly command Christians to murder unbelievers. I do not pursue these conversations, since they tend to be very explosive, but if a man tells me that he is a Christian, I do have to ask him if he supports me being put to death for being an atheist. Very few Christians have actually read the Bible all the way through, so they are generally very surprised to hear that God instructs them to kill nonbelievers (of course they also believe that Islam is a violent religion!). They try to find any number of excuses to get their deity “off the hook” for making such evil commandments. They point out the virtues of certain Christians, or that the Bible is mistranslated, misinterpreted, misunderstood and so on.

In the first place, there’s NO SUCH COMMANDMENT in the New Testament, and it is New Testament doctrine that Christians follow. But that’s not allowed, apparently - if a Christian doesn’t support murder, why then he must not be a true Christian.

As this is a board devoted to economics and not religion it would probably be more appropriate to respond to this off the board. I will do so.

The idea of God is socially deadly, because people take their own murky impulses as divine commandments, subject to no rational examination or empirical challenges. Since there is no God, all who receive replies from this void are hearing merely the echoes of their own madness.

During a plague, a doctor does no good by pretending that the sick are healthy. He will only aid the spread of the pathogen. As atheists, we must stop sanctioning religious ideas. We must always call this cancer by its name. The world is sick with God-fever. And the time has come for us to cure it, no matter what the cost.

@MacFall

Again, collectivist blanket statements and ad hominem. And the part in bold… when I read that, I stopped taking him seriously. Such has been the sentiment behind the worst statist attrocities in history.

The COST, in this case is not violence but shedding personal delusions.