Anyone familiar with the anarcocapitalist Stefan Molyneux? Is he worth reading or not?
What else have you read?
Hazlitt and Block.
What have you learned from them? I think Molyneux is pretty much a waste of time too.
I think you would get something out of reading Molyneux. He’s one of the best at debating for ancap IMO.
I take some of what he says with a pinch of salt, though overall I think he’s pretty good. This has mostly been from watching his video blog however. What is it that bothers you about him?
His books are excellent and thoughtful, whether I agree or not in some areas. Though his schtick is podcasts, rather than writing articles or books for the most part.
From what I can tell, most get a taste of his work through his podcasts (some of which are put into a youtube format as well).
Might want to check the stefbot channel on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot
Decide for yourself. He takes a bit of a philosophical/personal development approach to life rather than political/economics (though he does those as well). This turns some people off who are into other, mostly purely academic or religious type, things. But attracts like-minded people – myself included – who are sympathetic to his optimistic , rationalist, and happiness-based philosophy.
Hazlitt wasn’t an ancap, but that’s a good start.
I think Molyneux, takes up the slack in an area where there is definitely a need for a libertarian / ancap perspective on things (personal relations) etc. He does a great service.
Some of his opinions on Ron Paul and strategy I find very short sighted, other than that - go for the podcasts… get on itunes, and then easily select what you want to listen to.
I listen to his podcasts every night. While I don’t agree with his views on how to deal with relationships (in the family, with friends, with spouses/significant others. He basically says to stay away from anyone you perceive as immoral, I think…), I love his podcasts.
He is a highly controversial figure, you are best off watching a couple podcasts that look of interest to you and decide yourself.
Here’s the bad about him laid out..
http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=89
I think his early stuff is quite good, but the more he digresses into psychology the less I like him. My experience with his website is that the podcasts are becoming more and more group therapy and less about ancap. I find his psychoanalysis more voodoo than it is scientific. He may be good on economics, but it didn’t take him long to develop a system of pop-psychological pap to focus on. Also, him and his followers are a little too ferocious toward criticism, and really the whole idea of cutting friends and family out of your life seems a little too rash and cultish for my tastes.
his opus, universally preferable behavior isn’t prescriptive at all. I find it confused. You’ll find more about that on the “fdr liberated” link.
I never watched his videos and didn’t realize he runs the FDR I had heard about. Actually, I had him mixed up with Edward Feser or somebody I think. OK, Molyneux might not be half as bad, but I will kind of hold to what I said. A quick google search turned up some nutjob stuff about him being a nutjob (I think this relates to the therapy stuff Qlubsoda and others mentioned.), and it seems that he had written a bunch of articles on Lew’s site but he isn’t even listed as a writer now…?
I really want to say that I don’t care, but because I end up, for god knows what reason writing about similar things, I might look into him a bit. I think that he had released a few free books that I had read a year back. Really though, I care about something that YOU had written about around a month ago absekebabs, and what I am working on now.
I can’t think of anything I’ve written on this forum that’s been that significant; maybe I’m being a bit hard on myself… Please could you enlighten me on what you’re referring to?
Yeah, there is controversy over the psychological aspect. There was a flood of “liberated minds” kids in here the last time he was mentioned. One threatened to beat me up for defending Molyneux… another (Conrad, who is another former lewrockwell contributor) was quoted on his own forum telling a Jewish gentleman that he was a kike who deserved to go to Auschwitz. But that’s another story for another time.
Also, I do not see what is controversial with breaking with people who are immoral; which is the heart of voluntarism. This is something that seems to be common sense. But I suspect you mean the aspect of Real-Time Relationships in confronting rather than running from relationships. Which I suspect most people don’t understand; perhaps they never read it. Seemed like sensible stuff to me. Though the book is rather long, I don’t have much trouble reading something like that.
The stuff attacking Stef always seemed over the top, but it’s not necessary to get into the psychological stuff to get a grasp on his excellent style and approach to ancap argumentation.
@Ess, let me know if anyone makes threats like that again and I will clean it up.
I really like alot of Molyneux’s stuff, particularly in the realm of personal relationships. I like his books and videos the best even though I don’t really like UPB. He also has great ideas about anarchy although I actually disagree greatly in the area that he has spent most time writing about, that of the DRO, I think that they will play a far lesser role than he claims. I also don’t actually enjoy is podcasts that much, it just seems to me that he goes on epic sized tangents with each of them but I haven’t listened to many so…
Overall I like his stuff and I think that he is an important contributer to the voluntyrist movment and his is a quality viewpoint to subscribe to… And the freedomain chatroom rocks.
Sure, listen to his stuff if you don’t want to read it, what have you got to lose? They’re enjoyable to listen to at least.
He works under the “free” economic model. Wherein people get content from him for free and contribute in donations; this is an experiment as well as a business model in reciprocation. In backing up talk about market principles with action. This causes many more hardcore followers to subsidize what other people get free. People join in when they find that the content they hear is worth contributing money to. When people appreciate the work, they reciprocate according to the principles of subjective value espoused by market economics. When they no longer receive anything of value worth money, they quit giving money. So that the signals can be sent to what needs to be provided instead.
What seems to be controversial is that he doesn’t work within the popular academic paradigm. Which is much is easier to make money and of course provides a cool distance from costumers.
Defoo seems to be a small part of his work. Which is one result of a specific process rather than simply a disavowal unto itself; more specifically what he refers to as Real-Time Relationships. Which is simply telling people the truth as the necessary part of building a real relationship to someone. Much of RTR deals with romantic relationships and friendships, but the principles remain the same. It stresses the voluntarism of all relationships. If people no longer feel a reciprocation in relationships, they should feel free to disengage. That seems to be the point. It’s not about morality or libertarianism, really, but being more happy and honest.
While I certainly disagree with a lot of what Stefan has to say, I think it would be foolish to dismiss him as a hack, or a money grabber.
Take what you can use from this clearly genuine and intelligent man, and dismiss what you can’t.
links?
I haven’t looked through the site that much, but what I do remember were the pages on the person who earnestly picked apart UPB and what stef’s reaction to that was. I encourage anyone to argue a point with him. The passive-aggressiveness is palpable.
I agree.Despite his flaws he still has a lot of good things to say.