Manipulation is not mind control. Nobody said anything about mind control
So the principle of inquiring into “Cui Bono” is an “airy spook”? (BTW, this principle is the underlying basis of Rothbard’s power elite analysis.)
Right, irresponsibility in the actions of men is nothing but an artificial phantom…
I agree, this one is irrelevant.
Let me remind you that you just rejected “cui bono” about an hour and a half ago, by citing the other main Mises Institute dude.
Potato. Potaato. Everything is manipulation. Mises.org, your posts, my posts, anything. You are manipulating me and I am manipulating you. Devious characters we are.
Who benefits from donations to FDR? He does. End of cui bono. Begin unknowable suppositions about what bizarro goals he may have hidden in his head. You know, I don’t think that Rothbard really started LvMI to teach good economics. He was just taking advantage of some individuals in a vulnerable state of disillusionment in order to sell books in a niche market. He is a powder salesman, obviously.
You have not listened to every FDR podcast. Irresponsible. Neither have I. Irresponsible. All of us have not disclaimed responsibility beforehand in everything that we ever said in our entire lives every possible unintended interpretation. Irresponsible.
The question under discussion is, “Does Molyneux’s deFOO campaign have certain motives?” To answer such a question, it is completely valid to propose financial motives as a possible motive, because “what is his motive” IS the question.
But insofar as we are discussing that question, doubting the motives of other discussants is NOT a valid consideration in weighing the validity of various propositions which attempt to answer that question. Rather, it raises a DIFFERENT question altogether. And the answer of that second question has NO direct bearing on the validity of propositions regarding the first question.
One man may indeed have nothing but partisan motives for putting forth a certain proposition, backed by a certain argument; yet the proposition may STILL be perfectly true, and the argument perfectly sound nonetheless. Another man may have nothing but the pure love for truth motivating him, and yet STILL put forth false propositions and specious arguments.
For example, while asking "What are Molyneux’s motives?, OF COURSE “his motive is financial profit” is a potentially valid proposition. However, while asking, “Are his Universally Preferable Behavior doctrines true?”, using the argument, “no, because his motive is financial profit” would be entirely invalid.
My take is that you agree with some of Molyneux’s commentary on parenting (or at least would like to explore it). but not his overt efforts to get his followers to leave their family in most cruel way that is traumatizing to the parents and the defoo’er. That seems reasonable. Parents aren’t perfect. Exploring that relationship as you reach adulthod sort of goes with the territory anyway.
Have you read Real Time Relationships?
Yes. Have you ever heard of the MECO System?
I am critical of the average quality of parenting around the world – I don’t mean on your average middle-class street, of course. If you would like a scholarly examination of why, you might want to check out the free audiobook below:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/OriginsOfWar
As I mentioned a few times above, I strongly and repeatedly urged people with relationship issues - particularly it they involve physical and sexual abuse - to see a professional therapist. Everyone I know of who broke with a family worked with a therapist for months or years first - and tried to work things out with their families. Many - to my profound happiness - also were able to repair things with their families. Some were not.
Blaming me for the results of months or years of professional therapy - therapy I have nothing to do with - is quite a bizarre interpretation of cause, effect and responsibility.
So your wife is never the therapist in question? (not accusing, just asking)
That would be applicable if this was an argument over whether 2+2=4. Ultimately it is strictly opinion whether Molyneux dispenses good solutions. I made the plain observation that the lambasting zoomed straight into children cutting ties with parents to the total exclusion of all other conceivable applications. Check. From there it generally zoomed further into the matter of church. Check. It was an obvious diversion and I’m still not convinced that it is just random. I wasn’t born yesterday. I’m acutely aware of patterns emerging in the thread.
Depends on the culture. Is it a ‘buyer beware’ or is the dealer obligated to announce the prospect of possible harm? If it is the latter then if the sales says ‘now one of these bags contains addictive drugs, which I do not know’ and the buyer still buys it then the buyer has weighed the risk and either welcomes it or deems it irrelevant in lower terms then the desire to have the bag.
Cicero did not ask “cui bono?” if a crime had not been committed. The motivation itself was not on trial.
Ergo, it cannot be the question. Except in a Kafka novel.
Culture is not the source of individual actions, but a product. You are an individual actor. Would you condemn it?
Okay, well assume that random hypothetical condition is not true. The customer assumes the salesman is competent to judge whether the particular bag of powder sold is healthful, and is sure that it is indeed healthful.
Aside from the apparent bias, whether religious or parental, there is hardly a nuance of grief to be found that is not essentially universal, especially in MSM, in commentary about this. The innocent, helpless, confused parents. places back of hand on forehead The cruel man pulling strings from behind the curtain of evil. The ripe kiddie fruit plucked from the tree of victimhood. I’ve seen that movie, too.
I think a relevant question for Stefan at this juncture would be this: If you claim not to be an influential factor in your listeners’ decisions to deFOO, why do you have conversations with them about their families? The conversations certainly go beyond just stating that all relationships are voluntary, that abuse is inexcusable, and that they should seek out professional help. Not only that, but they often involve you making conjectures about the families in question that you cannot know for certain given your limited background on their lives. They also often involve you asking leading questions and giving advice – two things which are strongly discouraged in therapeutic practice.
If your answer is that these are just conversations between friends, why do you publish them for thousands of others to hear? I’m having trouble seeing how it could be anything other than a desire for the specific content of those conversations – the part that goes beyond the three assertions mentioned above – to influence the listeners you speak with and the listener population at large.
I don’t mean for this post to sound accusatory; I think it’s a complex situation that would be difficult for anyone to navigate. I’m trying to keep this post short and sweet so that my two questions remain at the forefront. 
There are reasons that cliches become cliches. Cliched stories often have their origins in recognizable patterns in real life. Yes kids are often naive and pliable. Yes there are sinister men out there (whether or not Molyneux is one of them). Yes parents often do love their children, but can no longer connect with them when adolescence is reached. Yes such parents can be caught unawares by the machinations of aforementioned sinister men.
The origin is a tradition of award worthy performance of crocodile tears and faked ignorance on the part of both parents and allied observers that don’t give a damn about the kids and are reflexively hostile to any challenge of their psychological dominion over kids.
Have you listened to any of the sessions?
You greatly under-appreciate the power of the overwhelming Darwinian impulse of parents for the propagation of the species via the general promotion of their offspring. A parent is much more likely to have his or her own child’s interests truly in his or her heart than anyone else, Molyneux and public school teachers included.
Yes.
You mean the parent’s interest in the child.
Parents and children have a harmony of interests, else the species would have gone extinct long ago.