Link?
http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=147 Sorry, I thought it was less hidden on the site than it is.
Thanks for that. That is a fascinating article.
That wouldn’t leave me left with many friends…
Are there other authors that are better at ancap than Molyneux?
Any site which entirely devotes itself to useless infighting and attacking others (who have done more to further than an-cap cause than they likely ever will) is not a site I’m willing to take credibly.
Not trying to defend Molyneux per se, just pointing out that sites like this do absolutely nothing for the cause of freedom, nor even attempt to.
"How (not) to achieve freedom**"** (http://freedomainradio.com/Books/HowNottoAchieveFreedom.aspx ) alone qualifies him as a worthwhile author, whether one agrees or not. If it were not for that book I’d be in politics now. Saved my life and I can’t recommend it enough.
It isn’t terribly insightful and is a bit incoherent at times, but you showed some understanding that I found admirable. It isn’t easy to condense multiple essays into single sentences, and the one which I think we could learn most from exploring is:
Anyhow, regarding Molyneux, I made a mistake. I didn’t really know who I was talking about at all. Some of his stuff was sensible, but I am not that interested.
Interesting, I think you have a point I do need to improve my writing style, a paper I recently wrote on economic calculation seems especially error-ridden now; in any case the things I write on forums rarely tend to be the forte of my writing.
I think the same insight can also be gained from a careful reading of Hoppe, though I do disagree with the appropriateness of some of his analogies; Mises on the other hand tends to avoid those errors. Indeed, I’m probably not even original on this insight, you may find it very interesting to read the following, especially “Physicist Dave’s” responses:
http://commentlog.org/bid/4408/Feynman-Rothbard-and-the-Science-of-Economics
Additionally, there is a caveat worth mentioning. The reason I think praxeology can be partly considered a synthetic a priori discipline, is that its most universal aspects like the concept of action and uniformity of logic with which this concept is analysed and applied by other actors is something assumed in all scientific and human endeavour, and despite the epistemological problems associated with it; no one would doubt its pragmatic expediancy (Mises points this out also with regard to the epistemological procedures and assumptions of the natural sciences) with regard to analysing human behaviour since teleological analysis of purposeful action is something we apply and see “works” every day without even thinking. in this regard it is different to mathematics.
However, all other statements and corrollaries it utillises that do not soley rest on the consideration of the concept of action, require empirical verification and I don’t feel it is correct to characterise them as synthetic a priori, though this is not too difficult to establish the accuracy of these analytic assumptions, and in this regard the empirical notions are more “conceptual” than anything else. For instance, when considering the hemispheric motion and spin of the Earth, a physicist does not need to get out a measuring tape to realise that its treatment as a particle is unsuitable, even though such a procedure is clearly suitable for analysing the Earth’s motion around the Sun. Similarly a praxeologist does not need to count up all the gold in the world to realise its suitable treatment as a scarce means in his considerations.
Also, I do apologise if I’ve “hijacked” this thread with this mini-discussion.
I enjoy certain aspects of his talks, but there are other things that I do not like so much. As an example, he is in favor of IP, though he does release all of his works for free. In one of his podcasts about IP he said that the Internet would not exist without the state, a claim that I do not feel is justified.
(Just saw my URL turn up in the Google. Hi, folks!)
Seph, I know that Molyneux can be a controversial topic. I wish I had a good, succinct reason for why I created www.fdrliberated.com, but I don’t. But I can tell you for sure that it wasn’t for useless infighting or attacking others. I take great pains as I write entries and even as I re-read them months later to edit out unfounded claims or language that I think is disrespectful. I quote Molyneux extensively, since his own words make all of my points better than me.
I think Molyneux is a brilliant, fascinating guy. I give him a lot of credit for starting me down the freedom path and who can set a price on that?
However, I also think he’s made a destructive commitment to a connection that he believes exists between psychology and philosophy. In the crudest terms, he believes that if you’re not an ancap, it’s because you were abused by your parents. Actually, he believes that nearly everyone’s parents are/were “horribly bad.” (I link to his essay regarding that below.) I am deeply, deeply troubled by his focus on “defooing,” the role he plays in encouraging the practice, and the age group he targets. (Again, article below.)
The article I wrote regarding “Liberating Minds” (that Qlubsoda kindly linked to) is quite old, not particularly relevant, and probably should be deleted at some point. (Qlub, I’m sorry that the menu system on my site is obtuse. I’m trying to use someone’s WordPress blog theme to create a regular site menu instead of a blog. I’m a mess.)
If you are at all interested…
My short description of what Molyneux and FDR is, is here:
http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=106
The only reasons I’ve every been able to come up with for creating fdrliberated are here:
http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=276
The back-and-forth between Molyneux, Shahar, and others during the creation of UPB is a five-part article (Sorry about the length.) Qlub linked to Part 2. The entire series starts here:
http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=34
Most important, to me, are the two articles on the foundation of FDR and the psychology/philosophy connection. The first, about the ideological foundation of FDR, is here:
http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=1060
The second, which demonstrates that FDR is an idea developed by Molyneux and his wife to inculcate young people into his ideology is here:
http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=862
Some of this stuff can raise some incendiary reactions but in the end it is only my opinion; however, it is also why I make a very earnest attempt at reason and evidence. As a public figure, Molyneux’s ideas are fair game for public scrutiny. Still, he believes deeply he is doing good and FDR is his livelihood. I always try to keep that in mind.
In my experience, the ones who do best with Molyneux and FDR are those who selectively add what they like about FDR to their own philosophy. The ones who go “all in,” defoo everyone, and rarely venture away from the FDR “community” seem to have lives that have become–at least to me–more, rather than less, complicated by the philosophies of FDR.
He is a charlatan.
I have been reading Mises.org for 9 years, and can say Stefan Molyneux is one of the best libertarian we have today. When I read an outstanding article or listen to great podcast, I save it to my disk, in case I cannot access it on the web later. I have a folder devoted to Freedomain Radio. Stefan is well worth reading.
To get started, I recommend watching the following videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY (True News 13 - Statism is Dead - Part 3 - The Matrix)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM (True News 5: The Truth About Voting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SH7jeWpmhI (Joe Stack and the IRS - The Impact of Error)
[:P]
Made me think all Libertarians were like him! That’s why it took me another year or so to try looking into the theory again. Stick with LewRockwell.com, or some Rothbard, if you want some Libertarians that will cause you to think, rather than laugh.
I am a great fan of Rothbard, Mises and Bastiat. I visit mises.org almost everyday, and also visit LewRockwell.com frequently. Stefan Molyneux really bring freedom ideas, such as the concept of Human Farming and voting is begging.
Not familiar with human farming, but I’d say the anti-voting crap is a deal-breaker in and of itself. Of course voting is begging, because we are the slaves of the state. Pretending that isn’t the case doesn’t help anybody.
This is a good video from Stef where he lays out the “human farming” concept.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY
Edit: Looks like Danial above had this video linked already.
A fan of Porcupine Tree recommending Stefan Molyneaux. How appropriate.
I tried posting on FDR forum a bit and was viciously attacked for any little disagreement on any subject just like Qlubsoda said. (Not unlike particular cases here.) The forum is like a church.
I like the therapy aspect of his program more than anything. Despite his unseemly promotion of professional psychotherapy, his program flies in the face of what the profession stands for. He just doesn’t realize it, I guess.
That is true, Molineux has a very bad (and richly deserved) reputation as a forum manager. But that doesn’t mean that his personal work is totally to be flushed away.
This site is frankly stalker-y and spooky.
“I can’t stop thinking about Molyneux’s wife.” Yikes.
I wonder why you’d be adverse to therapy… maybe you need to defoo from Molyneux most of all… haha.