I don’t recall really. FOO is a standard acronym for Family of Origin. I can’t remember where the term originated…
Really? That’s kind of funny, because it’s such a potent term and clever acronym, that I would have thought you’d remember whether you came up with it or not. But I know you have a talent for coming up with powerful and evocative ways of putting things, so formulating such a term might not be such a big deal for you as it would be for others. But you do use the term, right?
Grayson, every single criticism of FDR regarding cutting ties with abusive parents has been based on the notion of mind control sales, as if listeners are sitting ducks waiting to be picked off. Speaking of cults, the idea that you should honor someone based on kinship is a Christian commandment.
I’m chop-happy. As long as there are beaten wives making excuses I will like to see people cut ties. As long as there are taxpayers making excuses I will like to see people cut ties. As long as there are sporting sons being denigrated from the sidelines I will like to see people cut ties.
Perhaps not, but more often than not they’re teenage males with emotional issues. As I said, they might not be sitting ducks, but in terms of manipulation it doesn’t get much more easy than that.
Let me put my cards on the table here, I don’t think Mr Molyneux is insincere, I really think he believes what he’s saying, after all, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. But I do think there is something that any reasonable person should find genuinely troublesome about convincing young males (or females) to leave their parents by abusing ones position of authority.
So you’re worried about abuse of authority and you’re pointing at Stef? What he is doing is precisely pointing out that power tends to lead to abuse of power. How many of those youngsters who decided to quit their families mentioned being sexually, physically and emotionally abused ..by their own families?
If anything, you should be celebrating Stef’s work on this. Mises.org is about gaining insight about economic exploitation. What Stefan has done is apply those same insights to personal relationships.
Now, you may not agree entirely with his specific way of doing that; but certainly you can’t validly disagree on principle.
After a youth with more psychologists than friends, I can somehow only get giddy at Molyneux’s brand of “abuse of authority”.
It’s obvious that people here who are resisting this have not listened to his podcasts about the basic idea behind all of this- or any of his podcasts.
This (among a couple other things) is my concern with the site. I just wonder how much (if any) is communication error/ obfuscation, a methodological misstep in the way the site and ideas are presented, and/or sensationalism from “squeaky wheels” (either for or against Free Domain) that turn the site into something more that Freedomain is claiming what the site is about.
Also, does the site deliberately target teenagers? If we look at the “evolution” of the site, does it start off more with political theory and philosophy and then drift stronger towards psychology and family issues? If that is the case, is there a way to tell how it started; was it people (perhaps teenagers) bringing up/ responding more enthusiastically to Freedomain on issues concerning the family and psychology, or did the podcasts start delving into that direction on their own accord (if this is the case when and why)? Also,is it clear from his podcasts that he is not an authority on who should leave families and professional advice and therapy is most likely needed to make such a decision?
Another important thing to think about that just occurred to me, if he is somewhat left of center on his hostility to families, and happens to attract many teenagers, could we not compare that to much teenage media? There are a plethora of rock musicians, for example, who probably promote the same thing. Or how many teenage movies do you see that portray the parents in a negative light that leads to a child’s alienation, etc? I would imagine certain rock personalities “caused” many kids to hate and leave their families. Or perhaps, more accurately, does any counter culture, big or small, tend to attract these things (and on my initial impression, personality cults can most certainly play a major role for rallying points); Socrates, Jesus, Protestants, The Age of Reason, Romanticism, and on and on and on (even if that may not be the intention of the person or ideas involved)? How much of this should be alarming and how much of this, to use a Karl Marx phrase, is just “the tendency of things”?
Yeah, I got to say no to that. The basic assumption of collectivism is that the individual is not competent to make his own decisions. The basic of assumption of individualism is that he is competent.
Now whenever I hear people suggesting that somebody needs a “coach” or a “mentor” and that the kid should place himself under his guidance or under his care, or under anything else, I have to say no. The attempts to get the kid to doubt his own judgment may often be successful, but that doesn’t mean that they are right.
It seems utterly hypocritical to me to tell a kid to question all his assumptions, to not trust authority figures, but oh, yeah, trust this “coach” and not yourself.
Mentors and coaches - never had one, never needed one, and don’t think there is a any excuse for an individual substituting the judgment of a coach or mentor for his own judgment.
Okay, sorry Stef, I should have just googled it in the first place. I see that you do use the term “deFOO”. In fact Google registers 1,420 results for the word “deFOO” on your site alone. One of them struck me as kind of interesting: an “Annual deFOO Christmas and New Year Party” in Cancun, Mexico, organized by three of your “Philosopher Kings”.
Now, since most of your listeners are young, many of them must not have much of a family besides their “family of origin”. So when they deFOO, whether for good or for bad, that must leave a rather big hole in their lives in terms of familiar human contact, no?
So, whether you intend it or not, isn’t it likely, just judging from the facts of the situation, that many such people would want to fill that hole with something else?
And what better thing to fill that hole than the community which helped them deFOO in the first place? (One of your Philosopher Kings has waxed rhapsodic about, “Finding this new home, and this new family”.) Especially when that community has regular cookouts and retreats to Mexico?
And I happened to notice that almost all the people in planning to go to the deFOO retreat were either “Philosopher Kings” or “Diamond Donors”. I remember hearing somewhere that a Philosopher King badge runs about $50 a month (plus an initiation fee). How much do Diamand Donors chip in?
Again whether or not you intend it to turn out this way, there does seem to be a pretty likely chain of events that would tend to accompany any FDR-aided deFOO:
Molyneux → deFOO → Acute need for familiar human contact → FDR Involvement → FDR Donations → Molyneux
And you can’t blame some libertarians, at least those of the more rigorous and less “true believer” stripe, for taking a look at the chain above and closing the loop in their minds.
I’m not saying you promote deFOO because of the loop; I’m not even saying you’re aware of it. I’m saying that it’s there, and that, to the outside observer, it can look awfully suspicious.*
So, either (1.) break the loop for us, or (2.) convince us that it’s just an embarrassing, but meaningless, coincidence that you just happen to benefit greatly from the family break-ups you promote.
*especially when you go so far as responding to a woman complaining about birthday cards and Valentine’s Day cards sent to her kids from their grandparents by writing, “Don’t engage. Throw the letters out unopened, that’s my advice…” The same woman informed you that, "My 12 yr old daughter is a freedomainian listener and advocate; she thinks they [her grandparents] are evil, and is glad they are gone." To this you respond,“Magnificent! Your whole family tree is now growing towards the sun! Is your daughter’s wisdom causing any problems with her friends?”
I’m pretty sure he’s responding to this: “what has changed is that i don’t feel so worthless, helpless and broken”.
If it was solely in reply to her exclamation regarding her own feelings, why would he refer to her “whole family tree”? Obviously, the “whole family tree” “growing toward the sun” was regarding, at least in part, the 12-year-old girl becoming a “freedomainian listener and advocate”.
The sun is here a metaphor for the truth, human freedom, and positive human relationships. Why no interest in what those grandparents actually did? What caused their children to feel worthless, helpless and broken, deep into their adult lives?
When Jeffrey Tucker advocates the free market, and he ‘converts’ someone, and that person donates to Mises.org --which remains always freely available–, do we have to justify this ‘loop’? Do we have to justify when Jeffrey praises John Papola with great enthusiasm because he may get more donations out of it? Or is there some other reason why we’re into these things?
With an Austrian scholar, it’s a case of breaking off from an unsound economic theory.
With FDR, it’s a case of breaking off from one’s family.
Anyone familiar with Austrian economics knows a lot more about economic theory than Stefan knows about any of the dozens and dozens of mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters whose lives he possibly shattered.
With LvMI, the “loop” is in harmony with basic standards of competence and responsibility regarding the consequences of its actions. I have not been convinced that FDR’s deFOO campaign satisfies that criteria.
Let’s just get down to this: do you think it’s good to get away from sexually, physically and/or emotionally abusive people? Or does their genetic status as mother, father, brother or sister absolve them from any such wrongdoing?
What sort of proof is sufficient for you for someone to legitimately disapprove of abuse?
If that isn’t the most dishonest attempt to frame an argument I’ve ever seen…
If the kid is being abused, he can contact the authorities. To allow a sexual predatory to remain in the community is sickening.
But then, we aren’t talking about predators, are we? We’re talking about children going through regular stage of development wherein they feel the need to assert their own independence. And somebody comes along and manipulates them into demonizing their loving parents and turning against them.
Of course “yes” for the first question and “no” for the second question. Whether it’s okay for an individual to deFOO is not the issue; it’s whether it’s okay for a third party, who has the moral hazard of having money to gain yet nothing to lose in the matter, to so actively promote such drastic measures, under a state of considerable ignorance regarding the situation.
A lot more real proof than Stefan ever gets in his adroitly worded interviews with emotionally-charged and pliable young people, which exclude completely ANY hearing of the family’s perspective.
If a child has or had actually loving parents then some guy from the internet has 0 chance of getting him away from them.
I suggest you actually listen to some of the actual experiences these people had. They are absolutely not examples of ‘loving parents’; they are often horrifying.
The example in these last posts was about a married woman of adult age with her own children, and yet she was still having feelings of worthlessness and brokenness. I’ve asked before and I’ll point out again: what was the cause of that? Portraying that as some sort of pubescent rebellion makes no sense in this example.
You say if children are abused, they should call the government or have them jailed. And what if the abuse happened in the past? Should we still hang out with those people, or should we – of our own insight and volition – get as far as we can from those people. Is their status as a genetic family member worth anything still?
As someone who has taught kids for about a decade, that’s just about the most misinformed comment I’ve ever read regarding the psychology of children and young people in general.
It is axiomatic that adult relationships are voluntary. That is the primary diversion that Molyneux uses to change the subject. The huge and damaging issue at FDR is the associattion of Psycology with Philosophy and Molyneux’s warped definition of abuse and corruption within the family.