Freedomain Radio

Stef,

you talk about a certain gentleman in your podcasts who:

- is a Ron Paul supporter

- who thinks political action is the way to freedom

- who is willing to violate NAP

- who may still live with his parents

- who is lecturing other people about how to apply moral principles in social and political realm

Is the person you are referring to me?

Stefan Molyneux:

It's an amalgam.

It didnt sound like an amalgam in the podcast & I think very few people would have interpreted it that way.

But if it is, then I wonder which of the points that I mentioned above would apply to me?

Because I dont think I have anywhere on the board said any of these things. If anything, I have explicitly denied them repeatedly. So if you can find quotes of mine to the contrary then please let me know. If you cant find those or if you didnt mean me with regards to these things (which seems unlikely) then I think it would be fair for you to make clear in another podcast that these features do not apply to me.

To be sure, I moved out of my parents' house right after I finished high school, about 10 years ago.

The other thing, I have asked repeatedly how an anarcho-capitalist engaged in political processes but not initiating any aggression (and not even taking a government salary) would be violating the NAP or legitimizing the welfare state or the state itself any more than a person who works for a company that almost solely works for the government and where his task is to write manuals for weapon systems. Since there is no such things as 'the government' but only people acting it is not clear to me how such an anarcho-capitalist would be violating NAP, at least not how he does this more than the manual writer.

also, does it follow from your podcast that if people like Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises had corrupt people (parents or whatever) still in their lives, their social, political and ethical works are hypocritical and not to be taken seriously? Or is the latter determined by the arguments they put forward?

does it also follow that anarcho-capitalist people who still have corrupt people in their lives cannot legitimately claim that any political involvement is wrong and impractical? (They are after all not applying the principles in their own lives, so why believe them about their application in the social and political sphere? why believe anybody who hasnt defooed about political and social matters?)

Conrad:

Since there is no such things as 'the government' but only people acting it is not clear to me how such an anarcho-capitalist would be violating NAP, at least not how he does this more than the manual writer.

People don't run for political office to have a job.  They do it for power and control over others.  I think it would be a good idea for the manual writer to try to seek private employment, but I could hardly fault him for working for a company that happened to have government contracts.  As a teen I worked on computers for the local board of education, mainly because I didn't want to work in fast food and had no other opportunities that paid as well or offered similar experience.  I wasn't, however, making decisions on, or justifying the use of, force on others.

I can't quantify the exact moment where one begins to violate the NAP, but I hope I'm not just imagining that a difference exists in the above scenario. 

...all this is in addition to the fact that a anarcho-capitalist politician is a contradiction.  He might as well be in a functional vegetative state while traveling up and down at the same time.

Charlie:

Conrad:

Since there is no such things as 'the government' but only people acting it is not clear to me how such an anarcho-capitalist would be violating NAP, at least not how he does this more than the manual writer.

People don't run for political office to have a job.  They do it for power and control over others.

so if a millionaire anarch-capitalist refuses a government salaray and goes into parliament and opposes any bill that increases or sustains the size of the government and only introduces bills calling for the abolition of government programs, one after the other, and uses the parliament as a platform to get the message out about how evil and impractical it is what all these other politicians are doing (mind you, he himself is not initiating aggression) he is doing it for power and control over others?

I'm not saying this is a realistic scenario (though it is not completely unrealistic either), but I am asking about the principles.

Charlie:

  I think it would be a good idea for the manual writer to try to seek private employment, but I could hardly fault him for working for a company that happened to have government contracts.

he wrote manuals for weapon systems... surely there were heaps of other jobs available, though likely in other fields, just like there would be heaps of other jobs available for the anarcho-capitalist who decided to go into parliament

Charlie:

  As a teen I worked on computers for the local board of education, mainly because I didn't want to work in fast food and had no other opportunities that paid as well or offered similar experience.  I wasn't, however, making decisions on, or justifying the use of, force on others.

see above. also, to be sure I am not condemming the manual writer either, I'm just asking how there is a substantial or categorical difference with the before-mentioned anarcho-capitalist

Charlie:

I can't quantify the exact moment where one begins to violate the NAP, but I hope I'm not just imagining that a difference exists in the above scenario. 

...all this is in addition to the fact that a anarcho-capitalist politician is a contradiction.  He might as well be in a functional vegetative state while traveling up and down at the same time.

well, 'politician'  is just some label that we apply to people who write laws etc. that other people take as an opportunity to commit aggression against people who violate what is in the laws. If you dont do that but have a seat in this building where these law-makers also have seats, then it is not clear to me what purpose there is in calling the anarcho-capitalist a politician in the same sense as you would call the others politicians.

To be sure, I can be wrong about this and I am open to listen to arguments to the contrary, it's just that I cant really remember a single response to this question that I have asked repeatedly

Conrad:

so if a millionaire anarch-capitalist refuses a government salaray and goes into parliament and opposes any bill that increases or sustains the size of the government and only introduces bills calling for the abolition of government programs, one after the other, and uses the parliament as a platform to get the message out about how evil and impractical it is what all these other politicians are doing (mind you, he himself is not initiating aggression) he is doing it for power and control over others?

I'm not saying this is a realistic scenario (though it is not completely unrealistic either), but I am asking about the principles.

If this example ever pops up it might be an interesting issue to examine, but there is no politician who is doing this, and I don't see any conditions that would make that possible, in the U.S. or in any other country.  Also, even if he wasn't initiating aggression he'd be a hypocrite (talking about government being evil while in the government but not being evil), and I would question his motives and sanity for obtaining that position when he could use his talents more effectively elsewhere if he were such a brilliant beacon of freedom.

he wrote manuals for weapon systems... surely there were heaps of other jobs available, though likely in other fields, just like there would be heaps of other jobs available for the anarcho-capitalist who decided to go into parliament

There could have been, you're right.  And I suppose there could be (though I can't for the life of me see how) a politician who just sat there inertly while refusing a paycheck/benefits, and introducing ONLY bills that intended to reduce government and refused to vote on anything that sustained or reduced government.  However, this hypothetical describes something that doesn't exist and it seems like we're arguing about carpet swatches while the house is being demolished around us.  A manual writer isn't the problem.  A janitor or secretary in a government building isn't the problem.  The justified force and violence of the state and unchosen obligations is the problem.

Why try so hard to reinvent a game that not only isn't fun, but always ends up permanently injuring or killing you?  Play a new game, already!

well, 'politician'  is just some label that we apply to people who write laws etc. that other people take as an opportunity to commit aggression against people who violate what is in the laws. If you dont do that but have a seat in this building where these law-makers also have seats, then it is not clear to me what purpose there is in calling the anarcho-capitalist a politician in the same sense as you would call the others politicians.

To be sure, I can be wrong about this and I am open to listen to arguments to the contrary, it's just that I cant really remember a single response to this question that I have asked repeatedly

I won't be able to make a convincing argument about the semantical differences between different classes of politicians because I don't think there is one worth developing.  That doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one - just that I don't have the time/patience/interest. I don't mean this to sound insulting, but I don't think the argument matters that much.  We need outreach and philosophy, none of which will be provided by the state.  It might take a while, sure, but we won't be the ones contributing to further death, decay, and destruction, which will only strengthen the power of the message.  Ron Paul isn't directly responsible for the "War on Terror," but he, as well as other politicians and people in the political process, bear some responsibility for continually justifying and supporting the force that makes it possible.

Conrad:

Okay, thanks for your reasoned response. a few things

 

Charlie:

Conrad:

so if a millionaire anarch-capitalist refuses a government salaray and goes into parliament and opposes any bill that increases or sustains the size of the government and only introduces bills calling for the abolition of government programs, one after the other, and uses the parliament as a platform to get the message out about how evil and impractical it is what all these other politicians are doing (mind you, he himself is not initiating aggression) he is doing it for power and control over others?

I'm not saying this is a realistic scenario (though it is not completely unrealistic either), but I am asking about the principles.

If this example ever pops up it might be an interesting issue to examine, but there is no politician who is doing this, and I don't see any conditions that would make that possible, in the U.S. or in any other country.  Also, even if he wasn't initiating aggression he'd be a hypocrite (talking about government being evil while in the government but not being evil), and I would question his motives and sanity for obtaining that position when he could use his talents more effectively elsewhere if he were such a brilliant beacon of freedom.

yeah, I agree it is not very realistic, but in Holland something like this almost happened. An anarch-capitalist friend of mine (sort of the main man in Dutch libertarian circles) was asked whether he had any interest in being on the list of candidates for parliament for this right-wing party. He didnt feel like it, but if things had gone well, he might have been accepted on the list of candidates. The party now has 9 seats in parliament and was formed by a guy who broke with his own party and started this one. Once in parliament my friend could have done the same thing, break with this party and stay in parliament as an anarcho-capitalist. This would have given him a big podium to talk about the evils of government right there in the belly of the beast with a lot of camera's focused on him. He wouldnt have had to vote for a single bill and could have introduced abolitionist bills all the time. He could have refused his salary and just kept proclaiming that these illusions that the others in this big room (parliament) have are false, really are just illusions that do horrific damage and are wholly immoral, and that this group of 149 men and women in this room are doing this that no other person would be allowed to do (well, in a sense they are only writing and talking and thus not initiating aggression either, but then he could have just exposed all the layers and dependencies between these people and the people with guns)

he wouldnt have violated the NAP then and he wouldnt have legimtized 'government'

Charlie:

Conrad:

he wrote manuals for weapon systems... surely there were heaps of other jobs available, though likely in other fields, just like there would be heaps of other jobs available for the anarcho-capitalist who decided to go into parliament

There could have been, you're right.  And I suppose there could be (though I can't for the life of me see how) a politician who just sat there inertly while refusing a paycheck/benefits, and introducing ONLY bills that intended to reduce government and refused to vote on anything that sustained or reduced government.  However, this hypothetical describes something that doesn't exist and it seems like we're arguing about carpet swatches while the house is being demolished around us.  A manual writer isn't the problem.  A janitor or secretary in a government building isn't the problem.  The justified force and violence of the state and unchosen obligations is the problem.[/quote

Yes, but see above for a possible counter-example in all respects

Charlie:

Why try so hard to reinvent a game that not only isn't fun, but always ends up permanently injuring or killing you?  Play a new game, already!

Charlie:

Conrad:

well, 'politician'  is just some label that we apply to people who write laws etc. that other people take as an opportunity to commit aggression against people who violate what is in the laws. If you dont do that but have a seat in this building where these law-makers also have seats, then it is not clear to me what purpose there is in calling the anarcho-capitalist a politician in the same sense as you would call the others politicians.

To be sure, I can be wrong about this and I am open to listen to arguments to the contrary, it's just that I cant really remember a single response to this question that I have asked repeatedly

I won't be able to make a convincing argument about the semantical differences between different classes of politicians because I don't think there is one worth developing.  That doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one - just that I don't have the time/patience/interest. I don't mean this to sound insulting, but I don't think the argument matters that much.  We need outreach and philosophy, none of which will be provided by the state.  It might take a while, sure, but we won't be the ones contributing to further death, decay, and destruction, which will only strengthen the power of the message.  Ron Paul isn't directly responsible for the "War on Terror," but he, as well as other politicians and people in the political process, bear some responsibility for continually justifying and supporting the force that makes it possible.

yep, but as i tried to describe in my example above this could be different and then being in this big room with all the cameras and so on would also help in the propaganda efforts.

Conrad:

not sure why the text in the prev post is unreadable, but if you select the text in the post then you will be able to read it

No worries.  I get updates to my posts in e-mail, so it was readable there.

Conrad:

yeah, I agree it is not very realistic, but in Holland something like this almost happened. An anarch-capitalist friend of mine (sort of the main man in Dutch libertarian circles) was asked whether he had any interest in being on the list of candidates for parliament for this right-wing party. He didnt feel like it, but if things had gone well, he might have been accepted on the lost of candidates. The party now has 9 seats in parliament and was formed by a guy who broke with his own party and started this one. Once in parliament my friend could have done the same thing, break with this party and stay in parliament as an anarcho-capitalist. This would have given him a big podium to talk about the vils of government right there in the belly of the beast with a lot of camera's focused on him. He wouldnt have had to vote for a single bill and could have introduced abolitionist bills all the time. He could have refused his salary and just kept proclaiming that these illusions that the others in this big room (parliament) have are false, really are just illusions that do horrific damage and are wholly immoral, and that this group of 149 men and women in this room are doing this that no other person would be allowed to do (well, in a sense they are only writing and talking and thus not initiating aggression either, but then he could have just exposed all the layers and dependencies between these people and the people with guns)

he wouldnt have violated the NAP then and he wouldnt have legimtized 'government'

(Emphasis mine) 

That's a lot of "could haves," and it illustrates what I was talking about.  If he had any interest in being on the list of candidates, and if things would have gone well he may have been accepted on the list and could have done the same thing as the other guy.  I would think that a right-wing break is FAAAAAR easier than an anarcho-capitalist break, and unless your friend is Superman I doubt his ability to accomplish such a feat.  And this is all resting on the assumption that other people will allow him to speak.  Arguing against new taxes can get one shunned, screamed at, called unpatriotic, etc.  I wouldn't want to imagine what would happen to someone advocating the complete elimination of the state... he may not survive long after his speech.

I'd like to think that this could work, of course, but there's every indication that it won't and that people who advocate political solutions will just look silly, crazy, and hypocritical (to those they're supposedly trying to help) and will be relegated to history's "could've bin." (Nice pun, eh? )

How has the "far-right" section of your Parliament worked out?  Have they done anything to warrant modeling an approach after?  I'm afraid I'm not well-educated on Dutch politics.  Blame the American public education system.

Charlie:

Conrad:

not sure why the text in the prev post is unreadable, but if you select the text in the post then you will be able to read it

No worries.  I get updates to my posts in e-mail, so it was readable there.

Conrad:

yeah, I agree it is not very realistic, but in Holland something like this almost happened. An anarch-capitalist friend of mine (sort of the main man in Dutch libertarian circles) was asked whether he had any interest in being on the list of candidates for parliament for this right-wing party. He didnt feel like it, but if things had gone well, he might have been accepted on the lost of candidates. The party now has 9 seats in parliament and was formed by a guy who broke with his own party and started this one. Once in parliament my friend could have done the same thing, break with this party and stay in parliament as an anarcho-capitalist. This would have given him a big podium to talk about the vils of government right there in the belly of the beast with a lot of camera's focused on him. He wouldnt have had to vote for a single bill and could have introduced abolitionist bills all the time. He could have refused his salary and just kept proclaiming that these illusions that the others in this big room (parliament) have are false, really are just illusions that do horrific damage and are wholly immoral, and that this group of 149 men and women in this room are doing this that no other person would be allowed to do (well, in a sense they are only writing and talking and thus not initiating aggression either, but then he could have just exposed all the layers and dependencies between these people and the people with guns)

he wouldnt have violated the NAP then and he wouldnt have legimtized 'government'

(Emphasis mine) 

That's a lot of "could haves," and it illustrates what I was talking about.  If he had any interest in being on the list of candidates, and if things would have gone well he may have been accepted on the list and could have done the same thing as the other guy.  I would think that a right-wing break is FAAAAAR easier than an anarcho-capitalist break, and unless your friend is Superman I doubt his ability to accomplish such a feat.  And this is all resting on the assumption that other people will allow him to speak.  Arguing against new taxes can get one shunned, screamed at, called unpatriotic, etc.  I wouldn't want to imagine what would happen to someone advocating the complete elimination of the state... he may not survive long after his speech.

I'd like to think that this could work, of course, but there's every indication that it won't and that people who advocate political solutions will just look silly, crazy, and hypocritical (to those they're supposedly trying to help) and will be relegated to history's "could've bin." (Nice pun, eh? )

How has the "far-right" section of your Parliament worked out?  Have they done anything to warrant modeling an approach after?  I'm afraid I'm not well-educated on Dutch politics.  Blame the American public education system.

well, if he had said yes to the guy who approached him, and made it through the selection process by whatever means (lying for example) then it would pretty much be done. Once you have a seat in parliament all you have to do is say 'I no longer belong to this party and am an independent from now on'  and they cant take your seat. I think I would have given him a 20% chance of succeeding if he had decided to want to be on the list. (the other good thing was that the party receieved a lot more seats than what they had expected so at the back of the lists they had put people who they hadnt really scrutinized all that well, all the more opportunity for my friend to have slipped on it)

and my friend is an extremely confident and 'cool'  guy who I think would have been able to hold his own in the midst of all this. He would have laughed at the insults, screams and so on...

yeah, the right-wing party itself seems to be going the way of advocating a somewhat fascist police state, so I wouldnt take them as a model for anything (other than their emphasis on populism and emotional appeal) But of course that wasnt the point of my post

'and will be relegated to history's "could've bin." (Nice pun, eh? )'

that was pretty clever yeah