Stefan Molyneux - Liberty.me

Stefan Molyneux

Kym Robinson February 7, 2016 at 3:45 am

I have dabbled over time in listening to some of him and his FDR but in the past few years I have just found him to especially grind on me irritatingly.

He comes across very absolute in his approach to ‘Voluntaryism’ and Anarchy. Whether that be in his perspectives as far as women, beta and alpha men go. Most of that is for me bland and deluded gender conceptions based on flawed psychology.

It is his obsession with IQs and Race that irk me the most however. Outside of North America, no one really cares about IQ and considers it anything more than something most ‘Americans’ value and obsess over.

I have found that a lot of his race and culture theory seems to stem from North American studies and ‘experiences’ when it comes to such issues. When viewed from an outsiders perspective they are not merely bigoted but also very limited in even the most ‘clever’ of sounding in arguments.

I especially noticed in his attempt to validate race and sports. This was a confused and shallow mess which was unashamedly cheered by his many listeners and those seeking validation in their world views.

I also have noticed his defence of the Trump populism seems to come from a fear baiters place in so far as to how one perceives Oriental others or foreigners in general. I just find that a bias to one populist candidate of a US political party in many ways derides principled claims when it comes to philosophical consistency. Especially when the said candidate, seems to be more rhetorical in bluster (as is the case for most political animals when seeking a general vote granted).

I am curious as to know what other people think of Molyneux and his concepts of ‘Anarchy’ ?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Kym Robinson February 7, 2016 at 3:49 am

I ask this because Stefan seems to be linked to the liberty movement in a many ways and a lot of liberty minded and ‘anti State’ people seem to embrace and abide by his views and ‘preaching s’.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Liz Jaluague February 7, 2016 at 9:10 am

He was fundamental to helping me find my north star in libertarianism/anarchism, but I haven’t listened to him regularly in over 5 years. I think 2005-2009 were his golden years, when he was recording his thoughts during his drive to and from work. I’ve tried listening to his more recent stuff, but I could really care less about the presidential race or the latest movie… let alone his thoughts on the presidential race or the latest movie.

I’ve heard about this r/K theory and IQ/race stuff, but I’ve found it exhausting trying to form my own opinions about it. And because I do so much activism, I don’t listen or read much libertarian material to avoid burnout (and admittedly I still burn out from too much liberty talk sometimes).

Anyway, I think Molyneux is great, especially at the time I found him. I can’t comment on his recent stuff. But my obsession of consuming audio content through him has carried over since then, and I’m so happy and grateful to have discovered how to use my waking hours more productively through podcasts 😀

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Martin Brock February 7, 2016 at 9:13 am

I occasionally listen to Molyneux, but you’d need to be more specific about something he’s said, about anarchy or gender or race, before I could respond here. He says stuff about these things. I agree with that. Sometimes he rants more than he informs, but that’s par for the course online.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Kevin Victor February 7, 2016 at 10:47 am

I think the law of diminishing returns has occurred with Molyneux/FDR. This whole idea of discussing the connections between Race, IQ, and culture has so much anthropological problems that he seems to take for granted or not be aware of. His early work was a lot more interesting and objective, now he dives into areas for the sake of opportunism.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Liz Jaluague February 7, 2016 at 9:51 pm
  
  Can’t say I blame him…
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Kevin Victor February 8, 2016 at 1:37 am
    
    Disinterested thought is usually a characteristic of a thinker/philosopher.
    
    Someone give me a good definition of race. How do you determine what makes someone part of a race? I’ve heard him talk about Hispanics as a race but it I thought it meant anyone from a country which has origins from Spain? A family could be from Japan and moved to Peru when they were young, have children who were born and raised there absorbing the whole Hispanic culture including language and eventually loosing any connection to their eastern families. “Blacks” are technical the original race but how and when did they become mixed when they started to move around Africa? What percentage of a particular race makes someone belong to one or the other? Seems like you cant be sure on any of this.
    
    What about IQ? How do you define intelligence? Who gets to determine how the metrics categorize different cognitive traits?
    
    Tie all these things together with cultural factors and you get a big pile of gray area where things aren’t clear cut. But of course its appealing to the masses who need simplistic understanding.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - David Montgomery February 8, 2016 at 8:35 am
      
      Good point about race. To wit: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
David Ottinger February 7, 2016 at 12:02 pm

I’ve always enjoyed Stefan’s content when I have a chance to listen to it. And, it was actually thanks to Stefan that realized I was a closet anarchist by him simply pointing out that anarchism is statelessness rather than lawlessness.

As far as his content goes, I think it’s important to note that he is hashing out ideas regardless of where they go, and other times he is expressing an opinion. Needless to say, the content can become rather controversial because premises are being questioned and/or explored. And, needless to say, Stefan like anyone else is capable of adopting a false abstraction. ‘Race’ is such a false abstraction. So, if Stefan accepts that category as a valid category, then it’s going to influence his judgment.

And, here is the thing about ‘race’. Either it’s a false abstraction or it’s not. If it is a valid abstraction, then things like IQ become relevant as far as races go. IQ is just a metric. Granted, that raises the question: Is IQ an objective metric?

If one thinks it is or is not, then that assessment will affect the way he/she interprets someone’s use of that metric. In a way, this is very similar to hashing out semantics so that the discourse is logical, otherwise a misunderstanding in terms will lead to different results.

So, overall, from what I’ve seen, Stefan does have integrity when it comes to logic and reason. That does not mean he will have everything correct. No one is omniscient. (Not to mean anyone here was imposing such a requisite from a philosopher.)

So, if there is an error in Stefan’s logic, what is it? Why not bring it to his attention? Hashing out ideas is his passion, and I respect that.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Liz Jaluague February 7, 2016 at 9:56 pm
  
  I have great respect for people who put their opinions out in the open (bloggers, vloggers, podcasters), regardless of how much I agree or disagree with them. They’re much braver than me, I’ll give them that 😀
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    David Ottinger February 8, 2016 at 12:52 am
    
    Especially if it goes on youtube.   Hehe… The internet can be vicious.
    
    So, what about the subject matter that isn’t a matter of opinion?   That’s the stuff that russles jimmies, especially if there is ego involved. And, that’s what I enjoy the most from Stefan when I get a chance to watch his stuff. Not that he pisses people off. But that he will pick apart ideas that serve as the building blocks to people’s paradigms, i.e. how things are or work. That’s a very difficult task. For example, imagine you’re a person who wholeheartedly believes circles are the universe’s shape. You state as fact that nature chooses circles. And to prove this you take an egg and roll it down an incline. No matter how you start it, the egg will fall over and always revolve around the circular portion thereby showing nature chooses the circle. That’s your empirical evidence of your premise. You’re absolutely convinced you’re right in this perspective.
    
    Now, imagine I come along and question the logic of that premise. “No, that’s not how gravity and inertia works.” In doing so, I inadvertently challenge your senses because you just saw what the egg did. (In actuality I’m challenging the framework, but the opposition isn’t seen that way because the individual is absolutely convinced of how reality works, i.e. polarized in a presumption about reality.) So, that opposition is treated as a threat to your world view and your own faculties. And, what sort of response typically happens with threats? Flight, fight or freeze mechanism gets triggered, right?    Mind you, that sort of response makes a lot of sense biologically because I would be tearing your virtual world (i.e. paradigm) down. And, to continue the example, what sort of associations have you developed with this idea?   If you are a professor teaching these ideas, then that is an identity associated with that view. So, now I’m also inadvertently challenging your career.
    
    From one small premise (a notion about reality) one can develop a web of associations, thoughts, and even emotions. And, I come in and tell you it’s all untrue. Reality is different than you’ve learned. It’s only natural to be inclined to reject the bearer of the news than the self. And, I’m sure at this point you can see how quickly this questioning of one’s reality can bring up various tangents.
    
    So, how much of Stefan’s content is doing this to people? From what I’ve seen, quite a lot. Because they don’t know thy self — which is what philosophy is all about. And, Stefan’s role as a philosopher is to get people to explore that.
    
    Mind you, I don’t know the details if his views on women, race, and IQ.   So, by no means am I saying Stefan is right. And, if anyone wants to discuss his views, I’ll have to watch the video being referenced. It’s always interesting to see where people think Stefan made a logical error.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Kym Robinson February 7, 2016 at 3:05 pm

I have no problem with any one hashing out ideas or sharing their ideas. A lot of people do this. I come across people with varying views while unloading trucks full of beef, after training in a gym or blowing the froth of a cold one in a front bar. Some of his views and ideals are even shared by some of these individuals. Certainly he has an eloquence and an industry behind him that many others lack however.

I do think that the period mentioned by Liz was his golden era as well as this is when I first came across him and really did enjoy him from then and around then.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Peter Lawson February 7, 2016 at 7:57 pm

I don’t know him that well but I was never a fan of his style.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

James Smith February 8, 2016 at 5:52 am

His original car journey podcasts were instrumental in my awakening. I don’t listen nearly as often anymore. His episodes are very long tiffs with people who are not nearly as skilled debaters as he.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Kirsten Tynan February 10, 2016 at 11:53 am

Molyneux is quite atrocious on many things, not just in word but in deed. He is downright statist on some topics, and just plain nonsensical on others. However, many who remember him from back in the good ol’ days when he had some sensible things to say and said them in relatively more eloquent ways, seem to think of him in terms of who he was and fail to observe and process his more recent behavior as it is instead of as they wish it would be.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Rick Rule February 10, 2016 at 12:54 pm
  
  We need to view Molyneux and others of his ilk ( including me) in terms of their usefulness. None of us, in any grouping is going to agree with all aaspects of anybody else’s views on topics like liberty.I can find serious concerns with some aspects of the published views of all of the people in Liberty related movements, that I follow and respect. I believe that anyone who spreads the message generates utility. Further, when we debate aspects of the message we disagree with, we do it from the point of view of persuasion, and lose our tendancy towards anarcho rants.
  
  I have been interviewed by Molyneux twice, and although we disagree on several points, I found him to be intelligent and articulate. The interview products were first class, and the public response rates p[laced him in the top decile of interviewers.
  
  We need more proselytizers , and we need to engage more deeply, and more politely with the audience they attract.
  
  We have so much at stake that we can not afford to sacrifice the opportunity to welcome new participants.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Alan Lynch February 11, 2016 at 9:22 am
    
    Great comments Rick.
    
    Are those interviews public by any chance? I’d love to watch them.
    
    What points did you disagree on exactly?
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Rick Rule February 11, 2016 at 10:02 am
      
      Alan
      
      Interviews by Molyneux
      
      I’m technologically incompetent, an inadvertent Luddite. I could only find one of two, on the Casey Research site. It’s called ” the US dollar, the World’s most liquid lie”.
      
      My disagreements with with Molyneux came from the fact that I did not believe the US market was in immediate danger of collapse, and I believed that the American culture of ingenuity was intact I would have described myself as more optimistic, culturally and in terms of the economy. I believed ( and still believe) that there is a lot of remaining capacity for ruin. That does not mean I’m in favor of continuing a ruinous course.
      
      In private conversation I found him brilliant, very well read, and very intuitive. My criticism of him was that he was too impatient with and intolerant of liberty minded folk whom he disagreed with. His criticism of me was that I was philosophically inconsistent.
      
      We were both right.
      
      I remain a fan of Molyneux, although parts of his rants irritate me. I welcome the new blood he brings into the freedom sphere every week, and I cherish the opportunity to interact with these new recruits, and help them form their own views, in the way that Doug Casey, John Pugsley, Bob Kephart, Jay Snelson, Mark Skousen, Adrian Day, Bill Bonner, Murray Rothbard and so many others patiently interacted with me, and helped shape my own views.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Alan Lynch February 11, 2016 at 12:43 pm
      
      Thanks Rick. That worked a treat for the interview.
      
      Yeah, I would agree with your comments based on your description as I feel the same way. I think the impatience shines through during his podcasts, especially when talking to the viewers. He acts very differently when he speaks to ‘experts’ someone like yourself perhaps.
      
      Haha I had a chuckle to your witty humor Rick.
      
      I really appreciate your perspective.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Alan Lynch February 12, 2016 at 7:35 am
      
      Here is the video on youtube:
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Martin Brock February 12, 2016 at 10:25 am
      
      Good advice from 2011. Uranium is even cheaper now, and oil is incredibly cheap, so I wonder if now is the time to bet on the longer term trend in energy which still seems positive to me, more so if the Saudi monarchy’s bet on war as the health of its state doesn’t pay off. I’m not betting on the bonds of U.S. fracking speculators, but if there’s a safer play, I’m as short as I get right now, and I need to stop playing the perpetual bailout game that we call “holding cash”.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Alan Lynch February 12, 2016 at 10:37 am
      
      Yeah most commodities are cheaper now than in 2011. They are all on sale! It’s fantastic.
      
      Silver right now is a screaming buy in my opinion due to it being a good form of money and having excellent supply and demand fundamentals (depending on how you look at it) which will lead to its price rising eventually. Plus, its down 70%, so the margin of safety is even greater.
      
      Exchange what is overvalued for what is undervalued in your subjective opinion. But base your opinion on objective reality as best as you can.
      
      That’s what I’m doing.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Rick Rule February 12, 2016 at 10:39 am
      
      I had forgotten what a superb interviewer Mr. Molineux is. He was well prepared, well spoken and well paced. I’ll need to watch more of his interviews, to polish my own skills.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    Josh Wells February 23, 2016 at 8:53 am
    
    This pretty well sums up my take on Molyneux. There are many figures in the liberty movement such as Stefan Molyneux, Doug Casey, Rick Rule, Tom Woods, Jeff Tucker, Ron Paul, and others whose work I have gained from and am grateful for. But there are none with whom I can’t find points of disagreement. It’s true that Molyneux is very strident in his views and can as a result rub people the wrong way. I’d venture to say this is not uncommon among libertarians and an area many of us could improve on, including myself.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.