Stefan Molyneux thread

Not an argument

>Cultist
>""""""Libertarian""""""""
>political illiterate
>Not Slavoj Zizek

No. I think the sooner people forget about him the better.

It is. You should learn what an "argument" is, my retarded memebot.

all he will be remembered for is being a human meme

AHAHAHHAAHAHAHAAHAHA

>start thread asking a question
>call every answer a non argument because you don't like them

Go back to your

Hes fairly charismatic and seems intelligent and well reasoned, but in reality is an insane hack

Especially his thoughts on child rearing and family is completely mental. He also cherry picks his sources and uses stats in an dishonest/disingenuous way

What's the argument against his idea that all taxes are theft?

The only thing I can think of is that by following any laws, say human rights laws, he has already put in place arbitrary laws enforced by force. So even if there are no taxes, having laws like not being able to murder or hurt anyone or not being able to meddle or take from anyone's private property he has already established this forceful paradigm around him.

>Especially his thoughts on child rearing and family is completely mental.
how so? Isn't most of what he says about people taking responsibility before conceiving a child or making sure to have a complete family in place with both husband and wife present all pretty good stuff?

Theft, in most definitions, is a wrongful taking of property with the intent to derive the proper possessor (not necessarily owner) of its use permanently.

Consider a hypothetical illustrative example of a streotypical 1950s family. Mother, father, 2 kids. Mother is a housewife, kids are in school, Dad is the sole breadwinner. If one of the children takes an orange out of the fridge and eats it, is that theft? Of course not, there is probably some sort of implicit permission allowing for use of resources for the family (Food in fridge) by the family on an as needed basis, even if it is a transfer of wealth from the father who earned it to the others in the household.

Similarly, if you start with an assumption that the state IS legitimate, and that it is within the state's right to act in the economic sphere, than taxes by definition cannot be theft; that government is authorized to do so.

Arguing that taxes are theft implies that the state is wrongfully taking whatever it's taxing, which in turn is itself a consequence of an argument that government and government action in the economic sphere is illegitimate, not a case that the government is illegitimate the way Stephan uses it. You'd have to prove that the government is not properly authorized to do stuff first, and given that there are zillions and often mutually contradictory theories of governmental legitimacy, that's hard to do in the abstract and total.

Not him, but look up "De-fooing"

That's what he says, but his real thoughts on parenting can be discerned by reading between the lines. He talks about de-FOOing. FOO stands for Family Of Origin. Basically, deFOOing is breaking off relations with your parents, usually because they're abusive. This sounds fine in theory, but Stefan has mummy issues. He seems to think that parents are usually abusive by default, and that it takes a very exceptional individual to not be an abusive parent. This means he is constantly telling his listeners how abusive their parents probably are, and that they should disassociate from them to prevent further mental anguish.

He hasn't talked about that for ages, he focuses on good parenting instead.

He has not generated an original inferences so there is no reason to believe he is a "great thinker" on par with Socrates and Confucius.

His fans exhibit many of the signs of a cult. An example being yourself who has posted this same thread several times now. This is likely why you feel he is a "great thinker".

He is not a bad guy, I would trust him to respect my property rights, but a "great thinker? Really? Nah. You don't know what a "great thinker" is. I am pretty sure not even SM would claim that title. Read more books.

Peterson is Plato.
Molyneux is Aristotle.
(Respectively, of our age.)
Prove me wrong.

Calm down dude. It's just hyperbole.

No, Molyneaux does claim to be a great thinker. It's one of the reasons he had such an autistic meltdown over UPB's flop.

Common Filth is the Aristotle of our time though

Maybe in the New World.

Did the Jew at least changed the intro to his channel? Watched it a year ago and it was quite stupid.

He's a nothing more than a crook that's gone through several attempts at getting money out of people (including his little cult) until he finally settled down on having an alt-right propaganda channel. Nothing he says is meaningful or worthwhile, and you'd be fool to even consider it genuine. If you watch enough of his videos (and unfortunately I did) you'll see just how much he switches from one idea to another depending on the guest. And that's not him being a polite host - the guy has no polite bone in his body. He's just a condescending and pompous asshole. Just look at his New Years video where he not only begs for money, but practically demands it, insisting that watching videos put up for free, that you may not even like, is tantamount to theft. That's what I love most about the guy
>capitalism is so good, it allows the best to prosper, i'm a libertarian guys
>give me free money, i have no idea how to make this work otherwise, please GIVE ME FREE MONEY

he's a broken record
hilariously sad when he tried to influence the french election, hope le pens loss cooled down his narcissism a bit

Peterson is an idiotic religious douchebag
molyneux is a closeminded narcisist

Jesus Christ, does he not see the implications of rashly condemning features integral to civilization?

nah

>Peterson is an idiotic religious douchebag
I'm sure you're much more intelligent than him

wait, what? He even is aware that France exists? What did he do to try to influence the election?

>25 years

Call him and debate him on his show, let's see how you perform.

He's nowhere near as good as the Supreme Gentleman.

not an argument

>Tfw I don't talk to my parents anymore because of him.

I miss them

Who Molyneux? what would I talk about? " You're a narcisist who tends to bring up self flattery in multiple of your videos, how sad are you? Speaking of sad, how did attempting to influence the french election go"?

What would I accomplish with that? Regardless of what I say his braindead fans will say he is right about everything anyway

besides I don't get joy out of making people feel bad

>what would I talk about
Anything. Pick any subject and I guarantee you would be embarrassed and taken to school.

>insult insult insult
You can tell him that too. Provided that you put your own life and accomplishments under the spotlight too, for comparison.

Did I say that? I'm just saying he was objectively wrong yet still claims to hold the absolute truth about everything, that's what I call idiotic.

>Anything. Pick any subject and I guarantee you would be embarrassed and taken to school.

Like for example the life of Cat Stevens? Don't you think I would win this debate as I'm the one who researched this? What the hell would this accomplish?

>You can tell him that too. Provided that you put your own life and accomplishments under the spotlight too, for comparison.

Why would I tell him that, I'm judging his character, he could judge mine? Should I tell him I such at soccer so he can say I suck at soccer? What?

>I'm afraid to be embarrassed and exposed in public as as the pretentious babby that I am
That's ok user. We already knew that anyway.

So you want me to call him up and tell him about Cat Stevens? That's what I'm getting from this, that or you're purposely dodging my questions as you can't seem to answer them.

Mainly because you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

>plays dumb
>gets mad when others play dumb in response
Yes, you should call him and tell him about Cat Stevens. That is exactly what I'm saying. Is that so hard to understand? Why do you want to withhold your Cat Stevens erudition from the world at large you intellectual meanie?

I take David Icke more seriously.

Ok I am dumb, tell me about the true nature of your posts. I didn't detect the sarcasm

that is, if there is a true nature, but I'm wildy guessing that there is none and you're just trying to talk your way out of this

What sarcasm? All I'm saying is that you should call Molyneux to talk about Cat Stevens and soccer, and only that. Don't let him divert you to any of that philosophical stuff. That'll show everyone you're smarter than him.

So you want me to talk about philosophy with him? How does that relate to my claim that he is narcisistic? How would him winning said debate prove he is not?

Still playing dumb I see.

You didn't only say he was narcissistic (which may or may not be true). You said that he was a close minded narcissist. The word close minded means that he is not willing to subject his opinions to critical examination. That is your claim. I say put your money where your mouth is and call him on his program to challenge his views. In other words demonstrate to us that he is close minded. You preferred to play dumb and pretend to not understand, as of course, you're not on his league. In other words you're all talk and full of shit. But please go out on another tangent telling another dumb joke.

Really, you think he does not bring his opinions as facts in debates? Name one single video where he ceded to the opponents view, or admitted he was wrong, and I will admit he is not closeminded.

>do the work of substantiating my claim for me
No.

Shouldn't that me easy as he is not close minded? Just got to one of his debates and I'm sure he will listen to his opponents arguments

videos like this
youtube.com/watch?v=VtYd4Zv13Bs

Actually it does it follow that you not conceding to your opponents arguments is a sign that you are close minded. It can just mean that you are right. So you would have the triple job of showing first, that he is wrong, second, that his opponent refuted him and third, that even knowing that his opponent refuted him, even so he refused to concede. Only then will you have demonstrated that he is closeminded. So far I've never seen that happen. You can be the first one to do it.

It does not* follow

I am not willing to dig through his old videos again, especially as I have lost all interest in molyneux since the french and dutch elections. I can't say you are right, but I will say that I was wrong to say he is closeminded without having absolute proof of it, then again, what is absolute proof when it comes to character? cheers

If I would criticize him it would be that he hardly ever debates anyone on his level.

I can agree with that even though it would be hard to subjectively prove this.
I had fun debating this whole thing though, no hate to you bro, peace out

This is not a good argument for the idea that taxation is not theft. Clearly, most people who ask whether taxation is theft mean "theft" in a moral sense, not a strictly legal sense. They mean "wrongful taking", not "illegal taking".
A much better argument for why taxation is not theft is that, unless you live in a USSR-type shithole, you are free to leave the nation. If you leave, you won't have to pay taxes to that nation any more. (In practice, you might have to pay an exit tax, but that's a minor detail and doesn't concern the overall argument).
So taxation, viewed this way, isn't theft, but is rather more like rent.

I highly doubt he'll be remembered.

No, because his sadbrains feelings about how mummy didn't hug him enough prevent him from being logical about this issue (and other issues IMO, but that's another topic). So, anytime someone brings up their parents on his show, his reaction is almost always "DeFOO them, and cut off ties to anyone who doesn't instantly take your side on it!" As this would cover basically your entire social network in most cases described to him (where basically anything besides total submission to the desires of the child 100% of the time is "abuse"), this isolates the person and, in turn, makes them more dependent on Molymeme for personal fulfillment. It's a classic cult tactic, and make no mistake, Moly wants to be a cult leader (in case you couldn't pick it up with his "I AM THE LAST GREAT HOPE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION" REEEing).

Reach back out to them, user. Don't let a pompous pseud damage your first and important social tie!

He doesn't understand basic ethics and holds to the worst form of moral absolutism. Something being "theft" is literally just an arbitrary category that we place on things, and there is no sensible argument to say that theft is always wrong. Taxes may very well be a form of theft, but that is not the same thing as saying that taxes are morally wrong and thus should not exist (along with the state according to him). The initiation of force in many instances is a very good thing, which is why the NAP is fucking stupid.

Consumerist Philosopher just like Zizek

Not only that, but he also has a very cult leader-esque stare / facial expression.

I literally said "wrongful taking". Are you high? Why does my argument not work if you shift it from a legal to a moral framework, if such a shift even needs to be done? Taxation isn't theft because it's part and parcel with how your entire society is organized, and it isn't wrong for that transfer to occur. Fin.

Nah, if his parents are retarded SJWs he's not losing anything.

Actually you're right, I misread your comment. Sorry, am sleep deprived...

Spoken like a true Molydrone, good job!
Also:

>Parents
>SJWs

Unless user's four, very unlikely.

Well his mother is Jewish so he inherently is a horrible person but still is nontheless entertaining and is genuinely has unintentional humor

...

Seriously, it's uncanny how many Molyneaux pictures make him look like he's tremendously constipated and straining with all of his might to squeeze out a difficult turd.

Harris pls go

G E T

H I M

O F F

M
I
K
E

...

There have been enough arguments about him. Fuck off.

He is a total fucking moron Ancap.

youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4&t=53s

Anyone with an understanding of economics passed econ 101 can debunk these ridiculous claims and I'll take a shot at one of them. There's a saying among economists that "businessmen don't think like economists" and this rings true in the real world all of the fucking time. Right Wing Libertarians swear up and down that they are the only group that truly understands economics when they realistically take the entry level theory and apply it to all economic problems and then criticize others for being economically illiterate. It's the equivalent of someone claiming they understand mathematics and claim "ya know math is simple 2+2 is 4 4x4 is 16, yeah I know math really well!" then someone with a ore advanced understanding brings up irrational and imaginary numbers and their response to this is "dude imaginary numbers? lol wtf are you talking about/ imaginary numbers what's next pretend words? make believe letters? lol why don't you try learning basic math before arguing with me"

This is a short oversimplified refutation of Notanargument Man's argument against price collusion.

His premise is essentially that producers of goods will not collude with each other to raise prices on consumers because each one has an incentive to lower the price and thus out compete the others and make up the loss in price via volume.

This makes sense at first glance as do most claims by free market capitalist enthusiasts however there are a few things wrong with this. First one of the first things you learn in business is not to compete with price but you compete with quality, service, options etc.

The specific flaw with his argument against price fixing is that it isn't profitable in the long run and most likely not in the short run either to lower your price without reducing the cost of production. Example:

You are one of five widget producers who all have an equal share of the market...

Poor man's Peterson desu

Anyone with an understanding of economics passed econ 101
said the marxist

Sort yourself out bucko

(if there is an unequal distribution of market share the argument is still essentially valid however this info is useless even though on the surface it may seem relevant). The cost of producing a widget is $10 and they sell for $50 leaving the producer with $40 in profit. Let's say each producer sells 1000 widgets per week. The producers all collude with one another to raise the price per widget to $70 and this increase in price does not result in a decrease of market volume so each producer still sells 1000 per week. Let's say I decide to drop my price of $70 down to $60 in order to gain more market share and thus make more money.

This may seem like a reasonable move but it's not. At $70 per widget I was making 60k a week, now that I've dropped it to $60 per widget I'd only make 50k but I've gained an increase of customers. For this decision to be profitable I need to sell enough widgets to make more than 60k which means I need to sell an additional 200 widgets just to not lose money. The problem is my competitors will adjust their prices as well which means I'll lose the additional volume. Even if I take 100% of the market place at $60 per widget I'll still eventually lose money if they lower their prices which is inevitable.
At 100% of the market $60 a widget means 250k net profit per week. 250k-60k(money I would have made not fucking with the program)=190k which means after 19 weeks my decision to compete with price stops being the profitable one. A potential refutation could be that the increased volume could be sustained in the long run but that has nothing to do with price which is what we're discussing.

Now, there are a lot of factors Molyneux isn't taking into consideration like elasticity, equilibrium etc but these are irrelevant to his argument because the gist of his argument is that competitive pricing alone can combat this particular type of market failure which, as demonstrated, can't.

please refute me and no I'm not a Marxist. I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist.

I disagree, for starters you pointed out yourself that the best way to compete is with quality, so if the producers of widgets colluded and agreed on the $70 price then the most appealing widget would overtake the market, the leading producer could then increase volume while competing producers would have to decrease volume or shut down all-together, it's unrealistic to think that the widget producers would all be at the same quality. Even in the case of a price floor being decided upon by colluding producers, the only ones who would be affected would be those on the bottom which would still lead to an increase in either price or volume by the successful producers, and that's without even considering new producers using the inflated price to come into the market outside of the collusion at a lower price.
I do think that you're right when you say that molymeme does not take elasticity or equilibrium into account though, but you don't really take it into account either in your example since it would only be possible in a stable and closed market. In my opinion the best way to look at it is from the point of view of the cell-phone market, I know it's a little unfair since it's a much more volatile market but you can see the implicit price range and quality/price correlation at work, you see new products quickly settle into a price range for their quality and a hiccup like those exploding galaxy 7s has an immediate impact on it's price.

You know Molyneux is a french name right?

you're not discussing humanities, you are shilling meme youtube nuphilosophers

As an observation, I can see both sides of quality arguement.

Problem is when importing goods from large manufacturers who other companies simply brand. Many times items are copied, but most times large Chinese producers sell items to be branded by companies in other countries all over the world. You even more frequently see the same internals with maybe some small changes to physical appearance.

If 5 companies all buy supply from 1 supplier overseas, what you see is exactly as first user states it. Only difference is the bigger the market share the more you can buy in quantity thus cheaper.

A company with revolving stock can always supply from a new manufacturer or carry models of different quality.

All this is saying that they don't produce in house such as what second user might have suggested. Everyone producing in house is more difficult but ultimately leads to better quality, innovation, and invention.

Youtube pseudo-intellectuals are the worst

Yeah, but I know plenty of people with French names here in the States who only have a vague idea where France is. Moly's Canadian, not Burgerclap, but given his general level of ignorance, I'm still a bit surprised.

The best philosopher of our time is Varg.

For making boring videos that are about ten times too long?

You're actually inadvertently validating my argument.

The reason I'm not taking in all those other factors is because I'm refuting the notion of competing with price solely for the purposes of obtaining increased market share.

You're arguments don't deal at all with my point, the point is prove to me how you can sell a product for less money and make more profit without reducing the cost of production, it simply can't be done.

This also doesn't deal with the point of the argument.

Varg is actually quite intelligent if you subtract the pagan obsession. He is sometimes horribly wrong but often right even though in a different way then intended

>beleiving hes a real person and not a character
>not realising hes laughing at his veiwers behind seven layers of irony while taking their money

irish actually, norman origin. he has no french background

this he never gets to the point

>it's okay for the government to take whatever they take because to deny their right to do so is equivalent to declaring all governments illegitimate
No. Taking somebody's justly acquired property without consent while they object to it is theft. Arguing that governments get to do so because "governmental legitimacy" is hardly any different than claiming kings have the divine right to rule simply because god has allowed them to do so.