Freedomain Radio

Stef,

let me ask this again: are Mises' and Rothbard's theories invalid or at least not to be taken seriously because they may have had corrupt people in their lives still? Or because their ideas are not empirically testable?

I don't really know anything about their family lives.

Do you think that the analogy of getting your parents into therapy is valid with regards to rehabilitating the state?

Stefan Molyneux:

I don't really know anything about their family lives.

Do you think that the analogy of getting your parents into therapy is valid with regards to rehabilitating the state?

it would be better if you answered my two questions first. Let me rephrase the first one: if I can show you that Mises or Rothbard had corrupt people in their lives, in their close proximity, will you then stand corrected or is there a way out?

Conrad:

Stefan Molyneux:

I don't really know anything about their family lives.

Do you think that the analogy of getting your parents into therapy is valid with regards to rehabilitating the state?

it would be better if you answered my two questions first. Let me rephrase the first one: if I can show you that Mises or Rothbard had corrupt people in their lives, in their close proximity, will you then stand corrected or is there a way out?

1. Why don't you answer his question anyway?

2. What would it prove if they did? 

Nathan McKaskle:

Conrad:

Stefan Molyneux:

I don't really know anything about their family lives.

Do you think that the analogy of getting your parents into therapy is valid with regards to rehabilitating the state?

it would be better if you answered my two questions first. Let me rephrase the first one: if I can show you that Mises or Rothbard had corrupt people in their lives, in their close proximity, will you then stand corrected or is there a way out?

1. Why don't you answer his question anyway?

2. What would it prove if they did? 

1, because that will give Stef an excuse to forget responding to my earlier questions

2. then people with corrupt people in their lives oddly enough can make valid statements about social, political and economical reality

but let me answer Stef's question: no, I dont accept the validity of the analogy. Stef in 3 podcasts has repeated and repeated this as an assetion, but he has not given any logical or causal relation between the two (other than psychological defenses, which is begging the question). proof by repetition is not proof at all

[EDIT: trying to get third parties to make corrupt people who obviously have serious psychological issues, better is not the same or causally or logically related to having a seat in parliament and exposing lies and hypocrisy and voting down every bill to increase or maintain the size of government. I have no idea whether it is possible to make the state collapse by a joint efFort of such 'political'  and extra-political (e.g. what Stef is doing) processes. I have no friggin' idea and am realistic enough to admit this, and I find it very very odd that Stef can seriously maintain that an ancap society will be here in 5 to 10 years (when the state has supposedly collapsed) without giving any explanation whatsoever (other than saying that the people who all along said that the state was evil and never participated in it) of how he sees the military and police handing in their guns, all the civil servants going home, all the people dependent on the government stopping being dependent and so on. This simply is bafflling: he says an ancap society is just around the corner, but he has no idea how the process will occur!]

and a theory about whether poltiical processes can help in reducing or getting rid of the state can only be evaluated on logical and praxeological terms, just like economic theories can only be evaluated in that way. And not by psychological theories about the inventor of the theories.

I have never said that an ancap society will be here in 5 or 10 years, what nonsense.

Look, either you're going to deal with your parents or you're going to argue about the ethics of Rothbard's circle of friends from 30 years ago. I know which issue has more relevance to your freedom. Clearly I have not been able to get this point across to you. No problem, I might be totally out to lunch.

After a half-dozen podcasts, a 2 hour conversation, and endless posts on this board, if I haven't moved your position, I know when I am defeated.

Best of luck, I am bowing out. 

Stefan Molyneux:

I have never said that an ancap society will be here in 5 or 10 years, what nonsense.

Look, either you're going to deal with your parents or you're going to argue about the ethics of Rothbard's circle of friends from 30 years ago. I know which issue has more relevance to your freedom. Clearly I have not been able to get this point across to you. No problem, I might be totally out to lunch.

After a half-dozen podcasts, a 2 hour conversation, and endless posts on this board, if I haven't moved your position, I know when I am defeated.

Best of luck, I am bowing out. 

then I must have misunderstood you when you wrote in response to the question when and how an ancap society will come about:

 

I could be missing something, but I just don't see the importance of the question. The purpose of my philosophy is not to get rid of the state. Never has been, never will be.

The purpose of philosophy is to bring and maintain happiness. That comes from recognizing reality. And the reality is that there is no way to predict with any accuracy how a stateless society will come about.

If I had to guess, though, it will happen when the existing system collapses in 5-10 years - those who have predicted that occurrence, have not been associated with the state, and have openly talked about the moral evils of the state, will have a voice then. Like people, society has to run out of false answers before it starts accepting the truth.

The state will kill itself; the challenge will be to stop its resurrection. 

Stefan Molyneux:

I have never said that an ancap society will be here in 5 or 10 years, what nonsense.

Look, either you're going to deal with your parents or you're going to argue about the ethics of Rothbard's circle of friends from 30 years ago. I know which issue has more relevance to your freedom. Clearly I have not been able to get this point across to you. No problem, I might be totally out to lunch.

After a half-dozen podcasts, a 2 hour conversation, and endless posts on this board, if I haven't moved your position, I know when I am defeated.

Best of luck, I am bowing out. 

and I feel completely the same way.

You have never even addressed my and David's point about praxeology and a logical vs. an empriical method and how your focus on an empirical method necessarily requires you to give up the whole of Austrian Economics, and in your most recent podcast continue to make a caricature straw-man out of it. Neither have you ever addressed my question about the hypothetical anarcho-capitalist in parliament or whatever who never initiates aggression, nor have you ever responded to my point that you would even if you are right about your ideas about performative contradictions need to have a theory connecting the moral theory with practical reality.

You have had all the chances in the world to do this, and to answer questions about the processes of how an ancap society will come about, and you have not once even tried to address the question other than very generally saying 'the state will collapse and the people who had predicted it and never participated in it will have a voice then'

I lost $100 in the process. At least you won that $100

Stef wrote: Look, either you're going to deal with your parents or you're going to argue about the ethics of Rothbard's circle of friends from 30 years ago.

I think Christina is an expert in this so perhaps she'll be able to tell you whether this is rather nasty passive-aggressive behaviour, and she may also speculate about what the cause for it is.

Christina has read this over, and other posts, and suggests that I ban you from this message board.

I am going to take her advice. Sorry it didn't work out!