2 votes

Quickest Road To Freedom (Stefan Molyneux, "Against Me") Is He Right? Should We Be Doing This?

First few minutes if that's all the time you have:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUoZBfz7r0U



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I like Stefan, but I think he underestimates the reaction

I only had time for the first few minutes.

While it is absolutely true that personalizing the debate is effective in getting the other party to think, it is amazing the number of times I have seen my opponents take the statist view to it's logical conclusion: yes, I will shoot you.

Are they the minority? Yeah. They happen to be the minority who actively participates in government. The rest of us, not so much.

Stefan is very thorough in his thoughts, so he probably addresses this.

We live in a social environment, and how our neighbor's think determines how we will be treated by the government (if there is one). Stefan's technique will help get them there. The ultimate solution to the oppressive situation that is developing in this country is still political. It still involves getting enough people won-over to libertarian ideas that the political class has to change their focus. Yes, it will involve candidates. Yes, it will involve voting, or at least some form of expression of popular will in a way that cannot be fudged or denied.

Of course he's right

Law is a pathetic excuse for using force on individuals who never agreed to its terms and conditions in the first place. Unfortunately this is the society that we live in, and I would be Damned if I will allow Government force walk on everyone through violence if there wasnt anything I could do to stop it.

But the only way thats going to happen if you change the system from inside of it, and from inside yourself too.

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?
http://youtu.be/yNF09pUPypw

tasmlab's picture

A fairly quick road to reminding people

The argument is a fairly quick road to reminding people that every action of government is backed by violence. And it is true.

I'm not sure it will create a quick road to freedom, but every argument for a government solution should be set with the foundation that its enforcement and/or funding stems from a gun.

I'm sure many find it frustrating (a rhetoric game, as the poster below links to), because it essentially multiplies any argument by zero. It precludes having a pro- con- debate about any government action.

But it is true. And this is the fundamental Rothbard type argument that we should first determine what the proper role of violence is in a society prior to discussing anything else.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

One Person's Take

http://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-against-me-dopes/

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

tasmlab's picture

They could try a little harder...

The poster could try a little harder.

The 'dope' should pick a meaty counter-argument such as who should own nukes or whether we should have laws about child rape. Then we could see

The demanding of a $1MM to fund a wildlife/agricultural project is plain ole taxation through violence. The secondary effect that it would, alone, rescue a state from starvation is pretty preposterous. Esp coming from a libertarian! I'm not even sure a communist would rely on the government for protecting food production.

I'm not sure you can defend the fundamental violence of government with a local pork project! Talk about a rhetorical game. I understand the poster is demonstrating how a statist would refute (sort of), but just because a statist could make a bad counter-arguement, that doesn't make SM's against me broken.

Lastly, I don't think the "against me" argument is to just 'win' and send the foe back home with his mind changed. It is to restart the conversation to focus on the role of violence in government. Then the real debate starts, with the pro-govt person first having to agree that the violence is acceptable to start with.

(disclosure: I'm an FDR homer)

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football