I understand for many that is evidence of guilt but logically speaking that's not the same thing.
Where?
Because everything I've heard from him suggests he would love one... which meets your definition squarely.
That said, I don’t think it’s fair to lump him in with folks like Spencer and Duke. I don’t agree with Moleyneux’s viewpoints but think he articulates them well enough that he should be refuted, not scrubbed from existence.
Or on the flip side, if something he says makes you uncomfortable but you can’t explain why it’s wrong, then you need to step up your rhetoric game.
One of the most effective tropes used by folks like Molyneux is “liberals are emotional and argue with feelings, not facts” - by freaking out and banning a highly articulate speaker like Molyneux the “libs” are only proving his point.
https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/108248906874151321... https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/118100374698304307...
I just took the tweets from the other comments here.
- They rarely admit to being racist, usually strongly arguing that they are specifically not racist
- Most of them have very strong preferences about the correct terminology to use in referring to them, as if their niche hate label of choice helps them avoid the stigmatization of the more common hate labels most of society finds unacceptable.
Many of them really sound like career politicians the way they try to spin their position as not condoning hate or violence, ignore all evidence to the contrary, and quibble over which hate labels they prefer. So yes, very often what a group is not willing to oppose can be very telling about their true position, which is often never admitted to in any kind of straightforward manner.
"The devolution of the US from an Enlightenment Republic to a semi-banana republic is also silenced, since that has a lot to do with racial IQ demographics esp permanent low Hispanic IQ"
What is the implied solution to this alleged problem?
1. : loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
This, to me, reads that nations should advocate for their own interests first and have that as their primary concern - which seems pretty reasonable. Much in the same way that we have state and local representatives that advocate for the state and the locality in their respective governments, the higher levels up do the same for their entire citizenry on the global stage.
There's nothing inherently icky or oppressive about this kind of mutual self-interest, and it need not imply any kind of dehumanization. It is, of course, possible to take too far (see: xenophobia), but that strikes me as a problem of implementation and general human failings, not as an intractable problem with the concept that deserves it being compared to objective evil.
If the antonym of nationalism is globalism, I think that mindset has bigger problems.
Others advocate that it is acceptable to use violent aggressive force against people who do not conform to your opinion of how things should be governed.
Tell me where the problematic ethics are again?
(FWIW, I don't watch any of the people mentioned above and have only heard of the first, so I am not here to defend them or what they may have said. I'm only defending the Non-aggression principle, which implies that markets are free.)
"empathy," but it's OK to use violent aggressive force against people who don't share my empathy.
"social unity," but it's OK to use violent aggressive force against people who don't share our opinions.
The non-aggression principle is the only ethically consistent one. As soon as you advocate for violence to be used, your other opinions mean shit.
A free market is implied by the non-aggression principle, because the only way you can stop people trading freely if they don't agree with you is to use violence.
Civil liberties are protected by individuals themselves, by asserting their rights, and conforming to the non-aggression principle to avoid getting into conflicts with others.
As for "equality", I really could not give a shit. Me and my immediate family come first. My extended family come second. My community comes third. The rest are dead last. It doesn't matter what sex, color, orientation or other perceived victimization they have - if they attempt or advocate for violence to be used against those I care about, they are the problem.
I am a strong proponent of the non-aggression principle, and will interact with anybody on good terms unless they are in violation of it.
Also, regarding trust in free markets: What is a democratic vote? Why does this free market opinion have a free pass but other free market opinions are not allowed?
> Civil liberties are protected by individuals themselves, by asserting their rights, and conforming to the non-aggression principle to avoid getting into conflicts with others.
Some people are are not in positions to "assert" their rights. Furthermore, by claiming they have a duty to not use violence in order to reclaim the rights being denied you further give power to a group of individuals to are systematically denying people rights. Again, arguments that the free market works this sort of shit it out is just philosophical thinking not founded in reality and obviously coming from a lack of experience with systematic oppression.
> As for "equality", I really could not give a shit.
That's where we're just going to disagree and you reveal your values. There isn't room in the future for people who think this way. You're going to become further polarized as it becomes increasingly clear that the global community is increasingly concerned with equality and you're standing on the sidelines.
That some people are unable to assert their rights does not give you blanket permission to violate the rights of others. It is up to their family or guardians to assert their rights in their place.
> Furthermore, by claiming they have a duty to not use violence in order to reclaim the rights being denied you further give power to a group of individuals to are systematically denying people rights.
You just described government.
Everyone has rights. Rights are not granted, they exist. They can only be taken away, and the principle entity which does so is government. Anybody who attempts to take away one's rights is in violation of the NAP, and it should be open season on them. The government should be no exception. Many of the problems are the result of the government being beyond reproach.
A big problem is some people don't understand what is meant by a "right".
You have a right to gain employment, but you have no right to have somebody else employ you. The latter right belongs to the employer, who also has the right to not employ you.
You have a right to be treated by a physician, but you have no right to have a physician treat you. The latter right belongs to the Physician, who also has the right to not treat you.
> Again, arguments that the free market works this sort of shit it out is just philosophical thinking not founded in reality and obviously coming from a lack of experience with systematic oppression.
The government is oppressing everybody. Everybody has experienced this. The problem is not your neighbour, or the white man, or the black man - it's the NAP-violating State which uses violence against other human beings, steals from them and purposely devalues their capital to maintain their status-quo.
> There isn't room in the future for people who think this way.
This is how everyone who can THINK thinks. Others either don't think, or do not say what they really think.
It's very easy to virtue signal and support social justice behind a keyboard, but if you or your family were under threat of violence, you would not give two shits about any of the nonsense you previously espoused and would care only for the immediate safety of yourself and those you love. This is not going to change and should not need to change because protecting your loved ones is a virtue and not a vice.
Rather than pretending this is not the case, it is better to be absolutely clear that this is the case, and work to build harmony with others around the principle that nobody may use aggression against other human beings, else they are to face consequences, where the ultimate consequence may mean loss of their own life.
The killing of another human being in self-defence is a non-violent act and is consistent with the NAP. It is also ethically consistent, no matter what act was performed by the aggressor if the act was deliberate.
Consider Alice to be an aggressor against Bob. Alice commits a violation of the NAP by stealing a loaf of bread from Bob. Is it acceptable for Bob to use deadly force against Alice?
The answer is yes, otherwise, knowing that Bob may use deadly force against her for stealing the loaf, she would not attempt to steal it. Alice, of her own volition, risks her own life for the bread: she values the bread more than her own life. It is only right that Bob agrees, and sees the loaf as more valuable than Alice's life. There is no disagreement here - both Bob and Alice agree that the loaf is more important than Alice's life.
Of course, most humans have empathy and would see the stealing of a loaf of bread as an act of desperation and would rather be charitable than defensive. This does not imply that Alice should have a free reign to go around stealing: she should instead go around begging for alms.
For other kinds of theft, such as valuable item theft, Bob should not need even to justify the use of deadly defensive force. The assailant has made it clear that the valuable item is worth more than their own life.
> You're going to become further polarized as it becomes increasingly clear that the global community is increasingly concerned with equality and you're standing on the sidelines.
I fully intend that to be the case. I want nothing to do with violent lunatics and will instead prefer to interact only with those who share my opinions on the NAP. There are many like me who are electing to "leave" existing systems of robbery and Oppression Olympics so that we can just get on with our lives and be left alone. Thankfully, we now have a key technology which enables this: Bitcoin. Oh, and guns.
Also, in regards to "equality". The problem with the everything-must-be-equal types is that they assume stereotypes are 100% wrong, all of the time, which is simply not true. Even if the stereotype is only 1% true, it is still 1% that say, a potential employer may not want to take the risk on. The correct thing to do here is to educate so that people are clear that the stereotype is largely untrue - but the strategy which is now underway is not one of education, but bullying into submission. This will backfire. For example, the current BLM madness is not going to do any favours for regular black folk looking to find employment. Sorry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How would you accomplish this non-aggressively, especially if the disenfranchised group resists?
Restrict access to institutions of power such as legislatures, the church, banks and financial institutions, civil service, the military, lower or higher education, business, the ballot box.
Use selection criteria which are impersonal but demonstrably discriminate against the class.
Locate polluting industry in neighbourhoods inhabited by the group. Especially contaminants (lead, mercury, asbestos, etc.) with long term cognitive and behavioural health effects.
Encourage (and prosecute) drugs trade and use in the group's ccommunities. Differentiate in prosecution and sentencing between "their" and "our" drugs.
Establish wholly separate "segregation schools" for the privileged group. Ensure that the privileged poor have scholarship access, but the disenfranchised group does not.
Create exclusions based on redlining, restrictive covenants, actuarial risk, AI, or other mechanisms reducing access to assets, insurance, business financing, and other opportunity-enhancing resources, often "objective" and "based in data".
If you try to do something to someone, and they tell you to stop or try to get you to stop, continuing to do the thing is an act of aggression.
Thanks people, I had a rough day on HN today and you put a smime on my face :-)
1. Free markets can result in unfair outcomes in the face of prejudice or historical inequalities.
2. Racial inequality is caused entirely by government regulation.
3. The system works fine as it is, and some minorities just deserve lower status because they're lazy or have low IQs or something.
The most hardcore Libertarians reject (1) because it could potentially justify government intervention. Most of them turn to (2), but since that's a bit of tough argument to make, a few go to (3) instead. And once you decide that minorities are just inferior, it's a pretty straight line from there to white nationalism.
I heard bits and pieces over the years since that gave me the same reaction - what the hell happened. Although in retrospect the seeds were probably there even back then.
One thing that came out later was him emotionally explaining to the camera that the problem with the world is that women choose assholes to date. Another was his violent fantasy about what he'd do to his mother. That these kinds of outbursts didn't lose him his audience pretty much tells you all you need to know.
It's a shame, as there were a few pieces that stuck with me from when I watched it that I think made me a better person.
It was the first time I'd personally been exposed to ideas (mainly because I was young) like never hit children, it's OK to cut contact with an abusive family, that circumcision on babies is wrong and that you should structure your life to spend a great deal of time with your children if you want to be a parent. They've all pretty much stuck with me until today.
Plus a bunch of interesting in theory libertarian stuff, although I'm so far away from many of his positions it's almost comical (I'm the kind of person that wants high income and capital gains taxes and 100% inheritance taxes to fund a basic income), I find it a good diff on current society.
It's a shame, because if he had progressed towards cuddly-bear Molyneux instead of I-want-to-run-a-cult Molyneux, I think he could have been a positive force instead of the target of what is a pretty well justified ban today.
This is an interesting thing I don't hear talked about much. People often criticize social media because it recommends increasingly extreme content to consumers because doing so drives up engagement.
But what I hear less often is how the reward systems of social media radicalize producers.
If you make your living off YouTube and see that you nuanced, reasoned video essay got 50 views, while you're angry rant got 50,000... you'll start feeling the pressure to make more of the latter. And your natural desire to rationalize your own cognitive dissonance will lead you to believe the things you find yourself spewing.
This is why it's so important to get incentive structures right. Because incentives do what they do whether you want them to or not.
I'm assuming it took years for Molyneux to progress from being a quirky libertarian channel to open hate. There was no single video posted that was like "I've decided I hate women", which would at least give the audience a wake up call so they can decide if they really want to be on this train.
At a more innocuous level, you can see a similar progression in a lot of YouTubers if you dig back through their older videos. Many people start out pretty normal and low-key in their videos. But over time, they become more emotive, expressive, and over the top, until eventually you get to "HEY YOUTUBERS IT'S YA BOY HERE SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON YEAH LET'S GET IT STARTED..."
I don't think any of them chose to do that, it's just that the feedback loop is hard to fight.
But a less serious intellectual than Dr. Wolff (of Yale, Harvard, Stanford), Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Project has made Stefan look foolish.[1]
And an even less serious intellectual than Peter Joseph has caught out Stefan (me), he's one of those that says "communism kills people", but yet "guns do not kill people". If inanimate objects don't spontaneously kill people Stefan, neither do ideas. He's beneath a lightweight on his ability to think clearly.
In short, capitalism is paying others to do your work, but paying them less then the value they produce. Not an attractive proposition since it always trends towards Foxconn without a mechanism to counteract it such as a union.
A market can exist without that, bartering is all you need there.