Freedomain Radio

It's strange but I really seem to be quite shocked about what Stef just wrote.

anyway, I'll reply to Nathan below

Nathan McKaskle:

Conrad:

Considering you're protecting a politician who implicitly in his actions condones a monopoly and the initiation of aggression from people who are against the initiation of aggression on moral grounds... I'd really like to know.

well, first of all I try to show the weaknesses in your argumentation which is not just defending Ron Paul, but may also help you directly and indirectly.

secondly, i dont see why the fact that somebody is a politician or a thief or a rapist or whatever means that they can be attacked unjustly and without grounds, in this case by linking him too Hitler and calling him a racist. attack RP all you want about his not being an anarcho-capitalist and thus being compromised, and i think (but not sure) it would also be okay to question his intellectual honesty on this basis and thus predict that if he gets into office he wont do what he now says. That all seems like legit criticism to me, but as I tried to show calling him a racist and linking him to Hitler on the basis of the race-quotes and his view on Mexican immigration seems wrong to me

Ok I'll admit connecting him to Hitler was a bad move. 

okay, good

I don't think Greg's point about Hitler had to do with what Hitler did as much as how Ron Paul thinks something must be done about the Mexicans (the only connection being "something must be done about those Jews").

yeah, but then of course there are a lot more situations and people you can link this too, all of them not as bad as Hitler and the Holocaust

I dont know, I dont want to be pushing this, but I would remark that it really may be a good thing to analyze in yourself why this temptation in you exist, you know, to attack Ron Paul this intensely and on flimsy evidence:

was it a case where once you have taken a position you dont feel safe retracting it?  (but in other cases you do do this with no problems) or was is that perhaps you are not really secure about your position about a political way to achieve an ancap society so that you start to overscream (too big a word) yourself, you know, to pumpo yourself up and repress your own insecurity, or something else still. I'm not trying to be whiny about this, I seriously think it can be worth your while to investigate this

 

  It is Ron Paul's view that America exists that is the problem.  It is Ron Paul's view that something must be done about "immigration" (moving) and that we should use violence to "protect" this non-existent "America" from people who move to the north into what he thinks is "America".  It is the same kind of bigotry as religious faith.

yes I agree. but i would also say that there is a big practical problem with free immigration into a welfare state. and i understand that people would say that libertarian principles should hold at any time and in any situation and thus in this case too immigration should just be allowed. I will write more about this later today in a separate thread

 

thirdly, it could also be that I am holding the members of the FDR board to higher standards than I do with other people, since the people on the board exactly profess a belief in openness, vulnerability, honesty and rationality. That's great and that's also why it should be good and no-problem for other people to point out where FDR board members may go wrong in these respects: it will only help them understanding themselves and the world better and making future communication less tense. Whenever you feel that I am violating the before-mentioned standards then please let me know, cuz I dont want to do that and at times it takes other people to point my flaws out to me since I am too much 'in them'

No I want to be honest and I agree that I was a little over the top with the Hitler thing.  I really tire of the argumentum ad Hitlerum anyway because it really doesn't help anyone's argument to try and link things to Hitler.

okay, very good

 

Nathan McKaskle:

I haven't gotten a really strong impression that you're a big Ron Paul supporter.

yeah me neither ;-) although I would say that I like the speeches he gave to e.g. the Mises Institute, and that he seems sincere to me, and I do wonder what he would argue in a discussion with an anarcho-capitalist cuz that is sort of the ultimate test for sincerity.

I think he's talking about others mostly.

I hope he is, but then I dont see why he specifically made the first comment ('it is more personal') about me

Nathan McKaskle:

Does any of this ring true for you?

I thought my ears were ringing.

also, I am not quite sure what you mean by this. do you mean that you do recognize the behaviour that Stef described in my posts on this thread? or do you mean that you recognized things in yourself?

EDIT: nm the quote was messed up on one of your posts I missed the answer, sorry.

you mean my post? if so, which one?

Conrad:

Stefan Molyneux:

Conrad:

Stefan Molyneux:

No it's more personal than RP...

can you tell me whether you base this belief on my behaviour on the board (chossing this rather than other topics to respond to (either for its content or for its argumentation style or something else still), replying in rather rapid succession, and so on) or on personal information that you have about me?

I'd be very interested to know your reasons for saying this: I thought about the remark last night and I think it makes sense in an important way and i can think of several ways in which this may be so, but i do not know whether these are similar to your reasons and whether you see things that I do not (or cannot) see.

Almost all the debates I have had with RP supporters are fundamentally religious in nature, which involve:

• blanket assertions of unprovable facts (RP will help reduce government in the future)
• blanket rejections of referenced facts (RP has not reduced government in the past)
• ignoring requests for factual information (i.e. how much spending has RP cut in the 20 years he's been in government?)
• totally ignoring information that opposes the pro-RP assertion
• when that information is repeated, responding with tangents, hostility, or continuing to ignore it
• totally ignoring what I think are strong arguments against the pro-RP position (i.e. the KKK metaphor I used lately, which was never responded to)
• biased use of statistics
• personal attacks (those who oppose RP are whiners, unrealistic, hostile, negative etc etc etc)
• and so on

Clearly, this is far more personal than RP, who nobody I've debated with known personally.

I believe that there are two main reasons for pro-RP irrationality (I don't mean that all pro-RP sentiments are irrational, just the ones I've debated)

1. A desire to stay within the bounds of 'mainstream' society, which includes not challenging others who have irrational pro-RP faith. This includes the belief that the existing system can be positively changed from within. It is painful to give up that belief.
2. A family member - probably a father - is being held on to despite strong evidence of corruption. This family member is probably a good talker - like RP - and also probably portrays himself as the 'good' parent'. This is the more important reason.

The defenses used in the RP debate are far too sophisticated and well-developed to just have 'popped up' for current political purposes. These are very old and deep defenses.

Does any of this ring true for you?

eh Stef, first of all can you tell me in what posts I have been guilty of any of the above? Cuz I really dont see it, I think I tried to argue pretty openly and responded with facts and logic to every argument presented to me (and as I have tried to point out repeatedly i cannot say the same thing about the other participants in the discussion. so that makes me wonder whether you would approach their behaviour in a similar vein.

secondly, in this thread I have strictly limited myself to trying to show why the accusations of racism and the Hitler link are unfounded, and I think I have done so in a careful manner

thirdly, I myself still dont really know what to think about Ron Paul's entry into the race, so to call me a Ron Paul supporter in the same vein with the others seems somewhat preseumptuous

I will be happy to hear back from you

No, sorry, I was not at all clear - I have not been in this debate, so I didn't mean you, I was talking about the past dozen or so RP debated I've been in, sorry again bro!

Conrad:

It's strange but I really seem to be quite shocked about what Stef just wrote.

Why shocked? I think what he said rings true about the Ron Paul supporters.

Conrad:

Ok I'll admit connecting him to Hitler was a bad move. 

okay, good

I don't think Greg's point about Hitler had to do with what Hitler did as much as how Ron Paul thinks something must be done about the Mexicans (the only connection being "something must be done about those Jews").

yeah, but then of course there are a lot more situations and people you can link this too, all of them not as bad as Hitler and the Holocaust

I dont know, I dont want to be pushing this, but I would remark that it really may be a good thing to analyze in yourself why this temptation in you exist, you know, to attack Ron Paul this intensely and on flimsy evidence:

was it a case where once you have taken a position you dont feel safe retracting it?  (but in other cases you do do this with no problems) or was is that perhaps you are not really secure about your position about a political way to achieve an ancap society so that you start to overscream (too big a word) yourself, you know, to pumpo yourself up and repress your own insecurity, or something else still. I'm not trying to be whiny about this, I seriously think it can be worth your while to investigate this

I think perhaps I was doing that to some extent.  Old habits die hard, I've got some insecurity/narcissism issues I'm still working on.

  It is Ron Paul's view that America exists that is the problem.  It is Ron Paul's view that something must be done about "immigration" (moving) and that we should use violence to "protect" this non-existent "America" from people who move to the north into what he thinks is "America".  It is the same kind of bigotry as religious faith.

yes I agree. but i would also say that there is a big practical problem with free immigration into a welfare state. and i understand that people would say that libertarian principles should hold at any time and in any situation and thus in this case too immigration should just be allowed. I will write more about this later today in a separate thread

Yes but "practicality" fails in the face of consistency of principle. The answer is not to make things even worse, to use more violence to stop immigration but to get rid of the welfare state.  I think we agree on that though.

It isn't more practical to shoot the cancer patient if you can give him chemotherapy instead.  Creating new problems because it is "impractical" somehow to get rid of the actual problem is not practical, it is just adding to the problem.  If the problem is identified, treating the symptoms instead of curing the disease is a bit impractical.  We know what the cure is but no one is willing to acknowledge that it is there.  Therefore by not pointing out the cure Ron Paul is not only engaging in intellectual dishonesty but he is promoting violence in the process.  If he really wants to be honest and be effective then I don't think adding to the problem is the answer for sure.

Conrad: eh Stef, first of all can you tell me in what posts I have been guilty of any of the above? Cuz I really dont see it, I think I tried to argue pretty openly and responded with facts and logic to every argument presented to me (and as I have tried to point out repeatedly i cannot say the same thing about the other participants in the discussion. so that makes me wonder whether you would approach their behaviour in a similar vein.

secondly, in this thread I have strictly limited myself to trying to show why the accusations of racism and the Hitler link are unfounded, and I think I have done so in a careful manner

thirdly, I myself still dont really know what to think about Ron Paul's entry into the race, so to call me a Ron Paul supporter in the same vein with the others seems somewhat preseumptuous

I will be happy to hear back from you

 

Stef: No, sorry, I was not at all clear - I have not been in this debate, so I didn't mean you, I was talking about the past dozen or so RP debated I've been in, sorry again bro!

 

Conrad: okay, again i dont want to nitpick but i do... ;-)

isn't it then strange to just jump into a thread that you are no longer participating in, and that you havent followed, and say that I am upset not because i think it's unfair to call RP a racist and link him to Hitler on the basis of this evidence, but because I have more personal reasons for my behaviour? Why would you make a claim like that if you havent read my posts? was it a matter of taking your chances? ('so far all the RP supporters do what they do not for intellectual but personal reasons, here is a guy who I think is supporting RP so let me tell him that it's personal reasons for him too')

i dont know, I dont understand that behaviour. what is the purpose?

Of course you could say that you were making a general statement as you appear to be claiming in your latest post, but that doesnt seem to fit in with the facts, with your specifically responding to me to my [at the time of your writing still un-posted] answer to Greg's question? I mean, greg's question was specifically about me, so if you then respond to that by saying 'no, it is more personal' then it seems pretty clear you were talking about me. or is that the part you were unclear about?

or am i just too sensitive and mildly paranoid?

is this perhaps a case similar to the one that you talked about in a podcast where you gave a link that supposedly had evidence for a claim you were making, without actually taking the time to see if the evidence was credible? well, if this is the case, then as I remember you were (in the end) happy to be corrected about that, consider yourself happy once more!  ;-)

I am open to alternative explanations for your posts though...

Nathan,

 I will reply to your latest post later today in a separate thread on immigration. i thought about the issue last night and may understand more about it than I did before that.

All of your analysis of the ron paul phenomenon is insightfully accurate, and i learn alot by reading it.  One point deserves expansion:

Stefan Molyneux:

A desire to stay within the bounds of 'mainstream' society, which includes not challenging others who have irrational pro-RP faith.

Minarchists bray alot about constitutionality, which is fetishistic, especially since a gradual stream of corrupt amendments is unavoidable.  Rather than look inwards, they want the constitution as an external fountain of freedom, a lazy transferance of responsibility.  And your point about their appreciation of the mainstream shows a similar fetish, a respect for democracy and an envy of majority status that they feel they deserve, if only ordinary folks were less ignorant of supposed freedom.  Most minarchists have a sense of entitlement, which manifests politically as protectionism.  Natl security is a euphamism for labor protectionism.  Hence's ron pauls wall on the southern border and not on the northern border.

Stef,

 the last thing that I wondered about: in this thread I have tried to explain that the RP quotes taken in isolation do not say anything about his views on race. And I take it that you did post this article (the quotes from it) to question RP's character and views (with your disclaimer that you didnt whether the quotes were true or not). Have you since changed your mind about RP's character as these quotes do not prove what I think you were trying to prove with them (namely that RP has some nasty views about race and hence has a bad character)?

in this sense it seems kind of odd to post something like this and then not follow the subsequent discussion (and jump in at random points)

also, did the fact that the author of this article was obviously trying to discredit RP not give you pause re the fact that he doesnt quote the context in which the remarks were made. Doesnt that make you a bit suspicious as to the meaning of these quotes? I'm not saying my points here are completely solid and in and of themselves convincing, but i do think they are reasonable considerations re the validity of the article. and so it seems that you too were quite eager to quickly believe the worst about somebody whose libertarian views you rightly disagree with

any thoughts on this?

Oh boy, the racism bogey-man. Because he refers to statistics, that's racist? People who think there are difference between the races, based on evidence, are racist? Sure, there's lots of debate on this, but it's a scientific question, and I don't think taking one side or the other makes someone a bigot. Dragging someone behind a truck until his head falls off makes you a bigot.

In any event, there was something in Wiki on this. There's been a mod war, and it's been removed, so I no-longer have the direct quote, but maybe it's in Google Cache. In any event, Ron Paul later made statements against racism as being collectivist.
 

Also, why is fervent defense of Ron Paul by people who don't know him personally, "more personal"? Cannot people be upset about the character assassination of someone they believe to be a just man?

Unfortunately, I never knew the late Murray Rothbard personally; but I would fervently defend him against slimes who try to assassinate his character. 

Come and call into the Sunday show, Dave - let's have a debate!

4pm EST:

https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/skypecast/detailed.html?id_talk=893013

Talk to you then, it will be fun

Stefan Molyneux:

Come and call into the Sunday show, Dave - let's have a debate!

4pm EST:

https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/skypecast/detailed.html?id_talk=893013

Talk to you then, it will be fun

I would, except I'll be camping...unfortunately, Sunday the 3rd, I have an exam, so also probably can't do then. Rain check for Sun June 10th? (you see, that's part of my evil strategy, b/c I figure u'll forget, and i won't, j/k)

np, I just replied to your IM, let's do it now...