listening now, when did stef start believing rights don't exist?

From the comments section...
2 comments:

Stefan Molyneux, MA said...

Here is the convo:

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1310_Virtue_Values_and_Ownership_A_Debate.mp3

I also read your blog response as a podcast:

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1312_Sunday_Show_Mar_22_09.mp3
March 23, 2009 10:29 AM
Brainpolice said...

I hope you didn't take this blogpost as just complaining - although there is an extent to which I am complaining. I more or less enjoyed the conversation but just didn't feel like we stuck at the heart of the debate about ethics. Or, I didn't quite get to express what some of my problems with UPB are - which is partially my own fault. I'm not as good with the spoken word than I am with the written word.

I also don't necessarily wish to imply that you are being dishonest. However, I do think that you may have certain tendencies when debating that may make it rather hard to make one's point.
March 23, 2009 11:07 AM

Post a Comment
Links to this post

I do wonder whether Stef has not overplayed his hand in this debate. I listened to it and he was so very slippery and confident and friendly when doing it, but anybody who knows something about Stef's ideas must, after having listened to this debate, be more confused than ever about what exactly he means, or is trying to say.

Yeah exactly, he's like some sort of ethereal blob absorbing all positions and simultaneously defending, retreating and denouncing them in one conversation.

... Why would Stef post the conversation and then make a podcast off that post. ...????

yes to T.E.M. and 'perhaps because he wants to seem friendly, accommodating and open' to Exy

Yeah exactly, he's like some sort of ethereal blob absorbing all positions and simultaneously defending, retreating and denouncing them in one conversation.
Very Sun Tzu, actually. Never let them know where or even what your forces are, when they are strong enough to take ground give it to them, force them to deploy their forces across a wide area by giving them no hint of where you will be and when there is a spot that they cannot defend then - and only then - should you attack.
There is another explanation, however. I mean, how many people have actually read Sun Tzu *raises hand*. That answer would be that sloppy arguments are a sign of sloppy thinking.

Should we attribute ignorance to Stef or cunning?
I'd say self-serving ideologies mesh well with cunning, ala politicians. As Homer Simpson would say, "A little from column-A, a little from column-B."

Edit: Brainpolice is way too smart a boy to be wasting his time with a lot of the people he debates with. I have vast disagreements with him over rights, and I think he's a bit too lefty, but other than that I think he's usually on the money. People like Mr1001Nights and Molyneux are like midgets fighting a tiger.

I think the Free state project's liberty forum gave Stefbot a whole lot of new insights that he couldn't get from the isolation he had created for himself in his home.

Marc Stevens spoke about why rights do not exists, also Stefbot seems to have changed his mind regarding corporations, hasn't he?

You can see a few of the speeches that was held at the liberty forum at http://www.youtube.com/user/freestatereport

Marc Stevens spoke about why rights do not exists, also Stefbot seems to have changed his mind regarding corporations, hasn't he?
I've never really gotten the 'corporations are bad' idea. I mean, yeah, a lot of them are fake-market institutions. And limited-liability is stupid unless you specifically contract for it. So is bankruptcy. I'm sure there is a lot of corporate law I know nothing about that is stupid. But what does that have to do with incorporating? East-west trade was primary a function of joint-stock companies acting under relatively free markets.

This probably deserves its own thread.