I wrote the biggest part of this post after I got banned from FDR and then posted it there under a different name. Not the most mature thing to do, I admit. The content of the post is valid though. I made some changes in the post, e.g. about the confidentiality bit

When David Heinrich was wondering about me being banned and about Stef’s response to my statement that I perceived Stef’s joke in the 9-11 thread as bullying behaviour, Stef suggested David listen to the Premium Content podcast about his final thoughts about the board conflict. So if we turn to that, then perhaps we’ll be able to figure out why I was banned.

[edit: to be sure, David Heinrich wasnt the one who sent me the premium podcast]

In that podcast Stef mentions three people that he has banned and calls me, Conrad ‘a miserable guy’, ‘a failure’, a ‘troll’, ‘in a disastrous relationship’ (Stef, will you please explain this to my girlfriend? She keeps denying it), ‘not successful according to his own values and goals’, and he says one of the guys ‘wasn’t able to finish my doctoral thesis […] and was unable to confront his thesis advisor’ (given the fact that I, Conrad, could not be either of the other two people (one was living with his parents, and the other has talked on FDR about his present and future and it was clear that no PhD was involved there) )he mentioned Stef makes it clear (without saying so explicitly) that I (Conrad) was the guy Stef did a podcast about re doctoral depression. Who knew? So Stef violated confidentiality and made it clear that this person was in fact me).

He also says that I had been sniping at him, that I have no or hardly any capacity to laugh at myself (with such a miserable life, why laugh at all?) and that despite all this I presented myself as ‘more successful, more accurate than Stef is’ while Stef in fact is the happiest guy he knows and very successful in his relationship with Christina and successful in his career.

He compares me to a hugely overweight dietician who has a radically counter-intuitive diet program. So I am either a hypocrite for not following my own program or if I do follow it, then my diet advice is just plain wrong. Stef in his comparison is the slim, toned dietician with a diet program.

So far Stef has not made it clear how differences in opinion about the morality and practicality of political processes and extra-political processes (such as Stef’s work with FDR) in bringing about the establishment of an anarcho-capitalist society, relate to how successful people are with regards to their own values and goals. Nor has he explained how differences in opinion about board behaviour relate to this. Could you explain this in some more detail?

Furthermore, it is not entirely clear yet whether Stef has considered the possibility that partly thanks to his wonderful work with FDR the people he calls unsuccessful in the podcast were broken before and have now started to climb out of the big dark hole they were in. In fact Stef seems to even imply that I am a liar because in another thread I talk about how happy I have been the past few weeks, which seems to contradict Stef’s pronouncements about me. So could you clear that up too?

Also, if you are so happy and virtuous then why do you feel the constant need to trash and insult and denigrate others? ('miserable guy', 'failure', 'family issues', 'hypocrite', 'corrupt'...) It's like the manic street preacher screaming he has found all the answers! If he had, he wouldn’t be standing there on the street screaming.

Interesting how gentle you are when discussing people's letters in podcasts and how cruel you are when you talk about them privately. (also e.g. about Nathan's break-up in the private talk with Greg) Also, I don’t remember having described my relationship with my girlfriend as disastrous, quite the contrary. Furthermore, you claim that I present myself as more successful than you are. I don’t understand this: I have questioned arguments you and others have made, in an open and rational way, and you see that as saying that I am more successful and accurate than you are. That may be pretty telling...

Also, I wonder how Greg and Nathan will feel about the private podcast? Do they feel very successful?

Now on to some interesting examples of double standards:

Stef says that ‘the untutored’ will likely perceive Stef’s remarks in the private podcast as ad hominem attacks and as mean. ‘Untutored’ seems to mean people who have not been in therapy and people who have not yet mastered the FDR methodology. This is kind of odd because in his podcast on Raureka Stef seemed to criticise the idea of pre-empting somebody else’s response. Raureka was talking about how his father had not yet converted to anarcho-capitalism and said ‘Well, I’m sure some of you will now say that he is corrupt and irrational’. Stef said that the first lesson in psychology is that when somebody pre-empts the other person’s response it means that he himself is thinking this (i.e. that Raureka himself thought his father was corrupt and irrational).

So Stef, when you said that the ‘untutored’ would respond to your podcast by thinking of it as an ad hominem attack and just being mean, does it then follow that you yourself think it was an ad hominem attack and just mean? Or is this psychological principle not universal and do you apply it in a more selective way (i.e. whenever it serves your own needs)?

I also wonder how far one can extend this principle. For example, Raureka never said or even implied that FDR was cultish or that you were just in it for the money, but you did perceive it as his saying or implying these things. Does this then also mean that you yourself think FDR is cultish and that you are just in it for the money? I doubt it, but does that mean that the principle cannot be extended in that way or that it is not universal and more ad hoc?

Another question about universal principles: Stef criticised (to put it mildly) Raureka for saying ‘the FDR philosophy’ for making it sound cultish and untrue, while Stef himself uses ‘my philosophy’ all the time. Again, is Stef the one who decides when the term ‘my philosophy or the FDR philosophy’ can be used or are there universal values and principles here?

Another question on universal values and principles. I think (not entirely sure though and with nearly 800 podcasts it is too difficult to try to find it) that Stef has said that when somebody tells you that what you did hurt them or otherwise negatively affected them, it is a good thing to be open and curious about their experience and about their and your own role in it and talk about it to find out what is going on.

So when I said that I perceived Stef’s joke in the 9-11 thread as bullying behaviour and that I was open to the possibility that this may have more to do with me than with Stef, shouldn’t Stef according to his own values and principles been open and curious about my experience and questions? He wasn’t, to say the least, so once again I ask: are these principles that you put forward universal or is it you who gets to decide when and how to apply them?

Some more examples of double standards: Stef criticised Andrew's supposed evasive and dishonest behaviour in the 9-11 threads and banned him because of it. Oddly enough he has never said a word about what may be one of the most dishonest and evasive posts ever put on FDR, namely this one by Nathan.

Also here Stef says that he finds the language in my posts volatile while he has not said a single word about others comparing Ron Paul to Hitler (who had 6 million Jews killed) and calling him a racist, all for rather flimsy reasons. This seems quite the double standard too.

A last example for now: Stef tries to systematically characterize the behaviour of Ron Paul supporters in debates, but fails to mention that almost every form of behaviour he mentions applies at least equally well to the anti Ron Paul people in this thread. See here and it may be a good thing to browse through the entire thread to get an idea of the respective behaviours of both 'groups'.


I get the impression that Stef regularly uses the mantle of virtue and morality to do immoral things and I think we all know what terms Stef uses to describe people who do that.

Anyway, once you are done answering these questions, I have about a dozen more that are quite similar in nature in that they are about contradictions, double standards and most importantly evasive behaviour.

I think the main issue is that Stef psychologizes everyone, and the psychologizer is in a position where they act as if they are all-knowing about the motives of their "patients". I was always weary about the psychological stuff from day one. I totally disagree with this armchair mentality where one acts as if they can read other people's minds better than they know themselves. I simply cannot relate to all of the psychological talk and I most certainly would not accept Stefan or his wife's psycho-analysis as absolute truth. I also think that trying to attribute people's behavior in the present to their childhood experience, while it may have some merits, is ridiculous when all behavior is analized this way.

That being said, I have no major problems with FDR or Stef aside from the psychologizing. I largely agree with the bulk of what he says in his podcasts on the topics of philosophy, ethics, economics and politics. Stef deserves credit for indirectly helping me (by merely releasing so many podcasts and artlces) in my own intellectual developement in terms of philosophy; for a long time I was a radical minarchist hanging on by a thread, and, among other things, Stef's stuff helped me make the leap to anarchism. The main source of problems there have to do with some vestiges of groupism on the boards and some of the more out-there psychological theories.

I just hate how people are summarily banned if they diverge from FDR orthodoxy. Disagreement is treated as trolling. Stef seems to think much of his philosophy is self-evident, or his writings and podcasts are sufficient (is the forum just a place to trade adoring testimonials?) and if you don't just "get it," and you ask questions, you must be trying to bother him. Another reason why I just lurk there, whereas in other forums I am quite vocal and active. I assume I'll be banned, and I want to write the perfect post before it happens. He also says his wife assents to his judgement on these bannings, which leads me to think that she is somewhat subject to his dominant personality, though they may just have very similar personality types (my girlfriend and I are very similar, we get along so well and agree on so much, but we still have fun talking and neither of us feels overwhelmed by the other, though I am generally more assertive).

The double standard I see is, he can argue or get angry or upset or mock or ridicule, but as soon as a poster does it, BAM! Putty Tat used to make the place more fun and interesting. BAM! Good thing Stef's an Anarchist, because he'd make a tyrant of a politician.

Also, Stef's argument in general proves too much:


Stefan Molyneux:

Quote:

The proof for the value of FDR is too simple, I couldn't imagine it needed restating, but just in case: 1. That which eliminates unchosen positive obligations sets us free. 2. That which imposes positive obligations makes us less free. 3. Engagement in political action imposes positive obligations. 4. Getting rid of bad relationships eliminates unchosen positive obligations from our life. 5. Therefore political action makes us less free, and getting rid of bad relationships make us more free.

Greg

Quote:

As long as you're in a mood for clarification, could you explain how #2 includes engaging in political action, but does not include things like getting married, or signing a mortgage contract, buying a car, or having children (In the sense that, they *should* be avoided, because they impose a positive obligation)?

Stefan Molyneux

Quote:

Sure. They are within your control. Political freedom is not.

Okay, but then if your goal is to become the ceo of a big corporation, or to eradicate malaria in say Zambia, or become a professional football player, then the same objection applies: they are not within your control, at least not categorically different from political goals such as getting the troops out of Iraq or whatever. At most there are differences of degreep.

So his argument proves too much and is therefore faulty. nobody will call him on it though. In fact Greg replied:

Quote:

Oh, I see. The end is what we're considering here. Signing a mortgage, the end is the house. Political Action, the end is (ostensibly) freedom. In the first case, it's entirely in your hands, in the second it's an illusion to think that it is. I gotcha now.