Hello all,

I just started listening to FDR and I have to say that I really like it. Stef seems to be very objective and rational. What kind of arguments do you have against him? What makes him so offensive to everyone here?

Have you joined the board? If so, have you tried to question Stef about any of his ideas or have the audacity to actually disagree with one of them? If not, do so, and then report back to us.

A lot of people on this board agree with a lot of what Stef has to say, and respects his early works in the fields of economics, government, and to a lesser extent, the individual. However, since he started philosophizing full-time, he has become very defensive and hypocritical on his message boards.

A complicated and worthwhile question Aegos. I'll see if I can work up an answer when I've had more sleeps.

I'm not sure if all the folks on the board agree with me on this, but I don't like his whole business of being anti-social towards people with wrong or confused political views (you know, statists). Instead of showing them towards the light, we should shun them? Hmm, I guess if you believe that people can never change their political views, you can adhere to this philosophy.

It really burns my bacon when Stef says you can't be a libertarian if you hang out with statists (podcast 927), since there is nothing in the non-aggression principle that says you can't hang with with those who advocate the use of force (against you or anyone else).

And what about your grocer, your co-workers, your doctor? Should you refuse medical treatment because the doctor supposedly wants you robbed or dead? Wouldn't that be hypocritical and counter-productive? Hahaha, yeah, if the doctor really wanted you shot.

Two choices: pull a Thoreau, isolating yourself from all statists in the woods somewhere, or start admitting that the enemy is the ruling class, not the brainwashed masses.

Besides that, I don't think all his fancy rationalization will prove that ditching almost everyone I know is in my self interest. Keeping them is not against the libertarian non-aggression principle and is in my self interest. Thanks for showing they (supposedly) want me shot Stef, but if it isn't against my principles or self interest, I really don't give a damn. I take the purple pill, haha!

There are already a lot of good responses to your question, Aegos (by the way - welcome to LiMi!) and I don't like to participate in anything FDR-related any more, but I do want to point you to a map that shows how many people have been banned from FDR and for what reasons they were banned. These are only summaries, and many are tongue-in-cheek in form (although true in content), but I find it interesting that there are more people banned (for illogical reasons) from FDR than there are regular FDR posters (I think).

Look at the names on the map and then do a search on FDR of their posts by name. You will see what terrible things they did to cause a banning. Well the search might not yeild anything because they are banned. Also it might have been deleted by his holy truth seeker.

After reading Conrad's reason for banning, I am forced to ask "What is Brandenizing [guessing you're referring to Nathaniel Branden here]?" and "What is so bad about Brandenizing?"

me, me, I wanna take this one on-----there are SO many things wrong with "brandenizing" in so many ways. First, someone can be seen to use psychology inappropriately--going beyond the level of his expertise and causing harm. I have acquired a few clients this way and had desperate calls from injured friends in years past. Doing psychologizing publicly and in otherwise strictly social settings is unprofessional and can be humiliating for the victim. Using psychology in the name of a public presentation, where people are suddenly finding themselves in the midst of heavy inner material in an inappropriate setting without a professional relationship with the presenter or anyone present to justify it and without the proper cautions and precautions of a true therapy session. Using constructs that are not well-grounded in psychological reality can be harmful, such as leading people to "explore the fight between their inner teenager and inner mother" can be quite the dangerous ride for many recipients. This is the imposition of assumptions by someone presenting himself as a professional and an authority and leading another into dangerous psychological waters. Having read that Stef and Christina were teaching cognitive therapy at their get-together worried me and indeed caused me to get that "Branden" feeling. A psychotherapeutic relationship is a pretty deep, personal, delicate thing. It is not a public performance. Group therapy requires a delicate touch and a lot of caution, but group therapy in a forum where people will be socializing in another context later is out of line and risks harm to any or all of them. People can be led to a state of extreme vulnerability and end up too dependent upon the leading figures. As happened in Rand's inner circle long ago and continues to happen in many modern settings.

doctorkira,

Thanks for the explanation. Now, can you please explain why this is "Brandenizing" in the sense of what has Nathaniel Branden have to do with this? Can you give examples of things Branden has done/does do that make the actions you've described "Brandenizing?"

Is Branden all bad, by the way, or just partly bad? What are some good alternatives to Branden and Brandenizing?

thanks