First of all, I would like to say that I did not respond to anyone's interest in me when I first posted nearly 2 years ago due to committments in work and travel and the inconvenience of forgetting my password. This is the first time that I have had time to post in forums for a long time and I would like to briefly comment on this issue.

As you know, I joined FDR mid 2007 and left not long after. Having already been familiar over many years with free market concepts, Austrian Economics, etc and the people behind them and their place in the history of the development of these ideas, I wanted to check FDR out. My main motivations were:

1. to network
2. curiosity over a site that placed more emphasis on psychology and family than other sites with more emphasis on economics.
3. to understand and argue with someone who had developed a theory of moral behaviour diametrically opposed to the conclusions that I had come to in the development of my own personal philosophy.

I left because I did not feel that the 3 aims above could be achieved.

One of the reasons that I came to the above conclusion concerns intellectual honesty and manipulation.

Right from the beginning, I did not like the way SM did not acknowledge the source of his ideas sufficiently. I did not enjoy the podcasts and having heard a lot of the concepts many years previously for free, did not feel that they were worth a donation.

I have no problem with someone packaging ideas that are not his and selling them but I did not like the implication to the next generation that they were his or that he was some kind of prophet for them.

I also feel that anyone who thinks of himself as a philosopher or such would have the integrity and discipline to clearly indicate the source of or influences on his ideas. That is, put them in a context and acknowledge whoever is deserving of acknowledgement. As SM himself has said, "if you benefit, then do the ethical thing..." (in relation to donations to his podcasts.)

Also, the idea that this is a boys club and that any woman who wants to join in must be fussed over, lest her delicate sensibilities be offended is so annoyingly victorian.

Ever heard of Claire Wolfe?

Unfortunately, no one is immune from wanting to be right and not want to see cherished ideas crumble in a well reasoned argument. However if one is truely interested in truth, then that is what one leaves oneself open to.

No matter how learned or eloquent one is, if one cannot be honest with oneself, then any kind of development is on shakey foundations.

My attitude is that if one does believe that a free market is best, then it does not only apply to goods and services, but also to ideas. Why not let a flawed argument compete in the market place of ideas?

Unfortunately, people sacrifice honesty to appease any number of personal reasons (such as ego) for not wanting to accept a good argument. It is not only "statists" who do this and the FDR forum is not the only one where problems occur because of this.

FDR, however, does have an exceptionally high number of people being asked to leave.

There is nothing stopping an owner of a forum from setting up his own rules within the larger framework of the rules of the owners of the network, but whatever he then does is a reflection on him and his credibility.

I even left another forum that I had been a member of for a long time because of inappropriate IMs, manipulative behaviour of some members who could not even conceive the idea that they may be wrong, condescending hypocrisy, the no-win situation of having your arguments dismissed as a "personal issue with the poster" and outright verbal abuse etc. Sound familiar?

you're Cas?

more later probably

Take another non FDR example:

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=16093;start=140#msg336491

I linked to this for many reasons. It is an example of someone who was banned, the debate was about a very emotional issue, there was talk of morality and references to subjectivism and objectivism.

Another reason I linked to it was because it is by CovOps throwing a tantrum (which continued under the poster "blackops" and a blog which carried on the slander and insults further. If this is the same CovOps at ancaps.super-forum.net, then you have something to think about. If it is a different person, then the CovOps at ancaps.super-forum.net would probably want to know about it. I think that they are one and the same.


Personally, I wonder why at http://ancaps.super-forum.net/philosophy-religion-f7/molyneux-cult-watch-t4794-0.htm someone would devote all that time and 13 pages over this issue.

CovOps/BlackOps is the illustrious PuttyTat. I think he's pretty much a nut job. I appreciate his map, but not much else he's done vis-a-vie Stefan Molyneux.

I still have more to post, but I am sick with the flu. I may even have the swine flu, or the "shamiflu" as it has been cynically dubbed.