Friday, January 29, 2016

Stefan Molyneux vs Peter Joseph Debate

Peter Joseph is far too intelligent for Stefan Molyneux. But when I read how much Stefan Molyneux fans actually adore him in the posts they written under his videos, I was not only dumbstruck, I also got depressed. How could so many people fall for his BS. Stefan Molyneux is not just a simpleton, he's also a con artist?

I thought this guy in the video below did as fantastic job at deconstructing Stephen Molyneux pathetic arguments for neoliberal capitalism.


Peter Pan said...

You can add Sargon of Akkad as another YT cult leader with fawning devotees.

Peter Pan said...

For 1$ i'll sell you a truck load of pencils.

Matt Franko said...


Peter Joseph doenst understand banking or how our numismatic systems are operating... not much for us from the likes of him...

the other guy is some sort of a libertarian nut-job...

Bob Roddis said...

Speaking of nut-jobs and morons....

"the other guy is some sort of a libertarian nut-job..."

Because in Franko-land, only "nut-jobs" oppose the initiation of violence. What problem are you trying to solve with all of your beloved violence, Mr. Franko? When did that society-wide enforced prohibition upon the initiation of violence fail in the past requiring all of your violence? Be precise. Names, places dates.

Molyneux crushed this Peter Joseph who relies entirely upon his own bizarre inability to distinguish between the initiation of violence from an enforced prohibition upon the initiation of violence. Pursuant to Joseph's deluded "thought process", a society-wide enforced prohibition upon the initiation of violence will CAUSE MORE VIOLENCE. According to Joseph, we know this from historical example even though he simultaneously admits that a society-wide enforced prohibition upon the initiation of violence HAS NEVER EXISTED. That make sense, right?

Thankfully, there's a transcript:

Thanks for heads-up on Peter Joseph. It's my hobby to collect every incoherent and dishonest anti-AnCap "argument" out there since that is the only type there is.

Cooper said...

Wow, that guy Molyneaux is a clueless idiot. It's really embarrassing listening to the simplicity of his arguments.

Random said...

Yay Bob Roddis is here. Hi Bob :)

Paying USA taxes is entirely voluntary -- I have chosen not to pay them, and that is working out fine. I have chosen to pay taxes somewhere else where I think I better bargain.

Paying taxes in the USA is a freely entered contract, where you get the benefits of USA citizenship, and you pay a yearly membership free. Many in the third world would pay much for this.

There is no slavery -- you work to pay the membership fee for a housing association that you have freely chosen to be a member of.

Just as working for Wal*Mart: you think that their wages are too low and health-care and pension deductions too high? Then find a better paying job, working at Wal*mart is a free choice, and you can quite anytime you want. There is a long queue outside of people eager to take your job.

You think that the USA "housing association" is not offering good value for its membership fee? Nobody is forcing you to be a member, you can always quit it, sell your flat/house there and buy one in another "housing association".


Unknown said...

Random... your argument is flawed. Doing anything at all is technically voluntary. You can always choose not to do something. However, when some made up entity who calls themselves "government" (as if they have some inherent authority to rule the land) tells you either comply or you will be put in jail, that is immoral in every sense of the word. Fact of the matter is, if you own property, it is yours and not the governments. This is common sense 101. There is no "government" or "society" that inherently owns you. These are abstract terms that do not actually exist. Actual reality is made up of individuals. Hence, only individuals exist and all are equal with a right to pursue happiness and own their own property. This is complete common sense and a failure to recognize this is a rejection of truth and reality.

Tom Hickey said...

Might be "common sense" but it's not the way things work for a simple reason. Rule of law rather than rule of the jungle.

Rule of law creates property and adjudicates ownership and transfer. The law of the jungle is you control what you can defend.

Most people would rather live under the rule of law rather than the rule of the jungle, which means, in effect, the rule of the strongest (most powerful). History reveals the result of that.

Even with the rule of law it is still difficult to defend property in many environments. Law is a necessary condition for the rule of law but not a sufficient one. The rule of law requires enforcemeant to be effective.

Law is the basis of modern government as in "constitution" as law of the land.

Unknown said...

Peter joseph has no understanding of reality, economics or how to debate. Peter Joseph spits out word salad that only relates to those with an ego as large as his run on sentences. Peter revealing his horrible experience working for a bankrupt company only shows he has a severe case of PTSD. Still very entertaining to watch the full debate.