I write about Economics & Politics and sometimes I post pictures of things I like. Find me elsewhere on the intrenet:
twitter.com/Suga_Shane
LarryBrownSports.com
NBAOffseason.com
NFLoffseason.com
MLBOffseason.com
gunsgeargallantry.tumblr.com/
Stefan Molyneux always has this look on his face. It looks like he’s completely winging it and he can’t believe it’s going so well.
Sometimes I Wonder…
What makes someone a “philosopher”?
I know a lot of people consider Stefan Molyneux a philosopher and an equally large number of people consider him an idiot.
I’m pretty sure I can figure out where the line of distinction is between an idiot and one of decent reasoning ability but I’ve never really figured out where the non-philosopher crosses into the realm of philosophers.
Technically, isn’t anyone who has had a conscious thought pandering in philosophy? And as the saying that I just made up goes, once a philosophizer, always a philosophizer.
I agree that Molyneux isn’t the greatest philosopher we’ve seen and technically. He supposedly focused his master thesis on the philosophies of Kant, Hegel, Hobbes and Locke but his masters was in History. Technically, I’m more of a philosopher than he is, since I actually hold a bona fide, state-certified degree in philosophy. Then again, pretty sure Socrates and Kant and the rest of these “philosophers” didn’t have a degree in philosophy. Armatures.
We can even take it meta from here and talk about how this blog post itself is nothing more than philosophizing on the philosophy of philosophers. Okay, that one hurt my brain.
I’ve just always wondered how we make the distinction between philosopher and non-philosopher. Do we consider Ron Paul to be a philosopher? What about Ludwig von Mises? Keynes? On second thought, fuck Keynes. What about Obama, surely he has a new philosophy for what America should be. Is he a philosopher?
Is there a RateMyPhilosopher.com? It links, therefore it is?
And can one really be a bad philosopher or is it simply a case of promoting a bad philosophy? Does bad even exist? Can’t one simply be different? Isn’t the only justification or subjective judgement we can rely on self-contained and self-actualized, hence making the opinion (and existence) of others irrelevant?
Okay, now I’ve gone too far.
You can tell Stefan Molyneux is a shitty philosopher because he likes his own facebook statuses.
LOL.
Even though I feel like a few of the classical philosophers would have liked their own Facebook statuses.
As for this whole “Stefan Molyneux bashing”. I like the guy. Is he the best? No. But the one thing I see the anti-Molyneux crowd bring up is that one of his theories was destroyed on his own forum by a reader.
To me, that’s no reason to discredit a philosopher. Theories are formulated to be tested and eventually, even the best ones can be broken. It’s not a big deal.
Molyneux has this theory that countries are only invaded for their taxation systems and if there was no taxation or no gov’t than there would be no reason to invade. I disagree with that. i think there’s more to invading a country than their tax revenue system.
This doesn’t mean that there is no merit in anything he says because a few of his ideas are odd or even out and out wrong.
I think the biggest flaw Stefan has is that his sudden explosion of fame has made him a big egotistical. Not that this is world ending, it’s just a flavor that I don’t like.
Anyway, must be a slow week if we are arguing over a YouTube philosopher.
(via eltigrechico)
libootarianism-and-stoya replied to your photo
Molyneux is not a philosopher.He sort of is. But then again, isn’t anyone who deals with ideas a philosopher?
I guess this begs the question that if Molyneux isn’t a philosopher, what is he?
an asshole.
lol.
What makes him an asshole? Not taking either side in this, just looking for a genuine answer.
Molyneux is not a philosopher.
He sort of is. But then again, isn’t anyone who deals with ideas a philosopher?
I guess this begs the question that if Molyneux isn’t a philosopher, what is he?
FreeDomain Radio’s Stefan Molyneux on the Inevitable Growth of the State
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had a anti-government discussion with groups of very smart and very logical people and they agree 100% with everything I have to say until I mention that the final step towards true individual freedom and self-governance is to purge ourselves of the state-run police, military and court systems and that’s when people lose their shit.
They just can’t fathom how society would function.
And then I explain how private courts work and how majority of people follow law out of their own morality and not some invisible threat of government enforcement and that those that don’t do it out of morality have or will one day break those laws anyway. I also mention how the United States didn’t have a standing army in 1776 and yet we still managed to defend and defeat and how privately organized people who are well trained would make better soldiers when needed as opposed to young men and women who, for the most part, are coerced into joining the military due to academic short-comings or financial necessity. (I think most people don’t realize how this country has had an “economic draft” in place for a good couple of decades now).
People especially can’t follow the logic of having privately funded police or emergency services, even when you mention that a large portion of the population employ one of the following; patrolled house alarm, private security, armed guards, armed money transport, bouncer/doormen, etc.
Statism will live as long as people fail to realize that the services they fear to lose exist due to private individuals and not due to some invisible middle man called Government.
The Story of your Enslavement by Stefan Molyneux
Stefan’s right, we live on a farm. The problem isn’t that we don’t know we live on a farm. The problem is that the smartest know we live on a farm and they believe it’s what’s best for us. And they perpetuate their feelings down to those below them, those that look up to them, idolize them and take their word as gospel.
These brilliant men and women go on to become teachers and business owners and politicians and they still continue to tell us about all the wonderful things our farm provides for us. “Look at all the grass!” “Look at your warm stall” “You get groomed twice a week”
They don’t just prefer the comfort of a confined life on the farm, they think it’s the only way to live.
To these people I ask do animals not survive without farms? Do they not live free and roam the Earth? Eat as they please, mate as they please and travel as they please? Sure, there is added danger but they are in charge. There is no farmer putting them out to graze and then whipping them back into the barn. There is no danger of outliving your usefulness or reaching your peak and being sold off as food.
It’s more dangerous, yes but in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”
No Saving Private Ryan! Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan couldn’t be a more perfect fit with Romney. He also couldn’t be anymore of the exact opposite of what this country needs right now.
I hate that he considers himself to be a Libertarian.
“No matter who you vote for, the government stays in power.”
-Stefan Molyneux
(via anti-propaganda)
