• kowalityjesus

    Stefan Molyneaux is clearly a VERY intelligent and proactive person and has a LOT of good things to say. He’s a bit too ‘rationalist’ and social darwinist for me, though.

    Economic prosperity and poor parenting techniques are the root cause of war? Probably not far off, but only very indirectly through many other societal influences.

    A philosophical question of mine: Do sins cause a person go to Hell, or are sins rather indicators of those souls presently destined for Hell?

    • Monkey See Monkey Do

      There is nothing rational about anarcho-capitalism. Peter Joseph pretty much destroyed all his talking points in their debate.

      • kowalityjesus

        Either I wasn’t listening closely enough, because I didn’t notice much conflict, or you are doing a typical thing of internet arguers and overdramatizing your position for rhetorical effect. I have watched some Molyneux before which is where I get that sentiment, but I don’t have a youtube subscription to him.

        • moremisinformation

          I don’t think there was conflict because Joseph doesn’t understand the functions of a debate.

      • moremisinformation

        Interesting. You and I must’ve watched two different debates, off which Peter Joseph clearly showed his lack of experience. A debate does not include one person reading off his notes, regardless of whether it’s on-topic or not. I was occasionally embarrassed for Joseph.

        Joseph repeated ad nauseum, all the problems with the current economic system, of which Molyneux does not support and is not anarcho-capitalism (an admittedly terrible combination of words to actually attempt to describe Molyneux’s economic point of view). But, Joseph had a monologue to deliver – rules of debate be damned.

        Out of curiosity, do you have an example of where Joseph ‘destroyed’ Molyneux’s ‘talking points’?

        • Monkey See Monkey Do

          Here it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaP2GJvZlWY

          To be honest though I don’t think much time should be spent debating anarcho-capitalists. Free-market proponents don’t have many ideas to debate so they just fall back on their social Darwinism.

          • moremisinformation

            Thanks for posting that but, as indicated by my initial response to you, I listened to the ‘debate’, which, as I said wasn’t really any such thing, as Peter Joseph clearly doesn’t understand how debates are supposed to work.

            What I was really curious about is whether YOU (not shouting, just emphasizing) had examples of arguments where Joseph ‘destroyed’, as you said, Molyneux’s positions?

            Also, isn’t ‘Social Darwinism’ redundant? I mean, Darwin was the prototypical Social Darwinist.

    • Andrew

      We all sin, so…

      • kowalityjesus

        aye, and there be the rub.

        • Andrew

          I got into an argument with my mother just yesterday over this subject. I said nobody deserves eternity in heaven, and she said that meant I was equating Mother Theresa with Ted Cruz. It was difficult for her to understand my opinion that no human being deserves either eternal bliss or eternal torture.

          • kowalityjesus

            Well, we certainly were created with expectations, and there will always be a disconnect between our present state and the best possible of those expectations. I would say she has a point…we are all working with what we are given and we can’t judge one or another by their accomplishments because they are ‘given’ ‘more.’ That’s what my schism with rationalism and social darwinism comes down to.