waywardvariable

Whoa... I also watched that interview and I saw nothing that would call Mr. Molyneuxs integrity into question, what I saw was Stefan Molyneux speaking to someone (Chomsky) that he disagreed with in principle yet respecting the fact that Chomsky's viewpoint was based on his own internal principles. What did you expect ? a Stallone action movie, with blood, guts and @ss flying every which a way ? Personally I thought Mr. Molyneux handled himself EXCEPTIONALLY well and served as a role model of disagreeing without being disagreeable ...

Generally speaking , people in some "oil rich" countries already have material living standards comparable to 1st world countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait), the exceptions are those that suffer from highly corrupt and/or oppressive political regimes which withhold the material benefits of those natural resources from the general population and/or misallocate capital via command economies. You have to keep in mind that much of the worlds oil production is subsidized by first world net oil consumers (e.g. allocation of U.S. defense resources designed to protect oil supplies), so if you calculate the ACTUAL (i.e. include those "defense subsidies", currency exchange, etc..,) price of oil on the world market it is quite a bit higher than the per barrel exchange price and thus IMHO it's hard to argue that sellers are not getting a "fair price" even given that in some "oil rich" countries the general population isn't receiving the material benefits of it (they can thank their national/local governments for that).

Just out of curiosity, what does atheism have to do with libertarianism? after all atheism is purely faith based while libertarianism is based on generally accepted moral principles and reason. In making a case for libertarianism I for one would suggest completely avoiding questions of faith since inevitably they will just side track the case you're attempting to make.

No worries my friend, I do understand your frustrations regarding the politics and political activism, You and/or Your brother might be interested to hear what Ron Paul himself has to say on this very subject since it echos some of the sentiments you express. Here's an interview he had on 10/29/2013 with Dr. Thomas E. Woods in which he talks about running for congress, his views on anarcho-capitalism and the realities of what a politician can actually accomplish (starts at around 17 minutes into the interview) --> http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=62776 Enjoy and have a GREAT Day!

The best thing in my experience is to LISTEN to her grievances and make every effort to understand where she is coming from, that doesn't mean to simply HEAR her out and offer up platitudes, it means you must actually empathize and understand her point of view and be able to discuss it with her. This is harder for most men than it sounds but it's what women are looking for, don't rationalize , empathize. Hope that helps , it's worked for me for going on 30 years of a very happy marriage.

Well, sorry if it's been discussed here before but after all I was responding to your post, so if didn't want to discuss "political libertarianism" one wonders why you chose to bring it up..... Secondly you have no idea where I am with respect to politics, my personal awakening to libertarian ideas (hats off to Barry Goldwater) and Austrian Economics started over 40 years ago so my observations aren't based on Ron Paul's campaign or some podcasts or a few message board discussions and a couple of things I have learned in all those years is that it behooves us to never to intentionally alienate people that are receptive to the message and always challenge your own assumptions and the assertions of people you admire.

Why is it "bull"? I understand Mr. Molyneux's argument that a truly free society is a long ways down the road but You and I live in the here and now and the only feasible path to make our and our children's future any better than what is offered up by the government worshippers is via the political process, would you rather have a viable libertarian political movement or would you rather the authoritarians just have an unopposed path? I think it's important to understand that Ron Paul's campaign put so many people on the path to the acceptance of libertarian ideas and Austrian Economics, people that would otherwise just go on blindly accepting statist propaganda. We really need to avoid circular firing squads because all that does is alienate people and you don't get anywhere doing that, we're all in this together and that includes Ron Paul, he's on our side even if we all don't agree with his chosen methodology. "It is not necessary for us to agree on everything, it is necessary that we agree that we should all be free" -- Grover Nordquist, Rally for the Republic 2008

Well put my friend.

Yes, you are missing something IMHO, Ron Paul has brought many millions of Americans into the libertarian movement (especially young people) and for many years was the lone voice in the statist bubble of D.C. that was courageous enough to say things that are WAY outside the narrative of the statist apologias. You may not agree with Dr. Paul, you may not like Dr. Paul but libertarians of all stripes should recognize how much he was able to accomplish in moving libertarian ideas into the national dialogue, forget about the politics it's the message that counts and Dr. Paul has a big audience for his message. I would love to hear a discussion between Mr. Molyneux and Dr. Paul since both are able to articulate the ideas and the principles that we as libertarians share and I think it would be beneficial for both of these gentleman's audiences to hear it.

Fair enough xelent, of course it's up to Mr. Molyneux if he chooses to apologize for what Mr. Joseph appears to have taken as personal insults ( which I don't think was Mr. Molyneux's intention). I think it's generally hazardous to do your own post debate analysis (in my opinion one should leave that up to the audience) because more often than not it leads to escalating tensions in what started out as an exercise in rational debate. That being said IMHO Mr. Joseph's response was completely beyond that pale as it was predominately an exercise in demeaning and insulting Mr. Molyneux personally, very asymmetrical and childish response on his part. Anyhow I do hope these two gentleman settle their differences and decide to do a follow up debate since it would be interesting to watch.

Thanks for sharing Vuk11, seems to me that this whole thing is devolving from what started out as an interesting debate into a series of tit-for-tat video spin sessions, reminds me of what we see in the "mainstream" media in "discussions" between Democrats and Republicans. Personally I think it's a mistake for these two gentleman to go this route since both made some interesting arguments during the original debate, I would suggest instead just shaking hands (along with apologizing to each other for the inflammatory post debate rhetoric) and then perhaps scheduling a second debate.

Great point James Dean and you express what I've often wondered when I encounter the anarcho-capitalism vs. anarcho-communism arguments, to whit, if it's an anarchist society why would they be mutually exclusive? Even within our highly statist societies we have communal societies operating just fine (for example the Amish and the Hutterites) so why would anyone think that this couldn't be the case in a broader anarchist society?

What government shut down? by it's own admisssion the federal government is simply "furloughing" (statist speak for "paid vacation") what it deems "non-essential" personal and shuttering "non-essential" operations, which begs the question, if it's non-essential why the heck is the federal government engaged in these things in the first place? One has to wonder how long would this so called "shutdown" would have to remain in effect for the general public to realize that for the vast majority of citizens the effect on their daily lives is zero and thus allow them to see the wisdom of keeping the "shutdown" in place permanently.

Rogerhicks, thanks for your interesting post , a couple of questions; do you think it's accurate to assume that in the "very tribal environment" that you refer to that humans had already developed the very earliest incarnation of what we now refer to as "the state" in the form of such things as tribal leaders, "holy" men and the often complex web of superstitions and "taboos" that were principally used not only to enrich the tribal "leadership" at the expense of the productive members of the tribe but also to control the behaviour and social interacts of tribal members? If this is the case couldn't we then assert that this situation was brought about as a survival response to natural pressures and thus through the processes of evolution became part of our Darwinian Nature? Perhaps the current incarnation of the state is simply a manifestation of that very early human surival adaptation taken to scale and adapted to technological advancement?