Chris Cantwell vs Stefan Molyneux debate?

[Formelyknown]

Chris Cantwell is not welcome to the free-state project because he said that someday, we'll have to shoot a cop to gain our freedom.

He is asking to Stefan to see if his arguments is good or not.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw9xJJCFp6o

[Alan C.]

A frequent mistake made in the liberty movement is thinking that the State is the source of the problem. It isn't. It's simply a symptom of an underlying problem.

 

Even if it were possible to magically remove the State in an instant, the decadence responsible for creating the State would remain.

[Rob_Ilir]

Exactly, Alan.Sure the state is one of the biggest archs, but still only one of many forms of it.  What would they (fsp) say if children were encouraged to use force against abusers? 

[Wesley]

I have a feeling that this is what happens when people do not direct their anger at the proper object. 

[Formelyknown]

He doesn't talk about shooting governement agent just because he is working for the state. He present the case once the idea of the nap gain the critical mass localy. If the federal goons try to arrest you for a victimeless crime wouldn't be time to draw the line in the sand by exercice your right to self defence.

[Wesley]

Once it gains critical mass though, then the idea of a state official coming to your house and asking for something will just be laughed at in the same way that someone coming to my house and asking to buy a slave would be today. When the moral argument changes that many people, everything will just fall away.

 

But as was said earlier, it is not about the state only. There is religion, family, and many other potential areas where the idea that "violence achieves good" or "irrational collective with different moral rules" may exist.

 

Finally, I understand that he means in a defensive way, but it makes me feel uncomfortable for someone to say that "violence is bad and it is necessary for us to use violence to achieve non-violence". I am not sure I could logically say it is a contradiction because of self-defense, but it feels weird to me in a way I cannot explain.

[Ritchey]

I have a feeling that this is what happens when people do not direct their anger at the proper object. 

 

The question is, "where is the line (in the sand)". He's not arguing for violence for the sake of being angry.

 

Chris Cantwell brings up a good point. Here's the quote that has stirred up so much contraversy.

 

So what to do? It's a terribly unpopular thing to say, but the answer, at some point, is to kill govenment agents

 

 

It's not so far out there to think that if no one stands up to violence that violence will be inflicted. Now the debate is, if violence is to be used, when do you enact that violence? Cantwell is challenging people to argue at what point that is. Stefan, whether he aknowledges it or not, is looked to for answers by the libertarian community when these sort of tough questions come up. That is why Cantwell has challenged Stefan to the debate.

 

I personally would like to see the debate happen. I have my opinion about the topic at hand, but I do enjoy other's thoughts and I do think that it would make for an interesting debate (provided that they are taking opposing positions). If they agree, that's not a debate, it's a conversation.

[JamesP]

The question is, "where is the line (in the sand)". He's not arguing for violence for the sake of being angry. Chris Cantwell brings up a good point. Here's the quote that has stirred up so much contraversy. 

So what to do? It's a terribly unpopular thing to say, but the answer, at some point, is to kill govenment agents

 

Why is that the answer?

[Wesley]

It's not so far out there to think that if no one stands up to violence that violence will be inflicted. Now the debate is, if violence is to be used, when do you enact that violence? 

This seems to me to be begging the question:

 

Would violence be necessary in moving to a free society?

Ok, so lets assume violence is needed, so where do we draw the line?

 

Maybe I missed some logical steps there, but a debate about whether or not violence would be necessary cannot rest on the premise that it is necessary.

 

I would encourage the two to have a chat about it and iron out any logical problems that may arise.

[Ritchey]

I've been on Chris Cantwell's website. I'm trying to find the exact article that he wrote about this. if anyone knows the title or has a link to it, that would save some time and effort. Other than that, we only have the video that was posted above to go by. I would prefer to read the article that he originally wrote. The video covers the concept of violence as a whole as well as violence on an individual basis. The original arguement that he is trying to convey gets convoluted in the discussion. Maybe that's just me and I misunderstood.

 

Why is that the answer?

 

I think that we would all agree that a peaceful solution is alway preferable. In the video, Cantwell argues from a point where a peaceful solution has been removed from the list of options. He does not argue that the only solution for the freedom movement is violence.

 

This seems to me to be begging the question:

 

Would violence be necessary in moving to a free society?

Ok, so lets assume violence is needed, so where do we draw the line?

 

Maybe I missed some logical steps there, but a debate about whether or not violence would be necessary cannot rest on the premise that it is necessary.

 

I would encourage the two to have a chat about it and iron out any logical problems that may arise.

 

After watching portions of the video again, I have misrepresented Cantwell's arguement with my statement. I agree though, the two should discuss the topic and determine if the debate is worth pursuing.

 

Chris Cantwell is an interesting person. I think that a debate with him would be lively and humorous. Just listen to the arguement he make in

.

[kalmia]

I believe we can do a lot by exposing individual statists and promoting organized ostracism. However, we must keep in mind that there will be a long transition between where we are now and a large society where statelessness is accepted. I can't rule out using physical force in defense in all cases. I believe almost all people will lash out when given no other options. Look at Roger Pion. I think he felt like he had no other options. We can reduce the need for violence by coming up with other options.

It might also be worth noting that Chris is an anarchist atheist who is the son of a Catholic IRS agent. I sense a bit of rage in him due to this.

[kalmia]

Seeing the immature Cantwell - Buhler feud on Facebook, I think Stefan would be better off continuing to ignore his existence unless he wants to talk about how his rage toward his parents has motivated his trollish behavior.

[Formelyknown]

A follow up on the debate:

 

 

Near the end they talk about stefan's mulgenerational aproach. They both agree it is a bad idea.

[PatrickC]

Not exactly a great debate. What on earth was Ian claiming about inner peace or something.

 

Anyway, I find it interesting that Chris wants Stef to help him understand the error of his thinking. Since I'm sure Stef would agree with him mostly, that you can defend yourself with overwhelming force, if you so desire. It's just highly unadvisable, which even Chris agrees with.

 

This whole episode just seems like an internal FSP political wrangle that wants to keep peace with the New Hampshire authorities. I can't blame them really, since they're such a public group, they don't want to give those authorities any more reasons to persecute them.

[powder]

A frequent mistake made in the liberty movement is thinking that the State is the source of the problem. It isn't. It's simply a symptom of an underlying problem.

 

Even if it were possible to magically remove the State in an instant, the decadence responsible for creating the State would remain.

 

I don't think I would say decadence is responsible for creating the state.  Most of the decadence we see is because of the state and certainly if you remove the state people will look to replace it with something similar because that is what they know and understand.  In the same way that a child who is raised in an abusing family setting will behave as if violence is normal (maybe that is Chris' problem).  

 

Is it not the case that the underlying problem that the state, or any authoritarian structure is a symptom of, is the illusion or myth of authority, or the legitimacy of authority and a ruling class, the millennial old brainwashing of the 'divine right of kings'?

 

Without that, people would simply walk away from bullies (the state) and ignore them.  

[fractional slacker]

Adam Kokesh interviews Ian Freeman about Chris Cantwell and conflict, in general, the FSP is experiencing.

 

[JohnH.]

A follow up on the debate:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es-wq5aZKAQ&feature=youtube_gdata_playerNear the end they talk about stefan's mulgenerational aproach. They both agree it is a bad idea.

 

Starting around 1:29:00 Ian Freeman admits to not listening to Stef much ("I don't listen to much Stefan Molyneux"), misrepresents Stef's position ("having sex and having children is going to solve the problems of human freedom... let's talk about peaceful parenting and have some babies"), yet feels as though he in a position to say that it's a "ridiculous idea".

 

This is why I love the FDR community so god damn much.  The dedication to self-knowledge, philosophy, and virtue that I encounter with you people is mind-fuckingly amazing.  I've been trying to find other libertarian-minded communities to interact with but have yet to find one that comes even close to the standard set here.

[PatrickC]

This is why I love the FDR community so god damn much.  The dedication to self-knowledge, philosophy, and virtue that I encounter with you people is mind-fuckingly amazing.  I've been trying to find other libertarian-minded communities to interact with but have yet to find one that comes even close to the standard set here.

 

Yes, whilst FDR has had it's fair share of drama over the years, they have mostly been private and even the more public ones have been resolved quickly. Conflict is dealt with better here than any other community I've known. That's philosophy for you I guess.

 

Like you, I'm really beginning to enjoy the community over the past year. Since the reputation system has been introduced it has encouraged the better individuals to engage and the trolls to slowly but surely slink away.

 

I have very little interest in being too much involved in any other community that is not based (philosophically) on this one.

[fractional slacker]

Starting around 1:29:00 Ian Freeman admits to not listening to Stef much ("I don't listen to much Stefan Molyneux"), misrepresents Stef's position ("having sex and having children is going to solve the problems of human freedom... let's talk about peaceful parenting and have some babies"), yet feels as though he in a position to say that it's a "ridiculous idea".

 

This is why I love the FDR community so god damn much.  The dedication to self-knowledge, philosophy, and virtue that I encounter with you people is mind-fuckingly amazing.  I've been trying to find other libertarian-minded communities to interact with but have yet to find one that comes even close to the standard set here.

Nice catch. Thank you for the time stamp. Cantwell starts the ball rolling by misrepresenting Stef's approach as merely out-breeding the opposition, and then Freeman continues blathering on and restating what a bad idea that is. It's an idea that can't just be dismissed, but that's what they do. The conversation/framing is dishonest in that it creates a false dichotomy scenario of choosing either a long term solution or a short term solution. Not to mention they never cite any historical examples of how the latter has ever been effective. Short term vs long term solutions are not at parity, but that's what they fail to address. 

Interesting to see the topic quicky changes by someone bringing up a "zombie apocolypse."

[PatrickC]

Interesting to see the topic quicky changes by someone bringing up a "zombie apocolypse."

 

Yes, it's why I mostly find the FTL FSP mostly redundant. They are like the Tumblr for Libertarians. Always picking fights with poorly thought out ideas and consequences.

[GRosado]

I believe we can do a lot by exposing individual statists and promoting organized ostracism. However, we must keep in mind that there will be a long transition between where we are now and a large society where statelessness is accepted. I can't rule out using physical force in defense in all cases. I believe almost all people will lash out when given no other options. Look at Roger Pion. I think he felt like he had no other options. We can reduce the need for violence by coming up with other options.It might also be worth noting that Chris is an anarchist atheist who is the son of a Catholic IRS agent. I sense a bit of rage in him due to this.

Organized Ostracism. What would be the objective guidelines for such a thing?

Like you, I'm really beginning to enjoy the community over the past year. Since the reputation system has been introduced it has encouraged the better individuals to engage and the trolls to slowly but surely slink away.

But what if the people who want to engage get down voted & are cast out most of the time for no apparent reason?

[PatrickC]

But what if the people who want to engage get down voted & are cast out most of the time for no apparent reason?

 

Well the beauty of the reputation system is that there has been much less need for banning posters, as they mostly disappear by their own volition or they attempt to improve their reputation.

 

That said, in all my years on this forum anyone that got banned unfairly was re-instated and the rest had it coming.

[GRosado]

Well the beauty of the reputation system is that there has been much less need for banning posters, as they mostly disappear by their own volition or they attempt to improve their reputation.That said, in all my years on this forum anyone that got banned unfairly was re-instated and the rest had it coming.

Fair enough but I think there should be an addon to the down vote where you can explain why you down voted the post.

[nathanm]

Raising children peacefully isn't so much a strategy as it is what simply needs to happen if the State is ever going to go away.  It's going to go away by erosion, not demolition.  There's too many damaged people out there and they cannot be fixed.  We can only make new ones and try not to cock it up.  It's like the State is this huge fire at the center of a city, wrecking everything and each new person born is given a bucket of water, a bucket of gasoline or NO bucket to pour on it by their parents.  We need to at least get to the point where there's no more gas being dumped on the fire.  It's going to still be a big job to put out the fire, but at least it isn't growing any more.

[PatrickC]

Fair enough but I think there should be an addon to the down vote where you can explain why you down voted the post.

 

I don't want to get into much of a debate about this, since I remember the bad old days before the reputation system was implemented. But seriously, try imagining YouTube forcing you to write a review for every video you ever liked or disliked.

 

The remedy is for the person being downvoted to ask why they were downvoted. Not for everyone to write a long winded reason as to why they voted, whether up or down.

[fractional slacker]

Stop the presses. Mr. Cantwell appears to be having a change of heart about how to best bring about a free society and has come to this realization primarily by watching Stef's videos.Here is first endorsement.http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/05/31/necessary-training-male-libertarians/

 

This article he is considering/admitting he may have been deficient in his knowledge of right vs. wrong - IMO a humbling thing to admit.

http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/06/01/im-reconsidering-use-force-arguments/ 

[BlackHeron]

The "Free State" project...

 

There is no such thing as a "free State."  At least as far as statism is concerned.    It's a contradiction in terms.  The only state of freedom occurs in voluntaryism -somthing the FSP-ers aren't quite ready to embrace.  Back when I was a minarchist I joined the FSP, thinking perhaps there was some way to save the "republic."  I"ve grown beyond that in the last 15 or so years.   I never bothered to remove my name from their list.  Why bother? 

 

I simply realized that Statism is not the answer.  Violence and coercion are not the answer.  It seems that the FSP people haven't quite figured this out yet.  This little dust-up with Chris only highlights the fallacy of (big-L)ibertarianism.    To see the People Farm is to leave it -not try and improve it, or attempt to negotiate with the masters for better care and feeding. 

[JasonL]

There is all the difference in the world between initiation of force and defense. Who am I to decide when someone should or shouldn't say enough?

[alexakarpov]

Chris Cantwell is an interesting person. I think that a debate with him would be lively and humorous. Just listen to the arguement he make in

.

 

Thanks for the link sir, a great conversation. A strong point is made there:

============================
Mike Salvi: Let's talk about this for a bit. Where is the line?...

Jim: I think first we need to acknowledge some of the history. I mean, look, we've got, in the past century, a conservative estimate, 250 million people didn't know where that line was - and were killed by their government, ok? So let's be realistic - we're not talking about hypotheticals here, we're talking about 250 million souls, gone. Just dead, 'cause they didn't know where that line was. They said - "well, I guess we'll just try to work it out", ok? So, you know, looking forward, we must remember that enormous pile of bodies, and say - look, I don't want to be one of those guys... it's insane that this is even a question! Yes, you're gonna have to, there's a very good chance you may end up defending yourself against somebody with a government job. It's just a fact of history, even in modern times. So, we can't even talk about it? You know, like, really?

Larken: can I say the same thing Jim did, but a way more rude..

Mike Salvi: Your name is Larken Rose, please. It's your job...

Larken: what humanity and justice most needed, in Red China, Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany, was a hell of a lot of cop killers.

Chris: Yep. A fair statement.
=======================================

[st434u]

No, that's not the way to go. The way to go is through concentration, negotiation and ultimately peaceful secession arranged with the relevant State(s).

 

Of course, in case anyone else hasn't noticed, even if you agreed with the ideas proposed by this person, supporting them is illegal and that in and of itself could land you in prison for life if not worse...

[AustinJames]

Waste of time for Stefan.  I hope he won't bother with it.

[fractional slacker]

Waste of time for Stefan.  I hope he won't bother with it.

Go on... 

[alexakarpov]

Waste of time for Stefan.  I hope he won't bother with it.

 

How is that? If the approach to the use of defensive force advocated by Chris Cantwell or Larken Rose is immoral, or counter-productive, or inconsistent with NAP, then defeating that in open would be good for the liberty movement; it would set those who are wrong on a right track. It's not for the sake of vanity or something like that; it's an important question in the quest for truth.

[Alan C.]

Using force against the State is futile for the following reasons:

 

1) The State is a symptom of a much greater, underlying problem.

 

2) Willfully ignorant, self-destructive, sociopathic, and narcissistic people don't learn. A display of force isn't going to teach them a lesson.

 

The only way to fix society is for enlightened, productive, peaceful people to secede from thugs and dipshits. Since they will never change through appeals to reason and evidence, the only option left is to let them purge themselves by self-destructing.

[AustinJames]

How is that? If the approach to the use of defensive force advocated by Chris Cantwell or Larken Rose is immoral, or counter-productive, or inconsistent with NAP, then defeating that in open would be good for the liberty movement; it would set those who are wrong on a right track. It's not for the sake of vanity or something like that; it's an important question in the quest for truth.

 

Go on... 

 

I think an interaction between Stef and Chris would be interesting, but that the material would be redundant. Stef has already made the case against Chris's arguments in previous podcasts and videos.  Of course, those ideas are worth reiterating, rephrasing, or repeating; but if he does that I hope he finds someone with a larger audience with which to do it.

 

Like I said, it would be interesting, but there are a lot of things I would rather Stef spend his time on.  Do you disagree?  Is this on the top of your list of potential FDR material?