Peter Joseph debate

[Rayne]

Steph mentioned it on his most recent YouTube upload. When is it? Tomorrow? Live? This is a long overdue debate. So excited!

[VoluntaryPrinciples]

Before this morning's Sunday show Mike said that the debate/discussion is taking place Monday night, will be recorded, then uploaded to YouTube once complete asap.

[Freedomain]

Yeah the chat is happening Monday evening, and I'll get it uploaded ASAP afterwards.

[richtrix]

Can't wait... will hit refresh on podcast page every 22 minutes!

[Clay]

Can't figure out how to embed youtube here... but here's the link from peter joseph...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaP2GJvZlWY&feature=youtu.be

 

Note from Peter Joseph:
"I would like to say I value Mr. Molyneux's perspective with respect to the outcomes he intends with his notion of a "Free-Society." His intelligence and ambition is wonderful.

However, during the course of our interview I was deeply disappointed with his perpetual ignoring of the central themes put forward with respect the underlying causal nature of the market, its inherent limitations and structural consequences.

I will also say that it bothers me deeply how such antiquated market ideas are still ever popular and, again, while I respect his intents, he persist as very much a part of the problem, not the solution when it comes to the serious public health and ecological problems facing the world today, sourced in a distorted value system reinforced by the dominant and outdated ethos of market capitalism in all forms.

Perhaps a further conversation can be put forward as I didn't get to touch upon 60% of what I wanted to. Many thanks for Stefan's time! "
~Peter

[realethal]

Link is to the TZM channel of the interview. Don't forget that.

[Jeremi]

Never have I heard such grandiose locution equate to so little.

 

Frankly, the first Zeitgeist debate was far superior to this, at least that guy did not engage in multiple argumentative fallacies coated in advanced vocabulary.

 

I'd like to suggest to Stef that he stop fielding debates that don't have moderation because the outcome is really a tremendous aggravation to both him and the listener in a lot of cases.

 

Also, he needs to stop commencing debates by defending his position and instead insist on making his opponent defend his. So Peter has demonstrated he refuses to draw a distinction between the free market and what we have now inspite of all evidence to the contrary. Well, then arguing in that realm over and over is pointless, instead go on the offensive and make Peter justify his system and try to have him square the circle of excluding force and involuntary participation in his long hard road towards Star Trek society.

[Freedomain]

[PhilipJ]

Pseudo-intellectual, self-righteous, and vitriolic Youtube comments rooted in unprocessed rage towards one's parents headed this way. They will bear the banner of "Zeitgeister." Hold fast!

[Pat Bouvry]

I was somewhat disappointed in how the debate turned out, being a fan of both Stefan and Peter. I thought this would have been a great opportunity to have a more constructive discussion instead of the traditional "I state my view, you state your view" speeches.

 

I have to give some credit to Stefan for having held his cool and not return a good number of condescending remarks from Peter. It is disappointing that two great minds did not find how to add to each other, instead of clash out in a seemingly wasteful way.

 

At the end, I have to give this one to Stefan who kept a constructive and positive attitude to genuinely try to understand Peter's overly articulated arguments. Who looses his temper usually looses the debate as frustration seems to shows some inability to cope with arguments conflicting our beliefs.

 

I thought Stefan would have picked up on the apparent fact that Structural Violence is a concept without any real actors behind it, unlike Government. Peter's insistence that this concept (derived from the free market according to him) is to blame for the ills of the world, and not people was surprising to me. If this is true, then structural violence is not a cause, but a consequence of some decision or behavior from the real cause: some people, somewhere.

 

So the positions ended as they started: less rulers against more but better rulers. The first seems to advocate for some instability but true liberty and efficiency, and the second, for a central planning "non-1984 trust-me" style with questionable liberty or efficiency.

 

Peter raised one point on which I would be interested in hearing Stefan's point of view: most socialized countries show more equality and less violence then say, the USA. Many will prefer a less free and less productive environment to gain on security and equality - i.e. why live in a free jungle where I can die at any time when I can choose to "live" in a peaceful prison? Peter seems to have a point that this is human nature and won't go away.

 

Pat

[Wesley]

Peter raised one point on which I would be interested in hearing Stefan's point of view: most socialized countries show more equality and less violence then say, the USA. Many will prefer a less free and less productive environment to gain on security and equality - i.e. why live in a free jungle where I can die at any time when I can choose to "live" in a peaceful prison? Peter seems to have a point that this is human nature and won't go away.

"Peter raised one point on which I would be interested in hearing Stefan's point of view: most socialized countries show more equality and less violence then say, the USA."

 

This is what happens when you do not count the violence of taxation, imprisonment, war, and other such state crimes (or assume that the USA is not socialist).

 

"Many will prefer a less free and less productive environment to gain on security and equality - i.e. why live in a free jungle where I can die at any time when I can choose to "live" in a peaceful prison?"

 

False dichotomy and also ignores the violence of the prison.

 

"Peter seems to have a point that this is human nature and won't go away."

 

Arguments from human nature are almost always personal experience that has been normalized to include the world. The goal is to raise children not knowing violence or their parents of spanking, timeouts, verbal abuse, and sexual abuse so that they can see taxation, imprisonment, and war as violent actions that they will recoil from. Then, it will not be human nature any more than there being slaves in society is human nature (even though it existed for many years before being abolished).

[richtrix]

c dsas    jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjxcvc junm

 

....  above is my 7 month old son's first philosophical contribution to the internet and thus the world. In the process he also removed the 'z' key from my thinkpad which I thought was a good closing argument considering the topic. (Don't worry, I was able to snap it back in). He watched just about the whole thing from his bouncy chair (although he napped for the last 30 minutes or so) So I was happy to collect his thoughts and share them.

 

I think that next time, given what PJ said he wanted to talk about, Stef can go a little bit more on the offensive questioning his proposed system as I do agree with Pat that next time Stef should be prepared to counter the "Structural Violence" concept as it is now known to be central. 

 

I've heard Stef describe Sophists many times and I have to say that no one I have experienced quite fits the description better than Peter. 

 

@Pat: Wesley has brought up some great points you should look into them. Welcome to the forum, thanks for dipping your toes in.

[Josh F]

I have a high vocabulary and a good understanding of language.  I've been accused at times of sounds like an SAT.  And Peter Joseph never says anything of value!!!!Firstly, he is going on and on about how this isn't a debate, even posting as much on his facebook.  The first thing he does is just start reading a prepared script.  Followed by an hour and a half of zero respect, zero science, zero attempt to explain his ideas coherently, zero content.  It isn't jut sophistry, this guy is just....... what an unhappy human.

 

If the leader of the group doesn't even put his own theories into practice in his life... he is just a hypocrite.  I mean he works in advertising, he does day trading, and he works in popculture..... while complaining about wallstreet advertisements and our culture in decline.

[Xtort]

I was somewhat disappointed in how the debate turned out, being a fan of both Stefan and Peter. I thought this would have been a great opportunity to have a more constructive discussion instead of the traditional "I state my view, you state your view" speeches.I have to give some credit to Stefan for having held his cool and not return a good number of condescending remarks from Peter. It is disappointing that two great minds did not find how to add to each other, instead of clash out in a seemingly wasteful way.At the end, I have to give this one to Stefan who kept a constructive and positive attitude to genuinely try to understand Peter's overly articulated arguments. Who looses his temper usually looses the debate as frustration seems to shows some inability to cope with arguments conflicting our beliefs.I thought Stefan would have picked up on the apparent fact that Structural Violence is a concept without any real actors behind it, unlike Government. Peter's insistence that this concept (derived from the free market according to him) is to blame for the ills of the world, and not people was surprising to me. If this is true, then structural violence is not a cause, but a consequence of some decision or behavior from the real cause: some people, somewhere.So the positions ended as they started: less rulers against more but better rulers. The first seems to advocate for some instability but true liberty and efficiency, and the second, for a central planning "non-1984 trust-me" style with questionable liberty or efficiency.Peter raised one point on which I would be interested in hearing Stefan's point of view: most socialized countries show more equality and less violence then say, the USA. Many will prefer a less free and less productive environment to gain on security and equality - i.e. why live in a free jungle where I can die at any time when I can choose to "live" in a peaceful prison? Peter seems to have a point that this is human nature and won't go away.Pat

 

I've listened to interviews with PJ before and that's just how he rolls.  He's so absolutely full of himself that he gets very upset when his views are challenged.  Maybe he's spent too much time with his groupies?

 

Anyway as for those equality metrics, most of the time those are primarily rated on how socialist the country's healthcare is.  I'm not saying that's the case here, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.  I stopped taking those seriously a long time ago.

 

Now, that said, anyone know where I can learn to talk like Peter?  Just go on and on and on without ever actually saying anything?  I think I'd be able to move up a few ranks at the office if I mastered this skill.

[stigskog]

My favorite bit was "Almost every argument I have with my girlfriend is about money"

 

I would have thought that his girlfriend would provide him with the basics to release him from structural violence and he would be happy with that. So, unless he is not getting enough food and shelter, what is there to argue about.

[memeverse]

Never have I heard such grandiose locution equate to so little.

 

Frankly, the first Zeitgeist debate was far superior to this, at least that guy did not engage in multiple argumentative fallacies coated in advanced vocabulary.

 

I'd like to suggest to Stef that he stop fielding debates that don't have moderation because the outcome is really a tremendous aggravation to both him and the listener in a lot of cases.

 

Also, he needs to stop commencing debates by defending his position and instead insist on making his opponent defend his. So Peter has demonstrated he refuses to draw a distinction between the free market and what we have now inspite of all evidence to the contrary. Well, then arguing in that realm over and over is pointless, instead go on the offensive and make Peter justify his system and try to have him square the circle of excluding force and involuntary participation in his long hard road towards Star Trek society.

 

I wholeheartedly agree, especially the bold part.

 

I kept waiting for PJ to finish his basic point already, and he does tend to do it through lots of seemingly unnecessary intellectual babble, and technical terms, but ultimately I think his main point was salvaged. And it's a pretty good attack on the free market, good in the sense that it completely agrees with it, but then bypasses that by looking above and beyond that "box" as he calls it. It's good in the sense that it is a great weapon in the hands of believers and seems to have the aura of thinking outside of the box, and with more depth (which in PJs mind seems to be equivalent to "broadness" and big picture thinking, not realizing this actually makes him miss some very important details). While watching occams razor came to my mind; I was wondering if PJ was familiar with the concept (though I'm sure he is). Usually when someone needs so many intellectual hoops to jump through, coming out as what appears as intellectual mumbo jumbo, it's a red flag for me.

 

What I take away from the debate though is recognition of the greater need to address the perception of the free market as strictly all about selfishness (however enlightened it may be), primacy of trading (like PJ said "you have to trade", which is false), and most of all the fear of failure in a market void of safety nets currently established by government. I mean, one way I can understand PJs view that there's inherent tendency in a free market that leads it to creation of governments (making governments essentially an emergent property of free markets) is this fear of falure, and the reaction to failure. Fear of failure makes people incentivized to take any opportunity they get to stay afloat or ahead which in extreme cases may lead them to break the cardinal Non-Aggression Principle. When push comes to shove, you're gonna put your needs above those whom might be violated especially if you are far enough removed from the violated ones to not be able to experience the empathy towards them. Similarly, if you do fail, and there's no safety net of any kind, and you're desperate to survive, it's not surprising that you'll under pressure develop negative traits such as anger and subsequent tendency towards aggression.

 

Left at that, I can perfectly see how a government or any form of institiutionalized coercion, may be the end result.

 

BUT, the simple fact being ignored here is that there's absolutely nothing about the definition of a free market and the NAP that stands in the way of establishing these safety nets and softening the blow of failure. If this service is such a valuable thing then by the operatives of the free market itself it WILL be provided. 

 

That's all fine, and easily understood for voluntaryists and ancaps, but I think people like PJ illuminate the need for us to emphasize those kinds of points more loudly. Way WAY too many people view the free market as a kind of archetypical embodiment of primacy of selfishness over concern for others, primacy of trade over other human interactions, primacy of competition over cooperation etc. when this is absolutely false.

 

Instead of talking about a free market as a market of individuals whom only voluntarily trade and compete incentivized by their self interest we should probably talk about a free market of individuals who voluntarily interact with each other in pursuit of their self interest, but as part of that also their ideals and aspirations regarding society in general. I mean, if in this current system there are people concerned about changing the world for the better there certainly would be such people in a free market, and their hands wouldn't be tied to establish organizations (aggregates of interaction not all of which may be trade and not all of which would center on competition) that would solve certain problems that can remain in a free market without breaking the NAP, and in doing so in fact preventing these "structural pressures" from leading anyone to the point of wanting to break the NAP.

 

This would be a way of presenting the free market outside of the confines of the typical perception of it and in a way that addresses a huge swath of issues that people like proponents of the Zeitgeist movement have with it. It would also go to show that the free market doesn't in fact fundamentally operate solely on scarcity (really now... scarcity has been less and less of an issue, but that doesn't automatically make NAP unnecessary or voluntary interaction irrelevant) or operate solely on competition and gaining advantage etc. which are the things they believe make the free market susceptible to emergence of state.

 

They believe so only out of a grave misunderstanding of what a free market is which views it as far more rigid than it really is, seeing obstacles and rules where they don't exist. And WE, the proponents of the free market, keep harping on words like "trade", "self interest" etc. without realizing we are reinforcing those people's established perceptions. Our presentation needs to try harder to get outside of the box that they see us in. We need to make them see that there in fact isn't a box. Nothing about NAP requires there to be a box. There are no other rules or expectations of a free market society whatsoever other than NAP. Even Zeitgeister's Resource Based Economy based cities could be established within a free market society so long as they don't force participants in. 

 

Really.. maybe the problem is with the word "market". It has these dirty connotations much like the word "anarchy", for some people anyway. What we're in fact talking about is a free society period. The "market" just happens to be an inevitable and necessary component of it, but it is a less fundamental component than the NAP.

 

All you need is NAP, and NAP creates a free society. Yes.. that also means a market. But so what.

[counterbalance]

Oh brother, this was very hard to watch.

 

I just want to commend Stefan for keeping his cool and maintaining his focus. Rather than "Win" the debate, I feel that Stefan is working more to appeal to and attract those individuals that have found the Zeitgeist group but have a gnawing feeling like something is missing or wrong. If these folks somehow have the great fortune to find this debate and then see first hand the contrast of brow-beating hubris, egotism and angst against the backdrop of pure logic, empiricism and benevolence - we all win.

 

I will say that I felt some sympathy with Peter Joseph because I too have felt passionate about ideas that I was unable to express. It is a very frustrating feeling to have all the language you need and not enough of the understanding. Great ideas are powerful, simple and plain; but to discover them is hard fought discipline.

 

Great job Stefan.

[MarkIX]

A lot of you seem to be saying that PJ didn't have a lot worth saying. You are probably doing the same as he is in feeling that the challenge to what you hold to be self evident is useless. I can say from my own perspective that after this "Debate" some of the things that I felt to be self evident no longer seemed that way. These seemed to be positions that Stefan had not encountered before but he used the same talking points that he has used many times in the past and I think these failed to address the new positions. They are admittedly arguments from a deterministic position, but requiring no more determinism than Stefan's position that the family gives rise to the State. 

I am discussing it over here

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37139-about-the-debate-with-peter-joseph-and-clearobjective-language/

[PatrickC]

If the leader of the group doesn't even put his own theories into practice in his life... he is just a hypocrite.  I mean he works in advertising, he does day trading, and he works in popculture..... while complaining about wallstreet advertisements and our culture in decline.

 

Yes, this part was difficult to ignore. I mean it doesn't entirely discredit him of course, but it sure leaves a contradiction there, for people to fathom.

 

Peter's principles come from the greatest good for the greatest number. This was highlighted by his assumption that Stef would save 200,000 people over 200.. This is the philosophy of the leftist and even the religious. In fact it's the philosophy of statism and kings. Attempts at lauding the collective over the individual once again.

[JKPgamer]

All in all was very interesting and I thought Stefan did really well especially calling out PJ on his ad hominem attacks...the one thing that I would say really upset me though was in PJ's final statement: 

"With respect to the final point in human development, we cannot be narrow enough to think that just because that parents are the starting point of development...you cannot stop generations of child abuse...our social nature has such powerful pressures, that go largely ignored unfortunately, that human development has to be given a social context.  You have to give people what they need, and in the past we were not able to do that, but we can now.  We can meet the needs of every human being on Earth to give that true security that people want and feel.  So child development, so people look at their parents and see them struggling for money and develop this instant adaptation that they have to be concerned about money, they have to be fearful.  The father that comes home from work that has just gotten fired that is full of aggression that can't help due to his own pressures, lash out as every human being inevitably will..."

 

I could be wrong here, but to me he is blaming the victim here.  I mean why did the father get fired?  If this is a principle he holds true, than we are morally allowed to abuse our children, who have no choice but to be with their parents, just because we experience some social discomfort?  I mean that is a clear advocation, in my mind, that he believes violence done to any adult by the state or this so called "structural violence" is an acceptable reason to be violent towards a child.

[Wesley]

A lot of you seem to be saying that PJ didn't have a lot worth saying. You are probably doing the same as he is in feeling that the challenge to what you hold to be self evident is useless. I can say from my own perspective that after this "Debate" some of the things that I felt to be self evident no longer seemed that way. These seemed to be positions that Stefan had not encountered before but he used the same talking points that he has used many times in the past and I think these failed to address the new positions. They are admittedly arguments from a deterministic position, but requiring no more determinism than Stefan's position that the family gives rise to the State. 

I am discussing it over here

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37139-about-the-debate-with-peter-joseph-and-clearobjective-language/

In a debate, "self evident" is contained to those things that are necessary for the debate to occur (see argumentation ethics) and then those things by which both parties agree to during the course of the debate. Everything else needs a case built using logic, reason, evidence (and tricks if you find you have the worse position and are just trying to win. However, if you are trying to be right, then these shouldn't be allowed.)

 

By Peter claiming things as evident that Stef did not agree with, then it was Peter's duty to prove them. His only arguments were many, many adjectives in order to disparage Stef's view and elevate his own (which Stef took issue with a few times) and a couple instances of anecdotes that were strangely extrapolated to world trends even though Stef could easily explain them using his theories and that even if he couldn't, anecdotes never make a trend.

 

This is why the debate was sad. Almost no arguments, anecdotes, argument by adjective, and a decent helping of begging the question. I would be very disappointed debating in that environment as there is nothing that can even stand on two legs for me to knock down, except that people who are not used to logic or debate may still accept the arguments.

[MarkIX]

In a debate, "self evident" is contained to those things that are necessary for the debate to occur (see argumentation ethics) and then those things by which both parties agree to during the course of the debate. Everything else needs a case built using logic, reason, evidence (and tricks if you find you have the worse position and are just trying to win. However, if you are trying to be right, then these shouldn't be allowed.)

 

By Peter claiming things as evident that Stef did not agree with, then it was Peter's duty to prove them. His only arguments were many, many adjectives in order to disparage Stef's view and elevate his own (which Stef took issue with a few times) and a couple instances of anecdotes that were strangely extrapolated to world trends even though Stef could easily explain them using his theories and that even if he couldn't, anecdotes never make a trend.

 

This is why the debate was sad. Almost no arguments, anecdotes, argument by adjective, and a decent helping of begging the question. I would be very disappointed debating in that environment as there is nothing that can even stand on two legs for me to knock down, except that people who are not used to logic or debate may still accept the arguments.

What I heard during this "debate" was PJ describe a mechanism why voluntarism is not possible and so won't generate a peaceful society, he obviously thought that the explanation was self evident. Stef didn't agree, because to him voluntarism is self evident. That most of the people on this board use the same "self-evidence" as Stef is unsurprising. What I found surprising is that PJ describes current situations which Stef obviously  agrees with otherwise he would not support peaceful parenting as the solution. It seems reasonable to restate peaceful parenting as "people can't make good decisions because of abuse they suffered as a child. Therefore if we want a peaceful society we need to prevent that abuse"

where as PJ's position was stated as (pardon my paraphrasing) "people cannot make effective voluntary decisions because of cultural pressures". The only way I can see that those statements could be decoupled from each other is if it is taken as given that un-abused people are going to produced a culture functionally similar to people abused as children. Or if you don't believe voluntary decisions are good. Either of those positions would indicate a lack of support for Stef's proposition. It seems PJ supports the first of these positions but that wasn't what they were arguing about in this "debate".

[memeverse]

If their stuff is self-evident to them and ours to us that kinda dilutes the meaning of something being "self-evident". I think if something is self-evident no external evidence or validation is necessary. If any external evidence or information or beliefs are necessary to make something appear evident then it's not "self" evident.

 

I'm feeling so pedantic right now. 

[nathanm]

Joseph's emotional frustration and contempt for society is clearly evident, thinly coated over with a veneer of complicated language.  This guy was probably deeply hurt and frustrated by things in his life, he's always been too smart for the people around him, he got screwed on a job, he can't make money as a musician and this buildup of contempt for his world manifests itself in the form of being an erudite douchebag who manipulates language to suit his ideals.  I absolutely do not believe he has any respect for anything Stef said, no matter how many back-handed compliments he threw in there.  He's a miserable, angry person screaming 'fuck you' at the world.  And I feel his pain too, I'm a frustrated artist as well, but unfortunately it manifests itself in the form of being an insufferably smug asshole.  But luckily nobody suffers such people like Stef can.  I absolutely would not be able to take it were I in his shoes.  I was cringing like hell when Joseph eluded to a future debate about his Resource Based Economy.  Seriously dude?  Did you not see how shitty this one went?  Up is down, black is white, voluntary is coercive…what the hell is there to talk about?

[MarkIX]

If their stuff is self-evident to them and ours to us that kinda dilutes the meaning of something being "self-evident". I think if something is self-evident no external evidence or validation is necessary. If any external evidence or information or beliefs are necessary to make something appear evident then it's not "self" evident.

 

I'm feeling so pedantic right now. 

Your'e not really being pedantic, because a pedant would have noticed the qualifiers of "he obviously thought that the explanation was self evident" and " because to him voluntarism is self evident " I was talking about their perceptions of their positions as being opposed whereas I have explained why I think their positions are very similar at least in this area, only their conclusions differ. Why do their conclusions differ when they are working from the same of similar start points, well I would say pre-existing factors brought about by their home life. As I said in another thread I find it interesting that Stefan's experience with his family, the kind of abuse he suffered had a logical end point when he grew to large to physically dominate. I think that PJ's experience was with a less crazy less finite abuse framework. This could be just my pre-existing factors driving me to erroneous conclusions but if that is the case then it just my conclusion that is wrong not my implication.

[Josh F]

Yes, this part was difficult to ignore. I mean it doesn't entirely discredit him of course, but it sure leaves a contradiction there, for people to fathom.

 

Peter's principles come from the greatest good for the greatest number. This was highlighted by his assumption that Stef would save 200,000 people over 200.. This is the philosophy of the leftist and even the religious. In fact it's the philosophy of statism and kings. Attempts at lauding the collective over the individual once again.

dude the ULTIMATE irony though, in his facebook post about the podcast, (where he continues his "conversation" alone for the benefit of his community) he accuses Stef of Utiitarianism! Peter Joseph [ Official ] Stefan's Religion in 3 propositions:1) The State is the root of all Evil. 2) We are all just Voluntary Exchangers. (Classic narrow-minded Utilitarianism)3) The Non-Aggression Principle is the moral apex. (Thou Shalt Not Coerce!)

Joseph's emotional frustration and contempt for society is clearly evident, thinly coated over with a veneer of complicated language.  This guy was probably deeply hurt and frustrated by things in his life, he's always been too smart for the people around him, he got screwed on a job, he can't make money as a musician and this buildup of contempt for his world manifests itself in the form of being an erudite douchebag who manipulates language to suit his ideals.  I absolutely do not believe he has any respect for anything Stef said, no matter how many back-handed compliments he threw in there.  He's a miserable, angry person screaming 'fuck you' at the world.  And I feel his pain too, I'm a frustrated artist as well, but unfortunately it manifests itself in the form of being an insufferably smug asshole.  But luckily nobody suffers such people like Stef can.  I absolutely would not be able to take it were I in his shoes.  I was cringing like hell when Joseph eluded to a future debate about his Resource Based Economy.  Seriously dude?  Did you not see how shitty this one went?  Up is down, black is white, voluntary is coercive…what the hell is there to talk about?

Exactly.

[Wesley]

Peter Joseph [ Official ] Stefan's Religion in 3 propositions:1) The State is the root of all Evil. 2) We are all just Voluntary Exchangers. (Classic narrow-minded Utilitarianism)3) The Non-Aggression Principle is the moral apex. (Thou Shalt Not Coerce!)

 

 

He seems to be straw-manning and then using argument by adjective again (religion, narrow-minded, utilitarian)

 

I do not think I would be disappointed to not see or hear from this guy again. It is getting to be beyond pathetic.

[PatrickC]

dude the ULTIMATE irony though, in his facebook post about the podcast, (where he continues his "conversation" alone for the benefit of his community) he accuses Stef of Utiitarianism! Peter Joseph [ Official ] Stefan's Religion in 3 propositions:1) The State is the root of all Evil. 2) We are all just Voluntary Exchangers. (Classic narrow-minded Utilitarianism)3) The Non-Aggression Principle is the moral apex. (Thou Shalt Not Coerce!)

Exactly.

 

Yea,  I think you make a reasonable critique.

[Libertus]

About systemic violence... yes, there is such a thing. remember when you were growing up, and although everybody you come in contact with, is super friendly, non-aggressive towards you, but you still grow up in poverty, because the system steals money, from your parents, that they would otherwise spend on other things, maybe invest it in your future... and calls it 'taxation'. The fact of the matter is, this system is not a free market. It's a system based on violence, that violently coerces almost everybody in one way or the other, and there we have it systemic violence. And all the statistics he read about how terrible systemic violence is, I totally agree with those. Yeah, he can bring a hundred of those and still has not shown how this violence is anything but a result of government, and corporatism. Yes, it's bad. No, it's not the free market.

 

I also think the word inequality is used as an argument, and wrongly so. Sure, a lot of today's factual inequality in wealth is very unnatural, and unnecessary. I would whole-heartedly agree with Joseph. But, Equality Of Opportunity And Equality Of Outcome are not the same! If there was an ideal government, it would treat every person as equals. But it doesn't. And there isn't. I think equal rights for everyone is a good idea though. But that would mean very inequal outcomes, and I'm OK with that.

 

He correctly attacks corporatism, but conflates it with capitalism and the free market.Therefore, everything that's wrong in the world, is the fault of capitalism and the free market.

 

I don't know, man. I don't know. PJ doesn't seem to understand the most basic libertarian arguments. Either that, or he is so many levels above us that he can't even be bothered to define a term in two sentences, or answer a yes/no question with yes or no, without being reminded, twice... I mean, how many people are openly critical towards his ideas? How many libertarians has he debated? I'm guessing, not so many. He has NO CLUE what their position is.

[Josh F]

Here is what it is man, its beyond anger, it is the desperation of someone who knows they are wrong.  Same approach to "discussion" as a government apologist in the media, distort, use adjectives, never get into the real debate, show emotion, us vs them, and everything else.  Poor TZM people, I hate to see someone prey on people who want to find the truth.

though here is the thing about the community, they're pretty receptive to new info, i've been recommending a bunch of stuff and they're eating it up. Its just what happens when a smart talker gets ahold of a bunch of public educated minds.

[Think Free]

EDIT: Not to double-post I thought I'd just put some of my thoughts up here. The impression I got from the "debate" is that Peter is not actually used to arguing for his position. It seems like he's used to simply stating his position and beliefs and having people respond with, "Oh, wow! You're right!" This makes me think he doesn't talk to many experienced and skilled philosophers. Maybe his intent was to argue for his position eventually, but he would just talk on and on and never actually get to an argument. (Although sometimes he seemed to think that statement of his highly controversial views amounted to an argument.)

 

(Disclaimer: The following is a slightly amended version of a post I made over on the TZM forums.)

 

It seems to me that Stefan and Peter's disagreement might have been primarily (though not wholly) semantic. Peter, in his usage, seems to implicitly amend the term ("free market") to mean "voluntary interaction of individuals operating under certain (in his view, false) paradigms of economic thought". This video was my first exposure to TZM, so I may be completely off-base here, but it seems to me that TZM might agree with libertarians that the removal of compulsion and violence (by libertarian standards) from our human interactions is necessary to solve the problems facing society today, but go on to add that just the adoption of the non-aggression principle is not a solution. If I understand Peter correctly, he would claim that we additionally need a revolutionary change in our attitudes about things such as trade, competition, and scarcity. It seems that it would be to our advantage in future engagement with TZMers to pin them down on the issue of whether they believe aggression is ever justified, or whether they can at least agree that violence is unjustified for the purposes other than protection from violence.

[specialagent057]

I could fill the screen pointing out the nonsense this guy exhaled into what turned out to be the same conversation almost all of us have had with a jilted communist, and I remain astounded Stef allowed as much verbal diarrhea to go unchecked, however, I would just like to add one point that amused me in particular. (And yes I realize Stef let was letting the communist hang himself with the rope he resource reallocation continuity equilibrium quantifier spaghettii frootloop waaahhhh "I came out on the small end of a business transaction 10 years ago." "It's not fair I tell you"...)Anyway, when he said paraphrasing of course, "...long after he has his needs meet..." Speaking of former President All-Star W Bush Jr.  I thought, how does he know that his "needs" are meet?  If your need is to be the biggest, well in this case asshole, then Bush still had room to go, just look at how far Obama has climbed up that mountain.  But case in point, how's to say what another's "needs" are?  I envisioned Peter being perfectly content having me in a pooh collection tube being feed vitamin fiber water and saying, "that's all you need." or rather his super cyborg 9000 C-O-M-P-U-T-E-R saying it for him.  And what hit me personally is that I "gamble", or play Poker really.  So, in this utopia how can I have that "need" met?  One has to risk scarce resources in order to gamble, even for pure pleasure.  And although I'm more technical about +ev play in poker and am an advantage player in blackjack it is said when you see a guy betting tens of thousands of dollars and up that "that's what it takes to get his dick hard." That's a "need" he  has that which the market provides a service, and without scarcity all of us degens would be out of luck. Pun intended.   Found it amusing. That's all carry on my wayward friends. Okay that was Kansas. I'll stop..."In the name of love" Must have been the podcast I 8. 

[nathanm]

Structural violence:

 

[Think Free]

I just want to throw in my support for Stefan's next debate (especially if it's with PJ) being moderated. Also, he should make sure that they're on the same page about whether it is a debate or an opportunity for the other party to monologue.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

Here's my critique of PJs review of the debate...