Can we have our philosophy show back yet?

[Invicta]

I think the Steph in the video below might have violated the NAP against our current Steph due to all the election coverage.

Yay for Trump over Killary I suppose. Now we'll have 4 years of the Dems blocking Trump in Congress. Everything Trump has promised will require unprecedented money printing and more government beurocracy. Why do we care? Lets get back to fighting bad ideas with logic and empathy.

 

 

The ruling class in the State has always needed intellectuals to apologize for their rule and to sucker the masses into subservience, i.e., into paying the taxes and going along with State rule. In the old days, in most societies, a form of priestcraft or State Church constituted the opinion-moulders who apologized for that rule. Now, in a more secular age, we have technocrats, "social scientists," and media intellectuals, who apologize for the State system and staff in the ranks of its bureaucracy.

 

 

[DCLugi]

I remember seeing an old Benny Hill bit where he tasted something then rejected it. Then he tasted the second option and quickly grabbed the first one. As principled people we taste nationalism and culture but reject it as the sworn enemy of philosophy. Then we taste globalism and the demise of western civilization and quickly grab the first option. Otherwise we starve.

[D-Light]

I remember seeing an old Benny Hill bit where he tasted something then rejected it. Then he tasted the second option and quickly grabbed the first one. As principled people we taste nationalism and culture but reject it as the sworn enemy of philosophy. Then we taste globalism and the demise of western civilization and quickly grab the first option. Otherwise we starve.

Yes, the false dichotomy has been in operation as the "Two Party System" since almost the beginning of this Nation's existence. It has served the rulers of this country well. The notion that we would starve is the error.

[dsayers]

Lets get back to fighting bad ideas with logic and empathy.

 

Cry more.

Or not

 

I remember seeing an old Benny Hill bit where he tasted something then rejected it. Then he tasted the second option and quickly grabbed the first one. As principled people we taste nationalism and culture but reject it as the sworn enemy of philosophy. Then we taste globalism and the demise of western civilization and quickly grab the first option. Otherwise we starve.

False analogy. In the analogy, there is fundamental difference between the cups, the person could choose to drink from neither, choosing to drink one is actually doing something, but isn't doing something to hundreds of millions of people... still.

[DCLugi]

Yes, the false dichotomy has been in operation as the "Two Party System" since almost the beginning of this Nation's existence. It has served the rulers of this country well. The notion that we would starve is the error.

Sorry I left out the part where we are forced to consume one or the other. The first one is spoiled milk. It tastes awful and will make you sick. The second one is cyanide. While you don't support either drink you can choose to start bootlegging your own moonshine but of course this will currently result in a stay at the rape cage motel. Your goal is to persuade enough people to design their own cocktails and be free from what's on the current menu. You have a far better chance of achieving this while puking then you would have from the grave.

[Spenc]

Cry more.

That's great customer service!

[_LiveFree_]

That's great customer service!

Cry morer.

[shirgall]

23% of self-identified atheists voted for Trump... at nearly 1 in 4 can we have a little recognition for not all being statists?

[rosencrantz]

Next thing you'll know is that libertarians and anarchists praise the demonstrators and domestic terrorists as being virtuous for fighting against the oppressive state 

[Absit]

I do have to admit that it's been a bit much Trump-Trump-Trump lately, and I do wish we can get some change up, now that he's won.

 

Don't get me wrong: I think Stef and his team have been doing great work, and I thank them for it. I think they really made a difference during this election. And that's a fairly crazy thing…

[dsayers]

Next thing you'll know is that libertarians and anarchists praise the demonstrators and domestic terrorists as being virtuous for fighting against the oppressive state 

No, but it is a damn shame that these people are railing against a symptom of the problem of institutionalized coercion, and most of us are too busy acting like we won something or mocking them for being victims of child abuse to try and help them interpret what they're feeling. We're at a flash point in human history at helping people to understand that humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories, which would evaporate the State. Instead, we're busy trying to figure out which flavor of State will help us get to that flash point. Pro-Trump/voting FDR'ers were saying they wanted this to be able to have these conversations and here's the opportunity for as much and... mockery?

[Slavik]

Cry more.

So is the show getting back to philosophy and away from statism?  I would really like to know what I am supporting.  Personally I would like an honest statement from Stefan regarding this issue, especially considering that many subscribers have suspended their anarchic believes for a time, given good logical reasons to support Trump, but they have done so only for a time.  I would really like an argument, since "cry more," is NOT AN ARGUMENT.

 

Thanks. 

[Tyler H]

At the beginning of the "Truth About Lincoln" Stef says the reason for the truth about series is to realize the imperfection of our "heroes" in order to expand the capacity for heroism in our own lives. I find it interesting the "Untruth About Trump" series has had the exact opposite effect.

[Blimpmerchant]

So is the show getting back to philosophy and away from statism?  I would really like to know what I am supporting.  Personally I would like an honest statement from Stefan regarding this issue, especially considering that many subscribers have suspended their anarchic believes for a time, given good logical reasons to support Trump, but they have done so only for a time.  I would really like an argument, since "cry more," is NOT AN ARGUMENT.

 

Thanks. 

Well, the OP didn't exactly word it as a rational question regarding the future direction of the show as you have, it was more of an outburst and assumption that only Ancaps subscribe to Stefan.  The video also talks towards the relationship between both parties, this is also under the assumption that Trump is essentially a red tie and not a normal dude running for presidency. It's also worth mentioning that a truckload of political corruption spilled all over the united states during this election, putting Trump outside of the malarkey and making him a wild card sort of character that isn't within the frame of political corruption discussed within this 2008 Stefan video.  

 

Now, I'll also assume some things myself.  These exact reasons are what I assume are the reasons why Stefan supported Trump, I mean if the game itself, the political landscape instantly becomes twisted and we have an opportunity to get an outsider in office who talks (for the most part) of things we can tend to agree with, isn't this good?  Many of the videos he created on Trump appeared to mostly point out the inadequacies of the media, the left, and the existing political parties through a vehicular example of Trump.  A two-dimensional inspection versus a larger picture three-dimensional inspection of the overly-produced Trump videos as of late are two very different things.

 

America was in a major election and the corruption was running rampant, why wouldn't you want to cover that?  Do we hide in a hole of AnCap and become connoisseurs of ourselves, or do we inspect and keep in touch with common tongue?  I mean if it was 1856 and Dred Scott v. Sandford was in progress and the newspaper press was only discussing one clearly bias view, yet we're against the government entirely.. wouldn't we be interested in "keeping up with the times" and covering the hypocrisies of it all?  This is probably one hell of a sloppy example, but I think it gets my thought process across.

 

Granted, I too am becoming fatigued to all of this Trump discussion and this is not an apology for MMDs passive-aggressive post (Bullet 7 in the guidlines).  I'm eagerly looking forward to some well rounded philosophical presentations, those early conversations of self with his cheap ass radio shack headsets were some of the most enlightening and thought provoking podcasts I had ever listened to.  

 

Just my two cents in an unintelligible region of space and time full of damn pennies.

[Together-Whenever-Wherever]

Stefan is still conducting a philosophy show. I think what you want is an abstract philosophy show, of which there are 2500 podcasts of that type. He could stop podcasting for the rest of his life and still have 10 times more content than any other philosophy show in the world. Would 5000 abstract philosophy shows satisfy you? Perhaps 10,000?

 

The West is in a fight for its survival against civilization destroying real world policies. Personally, I find his podcasts about grand-scale problems to be an excellent complement to his abstract stuff. It shows how theory translates to practice.

 

Thanks to his work in the last two years, his channel has absolutely exploded in popularity, and philosophy has reached more people than ever would have been possible if he stayed in abstract territory.

[Tyler H]

Thanks to his work in the last two years, his channel has absolutely exploded in popularity, and philosophy has reached more people than ever would have been possible if he stayed in abstract territory.

Philosophy is not a popularity contest. It should only be popular when people adhere to the truth not when "the truth" adheres to people's delusions. I can understand holding back on knocking over religious and conservative dominoes to preserve freedom of speech, but now that catastrophe has been averted it is important to continue to speak the truth. Taxation is theft, government is force, and the law is an opinion with a gun. No matter how much less evil Trump will do compared to Hillary, he will still do evil and that is the truth that has been eschewed for the past year.

[D-Light]

Philosophy is not a popularity contest. It should only be popular when people adhere to the truth not when "the truth" adheres to people's delusions. I can understand holding back on knocking over religious and conservative dominoes to preserve freedom of speech, but now that catastrophe has been averted it is important to continue to speak the truth. Taxation is theft, government is force, and the law is an opinion with a gun. No matter how much less evil Trump will do compared to Hillary, he will still do evil and that is the truth that has been eschewed for the past year.

Indeed.

[Slavik]

Stefan is still conducting a philosophy show. I think what you want is an abstract philosophy show, of which there are 2500 podcasts of that type. He could stop podcasting for the rest of his life and still have 10 times more content than any other philosophy show in the world. Would 5000 abstract philosophy shows satisfy you? Perhaps 10,000?

 

The West is in a fight for its survival against civilization destroying real world policies. Personally, I find his podcasts about grand-scale problems to be an excellent complement to his abstract stuff. It shows how theory translates to practice.

 

Thanks to his work in the last two years, his channel has absolutely exploded in popularity, and philosophy has reached more people than ever would have been possible if he stayed in abstract territory.

Supporting a State is not an anarchic philosophy either, a person is either an anarco-capitalist or a statist, can not be both.  As I have mentioned in my previous post, suspending one's principles is bearable for a time being, but once the goal has been achieved, I would like to know if Stefan is now a Statist, as I personally do not wish to support a statist show.  

[ValueOfBrevity]

I think the Steph in the video below might have violated the NAP against our current Steph due to all the election coverage.

Yay for Trump over Killary I suppose. Now we'll have 4 years of the Dems blocking Trump in Congress. Everything Trump has promised will require unprecedented money printing and more government beurocracy. Why do we care? Lets get back to fighting bad ideas with logic and empathy.

 

 

The ruling class in the State has always needed intellectuals to apologize for their rule and to sucker the masses into subservience, i.e., into paying the taxes and going along with State rule. In the old days, in most societies, a form of priestcraft or State Church constituted the opinion-moulders who apologized for that rule. Now, in a more secular age, we have technocrats, "social scientists," and media intellectuals, who apologize for the State system and staff in the ranks of its bureaucracy.

 

 

I think you're correct about the change in the show. 

 

Steph's philosophy has been anti-voting for most of the shows history.

 

He has stated, however, that the importance of the current election was tantamount to the continuation of western philosophy. 

We have empirical data about Syrian refugees in Europe, as well as the trending political correctness (control of language, ideas). This was a vote against those. So, even if we are taking part in something we know will not be part of a voluntary society, we are protecting the future of the the ideas we truly believe in. 

 

If a voluntary society is the chick, then the US is the egg. Steph wants to protect the egg while he inseminates it with sweet, sticky knowledge.

 

It's a pragmatic view, but I have to agree with him on these grounds.

I would love it if Steph would slow down and explore philosophy again, rather than just politics. His older content is exceptional.

 

Cry more.

We all know you're smarter than this. Why not add your intelligence to the conversation?

[Tyler H]

Well, the OP didn't exactly word it as a rational question regarding the future direction of the show as you have, it was more of an outburst and assumption that only Ancaps subscribe to Stefan.  The video also talks towards the relationship between both parties, this is also under the assumption that Trump is essentially a red tie and not a normal dude running for presidency. It's also worth mentioning that a truckload of political corruption spilled all over the united states during this election, putting Trump outside of the malarkey and making him a wild card sort of character that isn't within the frame of political corruption discussed within this 2008 Stefan video.  

 

Now, I'll also assume some things myself.  These exact reasons are what I assume are the reasons why Stefan supported Trump, I mean if the game itself, the political landscape instantly becomes twisted and we have an opportunity to get an outsider in office who talks (for the most part) of things we can tend to agree with, isn't this good?  Many of the videos he created on Trump appeared to mostly point out the inadequacies of the media, the left, and the existing political parties through a vehicular example of Trump.  A two-dimensional inspection versus a larger picture three-dimensional inspection of the overly-produced Trump videos as of late are two very different things.

America was in a major election and the corruption was running rampant, why wouldn't you want to cover that?  Do we hide in a hole of AnCap and become connoisseurs of ourselves, or do we inspect and keep in touch with common tongue?  I mean if it was 1856 and Dred Scott v. Sandford was in progress and the newspaper press was only discussing one clearly bias view, yet we're against the government entirely.. wouldn't we be interested in "keeping up with the times" and covering the hypocrisies of it all?  This is probably one hell of a sloppy example, but I think it gets my thought process across.

Granted, I too am becoming fatigued to all of this Trump discussion and this is not an apology for MMDs passive-aggressive post (Bullet 7 in the guidlines).  I'm eagerly looking forward to some well rounded philosophical presentations, those early conversations of self with his cheap ass radio shack headsets were some of the most enlightening and thought provoking podcasts I had ever listened to.  

Just my two cents in an unintelligible region of space and time full of damn pennies.

I agree with much of what you said. With respect to what you said about keeping in touch with the common tongue, I think this has always been the case with the show; here's what's going on, here's the view from the plebeian perspective and here's the application of philosophy that exposes the predations of government and explicates the solutions freedom can offer. The absence of the last point in many videos where it could easily have been inserted is my problem specifically, primarily because I believe that no one can disseminate this information as well as Stef. My perception is that the abstention of this dissemination was a necessary aberration in order to get Trump elected, however it is my opinion that a continuation of this pattern is anathema to the values held for the large majority of the show's existence and should not be continued in the absence of such an extreme situation as the recent election.

[labmath2]

At the beginning of the "Truth About Lincoln" Stef says the reason for the truth about series is to realize the imperfection of our "heroes" in order to expand the capacity for heroism in our own lives. I find it interesting the "Untruth About Trump" series has had the exact opposite effect.

So are you saying the reason for the "untruth about Donald Trump" is to realize the perfection of our "heroes" in order to diminish the capacity for heroism in our own lives. You mean by voting for those heroes and hoping they help us achieve freedom we have yet to achieve in our own lives? This seems ridiculous.

[dsayers]

but now that catastrophe has been averted it is important to continue to speak the truth.

I understand the point you were trying to make, and agree that it is important for everybody that was putting stock into the election to realize that the election is over, and they could be doing things to improve their lives and the lives of those around them.

 

That said, I just wanted to point out that both "the catastrophe" and "been averted" are not speaking the truth. I'm address the narrative, not you in particular. The catastrophe was not as the pro-Trump/voting FDR'ers made it out to be. The catastrophe is mass acceptance of institutionalized violence, which their prescription only fed. So not only was it feeding the real problem, but even by the "catastrophe" narrative, it has not been averted. Because no one man has such power and because the car was already going off the cliff. MAYBE we can postpone it, but we can't stop it.

[jpahmad]

I think the Steph in the video below might have violated the NAP against our current Steph due to all the election coverage.

Yay for Trump over Killary I suppose. Now we'll have 4 years of the Dems blocking Trump in Congress. Everything Trump has promised will require unprecedented money printing and more government beurocracy. Why do we care? Lets get back to fighting bad ideas with logic and empathy.

 

 

The ruling class in the State has always needed intellectuals to apologize for their rule and to sucker the masses into subservience, i.e., into paying the taxes and going along with State rule. In the old days, in most societies, a form of priestcraft or State Church constituted the opinion-moulders who apologized for that rule. Now, in a more secular age, we have technocrats, "social scientists," and media intellectuals, who apologize for the State system and staff in the ranks of its bureaucracy.

 

 

 

This is not an argument, but this post is the most obnoxious and infantile statement I've ever seen on these boards.  The OP can't be more than 14 years old.  There's no way.

[David Miller]

This is not an argument, but this post is the most obnoxious and infantile statement I've ever seen on these boards.  The OP can't be more than 14 years old.  There's no way.

 

Hahahahahahahaha! You insulted a guy online because you are mad that the story has changed and you went after his age? Are you a virgin? The video in the OP is part of the reason why I give money, why I tell people about Steph and peaceful parenting. I pay tax in one country already I don't need to support political ambitions in a different one. Literally everything in this video is the 180 degree opposite of what Steph is putting out now bahahahahaha!!!!!  Mad cog/dis going on which is sad but "muh end of western civilization" right?  Seriously did you watch the video? It's very funny. 

 

"And really the presidency? I mean come on people you don't have to be brain surgeons to understand that changing the president changes nothing about the system."

^^^Except a Clinton supporting democrat running as a republican^^^

 

"Have some pride for god sakes!" 

^^^This is my favorite^^^

 

 

"I will not subjugate myself to this fetid ritual, this ridiculous magical bullshit called voting. They will not get my sanction for what they are doing I will not vote in protest I will not vote with the illusion that I will become free by begging for freedom."

^^^Lives in Canada so plausibly still kind of accurate^^^

                                                              -Moly

 

 

I have no desire to start an argument just an increasing desire to spend my money elsewhere. 

[Together-Whenever-Wherever]

Philosophy is not a popularity contest. It should only be popular when people adhere to the truth not when "the truth" adheres to people's delusions. I can understand holding back on knocking over religious and conservative dominoes to preserve freedom of speech, but now that catastrophe has been averted it is important to continue to speak the truth. Taxation is theft, government is force, and the law is an opinion with a gun. No matter how much less evil Trump will do compared to Hillary, he will still do evil and that is the truth that has been eschewed for the past year.

Popularity may be unimportant to you as a consumer of philosophy. Popularity may be unimportant to a philosophy professor cocooned in tenure-ship. But popularity is certainly important to a supplier in the marketplace where Stefan resides as one of the few market-facing philosophers in the world. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=firing+customers

Amen. I'd rather have no customers than a consumer base of concern trolls.

Supporting a State is not an anarchic philosophy either, a person is either an anarco-capitalist or a statist, can not be both.  As I have mentioned in my previous post, suspending one's principles is bearable for a time being, but once the goal has been achieved, I would like to know if Stefan is now a Statist, as I personally do not wish to support a statist show.  

The goal has been achieved? We elect Trump, then the demographic winter, globalist tyranny, radical Islam, and mass migration, all of which still has the West in a noose, is *poof* solved?

 

The electing of Trump was just the beginning. 

[mgggb]

Philosophy is not a popularity contest. It should only be popular when people adhere to the truth not when "the truth" adheres to people's delusions. I can understand holding back on knocking over religious and conservative dominoes to preserve freedom of speech, but now that catastrophe has been averted it is important to continue to speak the truth. Taxation is theft, government is force, and the law is an opinion with a gun. No matter how much less evil Trump will do compared to Hillary, he will still do evil and that is the truth that has been eschewed for the past year.

Whatever the course, I trust Stefan implicitly. Philosophy isn't a popularity contest? Yes it absolutely is. Accepting the NAP means nothing if you are the only one who does. He has said repeatedly that the only way to shrink the power of the state is to improve parenting. Railing on about taxation is an utter waste of time, as seen by the libertarian movement that has achieved nothing over the last hundred years, because that is only a branch issue. The only reason it is acceptable to be taxed is because of parenting.

 

If you'd like, there is nothing stopping you from re-listening to the podcast series. There's only so much philosophizing to be done without outright issuing conclusions.

[Tyler H]

I understand the point you were trying to make, and agree that it is important for everybody that was putting stock into the election to realize that the election is over, and they could be doing things to improve their lives and the lives of those around them.

 

That said, I just wanted to point out that both "the catastrophe" and "been averted" are not speaking the truth. I'm address the narrative, not you in particular. The catastrophe was not as the pro-Trump/voting FDR'ers made it out to be. The catastrophe is mass acceptance of institutionalized violence, which their prescription only fed. So not only was it feeding the real problem, but even by the "catastrophe" narrative, it has not been averted. Because no one man has such power and because the car was already going off the cliff. MAYBE we can postpone it, but we can't stop it.

Yes, I agree. I was speaking to them within that narrative. I should have been more clear about that, thanks for pointing it out and elaborating.

[Tyler H]

Whatever the course, I trust Stefan implicitly.

By saying this you are expressing that you have substituted your own ability to think with Stef's and are ignorant of his capacity for error. Credibility (one reason I still listen and donate) is one thing, implicit trust quite another. Stefan himself would caution you here.

 

Philosophy isn't a popularity contest? Yes it absolutely is. Accepting the NAP means nothing if you are the only one who does. He has said repeatedly that the only way to shrink the power of the state is to improve parenting. Railing on about taxation is an utter waste of time, as seen by the libertarian movement that has achieved nothing over the last hundred years, because that is only a branch issue. The only reason it is acceptable to be taxed is because of parenting.

 

If you'd like, there is nothing stopping you from re-listening to the podcast series. There's only so much philosophizing to be done without outright issuing conclusions.

I've been saying the aspects of philosophy that have been absent should be put back into place, not that it should be the sole focus of the show. And of course we want philosophy to be popular, but it's not up to us past accepting, knowing, and disseminating to the best of our abilities - people still have to accept it in all it's aspects. If you change philosophy in any way to conform to popular opinion it is no longer philosophy. I think we agree here I just wanted to be clear that wanting philosophy to be popular and altering it to be so are very different concepts that we could've argued over through an erroneous assumption of the other's position.

 

It won't help the hundreds of thousands of new listeners to accept the conclusions truth and reason inevitably lead to if I listen to old podcasts.

[mgggb]

I've been saying the aspects of philosophy that have been absent should be put back into place, not that it should be the sole focus of the show. And of course we want philosophy to be popular, but it's not up to us past accepting, knowing, and disseminating to the best of our abilities - people still have to accept it in all it's aspects. If you change philosophy in any way to conform to popular opinion it is no longer philosophy. I think we agree here I just wanted to be clear that wanting philosophy to be popular and altering it to be so are very different concepts that we could've argued over through an erroneous assumption of the other's position.

 

I agree. My impression was that you were looking to get tangled in the weeds of abstraction, but I was mistaken.

 

 

By saying this you are expressing that you have substituted your own ability to think with Stef's and are ignorant of his capacity for error. Credibility (one reason I still listen and donate) is one thing, implicit trust quite another. Stefan himself would caution you here.

 

I have not substituted my ability to think with his. He has built a lot of credibility and my opinion is that someone who has should be trusted so long as they maintain it. Our views are aligned but I accept that he has more experience than I, so I'll follow his lead until such a time that I can begin to lead myself. Part of thinking is knowing when to take good advice, for the same reason I trust my doctor implicitly because he has more experience than I and our goals are the same--that being my long term health.

[Tyler H]

I agree. My impression was that you were looking to get tangled in the weeds of abstraction, but I was mistaken.

 

 

 

 

I have not substituted my ability to think with his. He has built a lot of credibility and my opinion is that someone who has should be trusted so long as they maintain it. Our views are aligned but I accept that he has more experience than I, so I'll follow his lead until such a time that I can begin to lead myself. Part of thinking is knowing when to take good advice, for the same reason I trust my doctor implicitly because he has more experience than I and our goals are the same--that being my long term health.

Fair enough, I see what you mean now. I was responding with the definition of implicit as "with no qualification or question; absolute" in mind. I wouldn't trust anyone in that way, even doctors have the tentacles of sleezy pill pushers slipping money and Xanax into the pockets of their white coats. But yes I agree we should defer to those who have achieved just authority and credibility with us in areas where our own abilities are lacking.

[SoCaliGirl]

I think the Steph in the video below might have violated the NAP against our current Steph due to all the election coverage.

Yay for Trump over Killary I suppose. Now we'll have 4 years of the Dems blocking Trump in Congress. Everything Trump has promised will require unprecedented money printing and more government beurocracy. Why do we care? Lets get back to fighting bad ideas with logic and empathy.

 

 

The ruling class in the State has always needed intellectuals to apologize for their rule and to sucker the masses into subservience, i.e., into paying the taxes and going along with State rule. In the old days, in most societies, a form of priestcraft or State Church constituted the opinion-molders who apologized for that rule. Now, in a more secular age, we have technocrats, "social scientists," and media intellectuals, who apologize for the State system and staff in the ranks of its bureaucracy.

 

 

 

I support this sentiment.

[thebeardslastcall]

Well, if the argument is he didn't achieve a goal or could have achieved another or a better outcome with the same time and energy spent on something else instead I think Michael and Stefan would expect you to make that case. With his knowledge and wisdom this is how they chose to spend there time and they made their case as to why, but if you see flaws in their arguments, make the case. I think one thing he's always been consistent about is the "compared to what" argument of what the alternate possibilities really were and could have achieved. Also if you had something better to say, you could be doing your own show to provide what you think he was lacking and could be sharing that instead. Just trying to share probably how they see it from their perspective as to you complaining about what they are doing and in line with what you were doing during the same time period and hence forth.

 

If you do find a better recipient for your money I'd be curious to know what for and why. Or was it the case you felt he was doing a negative and his arguments for why what he did was harmful as opposed to merely not helpful in the way you wanted? I'd be open to hearing that argument as well, which I'd guess would need to address their arguments for why they were doing what they were doing, so much as they gave them.

[Tyler H]

Edit - post accidentally posted twice. See next post.

[Tyler H]

Well, if the argument is he didn't achieve a goal or could have achieved another or a better outcome with the same time and energy spent on something else instead I think Michael and Stefan would expect you to make that case. With his knowledge and wisdom this is how they chose to spend there time and they made their case as to why, but if you see flaws in their arguments, make the case. I think one thing he's always been consistent about is the "compared to what" argument of what the alternate possibilities really were and could have achieved. Also if you had something better to say, you could be doing your own show to provide what you think he was lacking and could be sharing that instead. Just trying to share probably how they see it from their perspective as to you complaining about what they are doing and in line with what you were doing during the same time period and hence forth.

 

If you do find a better recipient for your money I'd be curious to know what for and why. Or was it the case you felt he was doing a negative and his arguments for why what he did was harmful as opposed to merely not helpful in the way you wanted? I'd be open to hearing that argument as well, which I'd guess would need to address their arguments for why they were doing what they were doing, so much as they gave them.

I think you raise a fair point. In other threads I have offered arguments as to why a hard focus on the political circus without the accompaniment of philosophical anarchist principles and conclusions ("without" to "conclusions" being my main, if not sole, point of contention) is a mistake, so I won't go into them here.

 

What I will mention is this; it is often stated that this show is a customer driven enterprise. As a donator I am expressing the direction I would like the show to take. I am here to learn subject matter unavailable in any other medium. Of the first 1800 podcasts I have felt educated and enlightened (and enjoyed that education and enlightenment) by 95-99% of them. Podcasts 2300-3000 probably 80-90%. Between August 2015 and may 2016 the only podcast I can say I truly enjoyed was The Truth About Aristotle. I like philosophy and psychology and economics and politics, but not politics I can get from any other small government show with no philosophical methodology. He added his voice to theirs for a purpose, if that purpose is done I want his brain back producing content no one else can. I listen and donate because I believe that there is no other show like this one and no one else that can make the case for a free society as well as Stef.

 

My opinion of course should carry little weight in regards to the course of the show but since what Stef wants is to be customer oriented I will voice my opinion and he can add that to the pile when weighing the demand of his listenership. This is a data point for him. I'll vote with my voice and my dollars like any good voluntarist should. I'm not going to withhold my donations over this disagreement but I will voice my opinion on what I want to hear and what I think is effective in bringing about freedom.

 

Of course I can only speak to my perspective not others' in this camp. Thank you for your curiosity in this area.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

misread something