Beginning to think Moly is a futurist determinist

What do you mean you don't know what a futurist determinist is?  OK. I made it up, but it seems to apply.  Determinism is the subject that cannot be named on the FDR boards.  Moly denies that determinism exists because it is contrary to free will.  So he simply bans any discussion of a very real line of philosophy in his web site dedicated to philosophy.  It seems, however that Moly gladly engages in flights of enormous fantasy of a deterministic future.  He gets himself into an almost trance like state when he sequences the events that will lead to the anarcho-capitalist-DRO world, the fall of the state, and his other FDR machinations.  I observed him doing it in Philadelphia when he really went off the edge. He laid out a fantasy sequence of how the U.S. Constitution in 1787 lead to the Nazi Holocaust in WWII.  He refuses to consider that his daughter might decide some day, of her own free will, to discover any sort of non-FDR approved way of living.  Impossible says Moly.  That will not occur because my parenting will preclude her free will from deciding to engage in unsupported thinking.  Ladies and gentlemen.  That is pure determinism. 

The latest example is from the musician tirade.  I noticed that later in the Tiger Mom podcast, Moly declares that the child will never be creative in her music because the mother was so mean to her in the teaching of it.  He contends theTiger Mom squashed out the child's individuality, blah blah.  That might turn out to be true.  I would not have been so tough on my kids over a piaono piece.  But it surely is not a certainty.  At least not if you truly believe in free will.  Only a determinist could be so sure of how the child's future will unfold.  Remember the child became over joyed when she finally figured out how to play the piece.  She played it over and over and got rave applause at the recital the next day.   In a free will world, this sequence of events could be the seminal moments for a great musical career.  Only a  futurest determinist could be certain that this would not occur.  Did you notice how I got to use 'futurest determinist' again? 

Molynuex doesn't really understand Ayn Rand

I found an interesting video that makes a good point about Molyneux. I am posting it here. This site is about warning people about the true nature of FDR. Part of the warning is that Molyneux holds himself out as a thinker for the ages. This is his initial attraction to the young mind.

The founding philosophy of FDR is Objectivism. This is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Moly used to be relatively loyal to Objectivism as the basis for his podcast musings. But I think he is so much of a narcissist that he believes he has to transcend Rand. At first Moly decided that he was bringing something new to Objectivism because he wanted to completely eliminate the state and Rand did not. This is kind of weak. Rand described the perfect stateless society in Atlas Shrugged. She was describing an unattainable Utopian world as a plot vehicle to help bring home the philosophy. Rand, Molyneux and anyone with a frontal lobe knows that anarchy has always and will always lead to a dictorial regime. But Moly needs to keep up the facade of a workable Anarcho-Capitalist society so he can keep the donators donating.

He seriously puts forth the idea that he has now moved all of Philosophy to its final state of being. He has come up with this simpleton idea called Universally Preferred Behaviors (UPB). Moly conveys to his members (and potential donators) that UPB solves all the problems of morality and ethics. UPB doesn't hold up to any thoughtful, much less scholarly, scrutiny. The proof of this is that when Moly is seriously questioned about the serious flaws in UPB, Moly bans the questioner from the FDR web site. Here is a small list of some who were banned from FDR

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=110589863130589378236.00000112a7461dd7bf5aa&om=0&ll=21.289374,-79.453125&spn=131.156957,320.625&z=1


These days he goes to great lengths to try and find flaws in Rand’s writings or to put down Objectivism. He says things like “In this regard I am a slave to Rand, but as regards…. I do not agree.” The then goes on to make his point of disagreement. He is very sloppy with his logic. In the link below, you will see that it is as if he has not actually read Ayn Rand. If one wants to find flaws with Ayn Rand, you have to go to Nathaniel Brandon. Don’t bother with Moly. He doesn’t really understand Objectivism. Here is a YouTube video that will prove it conclusively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8nWDFGnDxI&feature=channel