Comments on Stefan Molyneux and Free Domain Radio (FDR) Revealed: Molyneux in the beginning

Exactly! Molyneux wants us to roll around in the ...

2009-09-21T17:39:03.364-04:00

Exactly!

Molyneux wants us to roll around in the grass arguing whether a slap on the wrist, pushing a hand away, spanking, whatever, constitutes abuse. He WANTS us to argue whether this family or that one is/was an abusive environment.

It's all a smokescreen that takes the focus off him and the real truth: Stefan Molyneux has absolutely no expertise or credibility to make such a determination. None. He's just some guy with an opinion. And there is neither profit nor insight to be derived in arguing over his opinion. In family/relationship matters he offers nothing more to us than any guy you'd meet in a bar. (Probably less, if the guy in the bar has raised children to adulthood.)

We do damage to ourselves when we act as if his opinions on psychology have any weight at all.

While we argue over whether this or that action constitutes abuse, he continues to spout that his answers are all derived from "first principles" or "UPB" or whatever. The painful reality about his background is that he has a Master's Degree in history and he was in therapy once.

Being in therapy no more qualifies you to unravel everyone's family dynamics any more than taking penicillin qualifies you to be a physician.

He can post as many pictures of his daughter to advertise himself as the perfect father as he wishes. It won't change the truth.

Cutting to the core of it, there is only one issue that matters: Molyneux believes nearly all parents are abusive and the only way to respond to it is to brutally discard them.

That is an utterly indefensible position. The very first "smoking gun" indication that he knows it is indefensible is that he doesn't state that belief right on his home page for all to see. He intends to seduce young adults into accepting it, step by step. (My article "Prying them loose" illustrates that, in his own words.)

To me, personally, there is something unsavory and creepily paternalistic in the way Molyneux has given himself the authority to use deceptive techniques to seduce the unsuspecting. But to each his own...

Cassandra makes a good point. There is a reason t...

2009-09-20T04:58:03.718-04:00

Cassandra makes a good point. There is a reason the term "slap on the wrist" was coined. It is meant to mean memorable, but not having long term negative painful effect. Whether or not it is a slap or a sudden grab, etc., even the "no slap" avengers, realize there are times when force is needed when raising a young child. I was just using it as an allegory countless for Moly's belief that any and all matter of parenting behavior is abusive. In Moly's world the mother sterninly saying NO!!! is abusive. Holding your ground as a parent with a teenager is abusive. So when Moly says he only endorses defoo in abusive or corrupt environments, he means pretty much any family environment extant. I also agree with the comments that Parents are human. They get frazzled and make mistakes while managing the stresses of life. Those mistakes are not reason enough for a cruel and cowardly break from the family.

Steven Wayne Lytle wrote: Regarding the child and ...

2009-09-19T09:43:07.550-04:00

Steven Wayne Lytle wrote: Regarding the child and the Ming vase, the slap is immoral and unnecessary. Simply moving the child's hand or body out of the way would suffice. (end quote)

I think that moving the child's hand or body from the child's point of view would be scarier than a slap and is still using force. If your child was about to put his hand into a running motor, would you not use any force necessary to stop the child from injuring himself?

-Cassandra

...continued from previous comment Regardi...

2009-09-18T17:37:25.916-04:00

...continued from previous comment

Regarding UPB: outside of FDR, I have found very few people, if any, who believe that UPB can do anything more than test whether a moral proposition is internally consistent. In other words, it is as comfortable validating a nihilist philosophy as anything else--as long as the logic is consistent. I have gathered and published links to most of the people outside FDR who have written or released a video analyzing UPB and most of their arguments are well-thought out and well-stated. I don't think that Molyneux has made the case that he has somehow managed to derive an "ought" from an "is."

It is hard to discount those criticisms and again, there is something to the fact that people who already believe in Molyneux tend to validate the book but people who judge the book solely on its merits have problems with it. Interestingly, as I pointed out in my essay you can actually tell that the critics--themselves often atheist anarcho-capitalists--would have loved to see him succeed with UPB and only reluctantly had to admit he did not.

Finally, regarding the child slapping. I completely agree with you. You are absolutely spot on. And yet I still have a problem here with Molyneux. I've seen a variety of parents and families get defooed. Every once in a while I see a real horror-show that should have had a counselor's intervention but more often they look to me like average families--the kind of parents who would probably throw themselves on hand grenade to protect their kids. All of them are excoriated equally. In the court of Molyneux, the parent who once slapped a child's hand is equally as evil as a repeated sexual abuser. In fact, even if your parents were "nice" they were abusive, which Molyneux has attempted to prove many times over.

I think it's a facile argument to say that Molyneux is speaking the truth and some people "just don't want to hear it." I've heard it. Read every book. Read the forum threads. Listened to most podcasts. (And transcribed some of them.) My truth, for whatever it's worth, is that Molyneux is a really smart guy and an engaging teacher who is probably very sincere in his beliefs. He always has some fascinating thing to say about politics or economics and I still enjoy that part. He can provide a wonderful, effective, convincing introduction to libertarianism.

At the same time, his views on psychology, parenting, families, and relationships are tragically, destructively wrong. His overbearing manner of proving those views by convincing young people to ditch their families is utterly indefensible. He has spread heartache and sadness beyond measure--not only to the abandoned families but also to the defooers. I have talked to several ex-defooers who are trying to re-connect with their families and I understand their pain.

That's the truth, as I see it.

Hi, Steven-- I really hope you don't mind if ...

2009-09-18T17:36:00.822-04:00

Hi, Steven--

I really hope you don't mind if I chime in here. I'm not a parent but I saw your comment and have a few doubts about the points you raise. First, evidence suggests to me that Molyneux actually developed his attitude toward families first and UPB second. His article "Are People Just Stupid?" appeared months before his first article that only suggested the possibility of UPB. More important, Molyneux's credits the beliefs regarding on parents and family expressed in that essay to his wife Christina. In other words, the roots of those beliefs are in Psychology, not Philosophy. That essay indicts nearly all parents everywhere. The clear message is parents are bullies and you don't love them.

You say one must start at the beginning, rather than the end. From a historical perspective, I believe Molyneux's psychology-based views regarding what constitutes abuse came first.

I think there is something to the fact that Molyneux does not post this foundational essay on his home page for all to read and react to before they first enter the site. If he no longer believes it, then why not publicly repudiate it and delete it? If he does believe it, then why hide it? If you say that it is one obscure essay then you should know I'm literally drowning in quotes--some that I have already published and some that I have yet to publish--that are completely consistent with the beliefs stated within. If he repudiates and deletes that essay he has a lot more deleting to do--the entire book "On Truth" is based on it.

I don't know if I'd say "destroying families" is the main focus of FDR but at the same time I have fully documented that FDR is a tool developed by Stefan and Christina to pry young people away from their belief in the "inherent virtue" of parents. That's fine, but when Molyneux adds his absolutist philosophy to it, his unintentional net result is that he literally pries people away from their families. That's not my opinion--everything I claim here is (almost too) heavily documented on my site. (www.fdrliberated.com)

...continued in next comment

You certainly turned everything I said on its head...

2009-09-18T12:38:08.531-04:00

You certainly turned everything I said on its head. And we both got the name of UPB wrong. It's Universally Preferable Behavior.
The gist of UPB is that, for some action to be moral, it must be valid for all people, at all times, and in all places. That's it. From that flows everything else. This is the beginning I meant. Start with the premises and follow them to their logical conclusion. In many ways the resulting philosophy is identical to Objectivism. The laws of existence, identity, and consciousness are intact. Some issues, such as the role and morality of government and abortion, are in diametrical opposition.
You conveniently forgot that it's the *initiation* of force that is immoral. Self-defense is moral (although Mr. Molyneux has expressed doubts about even that), since it's a reaction to someone else initiating the force. Regarding the child and the Ming vase, the slap is immoral and unnecessary. Simply moving the child's hand or body out of the way would suffice. A lesson may still be learned, but that's immaterial. Initiating violence for the sake of a lesson is immoral. ANY and ALL initiation of force is immoral, so its ends are never justified. This is why governments and everything they do are immoral and should be abandoned as soon as possible. Anything good that a government can do (if there is such a thing) can and should be done by a free market, which will do the task, if it should be done at all, better and cheaper and, most importantly, more morally, than any government can.
You seem to think that destroying families and donating to FDR are the main focuses of Mr. Molyneux's work. They are not. His goal is the discovery and spread of truth. The rest is incidental, even trivial. And most people, including yourself, simply don't want to hear it.
Steven Wayne Lytle