Thursday, August 2, 2012

R. Long Announces the New Molyneux Institute

Molyneux's, philosophical pontificating has apparently struck such a cord that even serious philosophers are spoofing Molyneux's positions.

Professor of Philosophy at Auburn University, Roderick T. Long, this has  launched the "Molyneux Institute" becasue of "a triumphant act of fourth-dimensional self-de-fooing".

The first affiliated scholar, according to Long, will be Dr. David Gordon. Gordon will hold the Molyneux Chair and End Table in Apodictic Universology.

Dr Gordon adds:
My Inaugural Lecture will be “How to Philosophize While Passing the Coma Test”.

There's more about the Institute here.


  1. Why all this sudden hostility towards Molyneux? I'm not a fan of the guy either, but this is just starting to come off as mean.

    1. Completely agree with this. I listen to him pretty often because I think he makes valid contributions to the libertarian movement, and I actually agreed with David Gordon when it came to UPB and Wenzel's economic criticisms. But it is just getting silly at this point.

    2. Seriously - why is there such hostility? I don't agree with everything Stefan says, but he is constantly making the argument that the State is force. He is constantly making reference to finding and pointing out that there is a gun in the room when dealing in any manner with the State. Is that so bad of argument to make that it deserves a concerted effort to tear him down?

      This is just getting petty and childish at this point and is entirely disappointing. If there are errors in his conclusions then debate them. But to resort to this type of silly nonsense is ridiculous.

    3. Bob and others haven't learned the lesson that when you attack someone, you draw more attention to them and their work.

      There is this faux intellectual superiority which projects that outing Molyneux is good because people will see his errors, but if that was true, then libertarianism would already be the dominant paradigm.

      The issue isn't getting the information out, it's being convincing. Ganging up on Stefan who has shown nothing but respect for LvMI looks petty and mean. It did nothing to enhance David Gordon, Bob or LvMI. It has probably driven Stefan a lot more listeners though.

      Tactically, this approach is a fail.

    4. Let me write this down: Speaking truth to fraudsters is an error.

      Good show Dixie.

      What should we do. Not speak truth to anyone?

    5. People seem to forget all the instances in which Molyneux has engaged in personal attacks, against Long himself no less re his weight (apparently this is a sign that Long is a bad philosopher...)

    6. You want to explain how Stefan is a fraudster? Not the guy walks around saying "government is horrible, but we need it to save us from ourselves." Where is the fraud? Could his conclusions be off base at times? Yes, they could. But fraudulent?

    7. If you're curious as to why some formerly rabid supporters don't like him much, here are a few small reasons:

      You received a donation of $2.00 CAD from...'

      I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but... :(

      Stefan Molyneux about a donation, Facebook, 2013

      Let me tell you what it's like to be on the receiving end of this kind of staggering indifference and laziness on the part of This Conversation
      Stefan Molyneux about people not buying FDR shirts, FDR podcast 920, 2007

  2. I've talked to a few philosophy professors about this and it seems that the general belief is that Molyneux is making fundamental philosophical errors.

    His posing as a philosopher I think gets to them. His podcasts, though filled with charm, are also filled with error.

    1. I thought he had a degree in philosophy? Doesn't that make one a philospher? lol...I "keed"...

      Seriously, I was offended over some of the tactics in dealing with Molyneux by Wenzel/Gordon....but I have to admit this is funny as hell.

      I'm not sure if that makes me a schizophrenic or what...but I'm gonna laugh anyway.

    2. His degree is in English, his MA is in history :)

  3. It's a good thing you guys are acting like intellectuals and not high school girls. That molyneux is such a heffer

    1. Yes, of course. Satire is the domain solely of teenage girls in the age of public schools.

  4. @Bharat, Anon, Pearson,

    Molyneux makes no more errors in philosophy (or economics) than I've seen coming out of many people who don't get targeted like this.
    And I don't even listen to the guy..
    No idea why they'd stoop to this kind of thing. He's always polite.
    Notice how Daily Bell is running a piece on Rothbard too.
    It's like "Save The Roth" week.

    1. "Molyneux makes no more errors...And I don't even listen to the guy"


    2. Well there are many reasons why he gets this type of treatment that it's hard to say which one is applied here. I will list off a couple of possible reasons in no particular order. 1. He's really successful, so successful that he has made a living off of donations. This could cause jealousy for other libertarians who haven't gotten the same notoriety that he has. 2. The concept of the defoo (which is not actually his, even Thomas Gordon talks about how a relationship can get to the point where you cut all ties with the person, and Gordon didn't originate the idea either). Libertarians view the defoo as evil b/c they believe that the family is completely against the state, Molyneux views it as necessary b/c he believes that it is preparing people to be fully accepting of the state and he believes that all parents are bad. 3. Molyneux's strong atheist position. A lot of Libertarians are religious and so they get bothered when Molyneux talks about how religion and belief in god is a ridiculous position. 4. UPB as a basis for a lot of Molyneux's work. Well if you've ever read it you can understand why people have problems with it. 5. Shotty philosophy. That's what FDR is, shotty logic and philosophy. 6. Molyneux may be running a cult and this is incredibly dangerous and deserves to be treated more seriously than making fun of Molyneux. Or he may not be running a cult (although if you look at the structure of FDR it really looks like a cult). 7. Debating tactics designed to "win the debate", not to seek out the truth or better your arguments. Stef uses tactics like straw men, ad homs and red herrings in order to make his opponent look wrong. Speaking of ad hom... 8. The last one that I will list is the fact that instead of addressing arguments that he has no answer to he starts to attack the person's character or motivations, all the while ignoring arguments. This one I'm sure really angers people and rightly so. He starts to psychoanalyze people who are debating with him instead of addressing the actual points that they are making.

      There you go Lila Rajiva, those are 8 reasons why he gets targeted like this.

  5. OT - What the hell is a "left-libertarian"? I thought libertarians just were.

    1. "Left" libertarians typically have views on things primarily like personal liberty in common with so-called "right" libertarians. They have a rudimentary respect for non-aggression but don't approach it from a first-principles "all rights are property rights" position. They care less about how individuals treat others (out to) than how individuals are treated (in from). They feel very strongly that you can use the state in an active role to maintain "rights." I do not think they feel that markets work typically.

    2. Left-libertarians essentially believe in the NAP, but they reject private property in certain instance (land is usually the one most cited). Noam Chomsky is an example of a left-libertarian. I don't typically refer to left-libertarians as "libertarians", instead opting for the more accurate term, "socialists".

    3. @JFF... This may be a communication issue but if left-libertarians don't think "markets work typically" (that's the part I may be misunderstanding), why would they advocate free markets?

    4. @Joseph...

      Here is one of many left-libertarian critiques of Chomsky.

      And, just as there are state-capitalists and free-market-capitalists, there are state-socialists and free-market-socialists. The problem is the "state" part.

    5. @JFF... My reply to you didn't get approved (maybe because it had 3 links) but the gist of it was: Are you under the impression that left-libertarians don't want freed markets? Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

    6. Frank,
      Thank you for the reply. I am aware of left-libertarian criticisms of Chomsky, however that wasn't the point (I merely used him as a well-known example). The point is that while left-libertarians believe in the NAP, they do not believe in certain forms of property being privately held. Land is almost ubiquitously held as that good which *must* be held in common. Any masturbatory delusion that holds this belief, while also thinking that it could be done without massive coercion, is simply not worth my time.

    7. @Joseph...

      My point is that if you're using Chomsky as a well-known example of a left-libertarian, we're talking about different types of left-libertarians. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the only time Chomsky will use the libertarian label is when it's followed by the word "socialist".

      "Actually, I don't think I've ever called myself a 'libertarian,' because the term is too ambiguous. I do often call myself a 'libertarian socialist,' however." ~Noam Chomsky

      I think it's safe to assume that Rob was asking because Roderick Long labels himself a left-libertarian. If that assumption is correct, then you're -- probably unknowingly -- answering a different question (What does Noam Chomsky think?).

      If we agree we're talking about people like Roderick Long, Kevin Carson, Charles Johnson (Rad Geek), etc. then to claim left-libertarians view land as a "good which *must* be held in common" is false.

      Some posts to clear things up...

      Roderick Long: Self-Ownership and External Property
      Kevin Carson: In Defense — Such As It Is — of Usufructory Land Ownership
      Roderick Long: The Paradox of Property
      Kevin Carson: Communal Property: A Libertarian Analysis

      You also might find this comment thread (anarcho-communists and left-libertarians discussing property) informative.

    8. Thanks for the replies. I still don't get the "left/right" dichotomy as it regards to Libertarianism, though. You either believe in individual liberty/autonomy or you don't. Yes, there are shades of grey, but I think it does a serious disservice to the movement to create a spectrum, especially labeled "left/right". Statist/anti-statist seems much more appropriate to me.

      And Joseph, I have a relative who calls himself a libertarian/socialist, just like Chomsky. That is so oxy-moronic, that I dare not even attempt elucidation from him regarding that peculiar designation. So, when he says that, I call myself a llama. I figure, hell, as long as we can claim to be anything, whether sensical or not, why not a llama.

  6. They hate Molyneux because he doesn't worship a sky king. I've seen it time and time again for decades. Christian libertarians constantly go after non-sky king worshiping libertarians. They never state that as the reason, but it's always obvious by the pettiness and senselessness of their weak attacks.

    1. What a stupid comment. There are many atheists held in high regard. Tom Dilorenzo and Walter Block are the first that come to mind.

    2. Unfortunately, that particular dark alley is a two-way street.

    3. Then why do atheists like Block, Kinsella, Hoppe, etc. get such respect?

    4. Oh come on. I saw this argument earlier on some other posts on Molyneux. Woods already pointed out that most of the assailants in this case aren't even Christians.

      If anything, you're just looking or a reason to bash Christians. Just make a real argument or go away.

      For the record, I happen to think they were a little too condescending to Molyneux about his views instead of focusing on the rational problems with them- but that doesn't mean they are all "atheist" haters, as most of the people involved right now are atheists.

      Part of me think crap on him a little for the defoo'ing stuff, but it's all guessing.

      None of them are probably gonna come out and say, "Yea, well some of his theories are crap and I think he's a crappy person for meddling the lives of parents and thier kids so I'm gonna treat him a little crappier on the issues".

      So my whole deal is, let's just stick the the libertarian issues unless you have the balls to come out and also say "Molyneux, you might have some intellect but you're a shit on this defoooing crap and I'm gonna pound you for being wrong in other areas because of it."

    5. edit: "they are crapping on him a little"

  7. Yes, i'm sure this all falls under the "holding people's feet to the fire" category. It's all a legitimate way of simply criticizing a man who is wrong on a few things, right?

    It is a revolting collective attempt to ridicule someone whom in some way isn't part of their boys' club.

    Like i've said several times, Walter Block started barking at Molyneux with a bunch of pathetically idiotic "arguments", and all of a sudden you see all of these Mises types going for Molyneux's throat.

    Are there still people claiming that this isn't simply some type of senseless "in-fighting"? That it is collectivist to think this type of behavior and treatment against Molyneux is pointless and counter-productive?

    One thing is for sure. If someone were to accuse the LRC-clique of acting like a cult, i would surely no longer defend them.

    1. For the record, I have only a small awareness of a dispute between Block and Molyneux. I certainly did not bring it up in the interview with Molyneux because I had even less awareness of the debate before Molyneux cultists started bringing it up om this page.

      As for my carrying water for Block, please listen to the first 15 minutes of my interview with Block, where I challenged him because of his support for Rand Paul. The only difference between that and the Molyneux interview was that Block, unlike Molyneux, put in writing that I was correct, [] after he had time to think about it. Molyneux has done nothing of the kind with regard to facts where Molyneux was clearly wrong.

      Or do you plan to defend the many erroneous comments made Molyneux during his interview?

    2. Thank You, Robert Wenzel, for calling this 'pontificating' gnat to task for his logic. I can barely believe how many folks take up a defense of SM's thinking, and attack anyone who just plain and simply discern his "facile intelligence". Molyneux will lead you astray.... with or without 'de-fooing'. Be cautious of this man.

    3. "For the record, I have only a small awareness of a dispute between Block and Molyneux. I certainly did not bring it up in the interview with Molyneux because I had even less awareness of the debate before Molyneux cultists started bringing it up om this page."

      The small awareness came in the Block interview. Immediately you started posting articles critical of Molyneux (through David Gordon), ending up with the current low point of a pointless ridicule. My whole point is that the behavior of you and your friends is "cult-like", and not based on legitimate but civil disagreements.

      "As for my carrying water for Block, please listen to the first 15 minutes of my interview with Block, where I challenged him because of his support for Rand Paul."

      Oh big deal about questioning him on the Rand Paul issue. That's so obvious a thing to question it doesn't even warrant bragging about. I'm not even accusing you of carrying Block's water in general. So that's a straw man.
      It still doesn't change the fact that one Mises-guy attacks Molyneux, a radical anarchist, with the stupidest of arguments, and all of a sudden the rest of the attack dogs, you included, join in on the Molyneux bashing.
      Tell me, what reason do you REALLY have to stoop to this level of ridicule? It can't be for his lack of libertarian credentials, or for the way he has treated you. This collective effort to burn Molyneux to the ground is way too obvious.

      "Molyneux has done nothing of the kind with regard to facts where Molyneux was clearly wrong."

      Maybe he hasn't gotten around to it. Maybe he thinks it's not a big deal enough because he doesn't assume you are so hungry for validation. Maybe he's simply chosen to forget all about you because as this article proves, you can be a rude and petty bastard without good will and spending another second thinking about you is a waste of his time. Who knows?

      "Or do you plan to defend the many erroneous comments made Molyneux during his interview?"

      Do i think it was ultimately pointless? Yes. But those are my own reasons that i've explained plenty in the comment section.
      But the complete lack of decency and goodwill that i already kind of suspected has now been proven by this current article.
      This is not merely a case of there being a difference in opinion, or proving someone is mistaken.
      This is contempt. It is a contempt that is shared by you and your friends. And it's coming out all in basically the same time period.
      I think it is a good and valid question for people to ask what that contempt is based on.

    4. Oh I get it, when Wenzel goes after Block, it is no big deal, but it is when he goes after your leader, Molyneux.

      Wenzel has been hinting about a book that challenges "natural rights theory", which is at the core of Rothbard's ethical view. How are you going to put Wenzel into your conspiracy theory when that book comes out?

      Oh and thanks for spewing on for paragraphs but not pointing to one item raised in the interview by Wenzel which was wrong.

      Here in Texas, we say about people like you "all hat and no cattle."

    5. Get over yourself. Stefan Molyneux was able to laugh at a funny satirical piece, why can't you? You would think with the constant bitching you do on these posts that you would follow other libertarians who behave the way you want them to. Or, better yet, start your own blog do nothing but praise all libertarians.

      It is funny, though, how you complain incessantly about Wenzel, Block, and Gordon for bashing Molyneux, then proceed to bash Wenzel, Block, and Gordon. I have a word I use to describe people like you, hypocrit.

  8. Wenzel, your blog has gone seriously downhill in the past 6 months. I used to recommend your blog to people serious about economics but now I feel embarrassed to now. Your focus has shifted away from economic analysis towards pageviews. Youve taken the quick path to success, ironically, like rand Paul has and it has hurt your creditibility. Take a look in the mirror.

  9. You are a total idiot. The more time I spend on Rand or Molyneux, the less pageviews I get.

    If you don't believe me look where the Molyneux interview ranks on the Google generated 30 day and 7 day most popular posts.

    I happen to believe that Molyneux is dangerous because he creates a following but has no in depth knowledge of what he speaks. Listen to my interview again and tell me where I pointed out an error of his that wasn't an error.

    1. I follow him, same as I follow you, Peter Schiff, Hoppe, Ron Paul, Marc Faber, Robert Murphy, Tom Woods and Doug Cacey and many others. Not because I agree with everything they say, but Because I value what they say. The MAIN reason I follow Stephan is based on his anti-state views. Dangerous? No, flawed and worthy of criticism. Just like you. You just happen to be dead on when it comes to economics.

    2. The profit "error" was not an error. It was simply a miscommunication. Molyneux was trying to say that when (accounting) profits, that is revenues less expenses, are high, then he believes it creates a negative moral environment where there is an incentive to commit fraud. You were attempting to explain to him the ABCT concept of profits. Neither of you picked up on this miscommunication. It is important to make the distinction, since many people are taught (like me, since I have an accounting degree) that profits are revenues less expenses.

      It did not seem like molyneux understood the ABCT definition of profit, but I cant tell because neither of you discovered the miscommunication.

      The "rant" molyneux made about religion was another misunderstanding. You simply asked him why he started to question religion and molyneux said that he saw that religion was the primary source of ethics, and that those ethics failed to stop people from starting and pursuing wars. That's what lead him to look into the issue and think that "there could be room for improvement". But somehow you took that to mean that he thought that religious ethics CAUSED all wars. That is a claim he did not make.

      Simple misunderstanding on these 2 points. You did however point out some valid errors of his, which he has shown he is willing to correct.

      I cannot speak for everyone, but my problem is not that you point out errors that he makes. Its that you clearly have no respect for him. If you really gave a shit, you could work with him, and improve his thinking, allowing you to tap into his "dangerous" oratory ability to explain an accurate and correct version of ABCT (you must at least admit he has SOME parts correct yes? although you think he "doesnt get it")

      For example, why dont you work with him? You could set up a schedule where you guys appear on each others shows at some agreed upon interval, and you can use that as an opportunity to educate his viewers better on ABCT and also to "hold his feet to the fire".

      This would be an actual constructive method of dealing with this problem, instead of trying to shat on him.

      For someone who you are trying to shat on, he sure takes it in stride and refuses to stoop to this kind of nonsense.

    3. The profit error was an error

      A. Because Wenzel set up the question earlier by asking Molyneux what his economic influences were. He said Rothbard and Mises, since they were talking economics and not accounting, Molyneux's statement was wrong.

      But further Molyneux's statement doesn't hold under accounting profit either.

      Which ever definition Molyneux would have taken, it makes no sense to average them.

      You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

    4. Accounting profits, which is what Molyneux was talking about, are entirely averageable. If they weren't it would make no sense to say that entrepreneurs move into industries with profits and out of industries with losses. What doesn't make sense, and what Molyneux wasn't claiming, is that this average has useful predictive value for any particular firm. All he was claiming is that there is an average level of historical profits and he never picked up on Bob's point about the two uses of profit; probably because the point was made very poorly.

    5. "Average profits" make no sense, as Mises pointed out:

      "... it is absurd to speak of a "rate of profit" or an "average rate of profit." Profit is not related to or dependent on the amount of capital employed by the entrepreneur. Capital does not "beget" profit. Profit and loss are entirely determined by the success or failure of the entrepreneur to adjust production to the demand of the consumers. There is nothing "normal" in profits and there can never be an "equilibrium" with regard to them. Profit and loss are, on the contrary, always a phenomenon of a deviation from "normalcy," of changes unforeseen by the majority, and of a 'disequilibrium.'"

    6. Snow Princess, could you elaborate on this:

      "But further Molyneux's statement doesn't hold under accounting profit either."

    7. Molyneux is claiming that profit can somehow be averaged, but if we realize that profit is unique to a specific event, averaging profits over different events, does say anything about the next profit event. It is an empty exercise. As Mises says in the above quote from Banacek:

      There is nothing "normal" in profits and there can never be an "equilibrium" with regard to them. Profit and loss are, on the contrary, always a phenomenon of a deviation from "normalcy," of changes unforeseen by the majority, and of a 'disequilibrium.'"

    8. YOU don't know what the hell you are talking about.

      Molyneuxs claim was not that profits can be averaged. he was trying to make a point about the moral environment of high profits over time.

      thanks for the insult.

    9. Brian, you are completely missing the point. The moral enviroment has nothing to do with profits. I don't know what I could add further to explain that but try reading was Mises wrote again to see where you are going wrong.

  10. @Anonymous

    I mean (as any intelligent person would understand) I don't even listen to the guy ON A REGULAR BASIS. I've listened enough to him. I just don't read him regularly.

    Obviously I've read him enough to know about De Fooing and about his arguments about Ron Paul and about his arguments about speculation.

    Is that the best argument you have?

  11. Am I allowed to respond or is Wenzel still disabling my comments?

    1. For the record, I have no ability to "disable" comments. This is likely something to do with your browser. People tell me they have problems commenting from iPad.

      As far as comments I delete, I trust you can observe from the comments that have made it through that I rarely delete.

      I will however delete spam ads.

      Often those who simply include a link to another site with a comments such as " it's all explained here". If I don't think it's explained there, it is unlikely to get through. If you want to advertise your links here, contact Chris Rossini and I am sure we can work out a price.

      Youtubes from people I don't know are likely to get deleted. I don't have time to view them.

      Nasty comments about my friends will get deleted. Racist comments will get deleted.

      And occasionally, I will delete comments by accident, especially if I am using my cellphone. Sorry about that. If within a reasonable amount of time 2 hours during the day or 8 hours at night, and you do not fall into one of the above categories, please feel free to repost.

  12. Mr. Molyneux may have suffered to quick a rise to fame for his own good if Mr. Wenzel is right (and I suspect he is). Mr. Molyneux has taken this in good humor (witness his comment on Dr. Long's page), which speaks well of him. I appreciate a spirited debate as every error leaves a chink in the defense of liberty which will eventually be exploited by the enemies of liberty. Dr. Ron Paul does a good job of keeping his ego out of this sort of issue, in a way I'm not able to do consistently. I recommend his example.

    Jim in Kenai

  13. I have not listened to the Molyneux interview yet, but I am familiar with Wenzels interview style, so I can imagine how it goes.
    Before the debating about Molyneux started on here, I found a link from a ZeroHedge commenter to this article.

    I thought it was interesting and forwarded the link to a guy I work with who is an autodidactic philosopher.
    He tore it apart, stating that Molyneux cannot assume that the distribution of moral and immoral people would be the same whether we had a government or not. I don't remember his whole argument, but another point was that Molyneux did not sufficiently describe moral and immoral for the context of his argument. I'm no philosopher, but I'm guessing if someone with the knowledge and inclination wanted to sit down and write an entire book, he/she could create a cogent argument along these lines.

    My point is that I shared this article with someone with more statist beliefs than me, and he justifiably wrote it off as an incomplete argument. I lost that battle to an educated statist. It has nothing to do with there being a homogeneous libertarian ethos. Debate can make ones argument stronger. I need people like Wenzel to vet the hacks from the real scholars so I can cite someone as a reference and not come out looking like a fool. I don't have suffiecient time to figure all of this out for myself.

  14. Who the heck is funding Molyneux and his daily talk show?

    He's the new William F. Buckley Jr.

    And we all know that _National Review_ was a CIA operation, designed to make the conservatives of the 1950s into neocons.

  15. I would like to make a comment about a few things related to this thread.

    I believe that it is valid and fair to point out errors in someones reasoning and arguments. Clearly, Robert has issues (as he should) with distinct definitions of important abstractions. Robert gave the most flack to the assumption about an "average" rate of profit for established industries in the 3-5% range (or single digits). Robert vehemently disagreed with this assumption and fallacy and brought up the difference between "profit" and the necessary return on capital (interest). Wenzel briefly mentioned the "plain state of rest" derived from the Evenly Rotating Economy construct but I would gather not everyone well versed in economics knows what these are. (please correct me if I'm wrong on this for those well versed in Human Action). Also, are you sure you didn't mean the "Subsistence Fund" that deals with ABCT? Maybe that is synonymous with "reserve fund"... not ssure.

    In my opinion, I understand the criticism here and I think it is valid, but I think Robert neglected to discuss the element of uncertainty that is involved with entrepreneurs and that a standard return on profit is never constant (even in well established/high barrier to entry sectors of the economy). Aggregating an average profit Competition will generally have a downward pressure on profit margins that are reported on a balance sheet (which I believed was Molyneax's point).

    I think Robert could have done a little less berating on this topic and simply referenced some chapters from Human Action and Man, Economy, and State for Molyneax to sharpen up on since he obviously has no idea what the Evenly Rotating Economy construct is (

    I also think the point about Japan vs. the United State was a valid criticism by Wenzel. But, I would agree that Molyneax's point about massive fiscal spending programs and propping up zombie banks is a valid analysis. But, Wenzel was right about the Japanese ability to save and their lack of demand to spend.

    Personally, I found the interview less helpful since nothing about philosophy was mentioned.

    Defooing? Really? Who cares? Do people line up to listen to Molyneax because he is the libertarian Dr. Phil?

    I do find Molyneax's atheism a bit over the top but I have no idea what this has to do with economics. Walter Block is a proud atheist yet he finds religion and libertarianism to be compatible as long as both identify with the non-aggression axiom.

    1. "I do find Molyneax's atheism a bit over the top but I have no idea what this has to do with economics."

      Religiosity has a substantial effect on human action, but you don't know what that has to do with economics? Otherwise, I liked what you had to say.

      Block and other atheist libertarian writers, go along to get along so they have a bigger outlet for their work. Molyneux doesn't do this. Obviously, he is eloquent enough to draw his own audience. Apparently, much to the dislike of those who wish to control the libertarian message.

      It's kind of funny to see smart guys with egos, like Mr. Wenzel and Mr. Gordon, accuse someone else of falling in love with their own intelligence and thus be blinded to the fallaciousness of their arguments. Based on what I've read and heard, it is they who have fallen prey to their egos and not Mr. Molyneux.

    2. "Defooing? Really? Who cares? Do people line up to listen to Molyneax because he is the libertarian Dr. Phil?"

      Andy - you might care if you had been 'defood' or if you were someone, who had 'defood' their family on Molyneux's recommendation only to find yourself isolated, depressed and confused. Its happened to many people

  16. Make no mistake ladies and gentlemen, this IS an attack motivated by theism versus atheism.

    To all of you who are denying, by using such arguments as

    "If this is because of Molyneux's atheism, then why aren't Hoppe and Kinsella and others not being attacked by the Mises Institute?"

    The answer to this should have been obvious, but I see nobody mentioning it, so I will. It's because Molyneux, contrary to Hoppe, Kinsella, etc, attacks theism in his writings. Hoppe et al do NOT attack theism. That's why they are left more or less untouched and why they can avoid the ad hominem attacks and vitriol being foisted on Molyneux.

    I have been a VERY strong supporter of the Mises Institute and its intellectuals for YEARS. This debacle has made it absolutely clear that the Mises Institute wants to promote pro-theist libertarianism, or at least a libertarianism that is not hostile against religion.

    It is absolutely pathetic how so many Mises Institute supporters have jumped on the bandwagon and claim that Molyneux "makes too many errors". This is just an excuse. Molyneux makes no more logical errors than 95% of those at the Mises Institute. It is obvious that these quibbles and nitpicks are just a front to mask the actual agenda of "attack those who attack religion."

    The Gordon review of Molyneux's UPB was an excellent example. A piss poor review that contained numerous errors (as Molyneux showed in his response), and a general lack of understanding UPB.

    I am finished with the Mises Institute. I am no longer donating money to it. I am no longer going to continue to consider them allies. I am no longer going to recommend it to people.

    Please do not misunderstand. I am not a Molyneux follower. I consider him in the same way I consider the theists at the MI. As an individual. I am interested in fair and OPEN debates that aren't childish fronts for one's true motivations. It is clear that the MI would rather have only those who are not hostile to religion as allies. I thought that it would have been good to have both those who are hostile AND antagonistic towards religion to ally themselves in the cause of liberty. But alas, the MI has made their choice, and those hostile to religion in their writings are not welcome.

    1. Do you have any idea what Wenzel's views are on religion?

      I have emailed Wenzel on this matter and he does not fall anywhere on the theist, agnostic, atheist spectrum. He has problems with all of them! You are way, way off.

      Further, Wenzel's point was not about religion but that Molyneux tends to make his personal issues into macro-issues. He had a problem in the stock market---so he has a macro problem with speculators. He has a problem with religion--so nothing good can come out of religion. He had a bad family experience---so all families are bad.

      I'm quite sure that if Molyneux had an allergy to roses, he would want to ban all flowers across the entire universe.

    2. St. Paul:

      I am not "way, way off." I am way, way on.

      You're making no sense. How in the world can Wenzel be neither theist, nor agnostic, nor atheist? That exhausts all possibilities!

      Wenzel willingly takes his queue from the Rothbardians at the MI. I don't believe Wenzel when he claims that he never heard of Molyneux before writing his attacks on Molyneux. I think he was "advised" prior.

      You say Molyneux "has a problem with speculators." From what I have gathered, no, he doesn't. He DEFENDS the stock market. His argument is that the government has corrupted the stock market to encourage speculation over investment. It is similar to saying that corn subsidies has encouraged unhealthy sugary foods and has made people fatter. Making this argument is not making an argument against eating unhealthy food nor that one wants to ban unhealthy food. There is "good" unhealthy eating, for example eating sugary foods to give a quick boost for an exercise session if you want a short lived boost.

      Molyneux correctly argues that the government has virtually eradicated long term investment in the stock market, and encouraged short term gains instead. MANY Austrians have made this argument, including Prof. Reisman, who is not attacked for saying that entrepreneurs have become short term oriented.

      You say Molyneux said ALL families are bad, but that is incorrect. Molyneux supports dee-fooing IF one's family is bad. He is not against families per se. That's crazy. He has a family of his own! He has made many podcasts about how to promote healthy family living, of communication, of honesty, and so on. You're so wrong.

      Your claim that Molyneux would want to ban roses if he has an allergy is just stupid.