Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Stefan Molyneux & Consistency (?)

By Chris Rossini

Stefan Molyneux wrote the following tweets this morning:

Then just 26 minutes later:

While state and local governments struggle?

Why is an anarchist concerned with the fiscal health of state and local governments? Does Molyneux want to see them thrive? Would the subsidies be OK if they weren't struggling?

Opposition to NFL cronyism should have nothing to do with how well state and local governments are doing. The fact that they are struggling is a good thing from a libertarian viewpoint.

To me, Molyneux is coming across as very inconsistent.

Oh...and as a quick sidenote: Should we be surprised that the NFL is such a huge propaganda arm for the U.S. military? That $1 billion per year speaks volumes.



Chris Rossini is on Twitter

26 comments:

  1. Why pick a fight with Molyneux Rossini? Seriously? Wenzel is rubbing off on you in a bad way. Molyneux is one of the most consistent resisters of state power in the world and your only post on him is a petty criticism of tweets (where it is difficult to explain ideas in short order). If you want his full opinions on the NFL (which I can assure you does not include regret at lost tax revenue), you can watch his entire video he made about the NFL.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFLU1jw5uEA

    I am really sad you have chosen the Wenzel path of blogging. Attack our best allies to feed Wenzel's ego about being wrong on Bitcoin and IP.

    Keep it up children, really helping the cause...r/sarcasm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair, bitcoin is just another idol within the "liberty movement." It's a product of the CIA and you bitcoiners (lol) are falling right into the trap.

      Delete
    2. @Anon

      You're a real prince. Get on some one else's blog, use his publicity, and trash him. Typical leftoid.

      Wenzel's is the only libertarian blog I read every day and I only wish he could multiple himself by ten and take on all the phonies living off the taxes of the people who do the work in this country.

      Go get your own blog and whine.


      Delete
  2. 'Inconsistency' may be one of Molyneux's more endearing traits.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've listened to Molyneux for a long time. He's one of the most consistent, pure anarchist and NAP advocate I'm aware of. And I've listened to his other rants about subsidized sports. Stefan has no love of state or local governments and would love to see them all disappear. His other rants about subsidized sports make the context clear, which is that given the existence of such governments, which he despises, they have no business subsidizing sports teams when they are already struggling. I agree the tweet could have been better stated, but tweets are limited in length.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok, OK...."his Tweet could have been better stated...." And, so too, his devastating attack on Ron Paul when Ron was running for President in 2012. Totally lost my respect there. Can't bear to even listen to the fellow any longer...l

      Delete
    2. I agree with you about the Ron Paul attack, for the most part. Stefan is not perfect, especially when it comes to application of his consistent theory to actual people and events. Stefan has also had some garbled interactions with Walter Block where I felt that Block was more consistent and clear. But when it comes to theory, Stefan is pure NAP. And over time, I have also come to realize that Ron Paul, when running for president, was still a politician within a corrupt State and even though he was the best imaginable, he was still within the system and thus open to some fair criticism.

      Delete
  4. Oh boy, now you're going to get all the Stefbots in here defending their leader. So much libertarian drama.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You should probably note the guy produces an ad infinitum number of videos each month denouncing government. With this known, his comment about the NFL most likely has something to do with criticizing governments. If you would allow him to retort or further explain, he statement would be weaved somehow into the promotion of anarchism.

    You don't have to like the guy. Just don't stoop to the level of journalism that we would see at something like Salon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's broadcasting those videos on youtube which is subsidized by the govt. He's doing it while state and local govt struggles.

      Delete
  6. While I believe there are many things where you could critique Stefan Molyneux for in terms of consistency, particularly special pleading, I feel this attack is a little unfair.

    One can have a preference for how the world is and still try to make the best of a less than ideal situation. For example, I would prefer that there were no borders and that everyone was peaceful with each other. But because there are borders and government and ethnic loyalties and so on, I can accept those facts and then criticise NATO's, America's, and my own country of Canada's handling of the Ukraine crisis. All without wanting there to be a NATO, America, Canada, Ukraine, or Russia.

    Stefan Molyneux has talked about that situation. You could have as easily criticised him for that and I would be an off-base attack for the same reason.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Uh oh...all the Wenzelbots are about to jump on the Stefbots. So silly. Molyneaux is taking this entire ancap movement to the next level by being consistent across not only politics and economics but also spirituality, philosophy and PARENTING.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. agreed, religion and Santa Claus are all about child abuse. Stefan has proven this in the unified global ethical theory of everything. There shall be no more disputes on this topic, for the philosopher-king hath spoken.

      Stefbots, engage!

      Delete
    2. Exactly! So Molyneaux is guest-hosting the Peter Schiff show this week. He discussed the NFL for an entire segment today. It wasn't focused on NFL subsidies at a time when state and local governments are broke. It was focused on the stupidity of the American public focusing on the bread and circus aspects of the NFL (specifically the gay NFL player) instead of using their brains to think about things that actually affect their lives. Here is a pretty close word for word transcript of the segment:

      "Why don't we hear anything about these giant steroided refrigerator-sized pickpockets in America? Oh dear Lord in Heaven can someone in the media please talk about the degree to which they are pounding the taxpayers up against the wall, knee to the throat, hands in the pockets? The NFL owners...they couldn't be more gay by having their hands in more men's pockets than you could imagine. Taxpayers fund most stadium costs of the NFL. The NFL itself is tax exempt! Is it a charity? No! The television images that are made in these publicly funded stadiums are privatized and all gains are kept by the owners. Not that hard to make money when you can socialize your costs and privatize your profits. The entire organization of the NFL is walled off in a maze of anti-trust regulations. 70% of the capital costs of NFL stadiums have been provided by taxpayers, not the NFL owners. That's just lovely, isn't it? Bread and circuses! Bread and circuses! Bread and circuses! NFL, and boy, Kim Kardashian has a big butt! Oh, what was that political thing? Oh, I don’t know, bring back her girls! When the ongoing costs are included, 12 of the league’s 32 teams turn a profit on stadium subsidies alone.

      Delete
    3. Continued transcript from Molyneaux on today's Peter Schiff show:

      In Minnesota, the Vikings wanted a new stadium. The Minnesota legislature, although facing a $1.1B budget deficit, and with the prospect of continuing to live in Minnesota, quote, gave $506M from the taxpayers as a gift to the team! Which covered about half the cost of the new facility. The team’s principal owner, and truly Vaudevillean-named Sigmund Vilfe (sp?), had a 2011 net worth estimated at $322M. With the new stadium deal the Vikings value rose about $200M. So it’s nice, it’s just wonderful the degree to which the NFL is socialism to the rich and a tax on idiots. So, the NFL broadcasts in publicly-funded stadiums on public airwaves, keeps all of the profits for themselves, and aggressively sues the crap out of anyone who violates their copyright. Man! That’s astounding. A 1966 law allowed Pro football leagues to merge. And gave them specific exemption from anti-trust regulations. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a big fan of anti-trust regulations. But, when you massively subsidize NFL stadiums, when you give the profits of these massive subsidies and the public airwaves to private individuals, and then you exempt them from the laws that other organizations have to work with, and you make them tax-exempt, AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! You might as well just give them the license to print money which is kind of what they have. But it’s truly, truly astounding how much money these people make. In real dollars from 1998 to 2013 NFL television revenues doubled from $2B to $4B. You cannot talk about any of this stuff but focus on the gay rights issue? It’s just part of the nonsense that we’re constantly spoon-fed. We’re constantly spoon-fed this pablum (sp?) that distracts us from the real issues, from anything that is of real substance or consequence. Your children are being sold into debt slavery to foreign banks so over-steroided monsters can buy Porsches and video Ho’s. I mean, c’mon! What effect is it really gonna have on your grandchildren how long it takes gay players to come out in the NFL? But it really is gonna affect your grandchildren, the amount of human potential and intelligence is diverted to the idiot spectacle of watching giant battering rams in various costumes run into each other and crush the skulls of the taxpayers beneath their pounding kneecaps. I think that’s gonna have a little bit more of an effect on your children than how long it takes to watch NFL players come out onto the field in ass-less chaps. But because it actually has relevance and has meaning and importance to your life and is a moral issue…well, we can’t talk about that! Good heavens, no!

      Delete
  8. He's running his mouth on a govt subsidized internet while state and local govt struggle.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Molyneux has produced some good material, and I have enjoyed it in the past. But honestly David Gordon had him nailed as a smart guy that is unwilling to do the true rigorous work of philosophy--instead he prefers to be a "guru" and host a radio show. Which would be fine, except for his overtly disgusting promotion of "defooing"; a practice which would destroy the civilization he wants to save.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not a Stefbot my self. His videos can be really unnecessarily long; his video of "Penis Negotiations" is like 3 hours long. I tried in the past to listen to some of them, but I fall asleep. He goes off on tangents.

    With that said, I don't think he was meaning in that way. My first impression right away was that it was poorly stated. Call him out on, yes, but let him explain.

    ReplyDelete
  11. uhmmmm... does anyone not see how ridiculous this post is?

    Molyneux is merely pointing to the fact that its particularly absurd that governments are giving subsidies to a flourishing NFL league while they themselves are broke. He isn't advocating for government in any way, he's just showing how ludicrous that is (which it is). It isn't "inconsistent". That's like saying Ron Paul is inconsistent for pointing out that America is broke while it continues pour foreign aid into other countries.

    Most of the stuff here at EPJ is great, but this is just absurd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rossini points out that it makes no difference whether or not the government is struggling. It also makes no difference whether or not the NFL is flourishing. Molyneux, whether he means it or not, gives the impression that it does matter by making such a statement.

      Delete
    2. So any libertarian who comments on any kind of subsidy gives people the impression that they are promoting government? Because that is the reductio.

      Like I said, is Ron Paul being "inconsistent" and a promotor of the state by advocating that we reduce foreign aid? If we are going to criticize Molyneux for discussing NFL subsidies, why don't we be "consistent" and criticize Ron Paul for talking about foreign aid?

      Delete
    3. Ron Paul never claimed to be an anarchist. Molyneux does. Big difference.

      Delete
  12. " Stefan Molyneux
    @StefanMolyneux

    Peaceful Parent, Philosopher and Host of Freedomain Radio."

    Philosopher? Gag.

    What shocked me the most about Molyneaux's Twitter feed is seeing that he's guest-hosting Peter Schiff's radio show.

    Is Schiff's show doing so badly that he can't find a better guest host?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, he's still running at a loss.

      Peter's brother pitches in occasionally, as does Tom Woods.

      Delete
  13. Looks more like disorganized writing to me. I've re-worded it so it makes more sense:

    "While state and local governments say they struggle, they give the NFL, which has revenues of $9 billion, $1 billion in subsidies annually ."

    ReplyDelete