Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
Like Tree18Likes

Thread: Peter Joseph Stefan Molyneux Debate.

  1. #1
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5

    Peter Joseph Stefan Molyneux Debate.

    I felt for Peter having to endure the narrow arguments. I think he could have done better but then again I think I would have just smacked Stefan.
    Kudos for patience.

    fsir and Izon like this.

  2. #2
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bialystok
    Posts
    34
    At first I thought debate was a mess but I changed my mind after I watched it again and made notes. I recommend to do the same for those who are interested in deconstructing arguments.


    I want to address a couple of things:

    • SM if you discount well-being of customers you're out of bussiness; in a free market you gain while other ppl suffer is foundationally incorrect; if we exchange voluntarily we are both better off

      1. I argue that trade has an element of competition. You are trying to take the most and give the least, while me - the opposite.
      2. Advertising-marketing industry manufacturing desires and business being based on necessity. If you meet consumer's needs in a way that you won't make sales when the next batch of product is done - you're out of business (cyclical consumption). In my view those two things show that the care for the consumer is limited (I think it's about exploiting consumer).

      PJ doesn't address inner mechanics of trade at all. He says: act of trade is coercive because ppl have to trade to survive. There's a logic issue for me there. I think he meant to say "we are coerced TO trade".

    • SM division of labour is economically productive

      In my opinion division of labour does not equal market. It's possible to have division of labour in competition as well as cooperation.

    • PJ/SM market based on scarcity / scarcity is a fact of nature

      I don't buy the scarcity/abundance argument because these are judgements without context. So when I see PJ saying that scarcity is not as a fact of nature as it has been I want to pull my hair out.



    In conclusion for 1.5 hours PJ is repeating that the market is based on battle for market share; differential power advantage while SM is repeating that it's government's fault. I guess SM may not have understood PJ's view.

    Personally I would present argument in simpler terms: In modern society we are competing and that's why we can't get our needs met and I wouldn't mention market AT ALL. Or any other economic structure for that matter, just the mindset.
    haley and TZMGuy like this.

  3. #3
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1
    Hi, I am a libertarian. It seems to me that Stefan and Peter's disagreement might have been primarily (though not wholly) semantic. Stefan seems to use "free market" roughly to mean "the voluntary interaction of individuals," while Peter seems to implicitly amend it to mean "voluntary interaction of individuals operating under a 'free market' school of economic thought". This video was my first exposure to TZM, so I may be completely off-base here, but it seems to me that TZM might agree with libertarians that the removal of compulsion and violence (by libertarian standards) from our human interactions (ie. adoption of the non-aggression principle) is necessary to solve the problems facing society today, but go on to add that just the adoption of the non-aggression principle is not a solution. If I understand Peter correctly, he would claim that we additionally need a revolutionary change in our attitudes about things such as trade, competition, and scarcity. Am I right in understanding TZM to endorse the non-aggression principle, even if you might minimize it as insufficient by itself?
    Last edited by Think Free; 09-26-2013 at 01:33 PM.
    HAL9000 likes this.

  4. #4
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    1
    I'm not to sure if TZM endorses the non-aggression principle, but i imagine so. To keep on topic, i found myself agreeing with this analysis i found on youtube.

    Critical Thinking - Stefan Molyneux - Peter Joseph Discussion - YouTube

  5. #5
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    14
    ^ That analysis is great! This was a frustrating debate to watch, mostly because of Stefan. He wasn't even trying/willing to learn.

    This is my comment on the youtubes:

    Peter has to be more gentle with his ego/intellect, but the fact is he is thinking light years ahead of Stefan. I could care less about philosophers or stats, but if you logically follow the trail of breadcrumbs you find, as Peter has, that the free market system is a pipe dream lusted for by the very bloodthirsty corporations that want an economic arena without pesky government/regulations. Great question, Peter ~ do I have the right to not participate in an economic arena? The market system penalizes the stupid and non-shrewd by design. In Stefan's pencil-for-currency example he is assuming that both members of a trade benefit from being shrewd negotiators, but what if someone isn't blessed in that regard ~ do they deserve to suffer a loss with every transaction their entire lives? Doesn't that encourage the promotion of stupidity because it creates more profitable consumers for the shrewd negotiator? (Hmm... sounds familiar?) Do we have to all be on guard constantly because it is in everyone's best interests to screw us financially as much as possible? Does our health have to suffer because the stress of trying to make ends meet breaks us down from the inside out? Can you imagine if your family had worked that way ~ could you really trust mom and dad if they only treated you as a way to gain economically? Is it really efficient for mom to place armed guards in the cupboard or does trust serve the family system better? What of a Down Syndrome, disabled, or unproductive grandmother in an economic arena if they have no one to champion and support them ~ do they deserve to die? Do they not have benefits that escape the lens of productivity? Also, we herald this idea of "hard work" and work-porn is prevalent in our movies and TV shows, but we seem to cheer ALL hard work as if it is equally admirable. What of someone that works only to help themselves, or works to hurt other members of society or the environment for their own benefit; do we really want an economic arena that rewards those hard-workers just as well as someone who utilizes resources as best they can to help the most people they can? Wouldn't it be better to allocate our resources to those who help society the most and not just the ones who work the hardest, no matter what their motive? A beautiful garden or delicious recipe takes great and careful management and the free market is not designed for such care ~ it can only produce waste (via competition,) redundancy, reactionary thinking, and it has no long-term vision/consensus. We need to create an economic game/simulation so that these people can get the worlds/societies they dream of and live the horror of it ~ learn how terrible their ideas are through application, otherwise they will never learn.
    1. I think TMZ should throw the words "economic arena" out there more often ~ it brings visions of Gladiators fighting for survival, useless competition for sport. It exposes the "market" for what it is.

    2. Peter Joseph: (paraphrased): "I would be *pff* gone, out of here, on the hippie planet..." (something like that)

    I personally play a lot of board games and video games and like thinking of these systems as simulations because it is easier for me to grasp the concepts and play with them in my mind. (Is that too "reductionist"?) I've been trying to think of a game where people can play with economics, law making, resource allocation, and the like. Imagine a board game or a .99 cent TMZ application where there are planets and each has a certain amount of resources and people set up systems to try and manage those resources. Of course you will have trolls, thieves, people trying to game the system, nepotism, and people that want to help other people ~ all the colorful range of human behaviors. If we allowed people to create laws, would they piss off their citizens so much that they want to emigrate? Would they end up stifling economic growth or depleting their resources? It would have to be a simple system that allows for a lot of flexibility.

    Can you imagine how demonstrative something like that would be for people? Let the "free marketeers" set up their capitalist utopia... I'd imagine that it will head directly towards monopoly in no-seconds flat and your biggest corporation would start looking suspiciously just like what they now call a "government." Honestly, I don't know what the best system would be which is why I find this idea so intriguing.

    Check out this teacher who has his 4th graders solving world problems:


    Obviously that is a simplified model, but things like this are very instructive in a hands-on way that statistics and theories can't compete with.
    Could TMZ get behind something like this?

    It could be a revenue stream as well as a game-changing idea machine.
    I would appreciate feedback.
    TZMGuy, Necrod and Izon like this.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by FreshLaundry View Post

    I personally play a lot of board games and video games and like thinking of these systems as simulations because it is easier for me to grasp the concepts and play with them in my mind. (Is that too "reductionist"?) I've been trying to think of a game where people can play with economics, law making, resource allocation, and the like. Imagine a board game or a .99 cent TMZ application where there are planets and each has a certain amount of resources and people set up systems to try and manage those resources. Of course you will have trolls, thieves, people trying to game the system, nepotism, and people that want to help other people ~ all the colorful range of human behaviors. If we allowed people to create laws, would they piss off their citizens so much that they want to emigrate? Would they end up stifling economic growth or depleting their resources? It would have to be a simple system that allows for a lot of flexibility.

    Can you imagine how demonstrative something like that would be for people? Let the "free marketeers" set up their capitalist utopia... I'd imagine that it will head directly towards monopoly in no-seconds flat and your biggest corporation would start looking suspiciously just like what they now call a "government." Honestly, I don't know what the best system would be which is why I find this idea so intriguing.

    Obviously that is a simplified model, but things like this are very instructive in a hands-on way that statistics and theories can't compete with.
    Could TMZ get behind something like this?

    It could be a revenue stream as well as a game-changing idea machine.
    I would appreciate feedback.
    This could be a proper story for a game as you have described it.

    The Dispossessed
    Themes

    The story takes place on the fictional planet Urras and its habitable moon Anarres. In order to forestall an anarcho-syndicalist rebellion, the major Urrasti states gave the revolutionaries the right to live on Anarres, along with a guarantee of non-interference, approximately two hundred years before the events of The Dispossessed.[4] Before this, Anarres had had no permanent settlements apart from some mining.

    The protagonist Shevek is a physicist attempting to develop a General Temporal Theory. The physics of the book describes time as having a much deeper, more complex structure than we understand it. It incorporates not only mathematics and physics, but also philosophy and ethics. The meaning of the theories in the book weaves into the plot, not only describing abstract physical concepts, but the ups and downs of the characters' lives, and the transformation of the Anarresti society. An oft-quoted saying in the book is "true journey is return."[5]

    The meaning of Shevek's theories – which deal with the nature of time and simultaneity – have been subject to interpretation. For example, there have been interpretations that the non-linear nature of the novel is a reproduction of Shevek's theory.[6]

    Anarres is in theory a society without government or coercive authoritarian institutions. Yet in pursuing research that deviates from his society's current consensus understanding, Shevek begins to come up against very real obstacles. Shevek gradually develops an understanding that the revolution which brought his world into being is stagnating, and power structures are beginning to exist where there were none before. He therefore embarks on the risky and highly controversial journey to the home planet, Urras, seeking to open dialog between the worlds and to finish his General Temporal Theory with the help of academics on Urras. The novel details his struggles on both Urras and his homeworld of Anarres.

    Shevek experiences hatred from some of the people on Anarres due to his journey to Urras to advance his research, and due to his idea about increasing contact with the home planet. So the story touches on the themes of how people suffer for pursuing their purpose in life (suffering for one's art), and how they suffer for speaking out for change.

    The book also explores the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis, that language shapes thinking, and thus, culture. The language spoken on the anarchist planet Anarres, Pravic, is a constructed language that reflects many aspects of the philosophical foundations of utopian anarchism. For instance, the use of the possessive case is strongly discouraged (a feature that also is reflected by the novel's title). Children are trained to speak only about matters that interest others; anything else is "egoizing" (pp. 28–31). There is no property ownership of any kind. In one scene, Shevek's daughter, meeting him for the first time, tells him "You can share the handkerchief I use,"[7] rather than "you may borrow my handkerchief", thus conveying the idea that the handkerchief is not owned by the girl, merely used by her.[8]
    Last edited by RhythmAnarchy; 01-07-2014 at 01:47 PM.
    Everything Is Possible. Nothing Is True.
    (ψ = Σanψn)
    What do you know when the time is up and the door to the box is opened?
    It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.

  7. #7
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    14

    Red face

    Quote Originally Posted by GlobalPeace View Post
    I felt for Peter having to endure the narrow arguments. I think he could have done better but then again I think I would have just smacked Stefan.
    Kudos for patience.

    Did you hear the one about Stefan Molyneux pretending to be an "attractive young woman" and commenting on his own youtube video with the wrong account?
    Yup.

    MaxOfS2D's Tumblr


  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    602
    Stefan molyneux is a right wing conservative, misogynist, racist, pseudo-philosopher, full of shi# scam.....Disguised as an anarchist.
    Just ignore him.
    haley, droneBEE and Izon like this.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,908
    ….can't see the forest, the BIG picture, blinded by his own light ...is SM….

  10. #10
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Killeen, TX
    Posts
    9
    Patience was definitely the name of the game here. Easy to see why Peter cracked a little though, and I think in one of two followup videos he himself reflected and was disappointed with his short fuse. Ultimately, he was right in saying that the whole discussion was not about him and Stefan, but in educating others who might be coming to the ideas for the first time, or who might be on the fence. It was obvious that changing Stefan's mind was not gonna happen, and vice versa. Therefore, clear and concise presentation of the train of thought was what was needed -which I feel Peter did well enough, considering what he was up against...
    Ernest, Izon and droneBEE like this.
    "The worst foe lies within..." -Parasite Eve, Playstation 1

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1