Why I was wrong about Stefan Molyneux
Hi Stefan. Hope you're doing well.
Listen, we gotta talk. Seriously.
You know, I've been watching your videos for years. The Story of your Enslavement is one of my all-time favorites. I even translated the transcript from your blog for the benefit of my readers in Quebec who aren't so well versed with the tongue of Shakespeare. Because I thought what you said in that video was important to the cattle of that particular tax farm. But you know, as I watch some of your latest videos, I can't help to ponder how different you now are from the Stefan Molyneux who produced that video. Somehow, somewhere along the way, your beliefs have changed in a very fundamental way.
All through this election cycle, you've been attacking Hillary Clinton, and rightfully so. She is probably the most corrupt politician to ever run for the office of President of the United States and so it's important for people to know that. I get it. I agree. Now I too am irked at how the mainstream media is whitewashing her and it's hard not to fall into the lesser evil argument. I've had to struggle with it myself. But you appear to have fallen into that trap. So here you are now trying to lecture libertarians about the NAP and telling them how they shouldn't spank their children (which I agree with), how libertarians with tenure should give it up (which I also agree with), but then you turn around and try to justify violating the NAP in the most fundamental way: by advocating voting for Donald Trump.
You know all these debates you've had with minarchists over the years? You lost them all when you jumped on the Trump bandwagon. You have regressed into a minarchist. I didn't believe that it was possible for someone who had already rationnalized so well the illegitimacy of state power, yet here it is.
You know, this is no small thing. Voting is probably the worst transgression of the NAP. Voting is actually giving someone a right to initiate violence on your behalf. A right that isn't even yours to delegate in the first place, since you don't have a right to initiate violence. Haven't you been teaching us that for the past ten years? But now that there is a presidential candidate that stands a chance of winning (even if she's cheating) that you truly hate and fear, you're willing to throw it all away? Everything you ever taught us about non-agression and morality. Gone! Because you are letting your emotions win over your reason?
It doesn't matter how much you try to justify it. A free-market candidate, Trump? Seriously??? Give me a break! A free-market candidate who supports eminent domain and protectionnism? You really believe he'll drain the swamp in DC? Come on! He'd need dictatorial powers to do that. Too many people profit from the status (or statist) quo. And there is no way I would trust him with dictatorial powers, would you? But even if he was the lesser evil, voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil. To me your justifications sound like between Hitler and Stalin, you'd rather vote for Hitler because he has the smallest bodycount. Voting for the lesser psycho still leaves you with a psycho no matter how you slice it. You know that! Even if Trump ran with the best of intentions, that still wouldn't give him moral legitimacy to rule and it certainly doesn't qualify him to better run our lives.
Maybe a little discussion with @larkenrose would do you good. You should invite him to your show and try to sell him on voting for Trump. It would be an interesting show to say the least. Maybe he can knock some sense into you.
Philippe David is an IT consultant from Montreal, Quebec who is also the editor of the french-language libertarian news site contrepoids.com and the french-speaking voluntaryist community site projetv.org
doesn't sound like you're really offering any better alternative at all, just complaining about someone's opinions. you barely even mention anything concrete about trump's policies except for eminent domain and protectionism. you call him a psycho, and claims he wouldn't have the moral legitimacy to "rule", based on what?? i'm not really concerned with your opinion on molyneux, but maybe back up your serious accusations with some facts if you want to be taken seriously.
here are his positions on different areas of policy: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/ i agree, they're not all conducive to smaller government and more liberty, which i'm all for. but if you're willing to be intellectually honest, i don't see how you can make a case for clinton over trump. that said, i doubt it'll matter much anyway. and in regards to his "morality" however you imagine yourself to be an accurate judge of that, why don't you look into any written or said about him over the past few decades. from what i can see, he actually doesn't seems too bad on the whole, unless you buy into sensationalized shit that passes as journalism nowadays.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/
He's not making a case for Clinton over Trump, the point of the article is he believes Stef is advocating a violation of the NAP by voting, a position Stef used to hold. Why does someone have to provide alternatives when pointing out someone is violating a principle? And wanting to rule over other people is itself immoral, not to mention Trump's advocating murder, such as killing a suspected terrorist's entire family.
nowhere in my comment am i referring to your analysis of stefan's position--i only refer to yours. well, i suppose it doesn't matter much now that he's president :)