It looks like Walter Block and Stefan Molyneux are at odds with each other over Ron Paul's presidential bid. Block published an article at Lew Rockwell that attacked the anarcho-capitalist view, and Stefan produced a YouTube rebuttal. In my last post, The Ron Paul Dilemma, I touched on some of these topics.
Ron Paul and the Self-Hating Libertarians by Walter Block at Lew Rockwell
Stefan Molyneux YouTube Rebuttal
While I do not agree with everything Molyneux has to say (I am a Christian, he is an atheist) he does raise some valid points. The very end of the video is the most powerful by far. He drives home the point that Ron Paul presiding over a collapsing economy would be a very bad idea. Like I said in my last post, I am voting for Ron Paul because I do not think he can win. Political libertarianism is a necessary step on the road to a voluntary society, and my vote lends legitimacy to the ideas of freedom.
Molyneux makes an excellent point when he says that we are not ready for a voluntary society now. That goal is a long way off. Molyneux's plan centers on educating children in the non-agression axiom (the golden rule.) Ron Paul and Walter Block take the political libertarian approach. I think both are needed. We cannot flip a magic switch and produce a voluntary society tomorrow. Yet, the only way for children to be brought up in liberty oriented homes is for their parents to discover freedom. Ron Paul can act as a catalyst for that mode of thinking.
This kind of bickering and divisiveness only serves the powers that be. We need to focus on where we agree, not on where we disagree. I am a Christian, and I listen to Molyneux's podcasts even though he is an atheist. While we have major differences in theology, our political and economic philosophy are close to the same. I focus on these points of agreement, and I think Walter Block should do the same.
See you at Galt's Gulch!
8 hours ago
3 comments:
I had a lot of respect for Walter Block, but his article criticizing Molyneux was an embarrassment.
It was emotional, petulant, had nothing but logical fallacies (someone who refuses to vote for anyone out of principle is NOT an enemy of the state, according to him, in a blatant attempt to turn non-aggression principles on their head)
He then went on to mention a number of reasons why people like Molyneux are "self-hating" (which he doesn't even bother to prove people who disagree with him really are), none of which apply to Molyneux. He then shows some more non-scholarly behavior by admitting they are just suspicions. But meanwhile the character attacks stand.
In my opinion, Blocks article was that of an unthinking cheerleader who resents anyone who refuses to jump on the same bandwagon he does, and he was demolished in a civil but thorough way by Molyneux and made to look like an idiot.
I think he's smarter than this, so i can only assume that his blind worship of Ron Paul and his emotions at seeing libertarians who don't see RP as the messiah, are responsible for his embarrassing article.
It struck me as a 3am drunken rambling. I have written posts in the wee hours of the morning that I regretted the next day. Thankfully, I have control of publishing and not that many people read me. Its easy for me to delete what I write if I don't like it. Once it goes to Lew Rockwell, however, the entire libertarian world sees it.
You pointed out that "We need to focus on where we agree, not on where we disagree."
May I suggest that L Neil Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent as the BASE for such agreement?
(Links:
http://tinyurl.com/Galts-Oath-and-the-Covenant
http://tinyurl.com/Covenant-of-Unanimous-Consent
The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a political statement of interpersonal relationships. As such, it
EXPLICITLY "...maintain[s] these Principles without Respect to any person's Race, Nationality, Gender,
sexual Preference, Age, or System of Beliefs..."
I personally know Signatories who are atheist and others who are Christian. With regard to the Covenant, they are in agreement--which is what is needed to live together harmoniously.
Dennis Lee Wilson
Signatory: The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Post a Comment