No Arguments For Old Men

Does Stefan Molyneux Really Want An Argument?

Or does he just want to avoid addressing all opposition by repeating three words over and over again rather than offering an actual defense? We shall see.

Since January of 2016 the philosopher Stefan Molyneux has been an avid supporter and one of the leading proponents of Donald Trump in the US Presidential Election currently underway. His method for dealing with opposition has become somewhat iconic, as the cartoon below illustrates:

He responds to his critics with the words, “Not An Argument,” implying that those in opposition to him are not capable of formulating a coherent logical argument, but only emotional complaints and unfounded assertions.

As a spectator I have found all of this amusing, but yesterday I received my own, “Not An Argument,” from Stefan...

I tweeted at Stefan the following in passing yesterday morning:

If you would've told me 5 years ago that @StefanMolyneux would become a leading proponent of the rise of National Socialism Id have laughed.

Which is a true statement. And Stefan retweeted with the infamous:

Not An Argument.

So now I feel I’ve been called out and challenged, so I must respond.

Before I do, I'd like to point out that my tweet was not intended to be an argument, it was intended to be a factual statement. And it is. And second, I am not capable of constructing a 140 character argument, at least one that is in any way coherent, so I’d never attempt to present an argument on Twitter anyway. But here, I will.

Stefan Wants An Argument, So He’s Getting One

There must be thousands of people that have received the “Not An Argument” from Stefan in the past 10 months, but what does he do when he is actually presented with an argument? I intend to find out.

Here is my argument:

I am going to put forward the following propositions: 1) that no human being can handle political power, including Trump, 2) that the only kind of people that seek coercive power over others are shallow, manipulative, narcissistic sociopaths, 3) that it does not matter who is elected President, the logic of the system cannot be controlled or managed, 4) and that every SECOND Stefan spends legitimizing the violence and evil of the state with his support of Trump, is a second he is NOT spending helping to make the world free.

I would like to begin with the opposite of a Straw Man Argument. A Straw Man Argument is a false summarization of the opposition’s argument easily refuted giving the impression of defeating the opponents actual argument. Instead of doing that, I will advance a Steel Man Argument. A Steel Man Argument is to present the strongest form of the oppositions argument and defeat it so as to leave no doubt that it has been soundly refuted.

Stefan Molyneux is arguing that we must vote for Donald Trump because Donald Trump has promised a set of desirable outcomes that are preferred over the anticipated outcomes if Hillary Clinton is elected. These include improved boarder security, reduced immigration, a better Supreme Court pick, and staying out of war with Russia among others. If we do not vote for Donald Trump, we could potentially face nuclear war, mass immigration, and ultimately the complete destruction of Western Civilization, Western Values, and even the world itself.

Vote Donald Trump, Or Lose Everything

My first point is supported by over 5000 years of empirical evidence which can be unpacked if need be, but I don’t think it is necessary. We all know that power corrupts, violent power corrupts, and no human being in history has ever been able to use the violent power of the state for good, ever. We therefore have no reason to believe that Donald Trump will be the one who can handle it.

No human being can stop the government from expanding it’s attacks on it’s own citizens and others overseas. There are no exceptions throughout history. Nobody has ever been able to avoid the corrupting influence of this power, but Stefan wants us to put all of our hope and faith in handing this power over to one Donald J. Trump.

There is a pattern in which politicians promise something and do the exact opposite. Trump has promised us no war and improved security, we should therefore expect that if Trump gets in we will get horrific war and degraded security.

History shows over and over again that no one is able to handle this kind of power. Not you, not me, not Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton, not Jill Stein, not Vladimir Putin. No one can handle violent power and the brutality that is the state. It is impossible, it is inconceivable, it will never happen, yet Stefan wants us to trust that Donald Trump is the one who can.

What Kind Of Person Seeks Violent Control Over Millions Of People?

Not a well person. Good, virtuous, compassionate people do not seek coercive power over millions of people, shallow, manipulative, narcissistic sociopaths do. The people who seek out violent and coercive power over millions of people sniff out your wants and desires and dangle them in front of you like treats for a dog. They know how to touch on your fears and desires to manipulate you just long enough to get them into power.

Frederic Hayek in The Road to Serfdom laid out the path which leads to totalitarianism. It is the pendulum swing between socialism and fascism edging always closer towards totalitarianism as the state ever expands regardless of who is in power.

He writes:

We must here return for a moment to the position which precedes the suppression of democratic institutions and the creation of a totalitarian regime. In this stage it is the general demand for quick and determined government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic procedure which makes action for action’s sake the goal. It is then the man or the party who seems strong and resolute enough “to get things done” who exercises the greatest appeal. “Strong” in this sense means not merely a numerical majority – it is the ineffectiveness of parliamentary majorities with which people are dissatisfied. What they will seek is somebody with such solid support as to inspire confidence that he can carry out whatever he wants.

As the government grows in size and scope, and the citizens grow increasingly disapproving, soon the public demands a “strong man” to take control, cut through the bureaucracy, and “get things done.” The type of personality that fits this description often also includes a dangerous inhibition and unscrupulousness which uniquely qualifies them for the position.

There is thus in the positions of power little to attract those who hold moral beliefs of the kind which in the past have guided the European peoples, little which could compensate for the distastefulness of many of the particular tasks, and little opportunity to gratify any more idealistic desires, to recompense for the undeniable risk, the sacrifice of most of the pleasures of private life and of personal independence which the posts of great responsibility involve. The only tastes which are satisfied are the taste for power as such, the pleasure of being obeyed and of being part of a well-functioning and immensely powerful machine to which everything else must give way.

The superior politician is the one who knows how to tap into your fears and desires better than the opposition. The fear of losing Western Civilization and Western Values to the Muslim Culture and foreign immigration, along with the fear of nuclear destruction, is a very powerful handle which inspires action in many including Stefan Molyneux. But this is standard operation. New enemy, same political tactic.

It is in connection with the deliberate effort of the skilful demagogue to weld together a closely coherent and homogeneous body of supporters that the third and perhaps most important negative element of selection enters. It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative programme, on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off, than on any positive task. The contrast between the "we" and the "they", the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. It is consequently always employed by those who seek, not merely support of a policy, but the unreserved allegiance of huge masses. From their point of view it has the great advantage of leaving them greater freedom of action than almost any positive programme. The enemy, whether he be internal like the "Jew" or the "Kulak", or external, seems to be an indispensable requisite in the armoury of a totalitarian leader.

Does It Matter Who The New Head Of The Mafia Is?

Major Socio-Political Shifts throughout history occur as a result of major advances in technology. The invention of the microprocessor, and the internet, and blockchains are a technological innovation that has set in motion a paradigm shift that cannot be stopped. We are in the front row seats of history baring witness to the waning of the Industrial Age and the end of the territorial Nation-State.

Part of this transition includes economic disaster and violent conflicts, it is futile to think we can control the violent coercion of the nation-state as it is in its death throws. It is foolish to think by voting Trump over Hillary we are avoiding some tragedy. It will change exactly nothing.

It cannot be controlled, it cannot be managed, it cannot be stopped. The system is unfolding because it is violent, that is the logic of the system. They have the power to kill and the power to print money, and there is NOTHING that is going to change the course of that kind of corruption other than self destruction.

There is nothing you or I or anyone can do to alter the logic of violence. There is nothing you or I or anyone can do to alter the inescapable logic, the inescapable crash, the inescapable escalation and demise of a coercive and violent system. Nothing.

It doesn’t matter who sits in the Whitehouse, the logic of the system drives like a car with no breaks going down a hill, whoever the hood ornament is on the front of the car doesn’t matter.

And Your Belief That It Matters Is What Keeps The System Going!!

Stefan Molyneux, with your support of Trump you are legitimizing the violence and coercion of the state and broadcasting that the system is responsive to the needs of the people and it’s not. It never will be, and it never was.

By supporting Trump you are saying that the system can be controlled and managed and you are therefore supporting it! The old system is dying so we can birth something new, and instead of working on what is new, you are worried, and frantically fighting to save the old from it’s inevitable death. You cannot succeed.

You are voting for Trump in response to a fear of increased predation and a belief that it is possible to restrain the coercive violent force of the state, and as a result you legitimize a violent, coercive, brutal, hierarchical hegemonic system.

Every minute you spend on politics shilling for Trump is a minute you are not spending on something that is actually productive and helping to make the world free. Notice you’ve made 64 videos about Donald Trump and not a single video about Ethereum the world computer, or Steemit the decentralized social media platform, or OpenBazaar the decentralized world market, or any of these world-changing worthwhile steps forward towards freedom and a new way of organizing society.

Neo-Nazis And White Nationalists Post Your Videos To Support Their Cause

You may not even be aware, but there is a rising movement of White Nationalists, Neo-Nazis, National Socialists, and Fascists in this country and they are growing in numbers. I have been in the trenches, in the Political Facebook groups and philosophy groups, and I have seen their numbers growing. They all support Trump, and they all post quotes and videos from you in support of their ideology.

Stefan Molyneux, your broadcasting to the world that the violence of the state is the solution to our problems has helped to validate a National-Socialist Neo-Nazi White-Nationalist Fascist movement which believes that violence through the state is the solution to all of our problems.

You have improved the world in no way by supporting Trump. No good can come from Trump being elected. No good can be achieved through violence and coercion. Regardless of who is President we face the crash, and the escalation, and the self destruction of the Nation-State. It will make no difference who the hood ornament is.

And worse, we have lost 10 months of your productivity and effort that could have been expended productively towards making the world more free, instead it has been wasted on supporting a dying system and legitimizing the violence and evil of the state.

I hope you will find this argument persuasive and reconsider your position.

• KG