Apparently, my blog ranks high for "Stefan Molyneux Daily Show". I got a lot of search traffic for that search phrase suddenly.
On the Daily Show website forum, there's a thread "Stefan Molyneux should be a guest on the Daily Show". As I write this, it has 19k+ views and 130+ replies. That makes it one of the most popular threads on the forum.
I'd vote for "Yes, he should be a guest." I'm not bothering to create a Daily Show forum account and comment.
This campaign is missing an important point. Jon Stewart is a shill for the State.
There's *NO WAY* someone who intelligently presents the anti-State viewpoint will be allowed on the mainstream media.
I can imagine the following phone call. "This is the White House calling the Daily Show. Why are you having that jerkwad Stefan Molyneux on as a guest? Why are you allowing him to spread his lies on TV?" That's all it would take, to quash Stefan Molyneux as a guest.
My main criticism of Stefan Molyneux is "He spends 2 hours to describe an idea that only should take 5-10 minutes." He's mostly correct. However, he's way too verbose. I have the same criticism of Kevin Carson. His analysis is mostly correct, but he's hard to read.
Another criticism of Stefan Molyneux is "If DROs are so wonderful, then why don't you start a DRO?" I plan to try such a thing eventually, when I get into actual agorism.
Another criticism is "defoo-ing". That's refusing to see abusive relatives. I never would have voluntarily moved back in with my parents, if I didn't get sick. I've discovered a shocking thing, due to lack of choice. I can retrain my parents to be less abusive! I can't make them understand "Taxation is theft!", but they are showing more anti-State viewpoints. They also are less emotionally abusive.
"Retrain relatives to be less abusive!" is a higher level of awareness than "Refuse to see abusive relatives!"
I'll partially recant my criticism of the mental health industry and Stefan Molyneux. He's still too flagrantly supportive of the mental health industry. However, my current drug Seroquel does seem to be working. If I blindly followed the advice of my previous psychiatrists, I never would have tried this drug.
Stefan Molyneux frequently advises "See a State-licensed therapist or psychiatrist." Based on my experience, they're mostly shills for the State. For example, my therapist tries to re-brainwash me to be a good slave, rather than teaching me to be truly independent.
If you're a real anarchist, "licensed by the State" means nothing. That's especially true in the area of mental health, where reinforcing State brainwashing takes priority. "People who can partially see the truth" are incorrectly labeled as defective by the "mental health" industry.
Many TV shows now have an Internet forum where people can vote on guests. Andrew Napolitano also does this. Stefan Molyneux has a better shot of getting on "Freedom Watch" than on the Daily Show.
I plan to someday try "Promote agorism via standup comedy!" Living in NYC, it'd be easy location-wise to be a guest on the show. There still would be State resistance. State parasites would tell me "You have to tone down your act, if you ever want to get on TV." In the mainstream media, there's a very strong culture of censorship and self-censorship.
However, some people have told me "You should get your own TV show! You would be more popular than Glenn Beck!" Ironically, some of the people who said that were people I suspected of being undercover police.
"Promote agorism via standup comedy!" is a nice idea. I won't hold my breath waiting, to be invited as a guest on the mainstream media. There are more talk shows than interesting guests, so statistically I'd have a chance. There still would be resistance to someone who intelligently explains the truth. It'll probably be another 2-3 years before I get more active. I'm waiting to see if I relapse. I need to get my own apartment before I can be more active at promoting and practicing agorism.
It certainly would be cool to see Stefan Molyneux as a guest on the Daily Show or any mainstream media program. I doubt it will happen. The "debate ceiling" isn't ready for that. Too many State insiders would be deeply offended, if someone intelligently explained the anti-State viewpoint on TV.
State censorship will *NOT* allow Stefan Molyneux to be a guest on the Daily Show. Hopefully, I'm wrong, but I doubt it. Jon Stewart is a shill for the State. He's a slave-monkey who dances for his corporate masters.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Stefan Molyneux On The Daily Show?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm a donator to Stefan's work. As you say you wish to promote agorism via stand-up comedy, his mission is to promote philosophy via his work.
Criticizing him for not starting a DRO is not valid. Why? Who would do business with a DRO if all your customers are brainwashed into thinking the State will protect them? This fantasy is eroding with the demise of the State but a entrepreneur cannot compete with a player in an industry who can take money by force from its Customers regardless of quality of service.
As you noted, since you started your blog, you are seeing more and more people say "Taxation is theft!". Pro-State trolls are beginning to notice this as well and are stepping up their shrill feedback gibberish to obfuscate.
People are starting to seeing the truth but they need philosophy and a universal framework of ethics and more importantly raise their children better. Currently, the fastest way to destroy public support for government schools would be to introduce "Better Parenting" curricula from Grades 1-12 tailored to each grade level. If that happened, watch parents protest and riot against school boards if children would be permitted to have a comparative baseline as to what good parenting is...to what they are getting at home.
The abuse of the State is an effect of the abuse of the Family.
If the State fell tomorrow, we'd absolutely get another one as people have not been exposed to anarchic/agorist/voluntarist ideas.
Give it time, FSK. You do what you do best, Stefan does what he does best.
Stefan's idea of Dispute Resolution Organizations is very good.
The legal system is too slow and expensive and it only works for the rich.
We have piles of vague case law which are exploited by plaintiffs trolling for undeserved cash. It is in the interest of lawyers to keep the law as vague as possible. Once properly defined in writing, lawyers are needed less.
I've heard that one judge failed to say what the law was in a case and pushed it out for an out-of-court settlement. The judge could have clarified vague case law but preferred to keep the cash rich operation in action. Because the judge failed to say what the law was, it bounced back time and time again for appeals. The defendant lost a vast amount of money. In the end nobody won except the lawyers. In this case the law was vague case law that the plaintiff was trying to exploit in a situation whereby nobody was suffering and there was no loss.
In the current legal system anyone can set up a limited liability company with hardly any cash in its bank account and go around threatening to sue other companies or individuals with some money. They can't possibly lose as they sue in the name of the company with no assets. They just want a fast out-of-court settlement. You may want to look at 2 person companies with one lawyer and one "technical" person that has failed to produce one working product. These clowns like to sue big companies with real products.
Likewise an unemployed individual can get government funded legal aid to sue someone. Even if the case never wins it can go on for several appeals and bankrupt the defendant, who presumably can't get legal aid because he/she has a job. Best to sue over vague case law principles that you might be just able to infer from one case in totally different circumstances.
Some companies (and banks) have a cause in employment contracts saying the employee must use a private arbitration service and NOT sue them in a court.
The arbitration service gets its income from the banks and companies and NOT employees.
Obviously there is a bias to make decisions which favour the companies and banks paying and NOT the former or current employees.
I suppose this is an example of how not to implement a dispute resolution service.
In the UK, you need to be rich to bring a libel action. If you are a working man or woman the law of libel does not protect you.
Workers can't publicly comment on the Internet with total freedom about former companies and bosses because of libel law.
If there was good information publicly available about all the bad things managers, directors and companies do, then maybe perhaps they would be less likely to do bad things.
Abolishing libel law might lead to some new bad things, but overall for humanity total free speech might be a really good thing.
Post a Comment