Stefan Molyneux’s speech on The First Temptations of Christ
Posted by Solver 5 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
“All evil arises out of the desire for the unearned”
Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio delivers a powerful speech at the Eagle Forum in St Louis.
https://youtu.be/DQ6bUtq3yoQ
Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio delivers a powerful speech at the Eagle Forum in St Louis.
https://youtu.be/DQ6bUtq3yoQ
"To see the farm is to leave it..."
What’s amazing is all those sex and gender study based videos that are not hit with any age restrictions by youtube, owed by Google.
His distinction between purposeful charity and the welfare state is subtle but very apt. Most on this site do not think the government is the solution to personal problems. That pretty much sums up the 43 minute talk.
(I listened to most of it but not all.)
The temptation of food
The temptation of the Safetynet
And the temptation of power over men
All very relevant today.
I thought it was a very good speech and he did get a standing ovation at the end.
This past year Stefan has said some very interesting things about Christianity. He has implied that without the moral guidance offered by it (read that again carefully) how does one establish their own values? I think this is very astute. It does not say Christianity is required...but relevant. I have come to see things this way. With a lack of values, what do you get? Where do you draw the line. If not from Christianity, better establish them somehow. I tend to agree that you shouldn't chase the neighbor's wife, murder people, etc.
Maybe after the dust settles more people will start reading Ayn Rand and work their way back to respecting individual rights.
At the animal level, a creature takes what it wants and finds. And without having a cognitive understanding of property rights, even animals ferociously defend what they stake out as their territory. That territory is needed to support their survival. Nature is a system of predators and prey, evolved through a constant contest of getting what survival demands. Losers become extinct, or adapt within their niche. Conquerors write the history books, continuing to promote the war meme.
A success at taking is what constitutes "the earned". Humans, once they evolved to a more advanced state of mental faculties and abstract thought --beyond the animal's direct method of forceful appropriation, killing and devouring--developed social contracts of mutual non-aggression, enshrined in bodies of ethical principles upon which thriving and peaceful societies could be built.
Too bad the primitive program of power and predation still pollutes the human operating system , leading to ever escalating mutual destruction, wars, slavery, expropriation and genocide, all directed at one’s own kind. These practices are anchored in fraudulent beliefs in a higher power, from alpha males, tribal chieftains, kings… and gods, thus justifying the use of destructive force against other humans.
These are defective programming, becoming a form of cannibalism draining others’ energy, time, property, and individual freedom, if not outright their flesh and blood. We see this coming to a head in today’s virulent conflict between the haves and have-nots, where the rich are accused of acquiring their wealth wrongfully, thereby justifying the poor in their hatred of the rich and their political maneuverings to redistribute that wealth. What is rightfully “earned” is no longer defined. Everything is up for grabs.
When governments were “instituted” to secure individual rights, the people hired as administrators were not to be rulers, only employees. Gradually that system morphed into the old rulers and ruled formula of tribal societies. People wanted to be taken care of, not pull their own weight, becoming obedient subjects under paternalistic management, pleading historic injustices as excuses to demand special treatment at the expense of people who are generations removed from the original injustices that past cultures regarded as normal conditions of life. Under the euphemistic label of “Progressives”, groups agitate to spread predatory practices into ever more hands, pushing for change that lets them take more than they have earned. Under the comforting label of “Conservative”, other groups aim to preserve their historic practices, resisting change so as to be able to keep their gains.
In sum, the best formula for peaceful, mutually respectful and survival-protecting relationships is “Galt’s Oath”. You know, the one that starts with “I swear by my life, and my love of it… “
So, if someone desires the unearned, is that evil, not evil or NOTA?
Is evasion evil, not evil or NOTA?
And yes, as Ayn Rand observed, just as "thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed ... his basic vice, the source of all his evils is [evasion]."
“...the idea that the racial group is the primary unit of reality, and its benefit, whatever that means, is the standard of value by reference to which one should choose his actions.”
( Had to search through the comments to find this )
https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/cultur...
But, if thinking that people with some range of skin pigment color can be identified as a collective all needing to be helped or harmed, is racist, then the vast majority of people on the planet are racist. Maybe that is the point.
It's pure poison and not to be tolerated one iota (which certainly goes for Jordan Peterson or any other Jungian as well).
Fortunately, the "reaction" I had sent me running back to Ayn Rand in horror of what was happening right in front of my eyes.
Please watch as much of "The Meaning of 'Social' Justice — Racists for Egalitarianism" as as you have time for -- or can stomach:
"In this episode of Functional Philosophy [https://youtu.be/6MahagRBLJk], I [Charles Tew] discuss the philosophical foundations and implications of social justice." (~45 min)
I also, belatedly saw an expose on PBS of the whole ACORN fiasco that was also perfectly in line with my traumatic self-negating experience with these nihilists. People need to know!!
It doesn't work, because their only goal is to negate any self they touch with their vile poison of otherism taken to its logical, tribalist, primitivist extreme (i.e., a person who's simply mistaken or virulently irrational can only destroy or be destroyed).
Taking an extreme: If the implications are that enraged non-white people are going to collectively march in step to hunt down and exterminate the “white oppressors” (every white man, woman and child) all over the globe, I think it would matter, a lot!
If I thought such "differences" mattered I'd be a racist egalitarian too.
Actually, I am a racist elitist.
The creation of value gives us a reason to be truly happy, to have pride in accomplishment, reflecting upon the value created both, of yourself and of others (that which makes us human) gives us our sovereignty, independence and mutuality with your fellow man.
That's the difference between being Morally Human and Immorally Humanoid.
Thanks Solver.
Putting your post and mine together, I now can state definitively the Rand Did have a sense of this and expressed it throughout her life, her philosophy and her writings, even though she may not have stated it outright. She also did appreciate what the west inherited from the great philosophers of the past.
I was thinking way too deeply on the subject but now I see it.
Thanks again.
Sounds like you watched at least part of the video
Ayn Rand did write, “The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time.”
I like that saying, I don't remember it, (it's been a while), but it sure seems that's where we were headed before Trump...I worry about post Trump...we might repeat Franklin's response of: If you can keep it.
Contrast this with Ayn Rand: "Truth is the recognition of reality; reason, man's only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth." (emphasis added)
On power, she draws a fundamental distinction (contra Anarcho-Molyneux's equivocation) between economic and political power. (1) "economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering [a value, while] political power is exercised by a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, death." (emphases hers)
Thinking on this, I've come up with my own definition of a criminal (and you may quote me):
"A criminal is a self-appointed politician posing as a businessman." -Egopriest
1) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/eco...
The result: a religious dictatorship of the morally-righteous over all who would only live for their own happiness on earth.