Who's willing to bet his wife wants an 'open relationship'?

Who's willing to bet his wife wants an 'open relationship'?
This cuckold faggot narcissist cult-leader has officially lost his mind.

Other urls found in this thread:

altfeldinc.com/pdfs/BASICECONOMICS.pdf
defoo.org/inner-circle/
defoo.org/colleen-cowgill/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Really joggles my nogging.

Not bad, I'm poasting.

doesn't that mean that all antifa/communists are cucks?

Dont need this tweet to come to that conclusion

I honestly can't tell if he's trying to say that monopolies aren't so bad, or that having an affair is okay.

False Equivilence

not an argument

Ok, that's it, I 'll never watch or listen this faggot again.

Equating love with market share.

>t. Virgin high schoolers in ROTC that believe anything this guy has to say.

An arm brace on an AR isn't liberty...

flawless logic

He's saying they're hypocrites and therefore it's best not to listen to these people. YOU MUST FOLLOW THESE RULES BASED ON WHAT I BELIEVE except I won't because I don't believe in these rules.

You can't debate with these people, they're insane.

ITT: people who don't understand the original statement. OP included

yeah but monopolies and affairs are not the same thing

He did a call with a couple completely destroying the idea of polyamory and many presentations against promiscuity, I'd say he isn't in an open relationship.

A monogamous relationship is a monopoly on your partner's reproductive rights.

I agree
I think he means that monopolies aren't necessarily bad, which is true, but that's a retarded way of saying it.

It comes off as promoting cuckoldry.

Still not remotely the same thing. It's a limited analogy that doesn't walk on all fours.

What? HOW do you get that from the statement? Monopolies ARE bad, he talks about this in his show all the time. Affairs are bad too.

How are they not the same thing? Do other men have access to your woman's vagina?

If I buy a dildo and suck it and stick it in my ass, am I gay? Think about it

Not an argument

Not this fucking thread again.

sage

Hes talking in favour of monopolies not against having a monopoly on your wifes pussy. Hes an ancap afterall

...

>windows phone
>flag
Checks out

In a free market harmful monopolies can't exist, because other firms can always enter the market and compete at much lower prices.

However, it is possible for one firm to maintain a large share of the market, but only if they continue to keep prices lower than the competition. So in a free market, monopolies can form, they just can't raise prices or other firms will enter the market and compete with them.

For a real-life example, oil prices were actually lower under the Standard Oil monopoly than after it was broken up. If Standard Oil had artificially raised the prices, tons of other oil companies would have sprung up to compete with them.

So monopolies can't be harmful in a free market (if anything they're helpful because they can be more efficient because of economies of scale).

>I don't understand basic concepts such as monopolies
FTFY

by promoting the equivalence (which he would label as 'not an argument') he legitimizes BOTH ideologies, rather than undermining either. Molymeme is such a fucking faggot

>Not an argument

altfeldinc.com/pdfs/BASICECONOMICS.pdf
Start on page 8 and educate yourself.

Monopolies are only harmful when they can use government power to make it difficult or impossible for other firms to enter the market.

...Nope. It doesn't really matter what Moly thinks and has not told us and we cannot come to any real conclusions. Either way it is a proposition to think about.

Small businesses rely on loyal customers that VALUE what they are doing, what they are about. It gives them a sense of purpose in comparison to the generic norm.

The people who don't like monopolies are people that like exclusivity on a smaller scale, a "fandom" is important to independent music artists for example.

They could have been playing the field themselves and once the terms of marriage have been shown to have been broken they are "angry" at the disloyalty and probably dishonesty.

Happy
Sad
Angry
Calm

These are simple words that people reach out for when trying to discribe emotions.

Dismayed
Disappointed
Dejected

Might better describe marital problems where trust was what was being signed up to.

both are right

>:

The real key to all this is that people aren't educated. No matter what system, if you aren't educated in the subject you're going to get taken advantage of.

We can have the fairest system of all, but people are just simply stupid. It's time to let go of your ideologies and focus on getting better personally, acquire wealth and use that for the good cause. This way you'll reach way more than this endless circle of blaming everyone.

Man, it's hard being this enlightened sometimes.

> because other firms can always enter the market and compete at much lower prices
Citation needed.
Also retarded Quote.jpg that means nothing.
I'm no socialist but then again i don't really care about extracting money from every situation either.

Suppose I have a monopoly on oil, as an example. If I set the price of oil way higher than it would naturally be, how can I stop other oil companies from springing up and selling their oil at a lower price?

The only way I could would be to lobby the government to use force and coercion to preserve my monopoly, but that couldn't happen in a free market.

maybe I'll finally register a skype and submit my question to him although i never watched the guy

Fuck that made me violently angry

I don't get mad. I just dump her and go for another.

he meant the opposite of what youre intending to portray, shill

>3 teenage children
>she doesn't enjoy sex with him

I'm calling bullshit on this to be honest

I'm not smart enough for this.

wouldn't this make more sense if it talks about free trade?

So you are a consumer, and your wife is a monopoly. You go out dating, and you pick your wife because she provides the best service. You can break off with your service at any time making it not a monopoly. Her existence doesn't affect the local industry. If this was the 60s, I can't break up with AT&T because it was the only telephone company around, meaning if I break it off, I would have no telephone. In order to get a telephone, AT&T will literally be my only option. If I break it off with my wife, I can find a new wife.

This is a false equivalence because the premise suggests that these two systems behave the same when they don't. I'm not sure if it's false equivalence and I don't want to search cause this thread might 404

NO THIS THREAD CANNOT 404 withHOUT SOMEONE ADDRESSING ME

>What is time and losing desire

is he trying to say his wife is a prostitute?

You retards are completely misinterpreting him. Stefan is replying to people who say "how will libertarianism deal with monopolies?".

...

damn no lie that actually made me think

REEEE SOMEONE ANSWER ME.

Hey fellas. You look like real cool guys. I bet you have everything going for you. I got something you might like. You interested? Good, how about a nice larp to get your blood boiling. It's good to get fired up about fake Internet stories that never happened. You hear that latest cuck story? Ooh, it's a good one.

No. Stefan is being retarded. He made probably the worst analogy possible. Just tefan worshipping making sure their argument god doesn't make a mistake

Is he implying that the partner who gets angry presumes to have a monopoly over the partner who has the affair?

Isn't it more apt to compare relationships to something like a business partnership, in which case one partner working for a competitor would be a perfectly logical reason for the other partner to get angry?

I don't know if I'm just not understanding him or what. It sounds to me like he's being dumb.

Koo...dont have time to select all the dumb assholes so im just doing the first, if your comment looks like these, you are a dumb asshole too.

Continuing on, if you are entp and upset at this, fuck you. Stefan is NOT IMPLYING ANYTHING HE IS JUST STATING A FACT. If you got upset at that tweet and you watch molenuex, you clearly dont actually watch molenuex, because he does this shit all the time. It may seem that there is a loaded implication on the reader from him, but he is again, just stating a fact and helping a non-asshole reader into arguments that might work the other way.

Stefan and other entp's literally dont give a shit what they say or what line of thinking something must be in, we need to see things from all veiwpoints and get all the facts, hence the tweet

>not leaving
Why? Like why?

>think about it

ok, i did.

We do not want corporate monopolies because we desire competition, it encourages competition and avoids stagnation.

We *do* want "relationship monopolies" because they're stable. Sure, the 6 girlfriend you have no might be surpassed with that 7 you're eyeing but the stability is more important to you than the minor step upwards, and not having to worry about *her* looking to trade you away.

Was this supposed to be Molyneux being *clever*? Because its actually cucking stupid.

>It may seem that there is a loaded implication on the reader from him, but he is again, just stating a fact
Why add the "Think about it." then, if he isn't actually trying to make a point and so doesn't actually need you to think about the information presented?

When you read a tweet that doesnt connect your ego and you dont have a sense that someone implied something, you think

When you read a tweet that connects your ego and you think the poster is implying something that makes you feel bad, you also think

No difference, try to think about it without your ego, like what are the implications of this on a large popuation scale, what actually casues them to be correlated, etc

Intellectual property is a also a form of monopoly, yet's it's a pillar of libertarianism

What now Stefan ?

You are implying that he is implying that people who get angry are doing the bad thing. Just calm the fuck down and realize you as a person is logical.

I personally think you should be so angry that you separate, better in the end

>what actually casues them to be correlated
I think the reason they are correlated is that both stances are logical. Monopolies are bad, as are unfaithful partners.

This being the case, one could assume that many people who fiercely oppose monopolies get angry if their partner has an affair. In fact, most people in general get angry if their partner has an affair.

The fact being presented is not in any way different from what one would expect, as far as I can tell.
Given that, I don't see what use there is for posting it.

ALRIGHT GUYS SO IT FUCKING TURNS OUT LIBERTARIANISM IS LOGICAL AND EVERYONE ELSE IS DUMB

ITS ALMOST LIKE ITS MOLENEUXS JOB TO TELL PEOPLE THAT
...kinda like the Sup Forums circlejerk

>THIS IS TOTALLY A PISTOL GUISE
>TOTALLY NOT A SHOULDER STOCK GUISE
>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED GUISE

American gun laws are hilariously complicated and symbolic. Love it.

Ill post again to save future intellectuals from a trap ive been stuck in

The logical way is not the one way to see the world, everything is a human construction so feelings matter just as much as logic.

In the wise words of the strokes:
Ooooooo-ooooo-ooooooh
Some people think they're always right
Others are quiet and uptight
Others they seem so very nice nice nice nice, oh
Inside they might feel sad and wrong, oh no

Twenty-nine different attributes
Only seven that you like, oh
Twenty ways to see the world, oh
Twenty ways to start a fight, oh

Oh don't, don't, don't get up, I can't see the sunshine
I'll be waiting for you, baby 'cause I'm through
Sit me down, shut me up
I'll calm down and I'll get along with you

>2017
>monogamy

Kek, enjoy getting bored with one pussy your entire life. If you can't get laid on the regular by your early 20s, take a long look at your job prospects, your ability to make conversation, and your exercise habits. Its not hard, girls want to fuck just as much as you do.

Wife and i have threesomes on the reg in addition to the side pussy. Shits cash, you will understand when you graduate from high school and realize how much fun sleeping with somebody new is.

It's because all restrictive gun laws should be considered void. So it gets pretty fucking dumb. The ATF being a bunch of retards doesn't help either.

whats up with these butthurt molymeme threads? Did something happen? Can I get a ultra-super-duper-mega-gigahertz gestalt? I don't watch him that much like I used to before, he was my first redpill.

We have to fill out loads of forms and meet a bunch of conditions to own firearms privately, but at least once those hoops are done you can just buy the fucking gun. No more wining about too short, too long, not a pistol, can't have a stock, MUST have a stock, that's not a stock, WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY? DON'T YOU KNOW FOREIGN GUNS KILL TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE DOMESTIC GUNS DO? Here, have some domestic parts to domesticate your foreign gun. Oh, is that length in centimeters? Then you'll need a tax stamp or go to federal prison, boy.

American gun laws, ATF letters and NFA qualifications are hilarious to look into if you're even remotely interested in legal stuff, guns or both.

For those who are not aware Stefan Molyneux is absolutely sick in the head. Check this out:

defoo.org/inner-circle/

>defoo.org/inner-circle/

eeeeehehehehe. I heard that meme king was a kind of cult leader. Didn't realise it was quite this stereotypically awful though..

I dare say most people would be angry at an affair. Might he as well say: "most people who hate x also have two ears"?

Dude doxes people who leave the group and exposes their inner most secrets:

defoo.org/colleen-cowgill/

>Colleen Cowgill was a member of the Inner Circle of Freedomain Radio. She struggles with narcissistic personality disorder as a result of abuse in childhood. Molyneux tried to help her, but in the end her vanity triumphed over philosophy. Colleen couldn’t accept that Molyneux had started a movement that was bigger than her, and felt heartbroken if he didn’t respond to her skype messages.

>After the breakup, she hoped to attract a new male and was having trouble without the use of makeup. She has struggled with acne and feels insecure if people can see it. Colleen now applies a thick layer of foundation, nearly as thick as her false self.

>In a Freedomain Radio podcast on sibling abuse, Colleen says that both she and her brother Edward Cowgill were physically abused as children. Though, she was considered the favorite child and thus received less abuse than her brother. Her parents, Keith and Mary Cowgill, are irrational, mystic, Christians.

>Colleen believes she was molested as an infant or toddler and that her parents kept this a secret, hoping she would forget. She believes this caused all manner of degeneracy and promiscuous behavior at much too young of age. She sent naked photographs to boys at as early as 14. She had sex with a 20 year old male when she was only 15.

>As a result of rejecting philosophy, Colleen is now stuck in perpetual adolescence. She’s almost 30 and still childless and in college. As was predicted by DeFOO.org years ago, she has broken up with her fiance Courtney Hunter. Now she smugly brags about her new non-white boyfriend. Keith must be thrilled.

Who the fuck writes all of this?

>He's saying they're hypocrites and therefore it's best not to listen

Everything can be contradictory, lots of reality is.

I like burgers. Doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite because I don't like them as food every day.