STEFAN MOLYNEUX ANNIHILATES Sup Forums

Should Lolbertarians be hanged by their own innards?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SYc71ra4zTk
youtube.com/watch?v=-ZkMc5bvuyQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

only if they violate the NAP

I usually understand his tweets but what the fuck does this mean?

A husband has a monopoly on the extraction of sexual pleasure from his wife's body.

If you are a true capitalist, you'd let strangers fuck your wife for cash.

it would be funny to see the cults of molyneux and destiny clash.
youtube.com/watch?v=SYc71ra4zTk

i think he's trying to say "maybe you're okay with some monopolies and you don't realize it" in a clever way

unfortunately for him, he's not very clever, and should stick to making 60 minute vidoes with no point, since that seems to be working for him already

he's either anti-monopoly or advocating pic

it is an argument against unrestrained free-markets

Can you prove monopolies are inherently bad?

partnership is seen as a social monopoly.
the rejection of someone breaking this monopoly is then likened to economic monopolies and painted as hypocrisy.

There was a time when I thought his r/k breeding vids were the most important thing in politics.

this guy thinks he is a philosopher folks. lets all point and laugh

I can't say I've ever seen it. I tried to watch him "prove" that morality is objective but it's a 60 minute video and 10 minutes in he hadn't even begun to get to the point, so I closed it and haven't given him another chance.

He's wrong. A woman is like an employee in your family unit and recognized this way by the government. You don't let your employees work for others.

For the retards ITT, he's not advocating open relationships or some stupid bullshit. He's calling people who oppose monopolies hypocritical.

>partnership is seen as a social monopoly.
More of a social contract between two parts agreeing to only fuck each other.

all people who don't oppose their partners having an affair are literal cucks

His video on race and welfare use was good but it's way too fucking long.

Filthy materialist jew.

>implying this is a libertardian board

It's not 2011 anymore boyo. We've gone full 1488 once we saw what cuckbertarianism leads to.

>He's calling people who oppose monopolies hypocritical
Which is fucking retarded. An economic monopoly is not the same as someone agreeing to give you exclusive rights, and then breaking said agreement.
I like Molymeme, but he's way fucking off base here.

The difference is that one is a person where as a the other is a business. It's a non sequitur. Everyone should eat, so should the post office also eat? Like it's retard level logic.

For anyone who hasn't figured it out yet he's pro-monopoly, as in never touch any market, ever.

what don't you get bigot

>ancap flag
>opposes monopolies

did he just label women as commodities? lol

So what he is saying is that he is okay if his wife has an affair?

Problem:
couples are in consensual contracts with each other, they agree to exclusivity

one of them breaking this contract is not the same thing as a corporation gaining a monopoly in a market

is mollyjew literally retarded? (yes he is)

Yes, monopolies unilaterally result in poorer quality service/product for higher costs due to lack of competition.

That being said, equating monogamy with economic policy is fucking retarded, and Molymeme should feel bad for larping so hard as an intellectual after spewing this shit.

What a fucking brainlet

Since he made like 20 72min long videos about the importance of monogamy and the downsides of promiscuity, I just assume this isn't supposed to be an argument supporting the idea of 'sexual liberation'.
The only way this makes sense:
> government interventions break up monopolies
> Molyneux thinks this is bad since it is an initiation of force by the state
> just like people choose to live in a 'monopolistic' partnership they should be able to choose to trade (buy things from) with monopolistic companies

lol what a dumb faggot. remember when molyjew got btfo by that 14 yo mexican?

>A husband has a monopoly on the extraction of sexual pleasure from his wife's body
Not exactly, you haven't factored in the wife's masturbation

lol this, also cheating constitutes fraud in a sense so it's not even comparable. Fuck this stupid jew e-celeb retard.

He's saying if some business entity in ancapistan achieves a monopoly through its own merit, it should be able to keep it for as long as it deserves it

>swing and a miss is not an argument
Imagine if he actually adressed the argument instead of immediately going for his catchphrase as soon as he see anything

i meant to reply to (You) but somehow just clicked a random post

molymeme is a real dumbass sometimes. is he fucking around on his old lady and needs some ideology to justify it?

source?

comparing macroeconomy to marriage
molymeme has outdone himself

marriage is a contractual obligation

monopolies have no contractual obligation to have no competition

please tell me this is a fake tweet

Not only are corporations people, but people are corporations.

This nigger.

who does this? Who just willingly takes the definition of "monopoly" out of context and tries to project it onto something like marriage?

fuckin shitter wasn't even thinking before he posted that, isn't he married?

He sais monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing.

...u socialist lowlife lowbrain idiots.

Like regressing to Objectivism or something?

So he's saying he's a cuck now, and this is his rationalization for why it's OK?

I think most of you missed his point

We all once were at that stage. Now I see him as a useful first step towards true awakening for more normies. No wonder shills are so afraid of him.

>the 'not an argument' meme is real

Xes. At you. Sonce you are too stupid to comprehend what he says there.

what did he mean by this?
srsly, does he want us to cuck ourselves?

>marriage is a contractual obligation
Is dating a contractual obligation too? He didn't mention marriage.

Except that you are paying for the monopoly on the relationship by giving her money and stuff. If she stops giving you a monopoly on sex, it is only fair to stop giving her free stuff.

False Equivalence is not a very good argument there Stefan Molyneux.

By the same circular logic, any private property is also a Monopoly.

So typical of a ancap criticizer to make generalizations about the movement based on no research or intellectual integrity at all.

Lol, Molyneaux is another Jew trying to destroy white families.

Merry Christmas!

>get angry if partner has an affair
not if you're a faggot

This is supposed to be a philosopher, folks

Acting like monogamy and monopoly are the same thing, which is fucking stupid.

Oh sweetie, he has been a cuck since the last ten years.

dating is probationary period

Not true, as private property can be owned in part by multiple parties.

kys stefan.

>libertarian defends being cucked with objectivism

As expected really. He seems like the kinda guy who wants to watch people fuck his wife.

...

Legally? Sure, a few,

But often not.

Wouldn't a monopoly in that sense mean you (99.99% of the time) wouldn't even have a partner?

> He didn't really think that through did'e

youtube.com/watch?v=-ZkMc5bvuyQ

>cuck analogies

anarcho-capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin

How? End results. End result in both cases is a wealthy minority ruling over a majority that lives in abject poverty and works for shit pay in poor conditions, in a society with virtually no social mobility. The MEANS of attaining that status are different, but the end results are the same.

The only good economic ideology is one that seeks decentralization. Monopolies of power are anathema to a free society - no matter what form they take.

it's okay to cuck 4 bucks
captcha: general buckeye

> Stefan said "think about it"
> Sup Forums doesn't think about it and therefore doesn't understand what he meant by this
Guys don't be such retards, use your brain

i see stef has been studying swedish economics i see?

Free society can go suck a dick

if everybody is your partner... is anybody?

the alternate would be
> Many people who don't oppose monopolies don't get angry if their partner has an affair

They probably just don't care about anything really?

He's trying to philosophize an excuse to get his dicksucked by someone else than his wife/gf.

dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard
if two people own a business together, and one of them secretly starts a competing side business then yeah, there's a problem

>Comparing monopoly market to having a relationship with another person.
This guy is obviously trying to justify watching his wife get fucked with this retarded ass comparison.

monopoly=monogamy=monorail=monotheism=monolith=mononucleosis=monocle. these words and concepts are clearly morally interchangeable and analogous in every meaningful way

something like that. although after reading it 100 times it still doesnt make much sense.

>anti regulation = monopoly.
>not cheating = monopoly.
seems like an argument for fence sitting normies but its not a sound one.

it doesnt work for communists because the breed we have now are the open relationship cuck types, it doesnt work for liberals who love putting restrictions on people and business and artificially manipulate their situation without actual merit.

If hes just trying to pose to his audience that if they like monogamy then it should follow that they should like monopoly could be correct. but he has no argument. which is ironic. maybe he will make a video about it. If there is a bigger discussion to be had about traditional family values being symbiotic with libertarian or at least monopolistic business tendencies id like to hear his case for it. The problem is that libertarian can mean polyamory because its a "do what you want" ideology.

I dont know what to think, but im willing to give it a shot if hes going to go beyond a shitty tweet.

Are you retarded?

He is literally saying there are cases where monopolies make sense not abstractly advocating for sloots

absent of government intervention or protection a monopolist, and I mean a company that controls a lot of the market, would have to continually improve in order to maintain market share. There would be no barriers to entry into a market and thus there would be near constant competition. Monopolies today always a result of government protectionism somewhere.

The most monopolist industries are the ones with the most government regulations and protections: Healthcare, Telecommunications, Automotive, Utilities, etc.

Government is also the biggest monopoly, so if you're against monopolies you're against governments.

Molyneux doesn't know what a contract is

we evolved from animals. monkeys, means men have to compete for a mate, woman dont, no matter what they do they end up passing on their dna. what girls woman call jealousy is a deep felling connected to our money past. woman dont ever get that same feeling. its why suicide are up ect. now on top of that we have STD and STI's that can make you infertile and ones that cant be cured, no matter what you do you are at risk. even with protection. this argument is one sided.

>Yes, monopolies unilaterally result in poorer quality service/product for higher costs due to lack of competition.
Yeah maybe when they're held in place by glow in the dark CIA niggers, you didn't propose anything that makes them bad inherently

Dammit. Who fiercely oppose monopolies of companies and conglomerates. That, not this bullshit. Can you fairly compare google having a monopoly on your accounts and data with your partner having an affair? Especially when the relationship is technically a contractual agreement to not fuck anyone else while in said relationship? Seriously, what the fuck is this false equivalence nonsense?

Right, voluntary monopolies (of the kind that could exist in a free society) are fine, because people have to voluntarily give their money to the monopolist. For instance a lot of small towns will have one store serve the entire town but no one cares if it's a monopoly.

>Is Canadian
I'm sorry that a fellow Canadian has caused this logical fallacy upon you. Where I am we are not leftists, and this poorly reflects upon Canada and further adds to the "leaf" meme.

Keep in mind he's been to 3 universities apparently, so...

What IS the point?

what he's trying to do here is explain why he's now a statist.

But there is an argument after swing and a miss...

Whatever, I’ve been trying to get off the e celeb blue pill for a while. Now might be a good time to start

Hmm, I guess if I don't want my wife to fuck other people I SHOULD let all these huge corporations take over entire sectors of economy and rule with iron fists and treat people like trash without rights

Many people who fiercely oppose getting fucked in the ass like fucking a womans ass. Think about it.

You're a fucking retard if you think you can make an analogy based off ANYTHING that's similar.

>Some people like getting money, but oppose having money taken from them. Think about it.

communism seeks decentralization, but often ends up centralizes it because communism is retarded. You will often see commies talking about destroying hierarchy and perfect democracy, without thinking through the consequences. Pic highly related, anarcho-communism does not exist.

...

You sure?

>There would be no barriers to entry into a market

Incorrect. The monopolist creates barriers to entry. No government? Then the corporations becomes the government. If you're making money hand over fist, you can afford soldiers and with soldiers you can begin using violence against competitors.

It's simple things like this that ancap retards are incapable of understanding.

His IQ videos are. He presents them in a non-creepy way unliked Jared Taylor.

Terrible