What's your opinion on Stefan Molyneux?

What's your opinion on Stefan Molyneux?

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymotion.com/video/x2vfz4e
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Say it,

Google defoo and Stefan, there's some mainstream news articles covering how sick he is. He tells people to abandon their families because the family members are not ancap.

Hope you're doing well.

Boring cunt that panders to 16 year olds who browse pol.

Source?

I'd shoot him for a dollar.

He wishes he could be a cult leader but he hasn't succeeded. I don't like him.

not an argument

...

maybe it's all jewish lies?

dailymotion.com/video/x2vfz4e

Stefansa jew. Mark me surprised.
The meme contains a statement in support of a proposal. If you're unable to argue against it you can of course say "not an argument", as Stefan has told you to do when faced with an argument you can't counter with an argument.

what part about not an argument don't you fucking understand?

Do you support me being shot?

Do you think taxation is robbery??

Argument is a statement in support of a proposal.

The statement is:
>In anarchocapitalist society you can hoard all the water in a heavily populated area and let people die of thirst
>The proposal is that private property rights should not be respected in some instances

If you lack sense of humour so much you can't understand this I assure you, you will never get a gf.

>hurr durr i think my statement is still an argument despite being informed twice that it's not

Here to demonstrate to you how twisted your logic is.

If the rules of taxation are decided by democratically elected government, no.

There is a statement in support of a proposal here (), if you can't understand it you lack sense of humour. Every sane person can understand the argument in the meme and you are just pretending you're not.

are you going to make me tell you again?

...

Show Stefan my ancap penis

Dumping Stefan memes

How the fuck did they get control of all the water without taking it from everyone by force?

>If the rules of taxation are decided by democratically elected government, no.
if 2 men decide to rape a woman, is it consensual because 2/3 participants agree?

It's a hypothetical situation.

The majority of society does not agree. If 2/3rds of society agreed it's fine. But there's no reason to believe society would do this anyway.

Post your rare Stefans

do you base your (lack of) morality on impossible hypothetical disaster scenarios? because making those up and expecting me to take a stance of moral relativism is not an argument

>one fucking dollar!?!

It's a fucking garbage hypothetical.

You know what would happen? The populous would fucking move a few miles away and get water from someone who actually has their own well being in mind. The now totally alone waterman now has to feed clothe and otherwise maintain himself totally alone, unless this magic waterman has somehow taken control of the entire planet (not by force), and somehow has the ability to contain the water supply totally on his own (without the use of force).

Why do people assume that people wouldn't pay for services such as law enforcement in an Ancap society?

>the best argument against anti-statism is a hypothetical situation where an insane person magically creates a state

every time

NOT AN ARGUMENT
>NOT AN ARGUMENT
NOT AN ARGUMENT
>NOT AN ARGUMENT

...

>my shitty hypothetical got BTFO, better laugh at this random shitposter that'll clear things right up

okay heres another

some billionaires wife dies of brain cancer then he finds out that he has brain cancer and only 2 weeks to live and he becomes so angry at the world that he buys up rare art like the mona lisa, stary night ect... he then says he is going to destroy the paintings.

you are a security guard at his mansion and you have the option to steal the paintings and stash them safely without getting caught. the man then dies and you return them to museum. do you do it?

The point stands, you have to change my hypothetical to make the case that respecting private property in this case makes sense.

>opposing points of view
that are not an argument.
try again, winland

You can see the argument here , you just pretend you don't get it.

...

...

Why don't you, oh I don't know, talk to the guy? Someone able to maintain billions of dollars in wealth is probably not the stupidest human being on the planet? Why is an easily replicated work of art worth more than the dying wish of someone who's probably done quite a bit for quite a lot of people if he's a billionare. Why would people sell these works of art to him anyway? Wouldn't museums be under pressure of those who fund them to maintain their own collection of artwork?

If I have to choose between money being stolen from me so unproductive lowlifes can continue to be paid to shit out kids who will then vote to take more money away from my children, or burning some art that has already been immortalized in many different mediums. I'll burn the art.

Yuuuge wannabe philosopher.

I already did in my post. Everyone would leave this insane man to find a viable source of water. The insane man would then live out his miserable life completely redistricted from society with no way to maintain a decent standard of living, and everyone would go "wow hording all the water to myself is a fucking stupid idea, better never do that again".

The billionaire doesn't have a say in whether the security guard take it or not. The moral decision is made by the guard.