Form: Reply

—“Honestly though, there needs to be a debate between Curt and Stefan.”— [L]ook I love Stefan Molyneux. I don’t want to debate him. I think the two of us together to could radically transform the libertarian and conservative movements for the better. I think we could have a panel discussion with the two of us, where we both answered questions from libertarians. I think what you’d find is that I answer some things differently. But the overlap is enormous. Stefan is an exceptional advocate and educator. I’m a pretty hard core philosopher. I wish I could communicate as well as Stefan. I can’t. I never will. Heck, there are already guys that are better at communicating my ideas than I am. It’s just like debating Hoppe. The argument would be terribly technical but in the end it’s matter of profound agreement (at least on my end). I would like to have a panel discussion maybe to show people how we would *say the same thing* differently. I have a luxury these guys dont. I didn’t start out with a libertarian cause. I started out trying to solve the problem of communicating the western group evolutionary strategy in ratio-scientific terms. And I’ve been working with software a long time to support myself so to speak. Software is an existentially demanding and very precise language. So habituating strict construction while avoiding rationalism and justificationism made it easier for me to fix Hoppe’s kantian arguments, and not fall into the justificationary problem Stefan Molyneux has faced. I had to attack libertarianism for three reasons: 1) I had to test my theories against criticism – I”m a scientist. There is just no other way than to get into a street fight and win without all the Queensbury rules that support the entrenched paradigm. 2) I had to end the immorality of Rothbardianism as a distraction for libertarians, NRx, and conservatives. Otherwise I couldn’t unify conservatives and libertarians again behind a single movement. I had to deprive libertines of moral ground. 3) (Honestly) I knew it would draw fire and attention and it was good marketing. I don’t think it takes any work to attack Conservatism. Movement conservatism so evidently failed, that no one even argues using it.

—“Honestly though, there needs to be a debate between Curt and Stefan.”— [L]ook I love Stefan Molyneux. I don’t want to debate him. I think the two of us together to could radically transform the libertarian and conservative movements for the better. I think we could have a panel discussion with the two of us, where we both answered questions from libertarians. I think what you’d find is that I answer some things differently. But the overlap is enormous. Stefan is an exceptional advocate and educator. I’m a pretty hard core philosopher. I wish I could communicate as well as Stefan. I can’t. I never will. Heck, there are already guys that are better at communicating my ideas than I am. It’s just like debating Hoppe. The argument would be terribly technical but in the end it’s matter of profound agreement (at least on my end). I would like to have a panel discussion maybe to show people how we would *say the same thing* differently. I have a luxury these guys dont. I didn’t start out with a libertarian cause. I started out trying to solve the problem of communicating the western group evolutionary strategy in ratio-scientific terms. And I’ve been working with software a long time to support myself so to speak. Software is an existentially demanding and very precise language. So habituating strict construction while avoiding rationalism and justificationism made it easier for me to fix Hoppe’s kantian arguments, and not fall into the justificationary problem Stefan Molyneux has faced. I had to attack libertarianism for three reasons: 1) I had to test my theories against criticism – I”m a scientist. There is just no other way than to get into a street fight and win without all the Queensbury rules that support the entrenched paradigm. 2) I had to end the immorality of Rothbardianism as a distraction for libertarians, NRx, and conservatives. Otherwise I couldn’t unify conservatives and libertarians again behind a single movement. I had to deprive libertines of moral ground. 3) (Honestly) I knew it would draw fire and attention and it was good marketing. I don’t think it takes any work to attack Conservatism. Movement conservatism so evidently failed, that no one even argues using it.