Stephan Molyneux won’t engage me. It’s a loss for the movement really. The contrast would be brilliant.
SECRET: I might be an effete, but I know who I am marketing to: the same as Trump-the people willing to fight.
Stephan argues MORAL CHOICE, and I argue LEGAL LIMITS. His Golden rule and my Silver. But it’s the same msg.
It’s sometimes hard to grasp the difference between creating MORAL POSSIBILITY and limiting IMMORAL ACTIONS.
Western Civilization does not engage in conflation, so RELIGION, MORALITY, and LAW are different disciplines.
Stephan practices Moral Philosophy,and I Practice Moral LAW. (Positive advocacy vs Negative threat). Same Msg
We require BOTH. Positive advocacy for the purpose of pedagogy, and negative prohibition for limits.
This is why Stephan’s work and mine overlap so much, but ‘sound’ different. He’s a teacher, I’m a prosecutor.
And if you understand scientific epistemology that’s how it functions: positive THEORY and negative TEST.
Stephan made a career out of educating. I’ve made a body of law, and I teach prosecutors. It’s that simple.
The Propertarian Institute