The Art of The Argument: Western Civilization's Last Stand

This is basically a book about political issues, but based on philosophical logic, thus the emphasis on logical argument. Molyneux characterizes the main debate in Western Civilization as between philosophy and sophistry, but it could just as easily be termed as between libertarianism and socialism, free enterprise and the welfare state, or right and left. His positions are essentially libertarian but he never uses that term.His main focus is on the welfare state which he shows breeds crime and poverty as well as normalizing dysfunctional relationships. Proponents of the welfare state present it as benefitting the common good but the main beneficiaries are the welfare recipients and the bureaucrats who tax producers to run the welfare state. Welfare recipients get paid for irresponsible behavior such as remaining unemployable or having children they cannot afford.The welfare state thus subsidizes bad decisions and bad behavior. Needless to say this cannot go on forever as society must deplete its capital to fund the welfare state. Above all the welfare state has created a cult of victimhood where such victims are the heroes of today. The welfare state has also overturned the definition of justice. It used to be that justice meant equality of opportunity. Now it means equality of result where the state uses force to create such outcomes.Molyneux explains that humans are social animals and still possess a tribal mentality. Conformity to tribal rules is necessary for survival as humans generally cannot survive as solitary beings. But when such rules become too rigid society can stagnate and decline as happened with China until recently. The opposite problem is that rules can become too loose which causes chaos and subsequent decay. This was the case in the Roman Empire and is the case in America today where the country becomes more chaotic as the welfare state encourages dysfunctional behavior based on a mentality of grievances.The three main elements of Western Civilization have been free speech, free enterprise, and science. All three tend to disrupt the status quo and conventional political power. The welfare state now tries to suppress any speech which questions the welfare state, as is especially evident in academia, which is one of the main beneficiaries of the welfare state and one of its main supporters. The main thrust of the welfare system is of course to destroy free enterprise to make more people dependent on it. But the welfare state values science as it can use modern technology, especially computers, to expand the welfare state.History has shown that stable societies, whose stability has made them powerful, eventually overrun chaotic societies. The best known example for us is the fall of the Roman Empire. Another prominent example is the subjugation of China by western powers in the 19th century. Today it is the chaotic west which is declining while more stable societies like China and Islam which are rising. Islam has succeeded in essentially invading Western Europe, thereby replicating the early barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire.Western society has now reached a point where success is increasingly defined as exploitation while failure is a virtue. The state increasingly regulates the economy and confiscates wealth to fund the welfare state. Much of the justification for this is that since people are generally physically similar any success must be due to exploitation. But intelligence, ability, and effort are not distributed equally. The welfare state is basically an attempt to forcefully "improve" reality.Molyneux states that today's welfare state is based on the resentment of the less capable or intelligent. He adds that virtue eventually has its revenge. This means that the welfare state will collapse and the survivors will the producers who will then begin a new system based on free enterprise.

A fantastic book deserving of five stars for how it will clarify the purpose, method, and stakes of The Argument in our lives; but which falls short of addressing some of the most pressing issues of today for which nothing but The Argument could be objectively relied upon to provide any path towards effective solutions.If The Argument is a superior tool to statism and religion for advancing civilization [Kindle Location 608]; then would it not follow that the most capable of advancing The Argument are the most equipped to reason-out solutions for issues beyond the limits of statist power and religious outreach?Do these most capable individuals owe a self-imposed duty to not only inform others in the Art of the Argument but to also provide at least the basis of a blueprint challenging the toughest modern issues? [Locations: 2063, 2072, 1521] For if they do not embrace such challenges, the twinge of hypocrisy appears and the question of the Argument's potency in macro issues is manifested. That Stefan frequently espouses platitudes in how The Argument is a method of engagement with reality by which our civilization can save itself and make it to the stars [ex. see Alex Jones Interview w/ Stefan posted 9/28/17] - sets the leadership bar high in that he shows us not only how to develop mental muscles but also must provide examples attempting the best use of said mental muscles.This is why four stars; because for example rather than tackling a monopolist argument (presumption being such argument is a tough modern issue worthy of debate), it is briefly questioned and thereafter abruptly dismissed [Location 1104]. More on this in Part #2.What follows are two examples with further Kindle book references where there is either an error or an issue of sufficient importance as ought to merit further Argument.Part #1:Starting at [Location 1131] Stefan states: "The purpose of a debate is to compare an Argument to the truth. Either person may succeed, both persons may fail, but they cannot both succeed, since having a debate means taking opposing - or at least incompatible - positions."Actually it is possible for both persons to succeed, as I will now prove with a hypothetical example: Two explorers have entered a maze seeking the most efficient path to the maze's exit. After exploring the labyrinth for several hours they enter a room from the west, from which they can take either a path north or south; or turn around. Standing at the center of the room, each explorer looks up the north path and the south path. There are petroglyphs on the north path which Explorer 1 argues mark this path as the most efficient way out. There are a series of torch mounts on the south path which Explorer 2 argues mark this path as the most efficient way out. Each Explorer takes the path they argued in support of and they travel at the same speed. A half hour later, they encounter each other where these paths connect just before the exit.The north path and the south path are of equal length and it will take the same amount of time to reach the exit from either. Hence "If we are lost, and you say 'go south,' and I say 'go north,' we can't both be right." [Location 1131]; therefore as shown by this example there are instances - albeit rare or infrequent instances - where we can both be right.Rather than supposing that the merit of The Argument hinges on arriving at a definitive objective truth; as a premise a 'sincere belief'* in objective truth ought to be sufficient. Here, both Explorers held a 'sincere belief' that their "side" of The Argument would lead them to the most efficient way out of the maze (their common goal). However the measure of objective reality is that both paths were equidistant options to the goal. Definition *: A sincere belief is a belief in the objective reality of a thing or things, just as they are, without bias or manipulation.Given the objective reality of the maze, there was no reason to debate as there was no "incompatibility" between sides of the debate.However consider the stakes for the debate, the Explorers (not knowing the layout of the maze) either find the most efficient way out of the maze, a way out of the maze, or no way out of the maze. So we could say that rather than risk finding no way out of the maze, the Explorers made a rational decision [meriting The Argument] to debate when a choice presented itself and there was evidence on both sides of the choice for (what the explorers respectively hoped [sincerely believed] was) the 'most' efficient way out of the maze.While often The Argument is merited because there is a 'most efficient way' to a goal in objective reality; there is always merit to The Argument where there is a 'sincere belief' in 'the most efficient way' to a goal (regardless of the objective reality). Because a 'sincere belief' puts The Argument to its intended use [education and/or improvement/answers]; and because a 'sincere belief' always merits The Argument - It is a better premise than the ultimate measure of objective reality as a merit for utilizing The Argument.Part #2:[Location 1104]. This is an invitation to debate or offer rebuttal. While I do not speak beyond myself when it comes to monopolist arguments in opposition to (some of) capitalism; I will advance the hinge factor of said monopolist arguments as I have encountered them.Definitions: Using Stefan's definition of capitalism [Location 1095]: "Capitalism simply means property rights, and free trade without coercive influence."Monopolist: An individual or corporation which has exclusive control over some sector of the economy or production. Agreements between individuals and corporations which create a monopoly only through virtue of said agreement will constitute monopolies under this definition.Preamble: The end of the monopolist question lies in the heart of property rights and this is the premise under scrutiny here. At what point is it nobler (nobler = of great benefit to many and diminished benefit to the few) to establish that there are limits to the right to property?As corporate consolidation continues and fewer individuals and corporations own more of the resources globally, will those defending capitalism and the free market ever be compelled to make a concession in their philosophy? If only a momentary lapse of reason between cycles in the civilization.Imagine a world of the not so distant future where it is very hard if not impossible to buy property, get loans, start a business because monopolists oppose said activities (read potential competition). When so much becomes owned by so few, why would they (monopolists) ever sell when they could rent? Hence if 99% of people around the planet could only buy consumer products and had to rent everything else; are the 99% to stoically maintain the 1%'s right to "their" property?Must billions live impoverished (and perhaps shorter) lives starved of their potential to empower the few (monopolists) to the opulence and control afforded by the status quo? The Argument that the few welcome innovation is as boring as the capitalism exploits workers arguments [Location 1334]; because there are numerous examples of patent buyouts where the patented technology would up-end current industry and therefore was shelved (the 15 second rechargeable battery and vegetable oil powered car are notable examples).If the few (monopolists and the otherwise global elite) truly wished to empower humanity they would be guiding society towards (perhaps) a meritocracy, where bringing the best ideas to fruition provides on the whole a cornucopia of greater collective benefits than costs.Technocracy is about efficiency and control, leveraging artificial advantages and championing the divide between those whose lives are to be enhanced or augment by technology and those who are of little or no further use, curbing or eliminating resources for the least efficient parts (ex. people).Between these philosophies the majority of the global elite (and some monopolists) are investing in technocracy; revealing their bias for billions of fewer humans and an expansion of artificial labor and intelligence. Simultaneously invoking an Armus (the skin of evil) where the global elite shed their own shortcomings to the greater strength of collective mind and muscle ((a metaphorical comparison)). Refer to Bill Gates TED talk about lowering carbon for the billions less of humans example.In the most simple terms how much do you respect the property rights of someone holding a gun to your head? The global elite (including monopolists) within the 1% are developing this very scenario. The rational actor (in the 99% or otherwise) respects themselves enough to fight for their lives, regardless that it might result in the destruction of property of persons leveling actual and metaphorical guns to their head.How many amongst the 1% have to have these guns leveled at how much of the global population before the philosophical champions of the free market will concede that we can no longer sustain the high standard of property rights (less the current intrusions of taxes and civil seizures)?Free market capitalism is ever more utopian as fewer control more and have fewer reasons to relinquish what that have amassed. The hard work that I have no less than accused Stefan of dodging to this point is how do we as a society argue for a compromise or compel a reform which embraces the best of capitalism with a modern reality that threatens the entire foundation of any capitalism?While a compelling argument might be fashioned that the necessity for a solution is at least a decade away; if the framework is not debated now, how will we ever pull ourselves together with a complex solution in the moment of crisis? How will this philosopher army be united without said blueprint/s? Mental muscles are great, but unless The Argument can deliver us from the pitfalls awaiting society in the near future - we will never truly know that The Argument was superior to statism and religion.

This book is more relevant now than in any time in history. They say that history repeats itself. It seems that the author, who is educated as an historian, explains why this tragedy continues to be so. People refuse to allow for disparities in mental capacities and therefore adopt equality of outcome mentalities. Rationality is abandoned while people manipulate others and use force opposed to cooperation. The economy breaks down and government control gets stronger until free thought is punished, many times with death.At a few points in the book the concept of counterfeiting currencies is brought up as an example. The author also explains that average men catch small animals in a persistence type fashion, while great men hunt large game towards achieving greatness. One must wonder, if the largest game of all, the elephant in the room, that is the entire financial parasitic system, isn't slaughtered by the BulleT Creatively designed to save humanity isn't already in place. Truth will prevail, but only if logic and reason is allowed to exist!

It is difficult to write about reason and logic, when one cannot dissociate ones social and political views from the task in hand. In this book Molyneux uses an aggressively punchy style, interpolated with slang asides and constant repetition. In itself, this becomes wearying after a while. It’s not far-fetched, to think that the hypnotic repetition and insistent tone are designed to lull the reader into acquiescence with a good deal that is dubious and over-simplified. Furthermore, there is an arrogance of tone that sits ill beside a subject that invites thoughtful, objective consideration.It’s never clear as to whom this book is aimed, certainly not at academic philosophers. There is an argument to be made that we have moved dangerously far from the age of the enlightenment, that we live in an age of unreason, especially as far as the media is concerned. Molyneux nods in this direction but never examines the issue in any depth. Ironically, the flood of emotion and often militantly angry emotion that passes for debate, infects the whole tenor of this book.Many of the assertions offered here are purely subjective, not least when the writer speaks of atheism, which curiously and with virtually no substantiation, he associates with left-wing political views. This leads him into some bizarre, and far from logical, conclusions. The ‘good’ it is taken for granted is equivalent to a version of utilitarianism – ‘the greatest good for the greatest for the greatest number’. It is Molyneux’s way to offer us his personal observations as established truth, and truth after all, is what he is, in his own words, pre-eminently concerned with. The whole section on atheism is more of a self-indulgent rant about the power of the state than anything that can be even loosely called philosophical.Whether your interest is in academic thought and logic, from say, Aristotle and earlier, to Wittgenstein and the key thinkers of the twentieth century and beyond, or something more of an introductory nature, there are far better books than this. Before shelling out your hard-earned cash on this book I think that you should at least read Cian Chartier’s excellent review, here on Amazon.

I would advise anyone considering purchase of this book to check out the author and the individuals quoted on the back cover before purchase. There is plenty of information about him and his chums available on the web.I have consigned my copy (purchased in hope and ignorance of the author's credentials) to the dustbin - I felt it inappropriate to pass it on to a charity shop.

I've read it once, and I have to admit that I was not very happy with it. It's a bit hard to follow Stefan's thought process, and I find his examples in this book to be not as rationally constructed as they could or at least, not on par with some of his best YouTube moments. I have found some parts to be very helpful and insightful, and I think that it's one of those books that the reader has to allow for some "digestion" time before revisiting after a while to re-read the "harder" parts to benefit as much as possible.

Very good book well reasoned. Explains how the left use emotional arguments to win over people. This creates political discourse that lacks depth or reason and irrational justifications for attacks on your liberty. Books like this will hopefully lead to a fight back.

This book will teach you how to verbally Judo illogical rhetoric with ease.Well written and easy to digest.