(TCRN) Rahul Kanwar

Molyneux argues for an anarcho-capitalist utopian society, but more importantly than his politics are his views on family and the “happy soul” of a person living in a non-violent, cooperative, and healthy society. In his videos he supports nonviolent communication towards others (in particular, children) that purports never to use aggressive language and favors empathizing with the unmet needs of people instead of demonizing anyone’s inevitable outburst of expression of their unmet needs.

Example #1:
When a child attacks animals or pets randomly we can’t accuse the child of being demonic. Instead, it makes more sense to look for why the child feels frustrated and angry enough to randomly attack non-threatening life. We may find that the child is being neglected or abused.

Example #2:
When a drug addict is taking heroin, we can’t accuse that person of being a worthless hedonist. Instead, it makes more sense to look for why the addict isn’t able to produce enough dopamine to get through his day without his drug. We may find he has self esteem issues or feels a lack of will or reason to push for recovery because his world is so bleak.


When a businessman who runs a private prison and enjoys profiting off of the slave labor of mostly non-violent poor people, he’s a psychopath. He’s made of evil, should be ridiculed frequently, and mocked for how empty his life is. He deserves no empathy, even though he probably had a tragic upbringing.

Would it not be more consistent with Molyneux’s own philosophy to empathize with such a person and speak about them as well in a nonviolent manner, and allow oneself to feel grief for their problem instead of mock it? In Molyneux’s own words, the “wealthy elite controllers” or “ruling class” in government and private sector are power addicts and struggling to cope with their violent, hierarchical world and spend their lives trying to get to the top. Instead, they could be using their brilliance, determination and resources to make the world a better place in which they can enjoy lives of openness, safety, and creation of wealth rather than living constantly behind a perfectly held mask with no soul behind it, frequently wondering if their own bodyguards are conspiring against them in a manner so perfect they had no chance to see it coming.

The wealthy elite are currently living Socrates’ nightmare scenario for the tyrant who chooses power instead of philosophy. If this is the case, why should they be closed off and mocked by anarcho-capitalists? Why don’t the anarchists instead attempt to empathize with and look for what is good and human in them, rather than mock them for being tragically trapped in their false selves?

One may be inclined to wonder if this means anarcho-capitalists should have a pacifist stance against the wealthy elite. In other words, does this mean we should empathize with the wealthy elite and love them into freeing the public schools, economy and media? To put it simply, yes. It makes no sense to try to oppose the state through violent means when they have the guns and nuclear weapons. The only option is to logically show them that making their choices carries a heavy price for many, including for themselves and their families. This can be done in a myriad of ways, and this reality comes grimly for those hoping for an exciting, violent Hollywood ending to the state.

Politicians aren’t the only ones safe from the self-defeating wrath of Molyneux though. Molyneux does this frequently with activists on the left, referring to them as people having “child-like tantrums” and scorns socialists as entitled and unproductive. Instead, they could be people who have lost hope in business leaders and the market’s natural generosity and seek institutional support for the protection of the basic needs of humans or simply be misled by a flawed narrative of history and the way market incentives work. Molyneux does not call Noam Chomsky a manipulating university bureaucrat when he appears on his show, but does implicitly when he attacks socialism and public sector workers.

Molyneux could attempt to use empathy with the values of leftists for protecting the basic needs of the poor around the world and have discussions on how these needs could be better met with markets and entrepreneurship rather than presents from political leaders. This would show leftists a more positive portrayal of what libertarianism seeks to change and encourage people to watch the debates and interviews on real issues such as historical narratives and why everyone benefits from agreeing to honor property rights.

Molyneux (for good reason) prides himself on his consistency throughout his views and real-world conduct, so why should certain people treated as though they don’t deserve empathy as human beings for their views or respect? Is this not the way Molyneux describes all people should behave and relate with one another? Does Molyneux wonder how children process his views on nonviolent communication being “put on hold” when the topic concerns a group of people that fundamentally clash with his views too much?

The last line was a joke, and I have great respect for Molyneux. My view is simply that Molyneux is 99% consistent about his philosophy on everything else, so why shouldn’t he discuss all groups of people with empathy and non-violent communication? The attacks are simply a waste of breath and only serve to slow the libertarian cause.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

fifty one − forty six =