Potential reasons why Stefan Molyneux has become a statist-libertar...

If you have followed him som years back now (2+), you will have noticed a markedly change in his "philosophy" towards the state. This change has coincided with the presidential run of Donald Trump, and there can be no doubt in my mind that the change has come because of him.

Now, before Trump, he was by any standard considered as anarchic a philosopher as can possibly exist. The state is wielding power, in the form of a threat of violence for non-conformity to rules, called "laws". There were never, ever, any exceptions to this acceptance of reality from Molyneux. Initiation of force is immoral, and since the state is nothing but a threat of force, the state is immoral. Basic Aristotelean logic.

Period, that´s it ... freedom means anarchism, philosophically .. off course, what else.

Freedom, is freedom from force.. not a "right" to choose who will rule with violent power over you, your time, your resources and your children. Electing a ruler is like caring about the shape of the hood-ornament of a car battering towards you on the street. You do not stand there evaluating the ornament, YOU GET OUT OF THE WAY !! (Molyneux's own metaphor, for electing a president)

So what happened? Slowly videos informing about the presidential race and specifically about Trump appeared a year ago or so, just as discussions between him and his studio mate Mike, who apparently already is a libertarian-statist. Mike was clearly pro Trump, since he was not a politician (in the usual sense), he knows about the (free) market, he can make deals with both politicians and market people etc etc..

I don't remember any exceptions in his statements about the state ... like if he had said: "We do not need a state because it is the initiation of force ... EXCEPT IF THE ELECTED PRESIDENT IS THIS OR THAT OR THE OTHER WAY"
... no, never.

The biggest step for anyone to take is that last step from "just a little" to "nothing" ... going from minarchist to anarchist is the biggest step (for most). Reducing smoking from 10 to 1 cigarettes a day, is not as hard as going from 1 to 0 cigarettes a day. That´s why you went to 1 and not 0 in the first place.

I can overlook a politician who becomes corrupted by power (it happens all the time), I can handle people in my everyday life who are not rigid philosophers becoming corrupted (it happens all the time)... but the most prolific and listened to philosophers, outside academia, if not more importantly ... THE ONLY ONE ... !!!

So how can he so easily take a step back to "smoking" again??? And arguing that "this one cigarette a day is just perfect for everybody" (metaphorically off course)

He is (... or rather was) the man who brought philosophy to the masses (paraphrazing a remark from Sid Vicious to Freddy Mercury about him "bringing ballet to the masses") and therefore I find it of the UTMOST importance for anyone remotely interested in philosophy, politics, economics, truth and reality, to come to some understanding about what is happening with this man, who runs, what he himself calls "The biggest philosophy show in the world".

First of all. If you are not listening to him (yet), be warned that podcasts from lately must be taken with extra skepticism (you must always be skeptical, but if you are new to Molyneux, or inexperienced in philosophy, be aware). If you are listening to him and have done so for about 2 years, I strongly urge you to reconsider what you have learned. If you are excited about the ideas of anarchism (not the leftists riot imposter-version seen at the moment, but the philosophical one), I recommend that you stop listening to Molyneux and switch to other sources, like Larken Rose (Hive account@larkenrose) or Jeff Berwick (Hive account@dollarvigilante), depending on your "taste". You can off course listen to Molyneux's earlier podcasts and books, which are not infested, and very good in my opinion.

As a philosopher myself (good or bad as I may be), I always try to figure out why.

We are probably dealing with something that Molyneux himself would call "Not an argument" ... since it is my ideas about what is going on in his head and not something that can be measured in "the real world".

But still, an opinion may just be the first step towards a truth, if this opinion is based on objective observation but not made it to a final argument. Let me try and evaluate my thoughts about the possible reason(s) why he has turned against freedom and anarchism.

He never really were and anarchist
He has himself stated several times, and have spent at least one full podcast on stating that it took him 20 years (!) to figure out that he was an anarchist, and not a minarchist. Now I can understand that it takes a bit of getting used to accepting no government at all if you heard about ,minarchism, libertarianism and anarchism for the first time a few weeks ago. But Molyneux have been doing philosophy by himself for 20 years before he started the show (starting with Ayn Rands objectivism as a teenager), then studying and getting a university degree in history with focus on the history of philosophy. Then going through defoo'ing and therapy and everything ... all things that surely must have sparked a few thoughts about the direction of his philosophy .. and being a minarchist for so many years ... and either not arguing for himself about anarchism and reaching that conclusion or even arguing with himself and rejecting it ... just to finally accepting it after 20 years, seems very unlikely. And it has sounded very unlikely to me ever since i heard it. A philosopher becoming an anarchist after 20 years of ore or less minarchist??? Apparently he uses his wife´s insights as a reason for taking the "plunge" but I don't buy that. And if this is the reason for seeing the true nature of the state ... support from his wife? I do not buy that he is really an anarchist. And if it is the way it came about, he is open for "manipulation " in a certain way, that he will only go a certain place if he feels accepted.
Daddy issues or the lack thereof
Trump is just about the ultimate alpha-male, patriarch. Molyneux never had a father, in a way it makes any sense using the term. His parents separated (?) when he was very young (less than a year old i think) and he never had a close relation to a grown man in his childhood or teens or maybe for his whole life). So when this powerful man comes along, that reaches into his longing for the father figure he never had and never will have, it fills a hole in his "soul" that sucks in Trump like a vacuum.
Raising a child into non-conformity is not easy
Molyneux has a daughter. And she is about the same age as my own daughter, so I know first hand what it is like to have a child at that age. It may not have turned out for him to be as easy to hang on to anarchism in child upbringing as he thought before his daughter grew to a certain age. How do you explain that you "freely" send money to some unknown people who says they need your money. How do you explain the rhetoric used by those people on the telly calling themselves presidents, politicians, experts, journalists .. etc.. and how does it all fit together with her ability to get along with her playmates and friends, who are not anarchists or live in a statist, religious or foo mentality. A tough nut to crack for a child in that early age. There is a fear of isolating her when she needs to get out among other people and understand how to build relations. And telling her more or less directly that .. basically 98% of the people around her prefer her get shot when she turns 18, rather than admitting that the state is evil. There also may be some considerations about her homeschooling. Maybe two busy parents, even working from home, is not sufficient for her or the parents are being drained from too much work, and they have to ship her off to a school or some statist minded guvernante to take care of her schooling.
Taking FDR to a "new" level - inside the paradigm (and the fear of loosing out when the libertarian bus comes to town)
You can only go so far, appealing only to "anarchists". You are confined "outside" the left-right paradigm .. and by most people considered weird for not "participating" in "politics". FDR (Freedomain Radio, as his show is called) is a business. He gets revenue from donations and that is good and fine. But it is still a business. A business has to be taken care of. And most of his listeners are either long time anarchists or newly converted ones (like I was). The convertits are probably a large majority and that is good and fine. But they were either classical liberal, statist libertarian or minarchist to start with, and could probably easily fall back in the saddle - if an extremely strong and anti-government type president came along. And out of fear that those converted anarchists may run with politics, he places himself ahead of this potential trend and becomes the hood-ornament of such a movement. He jumps from the anarchists, those who stay behind, and is grabbed by ten times more small-gov libertarians asskissing their way to getting more people into their fold. And a skillful orator like Molyneux is just what they need. And 10 times more libertarians will easily shut up those anarchists being critical of this new turn of direction.
Echo chamber effect & buddy consensus
Living in your own mind and your own show for 10 years without any real outside rigorous scrutiny, may finally have sent him to looney-ville. Not long ago it was the "THIS IS MY SHOW, I DECIDE HOW IT IS RUN.." like mentality during a call-in show. Ususally it is "Please donate, we cannot do this without you", but if a caller is not to his taste it is basically "FUCK OFF". Also if his partner Mike is completely brown-nosing Trump, it is hard to carry on a meaningful work-relation with such a difference in attitude towards politics.