After almost 20 minutes, I'm actually not sure what his point is supposed to be though. It was very stream of consciousness and unfocused, seemingly more interested in affirming the views of him and his watchers than actually arguing in favour of any particular point. #propaganda indeed.

Stefan Molyneux used to be a podcaster, apparently moved over to Youtube as well (haven't heard about him in awhile). His style of stream of consciousness probably moved with him, I guess. Most podcasts are like that, that's just really what podcasts are. People talking, either alone or with other people.

https://freedomainradio.com/

His ideas are actually quite different, which is why I liked listening to his stuff occasionally years ago. He apparently is radically pacifist, in the sense that he doesn't even believe you are morally in the right to defend yourself if your life is being threatened. It's kind of strange, but it's also interesting. I think he's anarcho-capitalist in a political sense, I can't remember. Anarcho-something for sure.

I don't really agree with everything he has to say, but he has some really good points sometimes, and it strikes up really interesting conversations as a result.

As for states rights and the Civil War, this is probably the best summary I've seen about it and it's on Wikipedia:

At the time, most Americans agreed that states had certain rights, however, they did not agree as to whether or not those rights carried over when a citizen left the boundaries of the state. The Southern position was that citizens of every state had the right to take their property anywhere in the U.S. and not have it taken away; specifically they could bring their slaves anywhere and they would remain slaves. Northerners rejected this "right" because it would violate the right of a free state to outlaw slavery within its borders. Republicans committed to ending the expansion of slavery were among those opposed to any such right to bring slaves and slavery into the free states and territories. The Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857 bolstered the Southern case within territories, and angered the North.[46]

Secondly, the South argued that each state had the right to secede–leave the Union–at any time, that the Constitution was a "compact" or agreement among the states. Northerners (including President Buchanan) rejected that notion as opposed to the will of the Founding Fathers who said they were setting up a perpetual union.[46] Historian James McPherson writes concerning states' rights and other non-slavery explanations:

I had never heard this part of the South's arguments on state's rights, actually. I find this an interesting topic. It was never about states having rights in general, which is what I thought the second part of the war was about (obviously it was also about slavery), but about the right of a state to grant you a permission that follows you across the border.

On the one hand, I agree that states should not have this power, so even the confederate flag "to represent state power" makes no sense anymore. But on the other hand, we have federally agreed to certain things that follows us as we travel through states. Driver's licenses and marriage certificates come to mind. I find it interesting that the south-ish fought so hard to keep same-sex marriage certificates something that they weren't legally required to recognize if they were from another state (which was something that passed in Congress I believe, they had to recognize it I think), and the other side fought to get them to be recognized nationwide. Not saying I agree about this minute detail either way, but I find it interesting the same groups of people seem to have flipped on that particular issue while still holding a confederate flag.

But the most important part is this, that the confederate flag doesn't represent state's rights at all. It represents the right for one state to trample on the rights of another state. Stefan Molyneux is right about the fact that the flag is just a piece of cloth and didn't kill people themselves, but we are a race driven by our symbols. Nobody (AFAIK) banned the confederate flag altogether, but just want it to be removed from state property.

That being said, I think that the reaction was a bit too far, personally. I agree that the flag should have been removed from the capitol buildings, but I think they also removed it from the war memorials as well (the video of the woman removing the flag was on a war memorial, not the capitol). That's just history, and a symbol that shows what side those soldiers fought on. Now we might see those gravestones, see they were Alabaman soldiers, and not really know what side they were fighting for without doing lots of research and just assume which side they were on. You could be a soldier in the civil war and a state citizen from Alabama, but people switched sides so often and could have ended up buried there as a fighter for the union for all we know.

High minimum wage being a problem because young people can't get jobs.

Normally, an employer and a low-skilled person could just make a mutually beneficial deal at whatever rate they see appropriate, but with a minimum wage in place, the suitable rate might be below it, and then the job will not be created, and the employee will not be able to develop his skills/career.

In other words, a higher minimum wage is a problem because it prices the lowest-skilled people out of jobs.

It was very stream of consciousness and unfocused, seemingly more interested in affirming the views of him and his watchers than actually arguing in favour of any particular point

You did acknowledge him making a lot of good points though. If his goal were just to preach to his choir, then he wouldn't bother backing up any of his claims. But he did.

The #propaganda tag referred to how the confederate flag is suddenly such a big deal. It's just another way to get us to fight with each other over something that doesn't actually matter. Divide and Conquer.