I think this stunt by Kokesh is riddled with problems, but I'm hoping the best-case scenario will come to pass; which is that it brings attention to the abolitionist movement, and gets our ideas on the table with at least a few people who've never considered them. Obviously he's never going to get the chance to dismantle the government by executive order...
As for the accusations you've made about Adam, I don't follow him closely so I can't speak to them, but I've heard him enough to know that he gets what anarchy is all about and has done much to spread the message. I have my own ideas about why he's running for president, and I think there are mixed motivations, but I don't think there's any benefit to knocking each other down when our meager numbers are desperately insufficient as it is. We just can't afford in-fighting at this stage.
There's a list of people from here to the moon and back who deserve getting slammed before Adam if you care about freedom. Whatever time you spend writing about Adam could be better spent doing the Great Work of trying to reach statists.
I didn’t “slam” anyone here, I feel. Bringing attention to problems is a necessary market function for communities, even in the realm of ideas.
The problem is that huge parts of Kokesh’s message are antithetical to the foundational libertarian principle of individual self ownership:
The belief that federal elections can grant authority (I have direct quotes if you need them).
Centralized redistribution of taxpayer funded resources from Washington DC via Kokesh and a circle of individuals he chooses, instead of allowing local communities of individuals and the free market price/supply/demand to determine how land and resources to which they have the most direct objective link and claim will be used.
Potentially requiring fingerprints for homesteaders and allowing majority consensus, and not the natural law of property, determine what can or cannot be homesteaded
Finally, Kokesh has called on us all to “put down the ideology.” If we put down the simple ideology of individual self-ownership, how can it reach the masses? This is not the message of liberty.
Thanks for your comment.
I heard him say that the presidency would give him authority, but I took that to mean relative to the government; as in, it would give him the power to write executive orders that the other government types believe in. I didn’t take that to mean he believes the authority himself. That would be bizarre in the extreme.
In any case, I’m not denying anything you’re saying, it just sounds like you’ve got it out for him a little bit, and I don’t want to see this movement torn apart a few steps out of the gate.
You should certainly point out inconsistencies, but maybe try to present a little more balance considering how much he’s said and done that reflects a true understanding.
My personal opinion - I’m neutral on Adam generally, but I think this latest effort is misguided. He’s a key player because he’s a vet, and that lends credit to his arguments in the minds of dimwits who think credentials make arguments better. If statists could be made to think like him, we’d be light years ahead of where we are now.
So I call him an ally until he actually violates another’s rights and defends it as legit. I would also call you and ally, since you seem to be committed, and I appreciate that tremendously.
This "authority," even if statists believe in it, is illegitimate and completely antithetical to voluntaryist property ethic/individual self-ownership.
I used to be one of his biggest supporters. He has called for individuals to abandon the central, uncompromisable tenet of all libertarianism so that we can "unite as one." I tried to point this out to him as a fan, and was shut down as a "troll." No serious voluntaryist would attempt to shut down one of their fellows in this manner, while they attempt to refine viewpoints and ask legitimate questions/make legitimate criticisms. Kokesh immediately went after my character, which to me is very suspect. That's what politicians do. Not logical people.
I cannot call someone an ally who is consistently misrepresenting the philosophy and attacking others for doing so.
I do truly appreciate your open-minded and balanced response to my commentary, though. This is a rare find indeed and I really respect that.
I don’t like to put speculative ideas out there, so I didn’t mention this previously, but to me, the presidential run (particularly his behavior surrounding it) feels like a twisted Stockholm trip or something. Like he’s playing at being the captor; getting to adopt the role under the guise of being against it. Often one admires the power of one’s nemesis.
The reason why I mention this now is because you said how his response was reminiscent of politicians, and this theory could explain some of the behavior you’ve described.
Maybe he’s gone off the deep end, but if so, I hope it’s a temporary setback. At the very least, he’s put together a large body of work that many have learned from, and he’ll always deserve some measure of praise for that.
The scary part is that if he’s really backsliding, it means he never truly got it in the first place. When you really get it - the way Rose gets it, or Passio gets it - going back is as impossible as believing in Santa again. And if he could be that convincing... God help us... this guy could be the antichrist hahahaha