It’s these types of sentiments I don’t understand. I didn’t ask for a voluntaryist witness who “aligns completely with my values.” I ask for self-labeled voluntaryist witnesses to simply hold basic voluntaryist values/principles. If that is being a “purist” then guilty as charged. Voluntaryism is, by nature, a purist philosophy anyway. It is the purist form of individualism there is, and logically provable/objectively correct when minimal violent conflict is placed in the value position of the equation.
This isn’t about being unrealistically idealistic though. It’s about an untenable, immoral position. You should check out that Reason Magazine article I linked to in the post. It lays it out pretty clearly.
I personally find him weak on gun rights.
If there were 30 witnesses I trusted more than I trust Luke from a technical perspective; who are what I consider more consistently ancap/voluntarist on guns, then I'd vote for them instead.
Edit: I was mistaken here, and have no reason to consider Luke weak, hypocritical or inconsistent on gun rights.
If I didn't vote for anyone until they arrived, I'd forego all influence over the direction of the platform indefinitely.
I'm watching newcomers openly espousing collectivist rubbish, but until I read your post, I was confident they couldn't take over and wreck the place....
From Papa Pepper's recent post
They're here, they're vocal, and guys like you and I can back Luke to keep sound economic principles front and centre, (while continuing to have these discussions), or we can stand by and watch the useful idiots destroy another paradise.
It's not paradise if I have to drop basic principle so my "football team" can beat the other football team. If that's how this will be, then Steemit doesn't deserve to live. Heh. I don't think my one little witness vote being removed will ruin Luke, so I wouldn't worry. As for the commies, bro they've been here since I started almost two years ago. And I respect you of course even if you vote for Luke. That's your business. He's too slippery and shapeshift-y/relativistic on fundamentals for my liking. Haven't looked into his thoughts on gun rights...
If the people on the field who want to attack us and take our stuff are forming a team, milling around as individuals isn't noble or effective.
You and I disagree on this point, but I'll keep upvoting your posts, because we need each other.
We need Luke, Adam, Larken, Carey, everyone.
Please reconsider your witness vote.
Its not a statement of blanket approval; its material support for a guy who wants almost everything you do.
I don't know what you are doing man, but I certainly am not just "milling around."
Hey Matt. I'm curious what your view is of my views on gun rights. I don't think I've engaged in much discussion on this or posted any of my own blogs on the topic, but maybe I have? I do sometimes bring the arguments of some of my collectivist friends (yes, I have friends I disagree with) into discussions just so I can get other people's answers which I then bring back to them, but that doesn't mean I'm stating my own opinion unless I say, "IMO" or whatever.
It's really weird how the witnesses are being treated like politicians. Feels really awkward.
Well, when you are helping to secure the network, and people vote for you, you kind of are a politician, albeit a legitimate, voluntarily selected free market version. I may have to rethink my mouse click if the commies take over.
Might've been facebook?
You mentioned restrictions on full auto or calibre perhaps?
It wasn't any sort of dealbreaker for me, so I didn't take much notice.
I was just casting around for an example, as the Adam thing is already pretty messy, and my own position is fairly nuanced there.
@mattclarke, maybe this?
https://steemit.com/guns/@lukestokes/which-do-you-value-more-freedom-or-the-wellbeing-freedom-brings
That's the one. Thanks Graham.
Its the piece I was thinking of.
Ah there it is! Thanks @kafkanarchy84.
I remember that conversation now, and I thought I did a good job of (trying) to represent many sides of a complicated topic. It wasn't about automatics or clip sizes, but about representing different views so we can discuss them rationally. I didn't advocate for anything particular, as far as I recall, but wanted to have a dialogue.
Restrictions on full auto or calibre? Truly, I don't think I've ever commented on that. If you find it, please let me know.
It was restrictions on personal nukes, but hinted at 'offensive' weapons generally.
I'd be interested to hear your position on an adult with no documentation attempting to purchase an AR 15 for cash?
(I won't pull my vote based on your answer or silence)
Lol. Great question, and as you said, @mattclarke, and as per that article, it's not just nukes that are being implicated:
I'm waiting to hear @lukestokes field this one as well.
In fairness he's talking about social pressure here; not state action.
I don't think anyone should be "documented" in the governmental sense, but I do value identity and reputation and the open roles they play in a free society.
As for someone purchasing a device directly designed to kill and excellent at offensive force (i.e. violating the NAP), I think we should at least care about some things such as their mental state, their training level operating it, their stated intentions on how they plan to use it, etc. I'm not talking about a top-down, authoritarian 1984 style overwatch or something, but just common sense because we don't want innocent people to get shot up.
I wouldn't let me 4 year old drive a car. I also wouldn't sell a community member a gun if their intention was to go violate the NAP and shoot someone.
When it comes to "gun control" and "gun regulation" I'd hope the voluntaryist community would be huge supporters but in a completely different way than what is represented by the media. I'd like to see communities training each other how to obtain and use firearms for personal defense while holding each other accountable for safety and security. As most serious gun owners will tell you, many who own guns now (especially if they have kids in the house) are some of the safest and most regulated (and by that, I mean self-regulated) people around when it comes to guns. Their kids have been well trained and understand the serious dangers involved. That's what I'd like to see more of because that, to me, is rational personal responsibility which can be encouraged through healthy community.
For sure. I think the free market would take care of a lot of these issues. And by that I also mean community. Who is going to want to associate with or do business with a shady fellow who moves in next door and starts stockpiling rocket launchers while maliciously leering at everyone everyday? He'd be driven out via social pressure/ostracism/economic starvation, I'd guess, if he could even "move in" in the first place (a land seller would likely have several background checks in place).
As for regulation now, yep. Most folks I know with guns are very responsible and caring folks. I grew up with guns in the house as well, and was taugh that they could very quickly end my life and were not toys.
Property owners would ultimately have to decide the type of people they'd want to live around, and could even make rules to government what's allowed/not allowed on their jointly owned properties.
I scrolled back a year, watching your kids get smaller; you didn't mention guns once.
I apologise.
I may have misread an argument you referenced without endorsing, at some point.
This seemed like a fitting spot to stop scrolling.
I might write a post covering my position and justification, as its not one I've heard before.