Do you think millions of Americans view the national parks as "unowned property"?
If not, is it possible Adam's plan gets us one step closer to something that might in the future be what you and I both prefer?
Federal lands are completely and entirely owned by the federal government right now. Decentralizing that and localizing seems like a good step in the right direction. If there's a better step, let's come up with it and suggest it as a change in Adam's platform. That, to me, would be useful.
I really am trying to address the points you've made, but you're making analogies to pushing old ladies and beating my children with a crowbar. I can barely keep up with the points you're trying to make. Maybe it's a communication style difference or something, but yes, when someone levels so many direct personal attacks at me, my ethics, my principles and compares my ideas as beating my children with a crowbar, I will get a bit defensive.
subtly manipulative, and moral-relativistic "arguments" there are.
How have I done this? I'm not asking rhetorically, I genuinely want to know.
When I say, "Graham, the way you're going about this seems like you're looking for attention" I'm giving my perspective. If it's not useful to you, say so and ignore it. I still have my opinion and perspective on what you're doing. It's a similar tactic that trolls use, so I can understand why some may consider you trolling them. If you'd prefer they didn't, maybe we can both learn something from each other as I can help you see your behavior as resembling trolls and you can help me see my behavior as being subtly manipulative or passive aggressive.
I will stop commenting if we're not going to discuss ideas and just attack each other instead of help each other. If we are going to discuss ideas and how we could play a role in potentially improving Adam's platform statement (as well as ourselves), then I'm all for that.
Luke. Assuming control of vast swathes of property miles and miles away via political mandate is not a voluntaryist position. Full stop. This is not up for debate. Can we at least agree on that?
It is a basic definition of the parameters of legitimate property acquisition as per voluntaryist property ethic. The axiom of individual self-ownership determines that a "majority vote" does not translate to legitimate authority over others or ownership of resources. Voluntaryism 101.
The individuals already using the land and who are closest (and often are paying the most for it via extorted funds) have the most direct objective link.
Whether what Kokesh is doing is viewed as "more ethical" by some than the current situation is irrelevant to the fact that A. A US electoral system vote does not grant legitimate authority/ownership of resources/lands, and B. Redistributing those lands to personally selected boards and keeping them "open to the public" (prohibiting homesteading on all or some of the land) is an unethical and untenable position within the parameters of voluntaryist ethics.
I gave my "better idea" in my response on the other post, but as I said, it is irrelevant to the fact that the plan Kokesh has proposed is not a voluntaryist one.
I use analogies and metaphor to illustrate points. I think in images and organize thoughts like that. In small packets, like stanzas. I remember you telling me you've never been into poetry, so maybe that is where we have an impasse--two very different personalities, with two very different presentation styles (neither one style being "wrong" or "right") fundamentally misunderstanding one another on some things.
So to explain the crowbar analogy:
The idea that I need to "have a better idea" in order for my critique of a bad idea to be valid is simply illogical.
It would be like saying that for my criticism of a guy beating his kids for "misbehaving" to be valid, I would first have to present a better behavior plan.
No. That is simply not true. The abuse is immoral regardless of the presence or lack of a "better idea" from me. The criticism I offered in this case would thus be valid, regardless.
Since this conversation now spans multiple posts and some parts of the comments have been repeated, I'll just link to the other comments here.
I hope in the future, if you wish to dialogue with me respectfully, you won't use memes that suggest millions dying from communism is okay as the main image on a post with my name in the title.
I have a need to be respected when in dialogue with someone otherwise the conversation appears similar to a troll and someone being trolled. Trolls don't respect the people they engage with, nor do they think about how their communication will be received.
The image is about ends justifying means. It was not a gesture of disrespect to you. It is a HUGE gesture of ridicule toward the idea that a little violence is sometimes necessary for progress. Hell, Kokesh has even said "it's not always going to be pretty.." I'm sorry that bothers you, and I get the implications that could be seen behind it. I was making a point. Even a little "greater good" justification ultimately always leads to disaster.
I probably would not have been so brash had my initial arguments and counterpoint been considered without adding strangely personal elements to the conversation like:
It was a Q and A livestream. Instead of addressing my argument, you say "it sounds like you're upset because" of some other disconnected issue.
You defended Adam's calling me an "annoying and ignorant troll" without even reading my comment which yielded said reply.
You then went on to imply I was just "seeking attention." What a bunch of condescending bullshit. I was talking about principle man. C'mon. No need to make it all nursery school in here.
I don't need the patronizing, condescending veiled jabs like that man. Let's talk ideas.
I thought posting memes was alright. It wasn't directed only at you anyway. It's a meme. That's all.
If you're willing to look at these things from my angle, maybe we could find some common ground. As I said, myself and other individuals, (including one of Adam's friends and supporters!) can see eye-to-eye on this stuff about principle.
My witness vote removal was me exercising my market preference and voice. It wasn't something personal.
Graham, can I just toss a little thing in here?
I have read through most of the comments & posts between you & Luke, and have seen some clear, compassionate communication from both sides, as well as some rather value-less, aggravating communication from both sides. I've also seen you both acknowledge the foundational difference in thought process and communication style, and the issues that likely caused, which is beautiful.
One thing that I saw Luke bring up multiple times, which was clearly a big part of any emotionality in his responses, and which I saw you only really reply to in this one place:
... which doesn't really address his issue, is this:
You posted an article which was clearly focused on him (in title, if not content [and we all know WAY more people read the titles than the content]), with that meme as the thumbnail. That means that anyone who didn't read the whole post (and the one leading to it, and the comment threads) only saw:
For Anarchists, Ends Do Not Justify Means: Response to @lukestokes
Can you see why that could be seen as simply a personal attack? Especially by someone who is a witness, who is not an authoritarian socialist (what people are referring to when they say "communist"), who does not offer justification for violence or the state, etc.
About 250 people have read this post, but I would be willing to bet that well over 1,000 have seen the title & thumbnail, without any context. That would give them (especially if they don't know Luke at all) a pretty negative impression of him as a person.
I understand clickbait, and I use it myself sometimes (SOOO many people went off on rants about the title/thumbnail of my ancap/ancom/neither post without reading any of the content), but it's a little different when you are naming names in the clickbait.
I didn’t see it as clickbait, but the negative extreme of the “ends justify means” worldview.
I agree that naming Luke was confrontational. I normally don’t do these things unless I think something pretty serious is going on.
Luke and I have a history of not really getting along when it comes to discussing various important issues.
I wrote this post after Luke had already defended Kokesh’s name calling and vitriol (which was directed directly at myself, has been directed at more parties than just myself), whilst at the same time championing “open-mindedness” and non-violent communication.
Putting on a saccharine smile and pretending to be open, while being condescending and dismissive is not an acceptable way to communicate in my view.
Combine that with literally attempting to redefine very clear fundamentals of voluntaryism and I was left feeling pretty angry, to be honest.
If Luke calls himself a Voluntaryist, he should know and accept the basics. If not, I want to let other Voluntaryists know, so they can direct their market choice elsewhere.
That was the impetus for this post.