Larken understands that assuming centralized control and authority over lands, people, and resources via the American electoral process is morally illegitimate.
It’s not about a “better plan.” There are lots of “plans” already taking place that are decentralized and which do not assume authority over other human beings via majority vote.
Many say Adam’s plan assumes no authority over others, or won’t require force against non-violent individuals.
What happens when someone wishes to homestead part of a National Park Kokesh personally assigns to a specific non-profit (read his platform)? He claims the parks will be kept “open to the public.” Can the homesteader ignore this and freely homestead anyway as libertarianism dictates he can? Or does he have to get approval from Kokesh or the non-profit, meaning his individual self-ownership (freedom to move, homestead, etc) is being violated.
What of all the other departments, resources, etc. Accurate price calculation and fair “distribution” is only ever achieved by the free market. Economics is a science that has already established that centralized planning cannot accurately calculate prices, and ends up harming individuals far-removed from the law maker’s dictates. Local communities and property owners from the bottom up (the market) decide via their individual market actions. This simply does not work from the top down.
This campaign is, if unintentionally, designed to fail.
Does majority vote grant authority?
No.
By the way, watching the debate now. Not 10 mins in and Kokesh making passive aggression suggestions Larken might be Cointelpro. Dude sounds just like a politician.
You are on the wrong thread. This is about a book drop.
I’m not replying to you, and no, I’m not on the wrong thread. Only nested one deep. Read the comment above mine (the original comment I am replying to).
Every action has consequences. You are both friends of mine. Our actions, no matter how minor they seem to be, have powerful consequences. The objective is what's important. Focusing on it makes one consistent. You, anyone, will be seen as inconsistent, if they do not focus on and further that objective with every single action taken. We may be confused by specific and small actions, but the overall path is clear. Those of us on the same path are friends. We are not merely allies, allies as defined as enemies of our enemy, but we are instead friends who seek to further the same greater cause. My cause is individual liberty. Is that not your cause cause? Is it not Larken's? Is it not Kokesh's?!