How is the centralized assumption of control via executive order, and then centralized redistribution—according to a single man’s plan—of resources paid for with money stolen from millions and millions of people, many of which are already in use by local individuals and communities thus establishing closest link to ownership, irrespective of libertarian property norms, not a lesser evil?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
How is voting for the abolition of the federal government evil?
I didn’t say that the dissolution of the federal government was evil.
Assuming centralized control over lands and other resources that he doesn’t have most direct demonstrable link to (say claiming to now be “custodian” of a national park miles away people in the local community are already using and dictating how they can and cannot use the land) by a magical “executive order” is not compatible with Voluntaryism, by definition. This is not a legitimate way to acquire land or resources, as it relies on force to do so.
I make my case and citations here, and also use quotes from Mr. Kokesh himself to show his position is a contradictory one.
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@kafkanarchy84/by-the-power-vested-in-me-kokesh-2020-chooses-platform-over-property
In a perfect world we would give each person back what was wrongfully taken away from them. There is way too much to figure out to who gets what. Have you entertained the idea that government property is unowned property. In my view it must be unowned and it would be way to complicated to dish out all stolen government property to the proper owners as there are too many variables for it to even be feasible. If Adam Kokesh is successful it would be our best option as a world war or an economic collapse would be the only possible alternative outcome. I look forward to further clarification of these issues if you don't mind.
Exactly. To attempt to do so in a centralized fashion, outside of the bounds of the libertarian property ethic would be illegitimate, impractical, and immoral.
This is why Kokesh’s plan isn’t Voluntaryist, and isn’t viable.
From my understanding Mr. Kokesh is mainly offering to be a temporary custodian in a transition of giving back the stolen property from the federal government to the individual state governments with hopes that the states would follow suite and continue to decentralize. Do you have a better idea of how to do this and have you offered it to anyone with as much of an audience and resolve as Mr. Kokesh or even to him for that matter?
Why do I need a “better idea” if the plan violates individual self-ownership and property rights, which is unacceptable? Do I need a “better idea” to suggest that cops shouldn’t torture suspects illegally, for example? Can’t I make said critique with or without an alternative plan for criminal justice?
If you want to be critical you could be more constructive and offer ideas to make it more inline with self-ownership or you will be doing nothing but allowing the already terrible status-quo to continue unchallenged. You could offer something such as more agorist means or whatever but just to say it's not voluntaryist enough without offering up a more voluntaryist approach seems a lot less helpful to me.
Im saying that a vote for kokesh is finally a vote for no evil. Not like all the others that were a lesser of two evils.
And I've just described why that statement is false.
I see.