...no one can delegate rights they themselves do not have
Why then do you support @adamkokesh? I honestly cannot wrap my head around it, Luke. His policies violate what you have written here directly, as he will take up centralize "authority" and "power" (his own words) via a presidential election (non-individual-self-ownership-based property acquisition).
@finnian, can I get some corroboration here? Luke seems to believe the only one taking issue with the lack of logic and principle--and downright fraudulent approach to activism--is me.
I'll never understand the inconsistencies. This isn't a matter of opinion or how people handle themselves. Either you are furthering individual liberty and seek all human interaction being voluntary, or you are not. You cannot run for any political office and believe what a Voluntaryist believes. Hell, you cannot even vote without being immoral. How someone can argue that running for an office isn't horribly inconsistent is beyond me. I cannot help but question people's motives.
Inconsistencies should be pointed out between friends at all times. I've had to do it in the past that caused serious strife, and the closed group I was in at the time basically split in two. One side decided to back a scammer and known thief, and the other remained consistent and cut ties with the person. As was discussed on fascistbook today too, I will not drop my ideology to compromise with statists. How do my goals benefit from compromising with my enemy? They don't.
I'll never understand the inconsistencies. This isn't a matter of opinion or how people handle themselves. Either you are furthering individual liberty and seek all human interaction being voluntary, or you do not.
Thank you, @finnian.
The objective is what's important, friend. When people put individuals before the objective, I cannot help but question their motivation. Hate me. Ridicule me. Do what you must as long as my life long objective is furthered, I will not be concerned at all. Individual liberty is worth ANY price.
Graham, please, we've had this discussion over and over and over again. You've used memes to make your arguments that were, in my opinion, very disrespectful to me. I've spent so many hours trying to explain my position to you that I have no interest in continuing to do so yet again. Your concerns over your interpretation of how national parks would be handled seem like nitpicking to me when compared to the harm the U.S. Federal Government inflicts on humanity every single day. IMO, anyone who supports peacefully dismantling that system deserves support, regardless of your interpretations or critiques of the labels they use. Thankfully we don't have to agree in order to continue in our own ways to bring about a more voluntary world. I wish you well, but I don't personally prefer the approaches you take to make your points.
Hey. Nevermind. I agree with Adam:
Thank you, Finnian
Luke, the feeling of being disrespected is mutual. You have a habit of being automatically dismissive of arguments you do not wish to entertain.
Adam has gone so far as to state in a debate with me that homesteaders may need to be fingerprinted...
The issue was never simply "national parks" though. There is no need to be dishonest in your assessment of my critiques of Kokesh in this way.
This is basic logic: Non-propertarian acquisition of authority/resources is illegitimate, and in direct logical contradiction with what you have outlined here.
I am glad individuals are waking up to this. Happening on FB now. I hope the awareness continues growing here as well.
Thanks for your time.
It seems like you’re happier about awareness concerning philosophical disagreements than about peacefully dismantling the federal government. If people like Adam or Ron Paul or whoever decrease the amount of time the Federal government exists, I will support that. I want forward progress, not debate club infighting. People don’t have to agree 100% to make the world more voluntary, and I see Adam’s plan as making the world more voluntary (even if it’s not perfect).
Another personal jab, right off the bat.
How is pointing out that someone is going to violate the individual self-ownership of others “infighting”?
Did you really remove your self vote and re-add it again with more power in order to be at the top of the comments on my post even after I made it clear I have no interest in discussing this again with you?
Yes, I really did! Is that unbelievable to you, Luke? I did this after you buried my comment by upvoting all the others.
You are so smug man. And still terribly religious, I’m afraid, for all your empty talk about being rational and logical. The fact is, you’re very condescending sometimes, man.
It’s sad, and an embarrassment to the rest of us Voluntaryists out here actually interested in principle.
I almost always vote up comments I like by around 5%. That's not "burying" your comment. I did not upvote "all" the others. You talk about personal attacks but then call me "smug" "terribly religious" (!?!) "condescending" and "an embarrassment."
Please don't compare the two men. They are not even close to being the same. Adam cannot even do what he said he was going to do as "not president."
Ron Paul was trolling the government. Adam was trolling his supporters.
Saying Adam was "trolling his supporters" implies you genuinely believe he was trying to mislead those who support him in a fraudulent way. Is that your actual position? I had a short call with him recently, and I told him pretty bluntly how I think he was a too optimistic about the cost of his book drop campaign (and about future cryptocurrency prices). I told him the same when he first told me about the project. I still think it's a good book and it should be read by many people so I still like the idea of the project, even if he executed it poorly so far.
As to comparisons, I hear you, and I was just saying people who want to remove or limit federal government is a category both Ron Paul and Adam Kokesh fit into (if you grant that Adam is genuinely true to the book he wrote and the many years of activism and civil disobedience he's participated in). If we want to end the comparisons there, I'm fine with that. And yes, Ron Paul's exit speech was one of the best forms of government trolling I have ever seen. :)
I don't know why people in the Voluntaryism movement seem to be playing identity politics. It's not like I'm going around with signs supporting Adam. I support his ideas as expressed in FREEDOM. I hope they spread. I also support is intention to peacefully dismantle the Federal Government (even if it's not perfect in practice). I'm confused why other voluntaryists wouldn't also support that intention (regardless of the human being putting it out there).
And I get it, some people don't like Adam Kokesh. Okay. I like that he wrote a helpful book and is trying to change things. Do I like everything about him or his plans? Of course not. No one is perfect. I also don't think he deserves the level of criticism thrown around, especially in comments on my post here that had nothing at all to do with him. Why are we even talking about him? If you disagree with someone's ideas, ignore them, don't give them the power of your time and attention.
Yes, I don't believe he ever really planned to succeed, and most importantly I repeat that he could not even have done what he said he planned to do if elected. It was a joke then, right? When I asked him, he said it was not. What other explanation is there?
We are discussing him and the issue because consistency matters. I'm not sure what his true motivation was to run for office, but it wasn't something that would have benefited the cause of individual liberty. That much I am pretty sure of.
Am grateful to found this great thought here, I just ran into this post and framework form my contraction I don't seem to understand where all this arguments is coming from but am enjoying it here, I just met great minds here, but I still agree with you to the right to some extent. But it where does this arguments coming from, your post seem to explain a thought form some other comment or post subject
Posted using Partiko Android
The original post is mostly just a thought dump from various conversations from people who don't yet understand anarchy or voluntaryism. You can learn more about that here, if you want.
As best I can understand, the comments from @finnian and @kafkanarchy84 relate to their disagreement with me in that they think I should be condemning @adamkokesh for various reasons. They do not think he's a true anarchist/voluntaryist because of his desire to use the systems of the State (running for US President) to spread ideas and a platform for peacefully dissolving the federal government. Since Adam has little to no chance of actually winning, but running a presidential campaign with the starting point of "It's impossible for me to win" will not gain much support, they also take issue with Adam pretending like he can win in 2020 in order to get support. @kafkanarchy84 has been disagreeing with me on this for some time now. I've tried to engage respectfully, but it just comes across as a personal attack. I decided a while back to stop engaging with Graham's posts because we see things differently and apparently have trouble communicating together. I had thought we were fine with leaving each other alone, but surprisingly the continued conversation related to Adam Kokesh or Graham's opinions of me personally came out on this thread again many months later.