He’s officially agreed to debate me too, now, on the same topic, so this should be interesting.
https://steemit.com/debate/@kafkanarchy84/adam-kokesh-has-agreed-to-debate
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
He’s officially agreed to debate me too, now, on the same topic, so this should be interesting.
https://steemit.com/debate/@kafkanarchy84/adam-kokesh-has-agreed-to-debate
Wow. He just told you to "Set it up"? He told me he would only do a debate if it was in person, many months from now, at some big event, in some inconvenient place--instead of online, right away, as I suggested. Lucky you.
Heard you guys are doing an informal debate on Anarchast Monday. Looking forward to it. We're setting up a more formal debate coming up this in a week or two as well. Glad to see this topic finally getting some much deserved (if much delayed and until now severely lacking) attention and criticism.
If you disagree with Adam's approach, what's the better solution then? I sure can't think of one. But it would be great to listen to their logic.
I hear you, but think that that question (which Kokesh supporters often ask me) misses the point entirely. If something is wrong (violates individual self-ownership) a criticism of said something (in this case Adam’s plan) is not invalid just because no other solution is proposed. That’s a false dichotomy and aside from the point. If I say slavery is wrong, but don’t offer a “better plan” for picking cotton, that doesn’t make slavery right. I know you didn’t say this directly, but this is the line of thinking usually behind the question.
That out of the way, my “plan” is simple. Respect individual self ownership and continue, as individuals already are, to innovate, disobey, network, support one another, and build systems that make the current system more and more irrelevant.
I think the number of folks not voting in the USA is extremely encouraging. 43% last election. There may be violence as well, as the state hates innovation and peaceful progress. Living free and in accordance with peace can be risky. That doesn’t make supporting a plan which violates ISO legitimate.
Thanks for the reply. It just feels like straining out the gnat and gulping down the camel so to speak. Just a perspective is all, sharing thoughts/ideas but your reply would make more sense to me if we were operating in a vacuum.
But we're not and it's going to be process. For the most part, I think we may not be as civilized a species as we think and going from where we are to utopia in one fell swoop isn't going to happen.
Power concedes nothing without a demand and honestly I don't see anyone else making as many rightful demands as Adam is.
In a certain respect, it's as if Adam's intentions are not trusted, just another politician making campaign promises.
imho, anyone who wants their freedom back should be supporting him. Is there a second choice?
This is the problem. No Voluntaryist is aiming for utopia. I'd say the utopian view is that one man can, more successfully than ISO and the market, decide how to redistribute and centrally control resources absent of reality-based property grundnorms as found in the libertarian property ethic.
You're right about power. How is using a system whose whole goal is to expand and secure its own power going to voluntarily destroy itself via its own political processes and systems. Is this not a delusional expectation? It defies logic and common sense. Do Nazis elect pro-Jewish leaders into their ranks via their own political systems?
I have no reason to trust his intentions. I used to be a big fan. Now, he has given me many good reasons not to trust him. The main being his disregard for legitimate means by which one can acquire property and authority. It's not by the US electoral process.
The second is that he and his campaign are not really forthcoming or direct, and tend to bend the truth to acquire donations.
Utopia to me means living free in harmony with nature. There is no force.
To the paragraph about power: Sometimes you have to get a good grip on something before you can destroy it. Is it a delusional expectation? Perhaps, but no more delusional than thinking we're just going to get enough people to stand up on their own for freedom AND be successful.
Nice formatting btw, I'm green but I'll get there eventually. :)
The next to last paragraph:
What legitimate means could there be when the entire system (the only system) is illegitimate? But if doing that can effect these changes?
Declare the federal government of no authority Dissolve or privatize every agency transitioning some functions to the states Liquidate all remaining assets to fund social programs as private charities, Resign the Preidency to become "Custodian of the Federal Government," and do it all with a single executive order on the very first day in office.The last paragraph: I thought it was tongue in cheek, had to be since there was no way of knowing for certain if his arrest and campaign announcement were connected. I put nothing past the state.