Why do you imagine it’s either “my way” or “Adam’s way,” I wonder.
And I am not sure who I called for to “give up their paycheck.”
I remember now why I stopped engaging last time.
To each his own. Whatever you wish to do to be free in non-violence, more power to you.
I actually had your account muted because of this type of straw-manning, etc. When you are prepared to not spew these silly implications that I am “missing my last best chance” to not sabotage my child’s future, maybe I can begin to take your argumentation seriously.
Why do you hallucinate there to only be one way?
And do you imagine that all of this will end without the state putting up a fight? Just because “anarchy” now has had a political veneer slapped on the front of it? Why? If you wish to support Adam’s plan to centrally dissolve things. Go ahead!
I don’t. That’s all. And that is 100% okay. This is not a collectivist movement, issue, or concern.
I never said those were the only two ways, yours or Adams, they are the two we are currently discussing are they not?
Let's get specific. You said Adam wasn't telling the truth. I asked what he was lying about. You never answered. Now would be a good time. Let's be completely direct and honest here.
A few times you've made statements that I don't understand this or that. You're wrong and if you will actually answer a question directly, I'll prove it.
Answered several times in a multitude of posts.
What are you afraid of that you're unable to answer a simple question. You're going to run again after telling me all the things I don't know. that's messed up.
make your statement please
Just state it one more time here in the interests of continuity. Make sure we're talking about the same exact thing.
and one last thing.. if you're going to make remarks like that and then not allow a person to defend themselves, perhaps you should just refrain from making those remarks. what do you think? seems fair
I have every confidence in my logic and I've thought about all this stuff three ways from Sunday. You don't know me. Why don't you pick on Jeff Berwick because I'm in total agreement with his common sense regarding Adam's campaign. Tell him he doesn't understand what principle means.
I feel like the defensive kind of straw man stuff came from your end initially, but if I’m wrong, I’ll be happy to own that and apologize.
You sound very emotional and are saying things like “pick on.”
This is strange to me. To point out that Adam’s plan involves the violation—by Adam’s own defintion, actually—of individual self-ownership is not “picking on” anyone. Nor do I see why these questions should cause knee jerk emotional reactions.
Since you have said I have yet to answer your questions, this is the last time I will put any effort into this for you, but here it is:
According to Adam himself:
I agree. One cannot delegate rights they do not have individually to a leader (the “right” to centrally divide and distribute lands and resources or arbitrarily determine ownership of the same). There is good reason for this. Those living on, in, and around lands and resources and using them already, have most direct and viable link, and through the free market organic current of supply and demand, prices can be accurately calculated, and violent conflict/potential for violent conflict drastically reduced. Voluntaryism utilizes a system of property norms which branch from the individual outward (and not the “top down”) based on the reality of individual self-ownership.
Top-down, centralized political action utilizing a violent mechanism (the US Federal government) cannot bring about peace, order, or the minimization of violence ultimately, any more than Neo-Nazis can help to advance the cause and protect the rights of blacks and jews.
Do you think Adam's plan is to move everyone off their property or something? That makes no sense at all.
"arbitrarily determine ownership of the same)" who's in favor of that?
How do you handle a government bankruptcy? It's never been done and there's no reason to believe that Adam won't do his best to find the fairest way. He's already said nothing's written in stone on this subject and he's open to suggestions. What more could the man do?
I also agree that "imposing your choice of a leader on someone is unethical". So where is he NOT being truthful? Would it be better to just say, "on your mark, get set, go!" and everyone grab as much land as they can.
I don't claim to have all the answer to these questions but let good will and a tight hold on the principles of freedom guide us. As far as I know, that's all Adam is trying to do.
No. I don’t think that. In our debate he said people would be able to homestead freely, and also that they wouldn’t. So I am confused.
Adam’s platform.
Another strawman. I never said anything remotely close to this. I referenced local communities and property owners deciding how things should be done, as per Voluntaryism, and not centralized force.
"I referenced local communities and property owners deciding how things should be done, as per Voluntaryism, and not centralized force."
sounds right to me, what makes you think he's going to stand in the way of that? I'll have to listen to the debate again regarding the homestead question but..
I don't think his intentions are to weigh in on property rights in places where local communities can handle it. That would defeat the whole purpose of de-centralization, wouldn't it?
regarding the "pick on" comment: Have you listened to @jeffberwick 's latest video, "United We Stand"? It was really good I thought, exceptionally well said truths. He said he supports Adam.
Do you think he doesn't understand the meaning of principle too? That should be enough to make you stop and apply some critical thinking.
And you had me on mute and just came back to give me another grammar lesson? I was like.. whaaaat?
ALL i'm doing is telling the truth to the best of my ability, that's it, nothing else.