Adam Kokesh (@adamkokesh), under my Steemit article about "Voting For Anarchy?" (link below) you made the bizarre assertion that I am "afraid" to debate you on the issues I discussed in that article.
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@larkenrose/voting-for-anarchy
Consider this a formal invitation for a debate on the matter. In the comments below, John Bush already volunteered to be the moderator.
(UPDATE: In a four-way chat with Jeff Berwick, John Bush and myself, Adam indicated, at least for the time being, that he would only do the debate if it was in person, and only at a big event. At first he suggested next Anarchapulco--almost a year away--and then the Libertarian Party national convention, down in New Orleans in three or four months. Personally, I think we should do it pretty much right away, via Skype or whatever--simple, quick and easy.)
(SECOND UPDATE: Now it sounds like the debate will happen online, this coming Monday (March 12th), hosted by Jeff Berwick of "Anarchast." I assume it will be pre-recorded, not live. I will give details when I know them, or when it has been posted.)
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.
I get the impression that it won't be difficult to find someone willing to moderate it. :)
I am happy to do it too
That will be pretty awesome!
Hey Adam.... is voting for Anarchy anything like Fucking for Virginity?
no. fool. it's like foreplay with a virgin. LOL It sure beats raping one!
I'll moderate.
Should do it on The Joe Rogan Experience.
I think this should happen.
This will definitely be awesome!
why don't you accept the invitation to moderate it? You seem like you can remain neutral to facilitate. And my "vote" says DO IT LIVE; IN STUDIO somewhere... or at a public event. NOT skype if possible. There has to be an upcoming LP state convention which would be convenient for the 3 of you to make. Yes?
Not only "should" it happen... The future of the LP is dependent on the outcome. ....especially since the Minarchos have been so asleep at the wheel since y2k.
I amend this suggestion to say: If Berwick is the moderator, Skype is fine.
I'm new to steemit but not to Larkin Rose and Adam Kokesh. I hope I didn't miss the debate or it's online to view. I love both of these guys as they would both let me be free which is all I ask.
There's something about the tone of this that I don't like. Debate? Why? You guys are so well spoken and infinitely smarter than I am but are you forgetting something. We are on the same side, we need solidarity against those who want to control. Join forces for the good of all. I can't believe I had to say it. In the end, only kindness matters. Take the competition out of this and replace it with a higher goal.
Let me put this another way. I want solutions not more division. Between the two of you, I see only great ideas and solutions if ego doesn't get in the way. Change it from a debate to a collaboration.
This post is with complete good will for you both.
If someone on your "side" was shooting himself in the foot--and shooting YOU in the foot--would you say something about it? Or would you remain quiet, because he's on your side, and you don't want to cause division? Adam's political campaign is not merely pointless; it is hugely counter-productive. As it is now, it will do nothing to achieve freedom, or to get more people to understand and advocate freedom. A lot of what Adam has done and said has helped to spread the ideas of non-aggression and self-ownership. This campaign won't.
with respect to "The Complete and Undeniable Truth", here are some more great words from
John McAfee - closing remarks at the Libertarian debate.
Of course I would say something. All that matters is the truth. There are no other considerations.
I do not, however, see the validity of that analogy.
You that say Adam's campaign is pointless, counter-productive, and will do nothing to achieve freedom. I'd really like to know why you think that because I'm not seeing the logic there. What's your reasoning?
Are you saying decentralizing government, getting rid of the FED, etc etc will have a negative effect on freedom? If his campaign is not 100% in tune with the idea of individual sovereignty, then there can be no benefit to freedom?
I have to say that I've watched "The Complete and Undeniable Truth" hmm a whole lot of times, it's never been said better. Never imagined that I'd be having a conversation with THAT man. :)
But the most unexpected part - to disagree with you. Ok, I'm laughing my ___ off right now at the absurdity of that.
I've only voted twice, both times for Ron Paul. I believe he did a great deal for freedom, as in anytime you advocate for truth. Even so, I did not agree with everything about his campaign. He went further than any candidate I can recall but he compromised some truths I felt, like we need to do an independent investigation of 9/11. I kept waiting for it, it didn't happen.
But I knew getting rid of the FED, IRS, many government agencies would leave us better off.
Then and now.
Anarchism is an individualist philosophy, so let's debate! Debate and argument are necessary to getting down to the bottom of things. Keeps everything healthy and thriving, instead of stagnant and collectivist!
Rather than calling it a debate or argument, I would call it a collaboration. My only philosophical stance is what's right or wrong in reference to human rights. Labels... hmm not out to defend a particular label, really hate labels as they are far too subjective and much time is wasted on agreeing to definitions.
I would love to "collaborate" with you however you'd like though, eyes wide open, brother.
Let's see if we know right from wrong? huge fun to me
If this is how you feel I’m not sure we can collaborate on much of anything. Agreeing on defintions is foundational and essential for avoiding confusion.
Ok, if that is how you feel. I get that always, guessing it's me. Anyway, hope you don't mind if I just go ahead and express my philosophy.
I'm a human being. I have a right to live. To say there is any rightful authority over me is tantamount to saying my rights are less than what others have which in my humble opinion is a non-starter in the logic department.
"The only true law is that which leads to freedom." ~ Jonathan Livingston Seagull
What could that law possibly be? A law that leads to freedom?
-You can't infringe on another person's unalienable rights.- What scenario could not be adjudicated by that simple principle.
And as long as you don't do that, there is no rightful force that can be used against you.
There can be no crime without a victim.
We are sovereign and complete unto ourselves, we are our own government.
no questions for you because of what you said but I do wonder what label you'd give a person who believes in the above.
labels are divisive, violence, "the greatest illusion in this world is the illusion of separation". There is only one thing that can save us and that is solidarity. "We all hang together..." - "United we stand..." - some truth there imho
"in the end, only kindness matters" ~ Jewel
Ok - When you say anarchy, I'll think freedom and
when I say freedom, you can think anarchy.
and we'll be on the same page. ;)
Government can't coexist with "freedom" - the two are wholly incompatible to individual sovereignty - unalienable rights
no left no right no anything else, there's only freedom and tyranny.
Let's start with this question if you'd like: What rightful authority is there over humanity?
My answer: the truth and nothing else.
If we have equal rights, no human can have authority over another.
But the truth.. you can run, you can hide, you can reject it all you want but it's not going anywhere. It will still be right where it's always been when a person gets around to being honest enough with themselves to lift the veil.
Starting point or your suggestion?
I was checking out some of your youtube videos, a lot to like.
Would you agree with this "premise"?
"ALL people are created with equal and unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. No one has authority over another because no one has more or less rights than anyone else.
The vast majority of people just want to be left alone, free to work and love and provide for their family. It's pretty basic, honest, honorable.
They want their children to be able to enjoy a life of peace and prosperity where people live by each other's happiness."
words from here: http://www.truthabides.com/premise/
Is there room for good will in your anarchist philosophy?
Looking forward to your debate with Adam. btw, a possible core difference between you and Larken vs Adam might be this:
Then, if that's even close, the question becomes in THIS case, does the end justify the means.
Does calling it a debate vs a collaboration violate the non-aggression principle? Not sure if there's any validity to that but it makes me want to laugh for some reason.
From what it looks like Adam has had no direct political experience (ie ever worked in government). I think he may have a hard time achieving anything he is setting out to do (in the realm of government). Not only for the reasons that @larkenrose will point out but firstly the amount of "politicking" needed to get to such a position would ultimately compromise you. Also does he really think the rest of the government would let him do that? I can quite easily imagine a scenario where he's impeached within a week.
You cannot be impeached if your not the president.
From what I've seen I believe his plan is to run for President. I meant that if actually did manage to become president, if he wasn't compromised in some way, then it'd be pretty easy for any well established opposition to whip up a case for impeachment(or perhaps more extremely, assassination).
Ok, you have not been following his work. He is running to not be president and execute his executive order that would denounce his presidency and make him as custodian of the gov't to then go ahead and dissolve it. They will have maybe a few hours at the most to impeach him. Look just at least follow some of his work before making comments.
Don't get me wrong I appreciate his sentiment. I am by no means a statist. The point is, to even get to the position that your could (realistically) be voted in requires a large degree of political weight. I think he underestimates the amount of politics he'd have to be involved in to achieve his goals.
And fair enough, I haven't read a lot of his stuff but I do understand the basic plan as you described it. I've had experience in the political realm so I thought I might be able to add a little insight into the situation.
I mean no disrespect but I'm entitled to my opinion.
OK got it. I believe what you are saying. I've been there with Ron Paul. But like Ron Paul, whether he win or not, he has an opportunity to get a lot of people who still believe in the democratic system to see a possibility that they never really though of before. It can only bring out even more freedom minded people. Why fight it? Let the man do what feels is right to him and his supporters. The message that he has certainly does not hurt the freedom movement.
and imagine how it will help if he reaches that debate stage in 2020. Adam Kokesh is far better than Ron Paul at selling it.
Definitely can't knock that. Very much appreciate the outcome he is trying to achieve. We should probably give each other a break and get the word out to the statist! 🙂
I must confess I'm in Australia and our political system is a bit different but the "game" is the same.
If you understand what hes planning to do in: Running for not president" hes not going to do something (in the realm of gouvernment) hes going to disolve it. Now i cant say i have looked into exactly what is needed to do that, I asume he have. So from my understanding, Larkens arguments about a moral gouvernment not being posible, is not an argument agains that Adam is aiming to do.
Larkin will debate a lamp post.... and argue whether or not the light is on.
Im open to moderating. This will be a great thing for the community to see.
That would be fine with me. (Sorry, it took me a few seconds to notice who you are.)
Things are about to get heated in a good way
Well, I'm pretty excited about this development!
With all due respect to both contenders... isn't this a debate for the active membership of the Libertarian Party? ...or is Rose simply challenging the morality of AK's decision and prescription from an absolute NAPsterism standpoint? Adam has claimed he is a lifetime member of the LP, in good standing. Rose's status?
I'd kickoff the debate with this question: Is it moral for an AnCapVol to use government roads while he resides in America? If so, why not the ballot box to enact change? ...with the "either ballots or bullets" dichotomy in focus; in order to sell off the roads?
That question is the world on it's head (or how do you say that in English, English is not my native language)
I give a comparison.
Is it moral for an extortion victim of the mafia to use mafia roads (paid for with extorted money, where by the mafia claimed all the land, and everything in a claimed territory)while he resides in mafia territory.
I guess the following question from me would be; Do you believe it''s possible to try to get elected as the new mafia boss or dissolve the mafia by making people vote on a particular Executive order that would dissolve the mafia. Maybe you believe in that it's possible, could be. It however does not make sense for me to think that plan would work, when I fully think it through. But that should of course, not let him give up from reaching as many statist people as possible.
Peace.
Well, it's Adam and Rose's circus, so I'll let them handle that monkey. And the phrase goes something like "turns the world on its head"... or more commonly: "turns the world upsidedown".
Have you read, or listened to Adam's "Freedom!" book yet? Where are you residing now?
Thanks, hope I will remember ;)
Yes I read it, about a year ago. I live in Europe.
Thanks for the reply. :)
Do you attend Anarchopulco? Will you be going next year? THAT is where we make this thing an official INTERNATIONAL movement!! You know Adam has the book in a variety of translations, don't you? What is your "home port"?
I went in 2017, I will not be going again.....I think.
I've seen he has various translations, yes. I read the English one.
I have no problem with English, only with sayings and the sorts.
maybe some words I'm not familiar with, but I look them up.
I live in Germany, but am Dutch, as in the Netherlands.
Do you know any travel agents who could help attain charter flights? I wonder what it would cost to fly in a couple of hundred Europeans to Acapulco. This will give a good excuse to spread that book all over the place!
Did the Anarchast debate happen? Really wanna see it.
Yes, it happened, and was recorded, and should be posted very soon. I will put a link to it here as soon as I have it. (When were you going to be debating Adam?)
Awesome. Ours is Sunday night (March 18th) 7 Eastern Time.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=loERs43_5Bg
Should be epic, 2 guys who I have found next to nothing to disagree with either about. Can't wait to hear the logic.
I love how he tried to passive-aggressively suggest you were some kind of COINTELRPO disinfo agent in the debate. I'm sure you caught it. Anyway, his latest video has him kind of going off the deep end. Thought you might be interested:
https://steemit.com/scam/@kafkanarchy84/scam-alert-kokesh-calls-on-voluntaryists-to-put-down-the-ideology
Holy crap. Hmmm, just in time for me to add that to Part 2 before posting it.
Just watched the debate. Adam is willing to use a corrupt political system against itself to destroy it. I say poetic justice.
Except it won't work.
What won't work. That he won't become President? Today, at this moment in time, with all I know about the obstacles, I could not disagree.
If you mean that nothing good will come from the attempt, that's demonstrably false imho since I feel I have already benefited from Adam's words as I have yours. LOL, hell, I never would have gotten to exchange words with you. boom! good will, brother