Right now I don't have time to write a ridiculously long response to your ridiculously long post. :) I will mention that tomorrow I will be having a debate/discussion (probably more of the latter) with someone about how "political campaigning" can best spread the message of voluntaryism, WITHOUT legitimizing the circus. I will try to remember to post a link to that here, after it is posted.
The one other thing I will say is this: I hear a lot of people defending Adam's campaign, talking about him "spreading the message." But if you look at his actual campaign, it doesn't. It pins EVERYTHING on an impossible and bogus "Executive Order" that will never happen because Adam will never get elected. THAT is the main focus of his campaign. "Spreading the message" ISN'T.
Adam has done a LOT over the years to actually spread the concepts of non-aggression, self-ownership and voluntaryism. That is what he should still be doing. This campaign doesn't do that. Go LOOK at his web site (www.kokeshforpresident.com)! Most people taking his side seem to just be HOPING that at some point he will get around to focusing on principles and philosophy again, even though nothing about this campaign indicates that.
Ron Paul talked about principles, principles, principles. He NEVER switched over to some pie-in-the-sky legislative agenda or political solution. Even as a statist, he spread libertarian ideas way better than Adam's current campaign does. WISHING Adam was spreading a coherent message of freedom doesn't make it so. With this campaign, he isn't.
Thanks, Larken. That discussion sounds great. I look forward to hearing it.
I don't think it's blind hope to imagine he'll ramp up the messaging about freedom once he gets put into a position to do so. He's been doing that consistently for over a decade. IMO, it would be irrational to imagine him doing anything else. I don't think his campaign platform was written for you or me. I think it was written for Libertarian statists who just might be ready to accept what they've been doing this whole time hasn't worked at all.
He'd have no chance of getting the Libertarian nomination with a message of pure anarchy. I just don't think there are enough people (yet) who are ready for that within that group. I hope he gets the nomination and someone like Stossel does another Libertarian debate. Adam (or you or pretty much any fully-principled voluntaryist who can communicate well) would dominate that debate and spread voluntarist ideas far and wide through that platform. That would be really helpful, just as Ron Paul's messages were.
I get why you and many others don't like the approach, but I do think it's a strategic play, and I agree with Jeff Berwick's opinion that we should be up for trying all kinds of approaches.
Great post and insightful, as well as helpful to those who are new to libertarianism, anarchism and voluntaryism how things work when it comes to the political process.
I mentioned in another post that I don't believe there is anything as a "perfect anarchist" although I see there are plenty enough idealists who enjoy the discussions but actually don't put in much effort towards ground work and raising awareness to alternatives to the state as Kokesh (and many others) notably has over the years.
Personally, I don't vote (the non-voting strategy works for me) but I'd like to think Kokesh is well intentioned in his pursuits. I hope I'm not being overly optimistic there.
I posted a reply recently about this. The TL;DR version is that this isn't about individuals. None of us are perfect. That doesn't matter though. Each of us is at a different distance down the path, and all that matters is the objective. My objective and the objective of my friends is maximizing individual liberty. Is the other person on the same path and has the same objective? Great! They are my friend. Are they not? Well, they should be called out for it, and we should always trust and repeatedly verify our friend's actions. Anyone suggesting they should not be continually verified probably has something to hide too.
I lost it when he called Larken Buddha! So perfect! I respect them both immensely, and they're both doing their thing. I for one wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Dr. Paul. I think Adam at the Libertarian convention will be better than most we've seen in recent years. I guess I agree with you, they're both where we need them.
I hope more people can see it that way and continue to respectfully dialogue about the issue. We have some smart people here and it's a powerful thing when they work together.
That was a really interesting and thought-provoking post. I've not listened to the discussion/debate yet but will try to find the time tomorrow. You've given me a lot to think about because before I read this post I was firmly of the belief that it was pointless to participate in the political process. You've made some really good arguments in this post and I particularly liked the Simon Says analogy.
I know very little about voluntaryism/anarchy to be honest but I can certainly understand a thirst for freedom. Talking about freedom and Adam Kokesh, I'm being sent a free copy of Adam's book by a fellow Steemian after Adam sent him 33 copies for free !!
Along with reading Freedom, I'll be going back through your post as there are quite a few of your posts you linked to that I think I will like and benefit from reading if this one is anything to go by.
I'm already voting for you as witness and will continue doing so.
Thank you so much for your feedback, Jim! I spent most of today on this post so it really means a lot to me to hear someone read it, appreciated it, and it gave them a reason to want to learn more.
Whatever you learn from me, please, combine it with what you learn from many other sources. I don't have it figured out. I don't think anyone does, really. We all need to keep working together, challenging ourselves, and moving closer to freedom.
Well put. I also had to listen to this "debate" since I admire both Larken and Kokesh for what they have done and continue to do for the community. I think if there was a winner, it was Adam. Larken seemed overly pessimistic, for some odd reason (IMO) and I still respect him for his, but I truly hope he will come around and at least see that what Adam is doing, is still a good thing for the message he spreads (like Ron Paul did), regardless whether he actually wins or not. It's not good to see two highly respected names in the anarchist/voluntaryist community disagree completely on how to go about making changes for a better world.
It's not good to see two highly respected names in the anarchist/voluntaryist community disagree completely on how to go about making changes for a better world.
I don't know if it is not good or good.
Those are their opinions, I rather have harsh but genuine opinions than a played, getting along.
Again...... opinions.... no one is giving commands or forbidding someone anything, but no one has to agree, approve or support either.
In statism everybody get's the opinions of others forced on them (with a gun)
Voluntaryism is the the possibility to disagree................big time ;) (and leave it there)
Good was a poor word choice... It was an unpleasant feeling (for me) to hear two people I respect, also disagree to the point of being bitter with each other about such an important topic.
I think Adam's intentions are pure/just and his method may or may not be the best way forward but IMO it's got a better shot than trying to educate the willfully ignorant just enough to actually do something on their own (aka doing nothing).
Voluntaryism is the the possibility to disagree................big time ;) (and leave it there)
True, but name calling isn't exactly an argument, disagreement or even a discussion. It's just an insult and only makes the one doing it, appear weak and/or less credible. See below.
..... a “cult of personality” narcissistic egomaniac and his attempt to become President.
The narcissistic egomaniac is an opinion too and in the debate nothing was said that was personal. That was in the written piece afterward.
But what could he have said in your opinion, in place of narcissistic egomaniac that could not be perceived as an insult in other words how do you say narcissistic egomaniac in political correct language?
If he would have said such a thing about trump, clinton, or sanders would you have felt the same way?
I think Adam's intentions are pure/just and his method may or may not be the best way forward but IMO it's got a better shot than trying to educate the willfully ignorant just enough to actually do something on their own (aka doing nothing).
I don't get that impression. But he must do what he wants to do just as Larken has to do what he wants to do. Mingling the two approaches might be more pleasant, but it would be one big mess of unprincipled nice doing. Some people have to be an sort of anker. That is highly needed. It doesn't matter if it's Larken or someone else.
As a side note I think Larken is not as much in the education but more in the deprogramming of cult members. If that is not the end point then you can try to abolish or abolish the government many times but it will just return. Because the cult member will build a new church with new priests etc.
But it all does not matter. The one is nice talking but not addressing points brought up by the other and the other is bringing the same points up every time with every politician but doesn't talk politically correct so a lot of people feel this or that way.
I feel we all can want people playing nice really bad. But that doesn't mean our wishes get fulfilled. It is what it is.
Well said. Disagreements and debate are healthy. Not only that, we can use opportunities like this to demonstrate to the world how rational, principled people can have respectful disagreements.
I am "pessimistic" about Adam winning (and being able to implement his impossible and inherently bogus "Executive Order" plan) because he has exactly no chance of winning. None. Like I just said in my other comment, if his campaign was actually about spreading the message, I wouldn't have most of these objections. But it's not. It's about a procedural/legal "plan" that he KNOWS has exactly NO chance of ever happening.
If Adam had directly answered your question during the debate about if he thought he could win, do you think he'd have any chance what-so-ever of getting the Libertarian nomination?
I think he's playing this smart. I'd be surprised if he really thought he was going to win, and at the same time, I wouldn't want him to ever say out loud "There's zero chance we can win" because that would ensure the value I see here (him getting the nomination and getting media attention through it) would certainly not happen.
I don't see how he can spread the message of voluntaryism through a plan to engage the political process until he actually gets to participate in the political process. Whether or not he has a chance to win is, to me, secondary to whether or not he has a chance to obtain a platform to spread the message. That said, I'm looking forward to the discussion you mentioned you'll have on this. If there's a better way, maybe Adam will adopt it.
If Adam had directly answered your question during the debate about if he thought he could win, do you think he'd have any chance what-so-ever of getting the Libertarian nomination?
He’s politicking. You said it. Thst’s what politicians do. They cannot answer things directly. That’s why he’s being called out. Dishonesty.
If there's value in playing their game then it makes sense to play it by their rules. Those of us who understand this don't see it as dishonesty but as not showing your cards you plan to play before playing them.
Politics is a childish game. We know this. The minds of the people we are trying to free don't yet. Again, please read my post before commenting further. I gave what I think to be a good analogy for this in the "Simon Says" example.
I disagree. I have 0 faith in the political process and haven't voted myself since 04, but I WILL vote for Adam when I get the chance.
You're basically saying we can't trust him because in order to actually win, it requires him to at the very least, act/play the part of 'politician'? I actually prefer this over being all philosophical since we already know the ignorant masses don't respond well to reason/logic, I thought this was a given...
If we ask 100 people about how to make changes for a better world, I hope we get more than 100 answers. It all starts with ourselves and there are multiple avenues for improving ourselves.
The ends never justify the means.
this is a statement based on universal law.
But, this really isn't about the ends, or the means.
Do we use ThemTube, an obvious force for evil, to get the word out about anarchy? In the lack of a better alternative, yes.
Do we use the political process to help get the word out about anarchy? Well, its not hurting anybody, go for it.
All of these people are wrong.
Imagine you knew how the internet would all be hooked up and it would be the greatest thing for humanity... back in the 80s, and you wanted to create it all.
Unfortunately, it had to go through several failed attempts, several discarded technologies to become what it is today. Many two steps forward, one step back. You could not go directly to what we have today, even if you had a complete vision of it back in the 80s.
The future of government (or probably be called a protectorate) is not anything we have even considered. Even the Venus Project is so far off as to not even be used as reference material.
The world doesn't work well without a structure. There are many people who need help. There are many people who need direction. And these require human organizations.
But, it will not be these bureaucracies. In fact, that is probably the part that is going to be done away with. It just won't exist. Instead, there will be something called coherence. And there will be a device that allows all the people who are a part of the project to get together at the same time to all get in alignment about where the project is going.
Imagine a world where the organization has a vote, and its 100% or 0% about where they go and what they do. People can join and leave as they please. And the focus is on getting their thing done, with aid to all and harm to none.
This will become reality. Anarchy is not what it will be called. It will be soo far from anarchy. But, it will be even further away from communism.
So, anything that promotes freedom, is the path that everyone should explore and write about. Because, there are many paths to explore to get to the paradigm shifts that show up when key pieces are found.
Most of your comments on my blog are difficult for me to appreciate. When I see your screen name, I usually brace myself with "Okay, what is it this time..."
I'm so happy that's not the case here. I'll happily upvote this comment because I think I actually understand and appreciate what you're saying. It's just like those who lived under tyrannical regimes so long ago could never have imagined the freedom (comparatively) offered by a representative democracy. I think the future organization or system humanity uses to find consensus and help those who can't help themselves while providing safety and protecting economic security (contract enforcement, etc) will look so radically different than what we have now as to be almost unrecognizable. Human brain to computer interfaces, IOT data collection, and artificial super intelligence are just some examples of how the landscape and context will completely change in the future.
This is nothing against Larken, but what I like about Adam is the way that he approaches the issues in a non threatening way. He gives the other person's point of view respect, let the interviewee say their bit, and then responds with a deep philosophical question about what they just said. They are either stunned, giving it some thought or they run away. I would like to see how a nationally televised audience would react to Adam's personality and his message. It can only do some good. Of course after that, if Adam even gets there, they will have to eliminate the threat.
Larken's approach, although very well laid out and articulated, is however a bit more intimidating. And some people will instinctively turn off on just for that reason alone, regardless of how true Larken's point is.
I have a number of friends who I've shared Larken's videos with who have done exactly that. I try to discuss the content with them, but they get turned off by the delivery. Personally, I love Larken's approaches because he calls bullshit every where he sees it and completely without apology. I think the world not only needs more of that, but they need to get out of their safe spaces enough to learn how to deal with it and respond respectfully.
As Larken pointed out in his post, Adam can get flustered and emotional as well. We all can. No one is perfect. That said, he does an amazing job with the many videos I've seen of him confronting people or being confronted and using NVC.
I don't think its so much getting into a safe space but rather the subconscious mind using it as an excuse to not have to dismantle it's possible false internal belief structure.
Yeah, I agree. There's a whole lot of cognitive dissonance that comes up when people's core principles about what is "good" (nationalist, voting, authority, etc) and what is "bad" (anarchy, no government, etc) gets questioned.
Read most of this, ruminating ....but I'm easy if it works it works, you know what I mean!
We all have our own motivation and it's ebb and flows the paradoxes within our own selves.
Thaks
The challenge comes with defining what works and how we got there. Some cures really are worse than the disease. I highly respect Larken Rose and want to dig deep into this topic to better understand his views and ensure my thinking about Adam's plan is correct that it will help more than it hurts.
A thought provoking post and interesting debate. Some echos of philosopher Jeremy Bentham, whose Universalist ideals advocated freedoms and basic human rights. But then he also envisioned the Panopticon - institutional surveillance where by the inmate never knows if he is being watched, so they behave as if they are. This is the ultimate in social control.
Interesting. I'm not familiar with Jeremy Bentham, though the name does sound familiar. Constant surveillance doesn't sound all that great (or all that different from what we experience now).
Great, balanced post. I agree with pretty much every point you raised. I think there's something personal going on behind the scenes with these two, but that's none of my business.
Both are great advocates for freedom; there was no 'winner' or 'loser' in the debate.
There was a winner. The objective truth is that the voluntaryist property ethic does not permit acquiring authority or property ownership via political mandate. That’s all there is to it. If people don’t like it they can stop calling themselves Voluntaryists.
People can call themselves voluntaryists provided they are not violating the non-aggression principle or supporting others who violate the non-aggression principle.
If Adam doesn't violate the non-aggression principle in his political campaign, and spreads the message of freedom and self-ownership, he is still a voluntaryist.
Here's the hard truth: Adam has done more than you, me, and pretty much everyone else on this platform to spread the message of freedom. How many statists are you reaching via your steemit articles, or are you preaching to the choir?
Adam has a chance to reach potentially MILLIONS of statists by spreading the message of freedom on a political platform, and you -- and others -- want to shut him down before he's even got started.
Why?
This is all just egoic bullshit, in my opinion, and this anarchist 'movement' is destined to fail without unity.
If Adam doesn't violate the non-aggression principle in his political campaign, and spreads the message of freedom and self-ownership, he is still a voluntaryist.
Whose rights is Adam violating by standing on a political platform and spreading the message of freedom? If he got into office, and then started signing off on all kinds of aggressive legislation, that would be a violation of the non-aggression principle.
I don't like the political platform as much as anyone else, but the average statist isn't going to read The Most Dangerous Superstition or delve into the philosophy of anarchism when they get home from work.
They come home, slump into the sofa and flick on the television. That is where Adam could reach them. Provided he isn't forcing people to listen to him at gunpoint; who is he violating?
His platform involves gaining authority and control over other individuals and resources via an illegitimate system (government majority vote).
That’s enough right there. Authority over others, and ownership of land and resources cannot be given by vote legitimately, in a violence-backed electoral process.
A more concrete example is his plan to keep national parks “open to the public.” This is stated directly in his platform. To do this, he, and not the free market, will be assigning ownership of these vast swathes of land to non-profit businesses of his personal choice.
In Voluntaryism, one is always free to homestead unowned lands. In Adam’s plan, they will have to ask permission or simply be refused the right to freely. This is a direct violation of the freedom of movement (use of body/self-ownership) and the freedom to acquire property.
So those are just two of the glaring inconsistencies/problems, as far as Voluntaryism is concerned.
His platform involves gaining authority and control over other individuals and resources via an illegitimate system (government majority vote).
Do you believe his plan gives him any real destructive authority at all? As he described in the discussion with Larken and Jeff, it's the "authority and control" to pick up someone's wallet and give it back to them. That's not destructive and that has nothing to do with voting, it's just moral decency.
violence-backed electoral process.
You've used this term before. Can you clarify what you mean by it? Voting itself is not violence. What people do with their so called "authority" caused by people's ridiculous belief in voting is the actual violence (wars, bombs, laws for victimless "crimes", etc). I could get 5 people together to vote me king of the world and that doesn't mean I'm committed any violence against any one.
As for homesteading national parks, he directly said in this comment it would be allowed. It seems like you're reading ill intent into a single sentence on the platform when Adam already clarified it for you.
OK, you clearly define voting as being inherently violent and an illegitimate means of gaining authority over others, so I'd like to ask the following questions:
If the slave trade was legal and a politician - let's say, Adam - was going to shut down the plantations and free the slaves, would you consider that a violent, imposing act of authority?
If Adam, or some other libertarian politician, wanted votes to release all inmates who had been incarcerated for 'victimless crimes' (most of the prison population), would you consider that an imposing act of authority?
I guess the real question is, how can you enforce freedom onto others? If someone is looking for votes to free innocent people from prison, or to destroy 'the war on drugs', how can any of those things be imposing or authoritarian?
Another question:
If an armed militia stormed Washington tomorrow, killed the politicians, killed the police and fended off the military, all in the name of abolishing government, would you consider that a violent, authoritarian act, or a legitimate means of self-defense? And also, would you prefer to see that (physical rebellion resulting in mass loss of life), rather than someone using a political platform to peacefully spread the message of freedom?
There are only three ways the anarchist/voluntaryist dream is ever going to be realized:
1.) Adam, or someone like Adam, runs for office and wakes up the statists in a political campaign.
2.) An armed militia declares their right to self-defense and sparks a civil war with the police and military, resulting in mass bloodshed and loss of life. If the militia win, they declare that anyone who tries to take the throne to enforce their will on others will be executed, so as to prevent government from ever forming again.
3.) More and more of the masses read books like The Most Dangerous superstition and give up their belief in authority; government eventually fizzles out.
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't have much faith in the masses reading into the philosophy of self-ownership and anarchism anytime soon, so I'd pick option No. 1 as our best bet for a mass awakening, although option No. 2 is also entirely legitimate, albeit much more violent.
100% upvote & resteem @lukestokes bro. My advice: stop wasting time on this dude, he is not worth it. Disrespectful and manipulating. You might like my comment on his post. We love you Luke! Cheer up!
I think everyone is worth it. I also think some people have different approaches and styles which can be very incompatible and frustrating. Through dialogue, hopefully we can all grow.
Thanks for the encouragement to cheer up. I’m honestly not discouraged by the dialogue but by the laringitus I may have. That may have come through a little bit in my writing/comments.
Much love, Jan. Puerto Rico is amazing and beautiful.
I've disagreed with Adam on a few things via text message, discussions in person, or here on Steemit, and he's yet to respond to my critiques as an attack.
Right. Because you support his overall agenda. Those who take issue with his campaign as a whole are not treated so kindly, and you know this.
Right now I don't have time to write a ridiculously long response to your ridiculously long post. :) I will mention that tomorrow I will be having a debate/discussion (probably more of the latter) with someone about how "political campaigning" can best spread the message of voluntaryism, WITHOUT legitimizing the circus. I will try to remember to post a link to that here, after it is posted.
The one other thing I will say is this: I hear a lot of people defending Adam's campaign, talking about him "spreading the message." But if you look at his actual campaign, it doesn't. It pins EVERYTHING on an impossible and bogus "Executive Order" that will never happen because Adam will never get elected. THAT is the main focus of his campaign. "Spreading the message" ISN'T.
Adam has done a LOT over the years to actually spread the concepts of non-aggression, self-ownership and voluntaryism. That is what he should still be doing. This campaign doesn't do that. Go LOOK at his web site (www.kokeshforpresident.com)! Most people taking his side seem to just be HOPING that at some point he will get around to focusing on principles and philosophy again, even though nothing about this campaign indicates that.
Ron Paul talked about principles, principles, principles. He NEVER switched over to some pie-in-the-sky legislative agenda or political solution. Even as a statist, he spread libertarian ideas way better than Adam's current campaign does. WISHING Adam was spreading a coherent message of freedom doesn't make it so. With this campaign, he isn't.
Thanks, Larken. That discussion sounds great. I look forward to hearing it.
I don't think it's blind hope to imagine he'll ramp up the messaging about freedom once he gets put into a position to do so. He's been doing that consistently for over a decade. IMO, it would be irrational to imagine him doing anything else. I don't think his campaign platform was written for you or me. I think it was written for Libertarian statists who just might be ready to accept what they've been doing this whole time hasn't worked at all.
He'd have no chance of getting the Libertarian nomination with a message of pure anarchy. I just don't think there are enough people (yet) who are ready for that within that group. I hope he gets the nomination and someone like Stossel does another Libertarian debate. Adam (or you or pretty much any fully-principled voluntaryist who can communicate well) would dominate that debate and spread voluntarist ideas far and wide through that platform. That would be really helpful, just as Ron Paul's messages were.
I get why you and many others don't like the approach, but I do think it's a strategic play, and I agree with Jeff Berwick's opinion that we should be up for trying all kinds of approaches.
Great post and insightful, as well as helpful to those who are new to libertarianism, anarchism and voluntaryism how things work when it comes to the political process.
I mentioned in another post that I don't believe there is anything as a "perfect anarchist" although I see there are plenty enough idealists who enjoy the discussions but actually don't put in much effort towards ground work and raising awareness to alternatives to the state as Kokesh (and many others) notably has over the years.
Personally, I don't vote (the non-voting strategy works for me) but I'd like to think Kokesh is well intentioned in his pursuits. I hope I'm not being overly optimistic there.
I posted a reply recently about this. The TL;DR version is that this isn't about individuals. None of us are perfect. That doesn't matter though. Each of us is at a different distance down the path, and all that matters is the objective. My objective and the objective of my friends is maximizing individual liberty. Is the other person on the same path and has the same objective? Great! They are my friend. Are they not? Well, they should be called out for it, and we should always trust and repeatedly verify our friend's actions. Anyone suggesting they should not be continually verified probably has something to hide too.
I lost it when he called Larken Buddha! So perfect! I respect them both immensely, and they're both doing their thing. I for one wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Dr. Paul. I think Adam at the Libertarian convention will be better than most we've seen in recent years. I guess I agree with you, they're both where we need them.
I hope more people can see it that way and continue to respectfully dialogue about the issue. We have some smart people here and it's a powerful thing when they work together.
That was a really interesting and thought-provoking post. I've not listened to the discussion/debate yet but will try to find the time tomorrow. You've given me a lot to think about because before I read this post I was firmly of the belief that it was pointless to participate in the political process. You've made some really good arguments in this post and I particularly liked the Simon Says analogy.
I know very little about voluntaryism/anarchy to be honest but I can certainly understand a thirst for freedom. Talking about freedom and Adam Kokesh, I'm being sent a free copy of Adam's book by a fellow Steemian after Adam sent him 33 copies for free !!
Along with reading Freedom, I'll be going back through your post as there are quite a few of your posts you linked to that I think I will like and benefit from reading if this one is anything to go by.
I'm already voting for you as witness and will continue doing so.
Take it easy.
Jim
Thank you so much for your feedback, Jim! I spent most of today on this post so it really means a lot to me to hear someone read it, appreciated it, and it gave them a reason to want to learn more.
Whatever you learn from me, please, combine it with what you learn from many other sources. I don't have it figured out. I don't think anyone does, really. We all need to keep working together, challenging ourselves, and moving closer to freedom.
Thank you for your support.
Well put. I also had to listen to this "debate" since I admire both Larken and Kokesh for what they have done and continue to do for the community. I think if there was a winner, it was Adam. Larken seemed overly pessimistic, for some odd reason (IMO) and I still respect him for his, but I truly hope he will come around and at least see that what Adam is doing, is still a good thing for the message he spreads (like Ron Paul did), regardless whether he actually wins or not. It's not good to see two highly respected names in the anarchist/voluntaryist community disagree completely on how to go about making changes for a better world.
I don't know if it is not good or good.
Those are their opinions, I rather have harsh but genuine opinions than a played, getting along.
Again...... opinions.... no one is giving commands or forbidding someone anything, but no one has to agree, approve or support either.
In statism everybody get's the opinions of others forced on them (with a gun)
Voluntaryism is the the possibility to disagree................big time ;) (and leave it there)
Good was a poor word choice... It was an unpleasant feeling (for me) to hear two people I respect, also disagree to the point of being bitter with each other about such an important topic.
I think Adam's intentions are pure/just and his method may or may not be the best way forward but IMO it's got a better shot than trying to educate the willfully ignorant just enough to actually do something on their own (aka doing nothing).
True, but name calling isn't exactly an argument, disagreement or even a discussion. It's just an insult and only makes the one doing it, appear weak and/or less credible. See below.
Taken from here
The narcissistic egomaniac is an opinion too and in the debate nothing was said that was personal. That was in the written piece afterward.
But what could he have said in your opinion, in place of narcissistic egomaniac that could not be perceived as an insult in other words how do you say narcissistic egomaniac in political correct language?
If he would have said such a thing about trump, clinton, or sanders would you have felt the same way?
I don't get that impression. But he must do what he wants to do just as Larken has to do what he wants to do. Mingling the two approaches might be more pleasant, but it would be one big mess of unprincipled nice doing. Some people have to be an sort of anker. That is highly needed. It doesn't matter if it's Larken or someone else.
As a side note I think Larken is not as much in the education but more in the deprogramming of cult members. If that is not the end point then you can try to abolish or abolish the government many times but it will just return. Because the cult member will build a new church with new priests etc.
But it all does not matter. The one is nice talking but not addressing points brought up by the other and the other is bringing the same points up every time with every politician but doesn't talk politically correct so a lot of people feel this or that way.
I feel we all can want people playing nice really bad. But that doesn't mean our wishes get fulfilled. It is what it is.
Hey thank you for the reply :)
True, it is what it is!
Anytime, thank you.
Well said. Disagreements and debate are healthy. Not only that, we can use opportunities like this to demonstrate to the world how rational, principled people can have respectful disagreements.
I am "pessimistic" about Adam winning (and being able to implement his impossible and inherently bogus "Executive Order" plan) because he has exactly no chance of winning. None. Like I just said in my other comment, if his campaign was actually about spreading the message, I wouldn't have most of these objections. But it's not. It's about a procedural/legal "plan" that he KNOWS has exactly NO chance of ever happening.
If Adam had directly answered your question during the debate about if he thought he could win, do you think he'd have any chance what-so-ever of getting the Libertarian nomination?
I think he's playing this smart. I'd be surprised if he really thought he was going to win, and at the same time, I wouldn't want him to ever say out loud "There's zero chance we can win" because that would ensure the value I see here (him getting the nomination and getting media attention through it) would certainly not happen.
I don't see how he can spread the message of voluntaryism through a plan to engage the political process until he actually gets to participate in the political process. Whether or not he has a chance to win is, to me, secondary to whether or not he has a chance to obtain a platform to spread the message. That said, I'm looking forward to the discussion you mentioned you'll have on this. If there's a better way, maybe Adam will adopt it.
He’s politicking. You said it. Thst’s what politicians do. They cannot answer things directly. That’s why he’s being called out. Dishonesty.
If there's value in playing their game then it makes sense to play it by their rules. Those of us who understand this don't see it as dishonesty but as not showing your cards you plan to play before playing them.
Politics is a childish game. We know this. The minds of the people we are trying to free don't yet. Again, please read my post before commenting further. I gave what I think to be a good analogy for this in the "Simon Says" example.
Those of us not looking to gain political favor can be more honest.
Yes, it is a childish game.
I'm glad Ron Paul played it for the platform it gave him.
I hope to be equally glad for Adam's efforts in the future.
I disagree. I have 0 faith in the political process and haven't voted myself since 04, but I WILL vote for Adam when I get the chance.
You're basically saying we can't trust him because in order to actually win, it requires him to at the very least, act/play the part of 'politician'? I actually prefer this over being all philosophical since we already know the ignorant masses don't respond well to reason/logic, I thought this was a given...
If we ask 100 people about how to make changes for a better world, I hope we get more than 100 answers. It all starts with ourselves and there are multiple avenues for improving ourselves.
The ends never justify the means.
this is a statement based on universal law.
But, this really isn't about the ends, or the means.
Do we use ThemTube, an obvious force for evil, to get the word out about anarchy? In the lack of a better alternative, yes.
Do we use the political process to help get the word out about anarchy? Well, its not hurting anybody, go for it.
All of these people are wrong.
Imagine you knew how the internet would all be hooked up and it would be the greatest thing for humanity... back in the 80s, and you wanted to create it all.
Unfortunately, it had to go through several failed attempts, several discarded technologies to become what it is today. Many two steps forward, one step back. You could not go directly to what we have today, even if you had a complete vision of it back in the 80s.
The future of government (or probably be called a protectorate) is not anything we have even considered. Even the Venus Project is so far off as to not even be used as reference material.
The world doesn't work well without a structure. There are many people who need help. There are many people who need direction. And these require human organizations.
But, it will not be these bureaucracies. In fact, that is probably the part that is going to be done away with. It just won't exist. Instead, there will be something called coherence. And there will be a device that allows all the people who are a part of the project to get together at the same time to all get in alignment about where the project is going.
Imagine a world where the organization has a vote, and its 100% or 0% about where they go and what they do. People can join and leave as they please. And the focus is on getting their thing done, with aid to all and harm to none.
This will become reality. Anarchy is not what it will be called. It will be soo far from anarchy. But, it will be even further away from communism.
So, anything that promotes freedom, is the path that everyone should explore and write about. Because, there are many paths to explore to get to the paradigm shifts that show up when key pieces are found.
Most of your comments on my blog are difficult for me to appreciate. When I see your screen name, I usually brace myself with "Okay, what is it this time..."
I'm so happy that's not the case here. I'll happily upvote this comment because I think I actually understand and appreciate what you're saying. It's just like those who lived under tyrannical regimes so long ago could never have imagined the freedom (comparatively) offered by a representative democracy. I think the future organization or system humanity uses to find consensus and help those who can't help themselves while providing safety and protecting economic security (contract enforcement, etc) will look so radically different than what we have now as to be almost unrecognizable. Human brain to computer interfaces, IOT data collection, and artificial super intelligence are just some examples of how the landscape and context will completely change in the future.
This is nothing against Larken, but what I like about Adam is the way that he approaches the issues in a non threatening way. He gives the other person's point of view respect, let the interviewee say their bit, and then responds with a deep philosophical question about what they just said. They are either stunned, giving it some thought or they run away. I would like to see how a nationally televised audience would react to Adam's personality and his message. It can only do some good. Of course after that, if Adam even gets there, they will have to eliminate the threat.
Larken's approach, although very well laid out and articulated, is however a bit more intimidating. And some people will instinctively turn off on just for that reason alone, regardless of how true Larken's point is.
I have a number of friends who I've shared Larken's videos with who have done exactly that. I try to discuss the content with them, but they get turned off by the delivery. Personally, I love Larken's approaches because he calls bullshit every where he sees it and completely without apology. I think the world not only needs more of that, but they need to get out of their safe spaces enough to learn how to deal with it and respond respectfully.
As Larken pointed out in his post, Adam can get flustered and emotional as well. We all can. No one is perfect. That said, he does an amazing job with the many videos I've seen of him confronting people or being confronted and using NVC.
I don't think its so much getting into a safe space but rather the subconscious mind using it as an excuse to not have to dismantle it's possible false internal belief structure.
Yeah, I agree. There's a whole lot of cognitive dissonance that comes up when people's core principles about what is "good" (nationalist, voting, authority, etc) and what is "bad" (anarchy, no government, etc) gets questioned.
Read most of this, ruminating ....but I'm easy if it works it works, you know what I mean!
We all have our own motivation and it's ebb and flows the paradoxes within our own selves.
Thaks
The challenge comes with defining what works and how we got there. Some cures really are worse than the disease. I highly respect Larken Rose and want to dig deep into this topic to better understand his views and ensure my thinking about Adam's plan is correct that it will help more than it hurts.
That's what I'm talking about. I'm looking for Larken to explain in better details as to how it is more hurtful what Adam is doing than if he did not.
A thought provoking post and interesting debate. Some echos of philosopher Jeremy Bentham, whose Universalist ideals advocated freedoms and basic human rights. But then he also envisioned the Panopticon - institutional surveillance where by the inmate never knows if he is being watched, so they behave as if they are. This is the ultimate in social control.
Interesting. I'm not familiar with Jeremy Bentham, though the name does sound familiar. Constant surveillance doesn't sound all that great (or all that different from what we experience now).
Great, balanced post. I agree with pretty much every point you raised. I think there's something personal going on behind the scenes with these two, but that's none of my business.
Both are great advocates for freedom; there was no 'winner' or 'loser' in the debate.
There was a winner. The objective truth is that the voluntaryist property ethic does not permit acquiring authority or property ownership via political mandate. That’s all there is to it. If people don’t like it they can stop calling themselves Voluntaryists.
People can call themselves voluntaryists provided they are not violating the non-aggression principle or supporting others who violate the non-aggression principle.
If Adam doesn't violate the non-aggression principle in his political campaign, and spreads the message of freedom and self-ownership, he is still a voluntaryist.
Here's the hard truth: Adam has done more than you, me, and pretty much everyone else on this platform to spread the message of freedom. How many statists are you reaching via your steemit articles, or are you preaching to the choir?
Adam has a chance to reach potentially MILLIONS of statists by spreading the message of freedom on a political platform, and you -- and others -- want to shut him down before he's even got started.
Why?
This is all just egoic bullshit, in my opinion, and this anarchist 'movement' is destined to fail without unity.
His plan, by design, violates it.
How so?
Whose rights is Adam violating by standing on a political platform and spreading the message of freedom? If he got into office, and then started signing off on all kinds of aggressive legislation, that would be a violation of the non-aggression principle.
I don't like the political platform as much as anyone else, but the average statist isn't going to read The Most Dangerous Superstition or delve into the philosophy of anarchism when they get home from work.
They come home, slump into the sofa and flick on the television. That is where Adam could reach them. Provided he isn't forcing people to listen to him at gunpoint; who is he violating?
His platform involves gaining authority and control over other individuals and resources via an illegitimate system (government majority vote).
That’s enough right there. Authority over others, and ownership of land and resources cannot be given by vote legitimately, in a violence-backed electoral process.
A more concrete example is his plan to keep national parks “open to the public.” This is stated directly in his platform. To do this, he, and not the free market, will be assigning ownership of these vast swathes of land to non-profit businesses of his personal choice.
In Voluntaryism, one is always free to homestead unowned lands. In Adam’s plan, they will have to ask permission or simply be refused the right to freely. This is a direct violation of the freedom of movement (use of body/self-ownership) and the freedom to acquire property.
So those are just two of the glaring inconsistencies/problems, as far as Voluntaryism is concerned.
Do you believe his plan gives him any real destructive authority at all? As he described in the discussion with Larken and Jeff, it's the "authority and control" to pick up someone's wallet and give it back to them. That's not destructive and that has nothing to do with voting, it's just moral decency.
You've used this term before. Can you clarify what you mean by it? Voting itself is not violence. What people do with their so called "authority" caused by people's ridiculous belief in voting is the actual violence (wars, bombs, laws for victimless "crimes", etc). I could get 5 people together to vote me king of the world and that doesn't mean I'm committed any violence against any one.
As for homesteading national parks, he directly said in this comment it would be allowed. It seems like you're reading ill intent into a single sentence on the platform when Adam already clarified it for you.
OK, you clearly define voting as being inherently violent and an illegitimate means of gaining authority over others, so I'd like to ask the following questions:
If the slave trade was legal and a politician - let's say, Adam - was going to shut down the plantations and free the slaves, would you consider that a violent, imposing act of authority?
If Adam, or some other libertarian politician, wanted votes to release all inmates who had been incarcerated for 'victimless crimes' (most of the prison population), would you consider that an imposing act of authority?
I guess the real question is, how can you enforce freedom onto others? If someone is looking for votes to free innocent people from prison, or to destroy 'the war on drugs', how can any of those things be imposing or authoritarian?
Another question:
If an armed militia stormed Washington tomorrow, killed the politicians, killed the police and fended off the military, all in the name of abolishing government, would you consider that a violent, authoritarian act, or a legitimate means of self-defense? And also, would you prefer to see that (physical rebellion resulting in mass loss of life), rather than someone using a political platform to peacefully spread the message of freedom?
There are only three ways the anarchist/voluntaryist dream is ever going to be realized:
1.) Adam, or someone like Adam, runs for office and wakes up the statists in a political campaign.
2.) An armed militia declares their right to self-defense and sparks a civil war with the police and military, resulting in mass bloodshed and loss of life. If the militia win, they declare that anyone who tries to take the throne to enforce their will on others will be executed, so as to prevent government from ever forming again.
3.) More and more of the masses read books like The Most Dangerous superstition and give up their belief in authority; government eventually fizzles out.
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't have much faith in the masses reading into the philosophy of self-ownership and anarchism anytime soon, so I'd pick option No. 1 as our best bet for a mass awakening, although option No. 2 is also entirely legitimate, albeit much more violent.
Thanks Jan.
I think everyone is worth it. I also think some people have different approaches and styles which can be very incompatible and frustrating. Through dialogue, hopefully we can all grow.
Thanks for the encouragement to cheer up. I’m honestly not discouraged by the dialogue but by the laringitus I may have. That may have come through a little bit in my writing/comments.
Much love, Jan. Puerto Rico is amazing and beautiful.
Happy to hear that bro and yes you're right, no grudge is always the best approach! Can't wait to come visit, hopefully you can make the move!
Right. Because you support his overall agenda. Those who take issue with his campaign as a whole are not treated so kindly, and you know this.