You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: IF YOU'RE NOT GETTING POLITICAL, YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING!!!!

in #anarchy7 years ago

Would you prohibit individuals from freely (without permission) homesteading and privatizing areas such as the grand canyon?

His answer would seem to be no. Let the market decide and that's inline with freedom imho.

"What I would want to see is that there is a way for the market to provide a way of preserving large national resources for that greater value, that not everything has to be parceled out to the individual in order for the individual to have a legitimate stake in it." ~@adamkokesh

Who in their right mind would want to see all the natural resources in private hands so only those people will ever get to see it. Parcel it out and destroy something beautiful that belongs to everyone.

and just to add another fly into the ointment, caught a headline of @kennyskitchen 's asking if we own the land or the land owns us. It's on my to read list for sure.

About that wallet.. lol. Do we not agree that the only decent thing to do is to return stolen property to its rightful owner. rhetorical.. should be

What about the property that nobody claims or the rightful owner can't be determined? Good question but a difficult one that Adam has asked for help with.

btw, the "materialistic" remark that Adam made was never directed at you imho. It was used in a generally speaking kind of way.

That's what I've got so far but my goal is to break down that entire video into clear talking points so there can be no confusion. I think it's going to be possible to do on my website, save as draft until done, post it and it uploads automatically to steemit. I think I can..

kind regards

Sort:  

You are moving goalposts now, though.

We discussed the national parks/ Grand Canyon thing. You stated:

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?

Now you’ve heard Adam’s clear position on that specific topic, and instead of conceding the point, you move the goalposts and attempt to defend the action.

Defending that plan is fine, but the perceived morality of this was not the point. You said he wouldn’t be weighing in. No you know he would.

That is another conversation and issue. You’re going to have to stay on topic.

As for Jeff Berwick, all I can say is that you would be doing yourself a huge favor to stop “trusting people” in that way, and start using logic as the compass.

Thank you for conceding that Adam would indeed be centrally weighing in and making property decisions.

"What I would want to see is that there is a way for the market to provide a way of preserving large national resources for that greater value, that not everything has to be parceled out to the individual in order for the individual to have a legitimate stake in it." ~@adamkokesh

which part of that don't you understand? Did he not just say to let the market decide and then you turn that around in your mind to mean the exact opposite. Your talking in circles.

Whatever confusion there is here is all on your end.

  1. YOU gave me the question.
  2. I found Adam's answer to that VERY question in the video and quoted it to you.

move the goalposts? wth are you talking about? We've got one question and one answer and you're ignoring both and changing the subject and saying all kinds of nonsense like I'm changing something.

one question, one answer, that was the goal to keep it so simple there could be no misunderstanding. I honestly can't imagine how to bring it down to terms that would be any easier to understand.

Unless I can bring myself to believe that your intellect is insufficient to comprehend what I'm saying, I'm left with thinking you're being disingenuous at the very least.

YOU gave me the question:

Would you prohibit individuals from freely (without permission) homesteading and privatizing areas such as the grand canyon?

Ask him that yourself. He will likely know it is from me, though.

I found the answer in the video and presented it to you:

"What I would want to see is that there is a way for the market to provide a way of preserving large national resources for that greater value, that not everything has to be parceled out to the individual in order for the individual to have a legitimate stake in it." ~@adamkokesh

You never addressed the answer. That was the whole point of the exercise but then you'd be proven wrong. I can't relate to people who are not forthright.

I've yet to hear Jeff Berwick say a single thing that I disagree with, trust has nothing to do with it, his words stand on their own.

and then you make this weird ass comment:

Thank you for conceding that Adam would indeed be centrally weighing in and making property decisions.

Whaaat? LMAO!

The only thing I concede is that your not interested in the truth or you'd be more direct instead of so shifty.

And then you accuse me of not staying on topic?

No further communication necessary. I'm not going to mute you though because I will have to throw some common sense at any more of your bs.

man.. what a disappointment