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?
He claimed he both would, and would not allow it in the debate.
Yes. That is what I am saying.
so, if I ask him if he plans to interfere in local communities where they are able to handle their own affairs, whatever they may be, he's going to say yes?
I don't believe it and would never support that.
But, you realize that if he says no that he has no intention of interfering in the affairs of local communities, you're kinda spreading gossip, non factual stuff.
Before I ask him, how would you like the question worded? I just want to get to the truth of everything.
an orange is not an apple :)
I'm listening to the debate again with open mind, truth is all that matters.
No. He will say no. But then, if asked if he will prohibit homesteading on certain land the “majority” chooses to preserve. He will affirm this. This is, of course, an untenable position due to the clear contradiction inherent.
Watch our debate, and please stop the puerile accusatory stuff. “Gossip”?
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.
Regardless of the answer (which he has already answered, if you’d take the time to check out the debate) he is already in contradiction with Voluntaryism, as federal elections cannot grant legitimate ownership/authority.
You are correct.
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.