I’m not sure what the engage camp is, but if you mean advocates for centralized political redistribution then yeah, if the “plan” was a voluntary one, and not based on a mob rule, force-backed political majority consensus, I would see no problem with it.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Well, I think the catch is in the issue of a voluntary one. The state itself is currently not a voluntary entity so anything that happens within that construct is not in the realm of voluntary action. A distribution would require going into the social construct and extracting/defining the assets to place in the open market. There are some other problems in social objectivity and epistemology on the statist side that will arise, but once it's in the open market it should be outside of mob rule.
Yes, this is my point exactly, and why Adam Kokesh’s prescribed “plan” is not voluntaryist in nature.
I agree, the term voluntaryist doesn't fit well. I don't see where he would be losing ground to just call it decentralization or something along those lines.