DEBATE: Adam Kokesh v. Graham Smith on The Efficacy and Ethics of Political Crusading

in anarchism •  10 months ago

Tonight, I moderated a terrific debate between @kafkanarchy84 and @adamkokesh


The American electoral process is a legitimate and pragmatic means—in view of the voluntaryist property ethic—by which to assume custody of lands and resources, lessen the negative impact of government, and make it easier to achieve a voluntary society.  

Adam, obviously, argued in the affirmative and Graham argued in the negative.

I did have one question for @AdamKokesh that we didn't have time to get to and I would love to hear an answer to it. The question is:

As laid out by the Constitution (and confirmed by the left after the 2016 election), the President of the United States is not selected by popular vote, or in other words, the electorate at large. Rather, he/she is selected by the electors of the respective states – and, I can almost guarantee no one viewing this livestream is an elector; as a quick example, New York state electors include Bill Clinton and Andrew Cuomo. For sources, please refer to the US Supreme Court’s Ruling in In Re Green 134 US 377 (1890), as well as Article 2, Section 1 of the 1787 Federal Constitution. What role or impact does that have on your 2020 campaign?  

Please enjoy, up-vote, re-steem, and share it around on social media! This is important discussion to be had for those of us within the anarchist/voluntaryist/libertarian community!

DONATE for more great content like this!
Bitcoin: 15Bdzduwt92jYFGFaK2NSkPYFTaLbtonJg
Ethereum: 0x019793a6a11b46882b66cc593fe251d249560ad3
DASH: XbPZeX1yNSA7AuBxtTKqRnf9kyysYpKZzo
Litecoin: LSfz9EwpLsKpKxAJa7veiVy8CdLbUWVs3X
Zcash: t1W4sDwqsn8ESj9iVP84AMC1oxsb6msELf7

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Well I got to admit that Graham did explain the issue that volunteerism may have with Adam's approach to the freedom movement better than Larkin Rose did. Yes it was a good debate and many points came out clearly. I still think Adam efforts are worth doing, even if for nothing else but to wake up the zombie public and never goes further. Anyway, good moderation and will follow.


I’m just glad @adamkokesh finally explicitly admitted many parts of his plan are not voluntaryist in nature.


Graham have a point on we should start from the bottom through voluntary and gaining respect to individuals that way we can have a peaceful means of revolution and help each other out, the reason nowadays it's quite difficult to enlighten people, because of so many divisive ideology: religion, culture, entertainment, you name it. People will always get destructed and divert to something else other than helping the community.

I wonder if @adamkokesh has seen your question in this post, Shane. It’s a good one, and I hope he addresses it.

I wanna know how Adam intends to rise to power in a system designed to hold elected politicians to little actual power. We all know it's not the politicians, and it certainly isn't the dancing bear in the White House, that truly run this country. Adam is suffering from some serious Ron Paul (Great Man) Fallacy...


I don't think Adam is looking for power but rather wants to use the platform to let the public know that they have the power and will be asking to be the bankruptcy agent .


He states in the debate "the only power I am asking for..."

This was a really good debate.
Shaneradliff I like to compliment you on how you do gave it some sort of serenity to the debate, to hear what was said clearly. Love it.


@wordsword -- Thank you so much for the kind words. Glad you enjoyed it! -Shane


Shane is the man.


Thank you to everyone involved in this.

Adam answers questions about use of bail donations @ 1:00:37

I think Graham called it their personal beef, but I don't think it was, lots of people were asking the same questions.


Thank you, @donchate, for your interest and comment, in addition to adding that timestamp. I agree; it was wise for @kafkanarchy84 to bring it up.


Yeah, Thejohanfiles donated 6K to get him out of prison, and then Adam donated that to the Libertarian Party. Why not just give it back? I don't know. That was perplexing.

That was so sweet. Freedom in my left ear, freedom in my right ear, 2 well spoken people debating on whose way is MORE free. Just shoot me now, I can die a happy man. LOL

I thought they were both right, both made a great case for their view.

Beyond that, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy some positive energy and ... smiling
thanks to everyone who had anything to do with that debate


@truthabides -- Thanks for your comment and the kind words! Glad you found it valuable!


You're welcome. As far as the debate goes, both sides want the same end result - no government.

Both Graham and Larken make the case that Adam's campaign will actually be harmful to us because it violates certain principles and affirms the legitimacy of the state.

I understand what they're saying but I think most folks are smarter than thinking a campaign to end government is support of government. That doesn't track for me personally.

Adam's on a mission and has admitted he doesn't have everything figured out and has asked for input/help.

just hoping for the best

I won't rehash all the things I've said before about the topic, but I was surprised to hear Adam claim that even if 90% of the population is voluntaryist, the other 10% would still be able to vote for statism and keep the 90% oppressed. Um, no. That's not how reality works.

(It's also funny to hear him keep saying that he's "not willing to wait" until enough people change their mind to end statism, so instead he wants to run a doomed "voluntaryist" campaign--in an overwhelmingly statist society--to promote an impossible Executive Order, which would never in a million years see the light of day.)


When I see how extreme the tyranny has become and how thoroughly brainwashed the American people are, the solution seems .. cloudy at best. "If the government feels threatened, they WILL attack you." ~ Susan Lindauer

Question: If either method started to gain real momentum, what would the state be willing to do to stop it?

They would not bat an eye, imho, to kill however many was required to maintain control, a million, a 100 million.. not on their care list. Their foreign policy proves that.

Trying to find a solution has occupied my mind almost 24/7 for the last 15 years.

We need a massive wake up that reaches into the ranks of the military and law enforcement. If they don't point the guns the other way..

How can that be done? It must start in secret to have a chance and unveiled with an information explosion so powerful that it can't be stopped. We've got to let the big cats out of the bag, no compromises, zero. It would be a hell of an indictment and not just for gov but for those controlling it. I think I just saw about 10 million people surrounding Rothschild's castle and man do they look pissed. Dream on

The Last Revoluion - Looking Back

It was a beautiful spring morning this day in April of 2018 when it all began. Off in the distance, a cloud of dust rises as a vehicle approaches the cabin. It will be the first of many.

Everyone had agreed to take private transportation and only use cash for food and gas because these particular people all meeting together would raise suspicions and these were the days of unlawful surveillance.

Secrecy would be vital in the early days as it was well established that if "they" feel threatened, they WILL attack you. The ground must first be prepared for the seeds to have a chance.

It was all very reminiscent of a meeting on Jekyll Island when the Federal Reserve Scam was hatched. That wouldn't be the last of their tricks that we'd use against them.

Peaceful as doves, wise as serpents.


uh... wait until we see how the city of New Orleans reacts to the distribution of the "Freedom!" book. Then we can dissect your points in an efficient manner. Things are different since the internet has allowed for media-bypass and "goin' viral" to happen. ...and that was even before blockchain destroyed the last strains of censorship availability. PhuqueZuck and his ilk.


@larkenrose -- I tend to agree with you. I've been advocating people cancel their voter registration for 3 years. So, I will certainly not be telling people to go register with the anti-libertarian "Libertarian" Party. That's for damn sure.


I don’t get that argument of his either, @larkenrose. How does the majority support “magically work” in politics, but not in anarchism? The 10% won’t point guns at he and his supporters if they try to dismantle the state because they “used the system”? It’s almost like he is arguing against himself here.


My primary concern is that for unknown reasons a majority will always demand a ruler. We need to consider that possibility. What if that is the case? Then we need to figure out a way to coexist with them as those who refuse rulers. Lots of people continue to say, "they just need to be awakened." No. What if that's not possible? What if they will forever be cattle? What if as a species most of us will always choose safety over liberty?

Actually, the only people who would ever be certified as electors for Adam WERE probably watching, since the electors are usually chosen by the campaigns or the parties ahead of time. There's not, say, an elector bullpen from which everyone draws when/if they win a state. The electors for the winners AND the losers are sent to the states' Secretaries of State after the election, and then each state follows its own rules deciding who to give its electoral votes to, which is typically winner-take-all (unless you're Nebraska or Maine...)

So unless he's running under a Democratic or Republican party banner, I'm sure his electors tuned in.

Fantastic, I can't wait to sidewalk chalk New Orleans with FREEDOM!

Politics is a little difficult, some will agree and others do not. In my country (venezuela) we need another government. The situation is difficult, we need freedom


If the goal is freedom, another government is the worst thing to strive for.


i agree another government isn't needed what is need for is freedom for everyone :)


Yes! Spot on, my good sir.




except for self-government :)


Eh, "government" is a trigger word for me. I prefer personal autonomy, self-ownership, free, etc. ;)

Congratulations, your post received one of the top 10 most powerful upvotes in the last 12 hours. You received an upvote from @upme valued at 112.94 SBD, based on the pending payout at the time the data was extracted.

If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, reply with the word "stop".

Congratulations @shaneradliff, this post is the most rewarded post (based on pending payouts) in the last 12 hours written by a Newbie account holder (accounts that hold between 0.01 and 0.1 Mega Vests). The total number of posts by newbie account holders during this period was 3087 and the total pending payments to posts in this category was $1925.40. To see the full list of highest paid posts across all accounts categories, click here.

If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, please reply stop to this comment.

Governments at all levels are such a colossal mess, and the ongoing social welfare programs have created such a colossal problem, that I suspect that nobody can devise a philosophical pure way to dig us out of this.

I like the message in the following link about how smart people never get anything done because they spend all their time trying to devise the perfect way to get things done. People who get things done JUST DO IT! skip to 3:15 to the start of the speech or 16:38 for smart people and just do it (


Kemerdekaan itu haksegala bangsa .sayadukung

This debate actually answered more questions about the direction that the libertarian party is headed. I will be following for more.

Thank you.

What role or impact does that have on your 2020 campaign?

Absolutely zilch.

Because his chances of winning any state are:

Absolutely Zilch


Because he doesn't have a couple million let alone a billion to run a campaign and his chances of winning the Libertarian nomination are:

Absolutely Zilch.

Great discussion! Graham, I hope all your future interactions both on Steemit and in debates will be this respectful. I hope you will give activists against the state the benefit of the doubt and do the research before posting your assumptions. Thank you for a very clear representation of what voluntaryism is which we all agree with. Adam, thank you for outlining how this proposal will not violate property rights for those who actually have valid property claims and will not prevent homesteading or in some other way use violence against peaceful individuals.

I’m glad this debate was so respectful and clear that I feel comfortable sharing it with anyone as an example of two intelligent voluntaryists who want to practically improve the world without sacrificing their principles to do so. If either one of you directly endorse violence against a peaceful person in the future, I’ll be first to remove my support. As it is now, thank you both for leading by example.

I hope people not only continue to disagree with Adam’s plan, but actually do the work of suggesting improvements to it. I also hope they will support any avenue for eliminating the violence of the state that is voluntary by design, even if it is not perfect.


And if you or Adam want respect. Practice it yourselves, first. ;)

Puerile name calling is not respect.
Neither is defense of such behavior.

Fiduciary trusts can be used to protect lands and is voluntary.