You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Adam Kokesh for Not President 2020
I appreciate your use of “Voluntarism”! I called Adam out on the use of “voluntaryism” and he agreed and said he wouldn’t use it if he was a professor, but it’s simpler for the masses...
As a philosopher, I think the words we use are important...so thanks for promulgating the appropriate usage!!!
Regardless of spelling what is most pressing in my estimation is the fact that his platform is antithetical to the voluntaryist principle of individual self ownership in that it relies on a a claim of authority based on “majority consensus.”
You can’t go from 0 to 60 in one step...Adam is not being inconsistent or antithetical to principle. His goal is to serve as a mechanism for decentralization which will promote/lead to a condition where individual self ownership is realized as actual.
Didn't I just read the other day that he said something like "There will always be a government?"
“Anarchy” doesn’t mean no rules...it means no rulers.
There is government here on SteemIT...people like your stuff or they don’t or they even downvote...reputation goes a long way in the free market.
The difference between governance and government is understood by Adam. One rules over people with special protections and double standards while the other does not.
Government should not exist. Period.
Steemit has governance, not government. Voluntaryists seek rules without rulers and governance, not government. There are very important differences between those terms.
I will absolutely concede to you the distinction between “government” and “governance.” Well said.
Would you make this argument 200 years ago if we were talking about slavery?
“But who will pick the cotton!?”
Immoral is immoral.
He stated openly in our debate that his plan was not a voluntaryist one, and that it is not in line with voluntaryist principle. It’s a “compromise.” Oddly enough a compromise that blatantly violates the foundation property norm of Voluntaryism.
He also toyed with/suggested the idea that under his “custodial leadership” individual might be fingerprinted in order to homestead unowned land.
This is not a voluntaryist position in any sense.
Absent armed rebellion you can’t unrig the game without pretending as if the voters and electoral college really have the authority to give him?
I don’t believe that unsubstantiated assertion to be true. I respect that that is your opinion. Even if your claim here were true—that it’s either armed rebellion or election (as if the ruling class will magically give up just because politics were used)—it doesn’t change the fact that Adam’s platform is contradictory to the foundational Voluntaryist tenet of individual self-ownership. Why? Numerous reasons, the most critical of which is that property ownership and assignments would be made by an illegitimate centralized authority, and not via individual property rights and the market.