You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Voluntaryism: Do the Ends Justify the Means?
Well put. I also had to listen to this "debate" since I admire both Larken and Kokesh for what they have done and continue to do for the community. I think if there was a winner, it was Adam. Larken seemed overly pessimistic, for some odd reason (IMO) and I still respect him for his, but I truly hope he will come around and at least see that what Adam is doing, is still a good thing for the message he spreads (like Ron Paul did), regardless whether he actually wins or not. It's not good to see two highly respected names in the anarchist/voluntaryist community disagree completely on how to go about making changes for a better world.
I don't know if it is not good or good.
Those are their opinions, I rather have harsh but genuine opinions than a played, getting along.
Again...... opinions.... no one is giving commands or forbidding someone anything, but no one has to agree, approve or support either.
In statism everybody get's the opinions of others forced on them (with a gun)
Voluntaryism is the the possibility to disagree................big time ;) (and leave it there)
Good was a poor word choice... It was an unpleasant feeling (for me) to hear two people I respect, also disagree to the point of being bitter with each other about such an important topic.
I think Adam's intentions are pure/just and his method may or may not be the best way forward but IMO it's got a better shot than trying to educate the willfully ignorant just enough to actually do something on their own (aka doing nothing).
True, but name calling isn't exactly an argument, disagreement or even a discussion. It's just an insult and only makes the one doing it, appear weak and/or less credible. See below.
Taken from here
The narcissistic egomaniac is an opinion too and in the debate nothing was said that was personal. That was in the written piece afterward.
But what could he have said in your opinion, in place of narcissistic egomaniac that could not be perceived as an insult in other words how do you say narcissistic egomaniac in political correct language?
If he would have said such a thing about trump, clinton, or sanders would you have felt the same way?
I don't get that impression. But he must do what he wants to do just as Larken has to do what he wants to do. Mingling the two approaches might be more pleasant, but it would be one big mess of unprincipled nice doing. Some people have to be an sort of anker. That is highly needed. It doesn't matter if it's Larken or someone else.
As a side note I think Larken is not as much in the education but more in the deprogramming of cult members. If that is not the end point then you can try to abolish or abolish the government many times but it will just return. Because the cult member will build a new church with new priests etc.
But it all does not matter. The one is nice talking but not addressing points brought up by the other and the other is bringing the same points up every time with every politician but doesn't talk politically correct so a lot of people feel this or that way.
I feel we all can want people playing nice really bad. But that doesn't mean our wishes get fulfilled. It is what it is.
Hey thank you for the reply :)
True, it is what it is!
Anytime, thank you.
Well said. Disagreements and debate are healthy. Not only that, we can use opportunities like this to demonstrate to the world how rational, principled people can have respectful disagreements.
I am "pessimistic" about Adam winning (and being able to implement his impossible and inherently bogus "Executive Order" plan) because he has exactly no chance of winning. None. Like I just said in my other comment, if his campaign was actually about spreading the message, I wouldn't have most of these objections. But it's not. It's about a procedural/legal "plan" that he KNOWS has exactly NO chance of ever happening.
If Adam had directly answered your question during the debate about if he thought he could win, do you think he'd have any chance what-so-ever of getting the Libertarian nomination?
I think he's playing this smart. I'd be surprised if he really thought he was going to win, and at the same time, I wouldn't want him to ever say out loud "There's zero chance we can win" because that would ensure the value I see here (him getting the nomination and getting media attention through it) would certainly not happen.
I don't see how he can spread the message of voluntaryism through a plan to engage the political process until he actually gets to participate in the political process. Whether or not he has a chance to win is, to me, secondary to whether or not he has a chance to obtain a platform to spread the message. That said, I'm looking forward to the discussion you mentioned you'll have on this. If there's a better way, maybe Adam will adopt it.
He’s politicking. You said it. Thst’s what politicians do. They cannot answer things directly. That’s why he’s being called out. Dishonesty.
If there's value in playing their game then it makes sense to play it by their rules. Those of us who understand this don't see it as dishonesty but as not showing your cards you plan to play before playing them.
Politics is a childish game. We know this. The minds of the people we are trying to free don't yet. Again, please read my post before commenting further. I gave what I think to be a good analogy for this in the "Simon Says" example.
Those of us not looking to gain political favor can be more honest.
Yes, it is a childish game.
I'm glad Ron Paul played it for the platform it gave him.
I hope to be equally glad for Adam's efforts in the future.
Ron Paul had a consistent message, didn’t pretend that his platform was Voluntaryist through and through, and was not petty, childlike, and vindictive when people critiqued his ideas.
Night and day.
I disagree. I have 0 faith in the political process and haven't voted myself since 04, but I WILL vote for Adam when I get the chance.
You're basically saying we can't trust him because in order to actually win, it requires him to at the very least, act/play the part of 'politician'? I actually prefer this over being all philosophical since we already know the ignorant masses don't respond well to reason/logic, I thought this was a given...
If we ask 100 people about how to make changes for a better world, I hope we get more than 100 answers. It all starts with ourselves and there are multiple avenues for improving ourselves.