IF YOU'RE NOT GETTING POLITICAL, YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING!!!!
The ridiculousness marches on!
A message to and about the political crusaders who claim it's their way or the highway. And the entitled view that they deserve the support of everyone.
Well, again, here we have anarchy proof of concept 101. None of us are killing each other over these disagreements, or becoming violent.
I wonder how long these folks will last in non-violence however, when it comes to imposing their choice of a leader and said leader's centrally planned policies on everyone else.
▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DTube and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
I can't imagine anarchy would be the norm, mostly i only see it in the movie , but in reality i'm not sure , maybe we can build a new system out there somewhere in mars, if it's impossible to impose it here on earth.
Impose it? What's to impose? I don't seek to control others in any way. That's really the dividing line. Either you want to control others or you do not. I do not. We can still walk away from the controllers and live voluntarily and peacefully with others. It just takes brave warriors to do it. Where are the warriors?
I agree 100%. There are so many roads to anarchy. The political system is just one of many. Sad to see Kokesh supporters stuck in thinking elections are the only way to change things. "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
There is one thing about Libratarianism that has me puzzled.
When libratarians speak of ownership, like ones' property, who deems that ownership into existence and who enforces the ownership if challenged?
Great questions, @novacadian.
Property ownership and the concept of “property” in general in Voluntaryism/libertarianism all starts from the reality of individual self-ownership.
That is to say, you, and no one else, is the captain of your “ship.” When you speak, move your body, etc, it is a direct action. Nobody can do this more directly than you. For all practical intents and purposes, and in all reality, you own yourself.
All humans, unless neurologically damaged, acknowledge this, even if only implicitly. This is why we know things such as murder and violent aggression are wrong. They “steal” or harm someone’s self. Their body.
Property is simply an extension of this self-ownership. Since I own my body, if I use this body and use my time to, say, build a cabin from unowned materials on unowned land, I now have most direct objective link to this cabin. I mixed my body’s labor with the land and raw materials. As such, it is now mine.
Property and ownership, when it comes down to it, aren’t “deemed” by anybody as much as they are direct consequences of reality itself.
As far as who enforces ownership, it could be the owner, it could be a friend or family member of the owner, it could be a complete stranger. In established towns and communities with voluntary systems of governance (non-coercive), it could be some sort of protection firm or private security group.
Thank you for your reply, @kafkanarchy84.
Looks to me like insecurity and challenging others' insecurities is becoming more prevalent amongst people who support libertarianism, voluntaryism, agorism, and other freedom inspired movements.
Like you said I imagine in real life each person is adding value to their community....this is what we should be focusing more of our attention towards.
Hmmm
Your reply is thought provoking, and I thank you for it. Is my objective, my primary purpose in life, to add value to my community though? I would argue that it is not. That should not be the direct objective. Instead, the objective, furthering individual liberty, being the proper, just, and noble objective, adds value to my community by me seeking it. Yes?
Thanks...your argument in my opinion is correct that adding value to the community shouldn't be the primary direct objective. I only point out that we can all do better in creatively including the others in our lives toward the ultimate.
My conclusion has evolved into the idea that an anarchist's views are moral, not political. Politics acts on morality to pervert it and allow otherwise moral people to do immoral things, through proxy or directly.
Yes, I agree.
Hmmmm.... This is another one of those thought provoking replies. Otherwise moral people to do immoral things? I would counter, as friend, that moral, truly moral people, would never seek to do immoral things through other people or a system made by other people.
I do not seek to control other people directly or through a proxy. That's moral. I refuse to accept that politics is an excuse to pervert proper morality. We cannot allow people to use anything as an excuse. That's a very very slippery slope indeed.
Damn skippy! Fuck voting, they can keep it.
Wasn't kokesh a voluntarist himself just a couple years ago? Claiming to be non violent and non coercive? And now he wants us to force him on everyone. No thanks bud.
Thanks for being a damn fine example of anarchy in action. You're an awesome example in this space for what we should work towards. Full steem ahead :)
Absolutely. The political process is not gonna change anything, putting such a focus on it is keeping people from understanding.
That said I will probably still vote for kokesh. He wont win so it doesnt really matter and i think it is a good chance to express my disgust for the system. If he actually had a chance to win we would no longer be voting at that point anyways.
I actually feel the opposite way. All politics does is enrage me, there is no getting anywhere, we really have no control over anything, it's just designed to waste peoples time and keep them angry, mostly it's just a bunch of useless debates that really accomplish nothing
You should watch the video.
It sucks that your getting so much heat for the path you have chosen. There is a big push from Kokesh in the terms of timelines. He hopes to see a sizeable change within his lifetime. The other thing driving some of the push has to do with existing conditions.
The people who are directly inverse of volunteerism are willing and engaged in playing power politics. There is no limitations on crafting power and public policy against volunteerism. It's a form of aggression coming from people that don't care their aggression is aimed at others. I have been trying to think of a solution to that. It usually looks like: 'it will be ok when enough people defect out of that system'. That may be a long term outlook, but the aggression is happening today, right now. It kind of becomes a problem of equilibrium. How much aggression should be applied to the aggressors, and what should that look like?
I like Kokesh in the fact that he is applying some back pressure to the typical aggressions seen by many regular people That said, followers vary, and the authority/praise some are willing to lend to Adams cause is considerable.
Right. This is why I view pouring more resources into the violent system, in the long term “hope” that a “leader” will save everyone via the very mechanisms of the same violent system isn’t really a viable approach. Not to mention, the “plan” Adam has proposed is not compatible with foundational Voluntaryist principle.
Adam himself has made the same types of implications and non-arguments I discussed in the video.
I get what you're saying but all of that stuff isn't necessarily making the state irrelevant. Crypto currencies aren't immune to the tentacles of the state. We're still being taxed... If we are to abolish or at the very least return the state back to a limited entity with specific functions that cannot be expanded then at some point we're going to have to engage it politically. The question is how do we go about doing that in a way that is going to actually affect change? I have my ideas but that is something that I rarely, if at all, ever hear talked about.
No. “We” are not going to have to do anything. You can do what you want. I’ll do what I want.
I didn’t say that cryptocurrencies would end the state, to be fair. You are correct about the infiltration and the disgusting “taxation” which is antithetical to the whole concept of financial dignity and privacy for which many of these currencies were created in the first place. The state is actually attempting to co-opt many cryptocurrencies.
Nor do I think that things like farmer’s markets alone will “end the state.” However, those pushing the political action end of things (using an immoral system to establish a moral one) often talk about getting a “majority” to vote for a leader who will change things. If the majority of individuals simply opted out of politics, became more self-sufficient, and did not comply, the state could not continue to function. These political crusaders will then say, “even with a majority, the state will still target you!”
I wonder why they don’t think this applies to majority political action as well.
Either way, the point is that the paradigm is shifting. All this talk of what “we” have to do is the problem. Individuals are already doing it. If someone wants to politic, go ahead. Just don’t say that the individuals choosing not to are “doing nothing.”
It’s funny how even in self-proclaimed individualists, the collectivist mindset remains. As if there could only be one way by which to address the problem and deal with it.
When I use “we” I’m not specifically including you. So, I’m not sure how your inflammatory and arrogant opinion on “self-proclaimed individualists” having collectivist mindsets is relevant to my comment.
To be fair, I didn’t say that you said crypto currencies would end the state. You said that crypto currency along with a few other things is making the state irrelevant and I correctly pointed out that this isn’t necessarily the case.
“If the majority of individuals simply opted out of politics, became more self-sufficient, and did not comply, the state could not continue to function.” What do you mean by simply opt out of politics and not comply?
I wasn’t really trying to have a go at you personally with this. Was thinking of the individuals I’m talking about in the video mainly.
This is true. Sorry about the misunderstanding here.
I mean stop lending credence to the force-based political system by participating/pouring money, time, and resources into it, become more self-sufficient, and stop complying with the demands of the state as much as possible, and en masse.
"What do you mean by simply opt out of politics and not comply?
I mean stop lending credence to the force-based political system by participating/pouring money, time, and resources into it, become more self-sufficient, and stop complying with the demands of the state as much as possible, and en masse."
Right. Simply ignoring those who are proponents of the state while being an example of morality and using more efficient means will show others who are open enough the path of voluntaryism. Living your life and teaching those who want to learn is the most effective means, rather than arguing with the insane ramblings of collectivists.