I am not posting the debate here, but have resteemed it on my account.

If you wish to view the debate, just check my resteem, or head over to the account of @shaneradliff (today's moderator) and show some love.

---

Aristotle says: WTF bro. You can't both "have authority" and "have no authority" at the same time.

My thoughts.

---

Sadly, my connection wasn't very good, so some of my main points were lost to the gods of cyberspace. That notwithstanding, I feel I made a logically irrefutable argument as per the resolution, and was pleased to have Adam admit that parts of his platform are in direct contradiction with foundational anarchist/libertarian/voluntaryist principle.

Adam conveniently avoided many of my direct questions, claiming, for example, that national US elections both do and don't confer legitimate authority and ownership/property rights, and that under his "plan" people would both be allowed to homestead freely without permission and not homestead freely on other lands set to be "open to the public." He also suggested that folks could ask for permission and submit fingerprints.

---

MR. KOKESH, WILL YOU HAVE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY TO ENACT AND ENFORCE POLICY AS PRESIDENT?

Adam answered both yes and no. A real head-scratcher. I even quoted him to himself:

The entire concept of voting...of imposing your choice of a leader on someone else is unethical.

~ Adam Kokesh, 0:34 mark of THIS VIDEO.

HE DIRECTLY STATES IN THE DEBATE HE WILL HAVE NO AUTHORITY.

When I confronted him with this quote of his:

I would...have no authority whatsoever, EXCEPT in the, you know, DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROPERTY...

~ Adam Kokesh at the 12:25 mark of THIS VIDEO. (emphasis mine)

He said we shouldn't get caught up in "words." This makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time. Aristotle and the Law of Non-Contradiction are going out to get drunk tonight. This is pure political doublespeak madness.

ONE MORE QUOTE FROM ADAM:

..."by the POWER INVESTED IN ME BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THROUGH THE AMERICAN ELECTORAL PROCESS...as per the WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE declare myself to be custodian of the federal government.

~ Adam Kokesh, at the 26:34 mark of THIS VIDEO.

IN THE DEBATE ADAM SAID HE WOULD HAVE NO POWER AND NO AUTHORITY. But wait, the above quote says he will have power. He once again told me not to get caught up in "wordings" too much. (Aristotle orders another whisky to accompany his faceplamed face.)

---

ADAM EXPLICITLY AGREED THAT ANYONE AND EVERYONE CAN IGNORE HIS PLAN AND DO WHATEVER THEY WANT ANYWAY.

This is, of course, meaningless. As such I can ignore all of Adam's legislation and property allocations, doing what I want even on spots "reserved" by his team to be "open to the public." I can secure my recompense of stolen money and resources in my way, by myself, or via another "leader" and "plan, " and he will do nothing to stop it. Great. So as I suspected, the whole campaign is really meaningless.

Kokesh has stated, as many politicians do, that he both will and won't have power, and that said power both is and is not illegitimate. Huge red flags here.

"Pragmatism."

---

Kokesh continually asserted and implied that adhering to established voluntaryist property norms and individual self-ownership, was a "utopian" approach and that I am "sitting in a corner" doing nothing but criticizing.

I reminded him that there is nothing utopian about realizing that a knight in shining armor cannot save us via the very same political processes which have enslaved us, and that the market, and principle, are the only fair and objective arbiters which respect individual self-ownership, the foundational, objective reality upon which all of libertarianism and voluntaryism rest.

I also reminded him of all the hard work people are doing both here on Steemit and elsewhere, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, forming anarchist networks, providing aid to venezuelans suffering under the socialist regime, building ghost computers, working with 3-D printing for shelter and weapons/self-defense innovation, family protection groups, markets, secure communication, farming/food services, defense services, and the list goes on and on.

I asked him how donating thousands of dollars to statist political parties and watering down the message of freedom is "doing something" while all of us out here building the change from the ground up are just "sitting in the corner."

He continuously fell back on vague political euphemisms such as the "will of the people" and "majority consensus."

---

In the end, he admits that his plan is not consistent with Voluntaryism, but that we should, and I quote, "stay out of his way"

Because he has important things to do. He makes the metaphor of returning a stolen wallet. I replied that a true analogy would be stumbling upon warehouses full of stolen wallets all across America, without IDs, and instead of letting communities of individuals and folks with closest objective link to the wallets decide, he must decide centrally, from the top down, what to do with them.

IT COMES DOWN TO THIS. IN VOLUNTARYISM THERE ARE THREE LEGITIMATE WAYS TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY:

1. First Use/Initial Claim
2. Trade/ Business/ Commerce
3. Gifting/ Inheritance from a Legitimate Owner

*The reason for these norms is to reduce violent conflict over scarce resources. The norms are not based on an "ideology" or "utopian ideal," but on concrete reality and the axiomatic, objective, and immutable fact of individual self-ownership. I explain clearly why this is so in the debate. Adam's "plan" to acquire centralized control over billions of dollars of resources, and thousands upon thousands of acres of land to which he has no connection, is by definition, an illegitimate means of acquisition. There is no tie to self-ownership here. There can be no market signals read. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSENT OF EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL HIS POLICY WILL GOVERN. NO CONSENT = NOT VOLUNTARY.

He stated that we can do whatever we want, not follow his policies and he won't do anything about it. Excellent. I'll be posting up in those "public spaces" without submitting my fingerprints soon.

Elections don't grant magical authority, and the fairest arbiter is always the free market. Fundamental change happens, LITERALLY AND CONCRETELY from the "individual market actor up." Not through violent, centralized political systems.

There is no sense in attempting to be allowed by a violent crime syndicate to let you vote it out of existence through its own mechanisms. This is absurd.It defies common sense and logic.

---

Adam's implication that we need to compromise on reality-based moral principle, trust him in immoral politics "just for a little bit," so we can then immediately abandon immoral politics and return to principle, to bring about a "greater good," is also absurd.

SUMMARY:

If you want to get involved in politics. Go ahead! If you care about the smallest minority, the individual, and foundational principle, stick to reality. Namely, the incontrovertible reality of individual self-ownership, and the ethics and principles of property that proceed directly therefrom.

GOVERNMENT VIOLENCE IS REAL. SADLY, HIDING IN THE MOUTH OF THE BEAST WON'T SAVE YOU.
KING GEORGE DOESN'T HONOR PIECES OF PAPER CALLED "EXECUTIVE ORDERS." THE STATE DOES NOT RELINQUISH POWER BECAUSE A "MAJORITY VOTE" "DEMANDS IT." THIS IS FOOLISHNESS.

Politics cannot and will not ever truly save you, though it may provide a false sense of security.
The evil state won't protect you with its evil systems. Maybe some leaves will be hacked off of the evil tree here and there, but fundamentally and consistently evil political systems never truly protect anyone.

Your communities, neighbors, ability to self-defend, and technology, however, might be of real, concrete help to you.

Has Adam forgotten?

Aristotle pays tab, leaves bar shitfaced with his girl, the Law of Non-Contradiction, and they go home.

~*~

---

~KafkA

---

APOLOGY TO ADAM REGARDING MISINFORMATION IN A PREVIOUS POST:

I previously made the assertion that Adam's official announcement regarding his bid for presidency was only made here on Steemit. This was incorrect. I apologize for this assumption, and officially redact that point, and the points I attempted to make based on this fallacious assumption. I am sorry for this.

Regarding donations sent specifically to "get Adam out of jail" being used for other purposes, Kokesh has claimed that each individual donor was contacted about the change. If this is true I am asking those who donated to the this fundraiser to confirm this for me. IF ANY DONOR WAS NOT ASKED FOR PERMISSION TO REALLOCATE THE FUNDS, please let me know. I made no direct judgement here, but have stated that the fundraising methods were worth looking into.

I stand by my suspicions that Adam's recent arrest was dishonestly sensationalized and hyped for the specific purpose of rallying support for his political campaign, and that information was given a dishonest spin so as to create a narrative more conducive to political advantage and funding.

I also stand by my criticism of Kokesh's abusive use of delegated SP to upvote his comments calling fellow Steemians "cowards" at the price of 100 dollars. An apology beyond "I changed it!" from Adam for this sort of abusive behavior to the Steemit community would be nice, though I in no way hallucinate that I have a right to make such a demand. This sort of behavior IS exactly why the market knows ONE MAN CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED WITH ILLEGITIMATE CONTROL OF MASSIVE RESOURCES and that ANARCHY MUST REMAIN A TRUSTLESS SYSTEM, BASED SOLELY ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PRIVATE PROPERTY. This is not because we hate everyone, but because we understand human nature, love people, and want things to be as fair as possible.

I am appreciative of Adam calling me out on the oversights/assumptions I did make, and will do better in the future to stick to what is known.

---

!

---

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!)