You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: IF YOU'RE NOT GETTING POLITICAL, YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING!!!!
Seriously, do you not think we have a time issue?
Of course there is a time issue. Which is why playing masturbatory games with evil political mechanisms isn't going to do anything very potent to affect real change and is a bad idea, in my opinion. Let's wait 'til 2020! Yay! Until then, donate to the LP! Fuck that man.
Playing their game in violation of certain principles with the sole purpose of then being able to honor those principles completely once the interference has been removed.
You just demonstrated that you don't understand the meaning of "principle."
Wow, just boom, you're wrong. Good talk, let's do it again sometime. lol
You want to test my logic because I'd love to test yours. We could start with you answering the question that I asked you that you left hanging.
I didn't push, not like that, just let it go in kindness - you know... didn't want to badger you.. but don't need to worry about that now.
no questions left unanswered this time or.... was that just a random insult that you can't back up?
Do you realize what it's going to take for your way to work? People will have to become mostly self-sufficient and how is that going to happen when every system in place prevents it. People are not going to give up their paycheck if it means they'll starve to death.
There is not enough time for that to work, it has zero chance. Power concedes nothing without a demand! The principle is righteous but not if it stands in the way of a solution.
Will we not be under more tyranny tomorrow than we are today? It's not getting better, it's getting worse every day.
@adamkokesh is making that demand, who else is? Most people can't even spell anarchy let alone ever really considered the question, "Do we really need a government?".
Adam is spreading that message farther and wider than anyone else I know and why you don't seem to appreciate that is beyond me. It's faulty thinking imho.
Oh, and that utter nonsense that everyone is so stupid that they'll equate running for president to end the government validates government or any of its systems is .. not logical
At the end of the day, it will be of little consequence that you stood by your principle when it sabotaged your last best chance to leave your kids/ our kids a chance for a better future.
If it went down like that, a person would know what they could do with those principles.
Why do you imagine it’s either “my way” or “Adam’s way,” I wonder.
And I am not sure who I called for to “give up their paycheck.”
I remember now why I stopped engaging last time.
To each his own. Whatever you wish to do to be free in non-violence, more power to you.
I actually had your account muted because of this type of straw-manning, etc. When you are prepared to not spew these silly implications that I am “missing my last best chance” to not sabotage my child’s future, maybe I can begin to take your argumentation seriously.
Why do you hallucinate there to only be one way?
And do you imagine that all of this will end without the state putting up a fight? Just because “anarchy” now has had a political veneer slapped on the front of it? Why? If you wish to support Adam’s plan to centrally dissolve things. Go ahead!
I don’t. That’s all. And that is 100% okay. This is not a collectivist movement, issue, or concern.
I never said those were the only two ways, yours or Adams, they are the two we are currently discussing are they not?
Let's get specific. You said Adam wasn't telling the truth. I asked what he was lying about. You never answered. Now would be a good time. Let's be completely direct and honest here.
A few times you've made statements that I don't understand this or that. You're wrong and if you will actually answer a question directly, I'll prove it.
Answered several times in a multitude of posts.
What are you afraid of that you're unable to answer a simple question. You're going to run again after telling me all the things I don't know. that's messed up.
make your statement please
Just state it one more time here in the interests of continuity. Make sure we're talking about the same exact thing.
and one last thing.. if you're going to make remarks like that and then not allow a person to defend themselves, perhaps you should just refrain from making those remarks. what do you think? seems fair
I have every confidence in my logic and I've thought about all this stuff three ways from Sunday. You don't know me. Why don't you pick on Jeff Berwick because I'm in total agreement with his common sense regarding Adam's campaign. Tell him he doesn't understand what principle means.
I feel like the defensive kind of straw man stuff came from your end initially, but if I’m wrong, I’ll be happy to own that and apologize.
You sound very emotional and are saying things like “pick on.”
This is strange to me. To point out that Adam’s plan involves the violation—by Adam’s own defintion, actually—of individual self-ownership is not “picking on” anyone. Nor do I see why these questions should cause knee jerk emotional reactions.
Since you have said I have yet to answer your questions, this is the last time I will put any effort into this for you, but here it is:
According to Adam himself:
I agree. One cannot delegate rights they do not have individually to a leader (the “right” to centrally divide and distribute lands and resources or arbitrarily determine ownership of the same). There is good reason for this. Those living on, in, and around lands and resources and using them already, have most direct and viable link, and through the free market organic current of supply and demand, prices can be accurately calculated, and violent conflict/potential for violent conflict drastically reduced. Voluntaryism utilizes a system of property norms which branch from the individual outward (and not the “top down”) based on the reality of individual self-ownership.
Top-down, centralized political action utilizing a violent mechanism (the US Federal government) cannot bring about peace, order, or the minimization of violence ultimately, any more than Neo-Nazis can help to advance the cause and protect the rights of blacks and jews.
Do you think Adam's plan is to move everyone off their property or something? That makes no sense at all.
"arbitrarily determine ownership of the same)" who's in favor of that?
How do you handle a government bankruptcy? It's never been done and there's no reason to believe that Adam won't do his best to find the fairest way. He's already said nothing's written in stone on this subject and he's open to suggestions. What more could the man do?
I also agree that "imposing your choice of a leader on someone is unethical". So where is he NOT being truthful? Would it be better to just say, "on your mark, get set, go!" and everyone grab as much land as they can.
I don't claim to have all the answer to these questions but let good will and a tight hold on the principles of freedom guide us. As far as I know, that's all Adam is trying to do.
No. I don’t think that. In our debate he said people would be able to homestead freely, and also that they wouldn’t. So I am confused.
Adam’s platform.
Another strawman. I never said anything remotely close to this. I referenced local communities and property owners deciding how things should be done, as per Voluntaryism, and not centralized force.
regarding the "pick on" comment: Have you listened to @jeffberwick 's latest video, "United We Stand"? It was really good I thought, exceptionally well said truths. He said he supports Adam.
Do you think he doesn't understand the meaning of principle too? That should be enough to make you stop and apply some critical thinking.
And you had me on mute and just came back to give me another grammar lesson? I was like.. whaaaat?
ALL i'm doing is telling the truth to the best of my ability, that's it, nothing else.
And...Morgan Freeman to tell me I am “whining”? Lol. Blessings to you.
I thought it was funny and good natured. blessing to you as well