Larken, do you remember when we were hanging out a PorcFest a couple years ago at your rock and some dude came along trying to give us his business card because he was running for office, looking for votes? Do you remember how he was treated and basically laughed away?
I asked the group a simple question, "Is the freedom movement worse off or better off because Ron Paul went into politics?"
The silence was telling.
I appreciate how much you've mentioned Dr. Paul in this post and how much his political work (or, to be more precise, his lack of political action) impacted the thoughts and minds of many people to move them closer to voluntaryism and, eventually to abandoning the myth of authority all together. So many people that started with "That guy is crazy" ended up with, "You know, maybe we should end the Fed..."
You didn't mention Kokesh, but it seems to me that's who you're targeting here with your argument. I'd really enjoy hearing you two discuss this in an open forum for us to watch, as I respect you both. I don't think Adam's plan is perfect by any means, but I do think it's much, much better than what we have going today. If by some miracle he were to win, I would, as an anarchist, enjoy the benefits of the outcome of his executive order, and I think it would bring the world a littler closer to a voluntaryist reality. Having read his book and spent time with him in person, I do believe he would help deconstruct the myth of authority in the process, even if he had to use some of the remnants of that myth to accomplish his goal. I should say "our" goal because I think all of us anarchists want to see a peaceful dissolution of the federal government.
I get how some can't stomach his approach and think it violates some core principles of self-ownership, property rights, and the concept of authority and legitimacy itself. I respect that. I also have to acknowledge that massive human suffering is happening right now at the hands of the military industrial complex (something Adam has intimate, personal knowledge about), the central banking system, and the violent monopoly on force that is the U.S. Federal Government. Can I morally advocate not implementing a plan which might decrease the time and amount of that suffering? As voluntaryists, aren't we called to act to defend those who can't defend themselves when the NAP is being violated? Don't we find the grey area of using defensive force (as an example) as necessary to prevent a worse harm?
It's possible I just need to be patient and this massive complex will dissolve itself in due time without any "mainstream" dialogue taking place in the political process. It's possible it will happen as fast as it possibly can if we just keep blogging and UTubing and talking to our friends, family, and neighbors.
It's also possible we're missing out on a great opportunity to allow someone to try something whose ideals we know in detail (Freedom, IMO, is an excellent book that is very digestible for anyone at any level of their freedom journey) that might accelerate the process. By running for "not president" and putting in place a plan to relinquish the mythical "rulership" power on day one, I think he's acting in good faith with the principles we share. Again, it's not perfect, but isn't better than doing nothing in the political arena? The ultimate goal of freedom is to reduce human suffering, right?
The divide and conquer approach has been used very effectively against all individuals who try to raise awareness against collectivist control. If we continue that process and attack every approach (even if it might not be our preferred approach) to increase and raise awareness about freedom in the world, then are we really working together for the greater good or falling prey to an old but effective tactic?
When you say (from my interpretation) a political campaign would have to take everyone from 0 (full Statist) to 100 (full Voluntaryist) in order to be valuable, I feel you're forgetting how human brains actually function and how long it takes for lasting change to take place. I used to believe a lot of really silly things (as you did also which you've talked about before). It took a lot of study, effort, and reasoning before I finally came around to better views of reality. I think all formats for helping that process along should be supported as long as they don't violate the NAP and ultimately push us further backwards in terms of the number of people that believe in the myth of authority.
If we become so focused on principles (and so convinced of their absolute perfection) as to lose all pragmatism, then we risk falling into the trap of dogmatism and ideology which has historically harmed humanity time and time again. I'm not suggesting everyone should directly support an attempt to use the system to dismantle it, but I do think there may be some value in not preventing those who want to give it a try from at least attempting it without having their ethics or morals questioned in terms of their belief in non-aggression and a future non-coercive, voluntaryist society. If they directly violate the NAP in the process, by all means, we cast them aside and look for other opportunities. If they abandon voluntaryist principles entirely, then yes, clearly they are not advocating for our shared ideals. But if we disagree with a few points or tactics but share the overall desire to dismantle the Federal Government and the harm they are causing every day, shouldn't we find a balance?
I greatly respect you, Larken, and I'm fully open to being completely wrong here. I respect how many years you've spent advocating for freedom and how many lives (including my own) you've impacted in positive ways. I also have respect for Adam and the years he's spent advocating for freedom and how, from his perspective, this is a more effective approach than being thrown in jail for protests or any number of other things he's done over his activist career. I don't fully agree with him on every point (just as I don't fully agree with you), but I do think it's worth a try, just as I think Ron Paul running for office did actually help humanity.
Luke, this response is a bit abbreviated, but all I have time for right now. But I want to at least address a few things here. First of all, there are quite a few things about Adam's campaign in particular that I find dishonest, hypocritical, statist and creepy, which I DIDN'T bring up, because I was sticking to the general principles about "voting for anarchy," which matter to me more than one person's absolutely doomed attempt at a political career.
As my article already said, Ron Paul running for office, and holding office, accomplished damn near nothing, as he said himself. Him stating IDEAS (mostly "statist lite" ideas, but with a lot of good substance) is what did some good, and it did good only because it started a lot of people on journeys that LED PAST THAT.
Did you really just say this about Adam?: "If by some miracle he were to win..." Dude, no. Please tell me you were on some strong hallucinogens when you typed that.
And to wish for, as you put it, a "mainstream dialogue taking place in the political process," is like hoping that the Vatican will have an open chat considering the merits of atheism. The ruling class and its mouthpiece, if
it ever did anything other than ignore Adam's campaign, would be to use it to demonize and ridicule voluntaryism, which would not be difficult.
You also said this: "It's also possible we're missing out on a great opportunity to allow someone to try something whose ideals we know in detail..." Do we know them in detail? Everything I've seen about his
campaign stinks of flip-flopping, compromising sell-out BS and trying to make alliances with all manner of statist political opportunist.
You said: "Again, it's not perfect, but isn't better than doing nothing in the political arena?" No, it is WORSE than doing nothing in that arena. Adding our own clown to the circus is not an improvement, and will do
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce human suffering. Because he has absolutely no chance of winning, and every chance of making the "freedom movement" look like a cult of unprincipled weirdos.
You: "The divide and conquer approach has been used very effectively against all individuals who try to raise awareness against collectivist control. If we continue that process and attack every approach (even if it
might not be our preferred approach) to increase and raise awareness about freedom in the world..."
Again, trying to BECOME the new master, under the promise that he will use the Ring of Power for good, is to LEGITIMIZE collectivist control, and achieve nothing else in the process.
You: "When you say (from my interpretation) a political campaign would have to take everyone from 0 (full Statist) to 100 (full Voluntaryist) in order to be valuable..." I said nothing of the sort, and implied nothing
of the sort. I said voluntaryists should advocate voluntaryism, not slavery lite.
You: "If we become so focused on principles (and so convinced of their absolute perfection) as to lose all pragmatism..." 1 - Fuck pragmatism. Being pragmatic, compromising with statists, and abandoning principles in favor of being "realistic," serves the state. And not freedom. 2 - There's nothing pragmatic about adding our own clown to the circus, when he has ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of winning. I don't mean hardly any. I mean none. Zero. Please don't do the embarrassing wishful thinking routine, like Adam is doing, by pretending there is ANY chance he would ever win.
You have no right to impose force either directly or indirectly on another human being, Luke, regardless of how pragmatic you think an idea may sound.
I think you misunderstand the word “principle.” It’s not a compromisable thing. It means “foundation.” To be “pragmatic” and ignore the one or two or 1700 individuals who may be harmed for the “greater good” of a “pragmatic approach” is to throw away the foundation of non-aggression. Without that, the plan, idea, or movement by defintion can no longer be called voluntaryist. It’s not about dogma at all, but logical chains of reasoning.
Ron Paul never claimed to be a voluntaryist, as Larken pointed out. Adam does. There’s a huge difference there.
I would like to see this conversation as well. I have offered Adam an open invitation for a formal debate but he has yet to answer save for calling me an “annoying, ignorant troll.” I’ll debate anyone on this, but most, sadly seem to shy away from talking logic and definitions.
What Voluntaryism is is not up for debate. Voluntaryist plans don’t by design include even the violation of one person. That’s the whole point. It’s digital, as Larken said, and about the individual, not what’s best for “the movement” or “the masses” That’s utilitarianism. Communism. etc.
Adam should stop using fallacious titles and self-descriptions, then maybe he could legitimately spread some sort of message like RP, and not a poisoned, bastardized version of FREEDOM. It would still be statism, but at least it would be honest.
Right. As if those are all anarchists are doing. Have you spent much time talking to folks around here, Luke? There’s a ton going on you seem to be unaware of. Many of us don’t have the time to sit on our hands and wait for an intrinsically evil process like a US political election to save us. We’re saving ourselves.
If only Harriet Tubman would have petitioned and voted for more “pragmatic slavery” instead of starting the underground railroad...
Principles, in complete isolation, don't change anything. Morality, ethics, virtue, philosophy, etc... those things arise when you apply our principles to the real world. I don't think that mapping is ever 100% perfect nor do I think any single individual has 100% perfect principles when it comes to increasing freedom while also improving well-being for humanity. I do not believe we need to throw away the foundation of the NAP in order to reach some form of Nash Equilibrium in terms of what benefits humanity.
It's a little odd to me that someone like Ron Paul or Adam Kokesh, who wants to increase freedom in the world, will be discredited by you if they don't have a label you agree with. To me, the labels someone uses isn't that big of a deal if they are in fact increasing freedom and well-being in the world. Labels are part of tribalism. I only ever started using the "voluntaryist" or "anarchist" label to describe myself when so many others started using it to describe me and it seemed a fitting short-cut I should stop correcting people about.
This sounds a little too close to a no true scotsman fallacy to me. For example, the NAP is a principle, yes, but it also has to be applied to the real world. Some argue that by driving a car which pollutes the environment, we are committing aggression towards those impacted by that pollution. That's just a simple example, and without falling into a slippery slope fallacy, we can see how difficult it is to take our principles and apply them to reality without concluding life itself in the modern world is an aggression against someone else. This is why we have thought experiments like the trolley problem. Applying our principles is what improves the world, and it's not easy to do.
Graham, you and I have been discussing this topic a lot the last few days and in many comments you've mentioned how Adam or his followers describe you as an “annoying, ignorant troll.” I do not think you are ignorant, but there are times I get annoyed discussing things with you. Have you considered the style of communication you use may lead to that description and if so, do you care or does it concern you enough to change the language you use in order to have more healthy conversations?
As of right now, I've posted and commented 11,126 times on the STEEM blockchain (this comment will be number 11,127). I was discussing Should Anarchists Vote? back in September, 2016, two months after you and I joined. I've posted many times about anarchy and voluntaryism and have had many very fruitful conversations here. When you disregard that in the way you do with comments like this, I personally feel disrespected. When I engage in dialogue, I have a need to be respected otherwise it seems to me that I'm just being trolled.
You and I have different communication styles which we've discussed at length. My hope is those different styles won't prevent us from contributing useful ideas to each other.
This makes a lot of sense and explains a lot. Many of us would be happy if both yourself and Kokesh would stop using it. It has a very well-defined meaning, and Nash Equilibriums on violence are not part of it, with all due respect.
I've had many people call me this, and you are the first to suggest the label doesn't apply. How does this work? How do we define consensus on the use of labels that you'd agree with? Is it even based on consensus, from your perspective? Are all the other people who consider me a voluntaryist misinformed? Is there some authority we need to ask? (that last one was a joke, not a passive aggressive attack). Can you give me more examples of "many of us" so I can extend this dialogue further to other voluntaryists to get more perspective? I'm not asking rhetorically. If people who know me and have observed my actions think I'm in violation of the NAP or some other core principle of voluntaryism that would invalidate that label, I really would like to learn from them.
IMO, a "voluntaryist" is someone who applies voluntaryists principles to reality to the best of their ability.
That's it. It's open to subjective interpretation even if the principles themselves are not. If someone applies the principles 80% and someone else applies them 50% (according to someone's subjective opinion and experience with them), we could say one is "more voluntaryist" than the other. This isn't complicated, but I feel like when I discuss things in this way you aren't open to that and respond with things like "Are you serious?" which, to me, is not very respectful.
I get how the single line in Adam's platform regarding national parks is not in alignment with pure voluntaryists principles because it doesn't go all the way to explicitly and immediately open them up for homesteading. At the same time, I don't agree it's a new violation of the NAP since it is already centrally owned and controlled so I see it as a step in the right direction which could be improved on in the future. As I said in a different comment, I also think we could potentially help by suggesting a better plan. Given everything else this plan does to increase voluntaryism in the world (from my perspective), I don't think that one line means the whole approach and those who support it should abandon the voluntaryist label which (again from my perspective) most clearly aligns with what they are trying to do to remove rulers from the world.
It works by defintions of terms. Just because I am the first person you have heard suggest it to you says nothing about the validity or lack thereof of my claim, in and of itself.
Supporters of plans that A. Require the acquisition of power via force-backed means (the statist electoral process)and B. require the further violation of individual self-ownership of other individuals (it doesn’t matter if it’s “already happening” in the same way that preexisting slavery wouldn’t justify a new, “nicer” movement with “just a little” slavery) even after said illegitimate “election,” are in contradiction of Voluntaryist principle insofar as said support extends.
Thus, someone claiming to support said violatory plans is, insofar as their support extends, not functioning in the capacity of a Voluntaryist.
Insofar as a biological male is a male, he cannot be said to be female. Insofar as an idea whose application depends on initiation of force is supported, the support cannot be said to be voluntaryist.