A couple weeks ago, @kafkanarchy84 encouraged others to follow his example and unvote me for witness. In a post with my name in the title, he used a meme which suggests it's okay people died because of Communism as long as it was for the greater good. Another image suggested it's okay to push an old lady down or beat a child, again, as long as it's for the greater good. I've spent many hours replying to Graham here, here, here, here, and here (there may be others I'm missing). Graham and I have a different style of communication which if you care to learn more about, go ahead and read the dialogue yourself. I think that different style makes it difficult for us to understand each other well. Because I've been supportive of @adamkokesh, Graham suggested I should no longer consider myself an anarchist/voluntaryist.

Should @jeffberwick, who has been running the largest anarchy-related conference and podcast, also stop calling himself an anarchist because he seems to support Adam's efforts (along with anyone else's efforts) to increase freedom in the world? Thankfully, Graham's concerns with Adam will now be discussed directly between them in an upcoming debate.

Do the Ends Justify the Means?

Well, if the means don't violate the non-aggression principle, then yes.

If the means do violate the non-aggression principle in a significant way that is indisputable, then clearly they do not.

That said, sometimes bad things happen in the world, and if we're going to choose to interact with the world at all, we'll have to take our principles and apply them to that world as best we can. The philosophy of ethics and morality directly attempts to figure these difficult problems out through thought experiments like the veil of ignorance or the trolley problem.

Some argue driving a car violates the NAP because it pollutes the air others need to breath. Others wonder if eating meat is philosophically consistent with non-violence (I'm still working on that one, myself). The point is, applied principles and applied ethics is where real valuable philosophy happens. Voicing principles in an unwavering way is easy, but applying them to actually improve the world without unintended consequences is much harder.

Is Participating in Politics Pointless?

The main point of this post is to comment on the discussion between @larkenrose and @adamkokesh on Anarchast episode 407. I'd rather not call it a debate because a debate implies there is a winner and a loser where a discussion means everyone is gaining knowledge.

To me, it was a great talk which helped clarify both perspectives. It seems Larken is completely unwavering in his principles while also recognizing Ron Paul did help many people further along their journey towards eventually learning the principles of Voluntaryism.

Larken said something along the lines of:

Good things come from misguided attempts, that doesn't mean we should support misguided attempts.

In reference to using a political platform to spread the message of freedom and increase the number of people who, eventually, come to truly understand Voluntaryism.

I think it's important how we decide if an attempt is worth trying or if it's misguided. If the attempt doesn't directly violate the NAP and the end result is an increase in freedom, by what criteria do we say it's misguided?

If we had a hypothetical 100 voluntaryists before Ron Paul went into politics and afterwards we had (hypothetically) 1,000 voluntaryists and if somehow we could rewind time and change just that one variable so he didn't go into politics to find an increase from 100 to only 500, then can't we all agree it was a good thing Ron Paul went into politics? This, to me, is the part of Larken's view that still confuses me. He says that he would remain consistent and work to dissuade Ron Paul from going into politics back in the day, if given the opportunity. Does that mean he thinks we'd have the same number of voluntaryists today without Ron Paul using that platform like he did?

I agree with Larken's point that more is needed to complete the process than just hearing Ron Paul's views. For me, that journey included content from many people, including Stefan Molyneux. His bombinthebrain.com series converted me to peaceful parenting. His book, Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics helped me not only move further towards Voluntaryism, but also lose some other religious dogmatic ideologies I had. Now that Stefan Molyneux is directly supporting statist, nationalistic ideologies, and I don't agree with his current content, should I no longer link to or promote his older content which helped me so much?

Many people helped me along my journey towards freedom including Larken Rose, Adam Kokesh, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and countless other YouTubers, content creators, and individuals.

It's the ideas that matter, not the people.

Larken seems to think the only way to effectively run a political campaign is to completely make fun of it at every step of the way. To me, that's impossible. The statists who actually respect the political process would never let you enter it if they were convinced you only want to make fun of it. This would be like starting a conversation with someone you disagree with by saying, "Before we start, I want you to know I think you're a complete imbecile and I completely disrespect everything you think is important on this topic." While your statement might be technically accurate, it's also stupid. It's not effective. Larken, who has been working on The Mirror project, should know this better than anyone. You have to approach people in non-threatening ways and meet them on their own level of understanding if you're ever going to make any progress in helping them improve their own thinking.

I think Adam made a good point about marijuana legislation that I wish Larken would have responded to more directly. As much as I think everyone, everywhere, all at once lighting up a joint (if that's their thing) would immediately demonstrate how ridiculous and invalid the "war on drugs" laws are, I also want to support something practical today that increases freedom by actually preventing more people from being thrown into cages for victimless "crimes."

Throughout the discussion, I was reminded of this quote:

_(source)

Most people just quote the first part and miss out on the second. I think Adam is attempting to do the impossible (become president so he can immediately become "not-president") while recognizing the attempt itself may improve the world.

I think we should be wiser than just saying an anarchist shouldn't participate in politics at any level. Let's ask the question, Should Anarchists Vote?, as I did last year. Let's be open to opposing ideas and evaluate them together in order to figure out what actually improves the world and frees more people.

I also think Larken made an excellent point when he said the Declaration of Independence didn't ask for permission. Adam's plan does seem to be asking for permission by going through "the circus" of politics. At the same time, the Declaration led to a bloody revolutionary war. Many believe the whole point of the political process is to avoid bloody wars. I, for one, would certainly like to see a political approach first, long before a strategy which only results in the use of physical force.

As I've discussed almost two years ago, I also don't think voting or revolutions work. In that sense, I totally agree with Larken that some ritual isn't going to change anything. That said, I don't agree with his statement that "participation legitimizes the state" when the person participating truly does not believe in the legitimacy of the process. Adam directly disagreed with this point as well. It seems to me, Larken's concern is that voluntaryists who already understand why voting is pointless will somehow go backwards and start believing voting for a ruler somehow has a new property it didn't before because it's someone we support this time?

That's a bit insulting. If my perspectives on voting were so unexamined, then clearly they should be open to that ridicule. This whole process isn't for voluntaryists or anarchists. The process is for those who are so indoctrinated with statist beliefs that they actually think the ritual is important.

To use an analogy:

What if you met someone (we'll call them Bob) who absolutely believed in the game Simon Says. If anyone gives Bob a "Simon Says" command, they would follow it without question. In your presence, you hear someone say "Hey, Bob, Simon Says go kill Alice." As a moral person, wouldn't it make sense for you to immediately say, "Bob, Simon Says don't kill Alice and don't ever violate the non-aggression principle"? To me, this is obvious. You could do this to save Alice's life even if you didn't agree that saying "Simon Says" gives any justified control over another human being. Once Alice's life is saved, you could hopefully then sit down with Bob and teach him about the destructive myth of authority stuck in his mind related to the magic words "Simon Says."

This example, to me, doesn't violate any principles, even if it used a faulty process to achieve a desired result. It's the correct moral action.

Throughout the debate, Adam mentioned how Larken was misrepresenting him. I hope Larken really listened to that because he said things like:

"The president has no such power"

and that Adam was dillusional if he thought

"Executive orders have authority to do that"

Adam doesn't believe these things even though his platform makes it sound like he does. To me, it's a strategic move in order to be taken seriously by the political process. This enables his team to take advantage of that platform and free more minds, just as Ron Paul did, but in a much more effective way due to promoting his book which clearly makes the case for Voluntaryism (something even Ron Paul didn't do). That said, I fully recognize the truth that Adam Kokesh is no Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is a singularly amazing individual with incredible, unwavering integrity.

@jeffberwick said it best:

"You have to talk that language to those brainwashed people because that's all they know."

I don't think this process "legitimizes the circus," as Larken said. I don't think it will "drag anarchists to the political system." The reason I don't is that if an anarchist could be dragged into believing the political system was a legitimate process for creating rulers, then they probably aren't anarchists to begin with. Back to my Simon Says example, using a tool for a desired outcome doesn't mean you believe the tool is valid or legitimate, you just think the tool may be used temporarily until you can provide much better tools.

Also, I absolutely loved how Jeff called Larken "The Buddha of Anarchists." :)

What's up with Adam's salute?

Larken has mentioned this in multiple posts (part 1 and part 2), so I figured it might be worth discussing. When I view Wikipedia's entry for the origin of the Salute, I see it has one primary meaning:

A salute is a gesture or other action used to display respect

With two different origins:

originated in France when knights greeted each other to show friendly intentions by raising their visors to show their faces, using a salute. Others also note that the raising of one's visor was a way to identify oneself saying "This is who I am, and I am not afraid."

Or

The US Army Quartermaster School provides another explanation of the origin of the hand salute: that it was a long-established military custom for subordinates to remove their headgear in the presence of superiors.

So back to Adam's repeated comments about Larken misrepresenting him. Does Larken really believe Adam is using version 2 of this meaning when he gives a salute? Having read Freedom and spent some time personally with Adam, I can only think he means version 1. To suggest he means version 2 (as if he saw Larken or Jeff as superiors as the debate ended) would be a misrepresentation of him.

I think it's possible Adam does a lot of things like this (which is why I bothered to mention it) which directly remind people of politicians who actually lie, steal, and kill. They take all their justified anger towards politicians and direct it at Adam due to the associations they have in their mind, even if Adam (like Ron Paul) would not actually violate the NAP like other politicians.

In Larken's post, he mentioned Adam has a tendency to show "overt malice." Malice means "the intention or desire to do evil." Granted, I don't know Adam very deeply on a personal level, though we have hung out a little, but from what I've read in Freedom and what I've seen him demonstrate in terms of non-violent communication, this seems like another mischaracterization. I can only base my views on what I've seen so far.

Anything other than fawning, sycophantic adoration, Adam will depict as an unfair "attack" on him.

I've disagreed with Adam on a few things via text message, discussions in person, or here on Steemit, and he's yet to respond to my critiques as an attack. I don't have "fawning, sycophantic adoration" but I do have respect for someone who has done more than I have for the cause of freedom.

The tone we use and the way we communicate matters.

As I've said before, it's really important we don't let our respect create hierarchy. This brings up what might be an important point both Larken and Graham are making in terms of the Kokesh campaign being entirely about Adam Kokesh. That's what political campaigns do and that is part of the reason they are so invalid because they reinforce the tribalistic idea of following the tribal leader which eventually becomes authoritarian thinking. It reinforces the myth of authority.

I respect Adam's work as an activist, but I also recognize some activism can be pointless. I think both Larken and Graham would agree with that post, and it can be summarized via the conclusion:

Conversations can change the world. Changing our thinking is the key to long-lasting positive change.

Thank you for joining this conversation.

I greatly respect Larken Rose and Adam Kokesh. I think they are principled men who have gone to jail rather than compromise their principles. They have written books, given speeches, disobeyed authority with civil disobedience, and have helped me and many others discover what freedom actually is. They are changing the world.

I think they are both right.

I think Adam should continue his campaign, using the language of the people who actually believe in campaigns ("Simon Says") in order to spread the word about freedom. Get on the main stage and then really let the truth bomb drop. As Larken said, make fun of the circus once you've said all the right things and raised all the required money to get a chance to participate in it. I also think Larken should continue disagreeing with campaigns like Adam's because they don't fit his principles. Remain the anarchist Buddha we know and love. No one should be afraid of criticisms or critiques, and they should be brought respectfully, especially when it involves people who have demonstrated their shared understanding of and love for freedom. I agree Adam's responding emotionally from prison probably wasn't a good approach. Maybe an apology would be helpful there since he removed the video which represents an understanding it wasn't the best message to put out there. If I was put in prison, I might be a bit emotional as well, so maybe this response at the time was understandable.

In Conclusion

I truly love and respect Larken, Adam, and Graham. I don't prefer Graham's style or the memes he associated my name with, but I don't question his intentions to increase freedom in the world. I do think we can all work together respectfully, even as we disagree with specific tactics, plans, or styles. For example, I think Larken and Graham could help refine Adam's platform while also publicly saying no anarchist should vote for or donate to his campaign. I think Adam should continue seeking the funds he needs to run his campaign while building trust within the voluntaryist community that he will, when given a platform, spread the message of freedom and not just the message of Adam Kokesh.

We often say Peace, Love, and Anarchy. Without peaceful, respectful discussions, how can we maintain our love? Let's hug it out, guys. :)

If, as a voluntaryist, you still feel voting for me as witness violates your core principles, please base your decision on who I actually am, not a false perception created by others. Don't assume I advocate violating the NAP. If you can find 30 other witnesses who better represent your views who have the technical capability to secure the STEEM blockchain, by all means, vote them up instead (and send me your list as I might change some of my votes as well).

I hope you got something useful out of this post. If you disagree with my position, please first read all of the posts and comments I've linked to here to more fully understand my position. Without doing so, you will likely not have an accurate view of my position.

Posts and comments referenced above:

• For Anarchists, Ends Do Not Justify Means: Response to @lukestokes - by @kafkanarchy84
  • reply thread
• FREEDOM! - by @kafkanarchy84
  • reply thread
• Voting For Anarchy? - by @larkenrose
  • reply thread 1
  • reply thread 2
• Adam Kokesh vs. Graham Smith Debate! Link to livestream and details. - by @kafkanarchy84
• Is Eating Meat Philosophically Consistent with Non-violence? - by me
• Losing Eternity - by me
• Should Anarchists Vote? - by me
• The Loop: Why Voting and Revolutions Don't Work - by me
• Not Kokesh for "Not President" (Part 1 of 2) - by @larkenrose
• Not Kokesh for "Not President" (Part 2 of 2) - by @larkenrose
• NVC: Violence Is a Tragic Expression of an Unmet Need - by me
• Don't Let Your Respect Create Hierarchy - by me
• Tribalism: Our Shared Enemy - by me
• The Myth of Authority - by me
• What Is "Activism" to You? - by me

P.S. If you're wondering how I have time to put this ridiculously long post together (which I imagine few will actually entirely read), I'm currently in Puerto Rico enjoying vacation and a conference. I lost my voice and have a bit of sinus trouble, so I decided to spend my afternoon writing this post. I hope you enjoyed it.

P.P.S. If you don't have a serious, respectful comment to add value to this discussion, please don't comment. I may flag comments to make more visual room for serious discussion. Thank you.

---

Luke Stokes is a father, husband, programmer, STEEM witness, and voluntaryist who wants to help create a world we all want to live in. Visit UnderstandingBlockchainFreedom.com

_{I'm a Witness! Please vote for @lukestokes.mhth}