Do the ends justify the memes, or are we setting a dangerous president?
@adamkokesh is running for US president, and @kafkanarchy84 has been challenging the legitimacy of this strategy.
I have a great deal of time and affection for both of these men, and hope they can find a way to move past some of the ugliness we've seen.
'Is it legitimate for a voluntaryist to run for office on a platform of dissolving the state?'.
I want to put aside the pragmatic issue of whether or not Adam could actually win the election and just look at the ethics of the decision.
Is it unethical for a person who espouses the non-aggression principle to run for office?
Do politicians act aggressively? They don't attack people, or threaten to attack people, but do they pay policemen to attack and threaten people?
I think politicians are off the hook here. Nobody pays taxes to avoid having senators drag them from their home.
The threat of police aggression is the source of police funding, not politicians.
If politicians were hiring policemen out of their own pockets, then they'd be acting aggressively, but police collect taxes to pay politicians, not the other way around.
Politicians are actually just talented welfare recipients, and the freedom-loving community is torn on welfare.
Many believe being dependent on the state validates it's existence; others believe feeding the state by being a taxpayer is unethical. Some think we should all work in the public sector and be extra wasteful, or less wasteful; there are excellent arguments in all sorts of directions, and in many ways a politician is just another public servant.
Now of course, its the politicians who make the laws, but do they actually 'make' anything?
Who makes the cake? Is it the guy who writes down the recipe, or the guy who goes to the kitchen, reads the recipe, picks up the tools, and brings the cake into existence?
Politicians think up rules and write them down, but that's not making anything.
I can draw a tractor, but it's only a picture of a tractor until somebody actually makes it.
This business of assigning blame to politicians is incredibly effective. They simply tell us in school that politicians run everything and make all the rules, and policemen just attack people for 'breaking' them.
They also tell us that Hitler killed 6 million Jews despite the fact he only killed a handful of people.
The message is clear. Good or bad, it's the politicians who do stuff, and their armed enforcers just help them out a little, from time to time. It's an excellent trick.
We focus our hostility and disgust on a small group of well protected, well compensated poster-boy scapegoats thousands of miles away, while the actual source of the actual aggression we oppose; where the rubber hits the road, gets a free pass.
All the checks and balances used to spread authority between legislative, judicial, executive, etc; also diffuse responsibility.
Everyone has their own ideas about where 'the problem' lies, and each branch is quick to promote itself as your only defense against the others.
But it's all misdirection. They're just frail old men and they're just talking.
The only difference between your State capital and a nursing home is that you can safely ignore any edicts issued from the latter.
What would bring about more freedom? All of the politicians simultaneously quitting, or all of the cops simultaneously quitting?
Who would visiting aliens assume is in charge? A massive gang of fit, brave young men with cages, weapons and vehicles, who will weather any storm to get their man, or a few hundred pampered, elderly creeps who couldn't stare down a negative opinion poll?
Now if you ask the policemen where they get their authority, they'll say it's delegated to them by politicians who wield it via the consent of the governed, which is why I consider voting unethical.
It's a blank permission slip for the winner, and when the policemen obey his orders, they only look up to him because he's standing on a huge pile of our permission slips.
Policemen don't care how many people are scrambling to get to the top of the heap, they're just impressed by the size of it.
For that reason, and by that logic, I see no ethical contradiction in the idea of a voluntaryist running for office on a platform of the dissolution of the Federal government.
If Adam re-enlisted in the military, joined a police force, or voted, (even for himself), I would consider that hypocritical, but as long as he's not wielding a weapon or adding to the pile of permission slips to which the guys who wield the weapons defer, I don't believe he's becoming a part of the problem and wish him well.
Where do you land on this? Have I missed something?
Keep it civil in the comments. We're apostates from a religion, who's adherents are looking for a reason to ignore our observations. Don't give them one.
Image sources:
http://blog.vail.com/six-notable-chefs-one-night/
http://www.thenewmix.com/syn/1265/6066/dont-say-this-to-a-police-officer/
http://fortune.com/2016/09/06/housing-construction-worker-shortage/
http://gse.bookbinder.co/recipe-book-format/
https://redbrickdaily.com/list-of-new-laws-and-changes-coming-into-effect-jan-1-2017/
http://www.gnbsgy.org/national-building-codes/
The point is very simple:
Authority and acquisition of authority (right to redistribute or create centralized, non-market policy) is not and cannot be created via federal majority consensus. There need be no personal beef or insult here, this is just the nature of reality and individual self-ownership.
Even if Kokesh were a saint, the authority he seeks to assume "for the greatest good" would remain illegitimate, and set a non-voluntaryist precedent for the future.
Hey, my guy is different! He is going to use his power to bring about X, Y, Z. We just need to compromise a little on principle, and be practical.
Adam's supporters are not the first (and sadly likely won't be the last) to make this argument. This is why we have the principle of ISO. To protect the smallest minority, the individual. It is a principle stemming from reality itself.
On top of all this, Kokesh has suggested:
Etc, etc.
In short, his platform is poison to liberty, and especially to the revolutionary philosophy of Voluntaryism based on individual self-ownership.
Water with "just a little arsenic" in it for "practicality" is no longer water, but poison. We don't call those who refuse to drink poison purists in real life, and neither should we here.
He needs to stop calling himself a voluntaryist. He decidedly is not one, at least if we are judging by his current actions, words, and behavior.
There are certainly some troubling accusations in there.
Perhaps Adam's not the best choice.
My main point is that I see no hypocrisy in a self confessed voluntaryist (whoever that might be) running for office on a platform of disbanding the Federal government.
He's being honest about his intentions and he's not threatening or attacking anyone.
No fraud, no aggression, no problem.
"Perhaps Adam's not the best choice."
Choose yourself. No other ruler is a good choice. It is absolutely unethical to choose the ruler for another too. That is the main moral problem with voting.
Couldn't agree more.
What are the troubling accusations? That in itself is a troubling accusation. Please name them. I have sources, quotes, and video substantiation of each claim made. Glad to share.
As for the rest of the comment, see my reply below. You have misunderstood the crux of the argument being made it seems.
Prohibiting free homesteading, assuming illegitimate, non-free-market, non-ISO compatible control over resources and policing them, and selling this plan as voluntaryist covers all of those.
You are saying it I should not speak out simply because he has not done these things (save the third) yet?
They're the accusations/claims I was referring to.
Do you want sources, videos, direct quotes for those?
I'm confident you have them, and I'm not contesting what you're saying about Adam.
Naturally you're welcome to post what you have, but my point isn't about Adam necessarily, more the concept of a voluntaryist running for office.
Right, and the positions he is running on are not voluntaryist (compatible with the reality of ISO). This is the problem. As such, he is either confused or doing so intentionally. Either position is harmful to the successful transmission on the philosophy.
bingo, imo
I think it's just a knee jerk reaction that isn't technically accurate, to say being a politician violates the NAP.
The violation is on the enforcement level, as you say. Politicians are spokespeople for it, they want to manipulate us into seeing it as an okay thing.
Weak, lame, smarmy could all be fair. But there's no aggression involved in walking around saying things to cameras.
(Of course, you could happen to also behave violently or to endorse violence somewhere along the way. But politicking isn't inherently an act of violence.)
For me it's a funny topic, because I've always found the people who criticize anarchists for not being politically active to be confused and annoying.
But that doesn't mean it's a violation of the NAP. Unless you can identify the specific action that's an initiation of aggression, then there's no way to square the circle to where the behavior is involuntary. (Try as they might.)
IMO, political action isn't the way to make positive changes in the world. But it's not a violation of NAP. So if someone wants to, maybe they even just enjoy it or it's therapeutic coming off a military life, that's fine and maybe for the best.
It feels like blaming politicians is what we're meant to do, and we're supposed to be better than our training.
Any culpability we assign to politicians and other office-based public servants just reduces the focus on the real issue, which is the order followers with the guns.
yup!!
While we're not in the business of trying to defend politicians, it just doesn't do any good to inaccurately describe the behavior, and a trade-off is less culpability on the actual source of the NAP violation.
Like for instance rather than worry about politicians and their alleged violation of NAP, it would be better to try to stop someone from joining the army. (Would be a pivotal improvement in their life and make a real difference.)
Politicians are the shadow.
kafkanarchy84 has made his case clear repeatedly.
I think Grahams logic is good that going into a social construct that is not voluntary, and have that construct do anything that is not voluntary to all involved, is not consistent with voluntaryism.
It is my opinion that Adam should not be using the term voluntary in this context.
I see little reason to not just use 'decentralization' or 'end the fed' as the main theme, as that is consistent with going into a centralized system and deconstructing it to a lower level.
If Adam wants to identify as 'Voluntaryist' he should probably define his engagement as being outside the normal frame work of what voluntaryists do.
That really is a developing issue, as to whether it is useful to 'engage' the system or to 'defect' out of the system.
Unfortunately nearly half the population will seek solutions/policy from a formal social construct, so we will always be dealing with social constructs. Rarely, if ever, do the social constructs remain voluntary and most often turn coercive.
With that knowledge, I think it is important to engage social constructs that violate the NAP. That is about every social construct that violates individual sovereignty, which is damn near all of them.
I think running on a platform of destroying the platform is pretty upfront.
I can't see anyone voting for him accidentally.
His policies and centralized decisions will affect the lives of millions of individuals. When I asked him if he would be receiving explicit consent from each individual under/affected by his team's centrally planned policies, he intimated that such consent was uneccessary.
@joesal is correct. The solution is very simple: He should stop labeling himself a Voluntaryist. I would then have no problem with him, as he could be safely be viewed correctly as simply big "L" Libertarian politician, which he is.
Why my criticism of his platform has been reacted to with such emotion from the start from his camp is strange to me. We've both lost our tempers, etc, but my argument from the start has been the same. His approach from the start was to attack my credibility as a person.
This is not personal at all, ultimately. An apple is an apple, no matter how much one attempts to make it an orange.
Policies don't affect people, threats and attacks do.
The state is a shared myth, which exists only in the minds of it's adherents.
To say, 'he's seizing the reins of power' or 'commandering a social construct' is to play the game of pretending the state exists. We're not fighting a real thing, we're fighting a belief system.
We say our only rule is, 'Don't attack or threaten peaceful people', so show me how the President attacks or threatens peaceful people, because I can't see that he does.
He is claiming that this is his plan. Voluntaryists don’t plan to violate people. It’s as simple as that.
I am pretty sure I have not claimed that he has violated ISO yet.
The point of my argument is that his goal, aim, and plan are not voluntaryist, as the plan would require the violation of ISO.
You are arguing that he should still be supported just because he has not acted on these things? I’m just trying to find out what you are arguing here. Since the state is a myth, I imagine you view what he is doing as pretty silly.
Either way, the plan that he intends to put in place is by definition not compatible with free market Voluntaryism. That is my only argument, and it has yet to be rebutted because that’s the reality of what is happening here.
Saying he has not done anything yet is akin to saying:
Don’t warn the community about that dangerous individual in our midst talking about stealing from us! He hasn’t stolen yet, so shut up!
Maybe I am hearing you wrong. I wish you’d specify as to where you disagree with my argument that his plan is not compatible with ISO, because that is my entire argument.
My argument is that only those who take up arms to impose their beliefs on others are 'aggressing', and I don't see how politicians qualify.
Where did I say he was aggressing now? I think it could be argued what he is doing is fraudulent (receiving donations from voluntaryists for a plan which will violate people by selling it as “voluntaryist”-compatible), but have not said he is aggressing.
Just calling out the phony, statist shit. I think this is important.
Absolutely, call it out.
I just think we need to make sure we're always re-examining our premises.
Forgetting Adam for a minute. Are politicians engaging in aggression?
I have no issues with that, other than the seeds of the new/next platforms dropping out of the destruction of the current one.
The system is in place and apart from tweaking it, there is no changing it. That's why a rule made at the top so affectivly gets implemented and enforced down the line. The only way to keep the system and change it would in theory be to do it from the top, but I'm not sure how doable that is. Any presidents who've tried to usually end up assassinated or at least attempts of assassination.
The other alternative is to completely topple the system and many fear things would fall into chaos that way.
all forms of kindness and peace I really like that cause is the best way to be happy
I personally believe they need to eliminate money completely from being a politician. We used to call them Statesmen. And it was a privilege and honor to be one. Today people are politicians and take bribes under the table. And they are promoted to lobbyist where they can earn 10 times some money. Take money out of the equation that's what I say. Thanks for sharing. @mattclarke
You can not eliminate money from politics because the politicians have something to sell...us, our time our energy..our work in the form of tax money...the state is build on tax money without tax it would not exists.
Also every voter is a lobbyist a small one, that wants money of the other taxpayers to pay for things they want, they are small lobyists but lobbyists no the less.
I like your point here. He is not infringing upon people until he does something in office that violates the NAP. The act of being a politician isn't what's wrong, it's what the politician may do. The laws he may create. If he runs as a politician and then completely diffuses the Fed, he would no longer be a politician... Just a free man like the rest of us.
Even writing onerous new laws isn't in itself aggressive, unless you're personally threatening to impose them.
Even if he were elected, I'm not sure how much good he could do, but it would be fun to watch :)
I'm not sure how I feel about that, because if you are writing laws you are essentially asking for them to be enforced. You're not actually doing the enforcing, but you are requesting someone to aggress upon people. Granted, it's up to the pawns to do the work...
It's a step removed from actually aggressing though. They're not paying the cops to aggress, nor are they threatening to DIY.
It's an important distinction to draw, similar to how people want drug dealers jailed, because of what their customers do to get money.
The dealers aren't employing their customers to break into homes or mug people; nor are they doing so themselves.
A statist wouldn't care for the distinction and would want the dealer jailed. A voluntaryist only holds people accountable for their own threats and actions.
But is creating an aggressive law considered a threat?
Regardless, I can agree in a sense. Currently a lot of people in the US are upset with Trump for 'separating families at the border'. In reality, Trump never separated anyone. The people who show up to work for ICE and BPA are the ones responsible for doing the separating (and getting paid to do so)... they personally are the disgusting ones who need to be dealt with.
Creating a law implies you're making something, when you're really not.
Jeff, if your neighbour mows his lawn too early, you should go throw a rock through his window
It's bad advice, but it's just advice. I'm not threatening your neighbour, some might say I'm inciting violence, but what does that even mean? They're just words.
Fair enough... solid analogy. It’s the action that matters.
On a better note, do you listen to King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard?!
No, but drop a link on me and I'll have a listen. I generally prefer to read.
Do you want to know about abuse of power and non-compliance with laws ??? come to Venezuela and you will see ... Here the politicians make the laws and are the least to comply with them ... and the policemen ... well ... I do not know who breaks the laws more ... a politician or a policeman .. .. Here in Venezuela....
You're doing more to help bring order to society, just by using this blockchain, and its currency, than they ever will.
That's right ... and I always try to comply as a good citizen while they disrespect the laws, that bothers me ... so when I'm in steemit I disconnect a bit from the injustices that occur in our country ...
It is very wrong for an aggressive politician, A man who do not have the interest of people at heart and someone who threatens the masses to contest for presidency.
It is also wrong for the policemen to lower their standard just because of the influence of a politician
This is called misuse of power and authority.
Thanks for reading, mate.
We're working from two very different mindsets, so there's bound to be some difficulty.
Voluntaryists believe that all human interaction should be voluntary, so taxation and monopoly policing are intrinsically bad (since you can't opt out of those relationships).
I'm not dividing politicians into 'surly' and 'friendly' categories; I'm trying to discern if the role, 'politician' is intrinsically aggressive (threatening violence against a non-violent individual).
Likewise, I'm not dividing policemen into 'nice' and 'corrupt' categories, based on their demeanour when dealing with the public; I'm referring to the involuntary nature of our relationship with all policemen.
Many are lovely people, many are bastards, but I'm talking about the profession as a whole.
Thank you for your continued support of SteemSilverGold