You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: "Changing the Mob from the Inside!" A Reminder that Voluntaryists DON'T NEED A F*CKING "PRESIDENT!"
So what are your plans for ending the state? Do you have one besides organizing locally and hoping for the best?
I don't necessarily support Kokesh, but I think his heart's in the right place and that tearing things down from the inside is as good a plan as any. My own personal opinion is that the state won't end in any meaningful way during my lifetime unless some major calamity is involved, but maybe I'm just nihilist, and at any rate, even if so, organizing locally can at least reduce peoples' dependency a little.
The idea that this is all about “who has the best idea” is similar to the response Adam gave me when I broached this issue on his livestream last year. He told me to “step up to the plate” if I have a better idea, completely missing my point, namely:
The system is violence. The gatekeepers of a crime syndicate do not allow destroyers of said syndicate to be “elected.”
Adam’s plan for redistribution of property, as far as I can understand it (he’s been pretty vague) violates voluntaryist/libertarian property axioms and principles.
Thus, it’s not about saying “I have the best idea, shut up!” That’s typical statist bullshit. It’s about whether or not one wishes to respect individual self-ownership and by extension, property, as the highest law.
If Adam’s plan doesn’t, then it is not a Voluntaryist plan, and this I encourage all Voluntaryists to abandon the money grabbing hype for a violent machine we all stand against.
I’m all about local change. That’s why I stand against this mega-hyped, mega-centralized, sensationalized stuff!
This isn't a totally fair statement. So many people are hostile, frivalous, and petty - they rage over little things. These type of people attract "Government" to them. When people accept self-responsibility in full, and pledge integrity and honor to all people as brothers one another, then Governments will disappear.
I admire your adherence to principle, but I think you're allowing that to assume bad faith here where it's not really warranted. I can see you're quite worked up over this, so I'll leave it at that.