Larken -
With respect: I've read your books and while the fiction was fun, I found it to be shallow. But yeah, fun and I loved the message. The Most Dangerous Superstition rocked and I want the entire Universe to read it. I also love and have massively promoted your animations!

I'm glad you care enough to speak out. I watched the debate between you and Adam. To me it seemed like one person was self controlled and gracious while the other was doing a bunch of name calling and missing the point. I'm glad for your idealism and passion, Larken.

I only wish - hope - you experience something in your life that clicks for you in a way where your vision is less limited to binary thinking. Otherwise known as "black & white thinking," otherwise known as "splitting" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology). If you read about it, you may notice it describes you.

I'm a fan of embracing/accepting both the negative and the positive, so I'm not really disappointed in you for taking the negative stance here and wanting to point out something you see as destructive to a movement you believe strongly in. Where I'm disappointed is that you are promoting division while he is promoting unity. He is ADAPTING to their language, so that his message will spread further. I understand how adapting can overlap with and/or seem like a lapse in integrity. In this case I don't think it is. I'm not biased here, either. I've had beefs with Adam before and we've worked close together before. Overall, though, my experience of him is that he believes in the cause and - much more importantly - his ACTIONS are in line with what he says.

Something Milton Friedman said once comes to mind. It was something like how to him, being a libertarian meant being humble; showing humility. He explained that one example of that is the idea that we don't know what is best for others, so we definitely don't try to change them. You seem to be coming from a place of thinking you know what is best in terms of how to best shift people from Statism to Voluntaryism. I can certainly be wrong about what you think. It's your words and manner that come across this way, like you know it all and people doing it any other way are just wrong.

It's a very much black & white way of viewing the world. You either trust or not trust. You are either right or wrong. You are either an honest person or a liar (really? So if you lied once in your life, you are forever a liar? Or is it twice? You tell me, Larken). There is no middle ground for you, is there? This is extremely limiting. I wrote an article on that topic here: https://steemit.com/life/@scottermonkey/is-it-better-to-see-trust-as-black-and-white-or-spectrum

I think Jeff Berwick nailed it in the debate when he mentioned a "multi-pronged approach." I hear you that you worry that by using the aparatus of the State to try to dissolve the State is not an easy thing. MAYBE not even possible. But why not try? And are you going to continue to discount the number of people who will be transformed by hearing Adam's message as he campaigns? You make weak distinctions between Adam and Ron Paul - seemingly in order to tiptoe around offending the gazillions of us who respect and value what Ron Paul did for the liberty movement. But I don't hear anything solid enough from you on that. Speaking of solid, when you talk about voting "legitimizing" the State, I get the concept and how it could be a thing, but really? When that voting is for a 3rd party, it sends a message. We could debate about how powerful that message is, but it DOES exist and I think it more than makes up for this "legitimizing" you imagine is going on. But I'm betting what I'm saying here makes little sense to you, filtered through your lack of skill / ability to process information in a way that allows for "middle grounds" or "shades of gray". Unless we have a cataclysm, apocalypse, violent revolution, or some other massively fucked up or unrealistic event, there won't and can't be a sudden 100% switch from statism to Voluntaryism.

Now with regard to your general critique of all Libertarians (I use the big L to denote minarchists), why not choose to see them as allies FOR NOW? If you can for a moment try to see a path where we can move from 100% statism down to 80% down to 60% and so on (requires breaking through your black & white filters), then why not work together with Libertarians until gov becomes the 20% (or whatever) they want. And if we all worked together all the way to that point, can you imagine (a) during that journey, how many of those Libertarians will convert along the way to full on Voluntaryist? And once we get to that 20% gov, how many people will see just how effective the private sector has been at handling all the services they used to think were needing to be under gov pervue?

Do you have the capability/desire to see how 20% gov is better than 40% gov? Or does your mind go straight to, "No! Only 0% is right and good. 1% is like having 1% cancer and thus, not good and not acceptable!" By the way, I've heard you say something like that before and I'm wondering if you have evolved away from at least that position yet?

Finally, it takes a manipulator to recognize one. Like all of us, you have that in you. Maybe if you pull the stick out of your ass, you will be able to relax enough and have a hole big enough to look inside of yourself and do some of the work necessary to start seeing the wider spectrum of what is going on.