RE: IF YOU'RE NOT GETTING POLITICAL, YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING!!!!
Do you think Adam's plan is to move everyone off their property or something? That makes no sense at all.
"arbitrarily determine ownership of the same)" who's in favor of that?
How do you handle a government bankruptcy? It's never been done and there's no reason to believe that Adam won't do his best to find the fairest way. He's already said nothing's written in stone on this subject and he's open to suggestions. What more could the man do?
I also agree that "imposing your choice of a leader on someone is unethical". So where is he NOT being truthful? Would it be better to just say, "on your mark, get set, go!" and everyone grab as much land as they can.
I don't claim to have all the answer to these questions but let good will and a tight hold on the principles of freedom guide us. As far as I know, that's all Adam is trying to do.
No. I don’t think that. In our debate he said people would be able to homestead freely, and also that they wouldn’t. So I am confused.
Adam’s platform.
Another strawman. I never said anything remotely close to this. I referenced local communities and property owners deciding how things should be done, as per Voluntaryism, and not centralized force.
"I referenced local communities and property owners deciding how things should be done, as per Voluntaryism, and not centralized force."
sounds right to me, what makes you think he's going to stand in the way of that? I'll have to listen to the debate again regarding the homestead question but..
I don't think his intentions are to weigh in on property rights in places where local communities can handle it. That would defeat the whole purpose of de-centralization, wouldn't it?
He claimed he both would, and would not allow it in the debate.
Yes. That is what I am saying.
so, if I ask him if he plans to interfere in local communities where they are able to handle their own affairs, whatever they may be, he's going to say yes?
I don't believe it and would never support that.
But, you realize that if he says no that he has no intention of interfering in the affairs of local communities, you're kinda spreading gossip, non factual stuff.
Before I ask him, how would you like the question worded? I just want to get to the truth of everything.
an orange is not an apple :)
I'm listening to the debate again with open mind, truth is all that matters.
No. He will say no. But then, if asked if he will prohibit homesteading on certain land the “majority” chooses to preserve. He will affirm this. This is, of course, an untenable position due to the clear contradiction inherent.
Watch our debate, and please stop the puerile accusatory stuff. “Gossip”?
Would you prohibit individuals from freely (without permission) homesteading and privatizing areas such as the grand canyon?
Ask him that yourself. He will likely know it is from me, though.
Regardless of the answer (which he has already answered, if you’d take the time to check out the debate) he is already in contradiction with Voluntaryism, as federal elections cannot grant legitimate ownership/authority.
You are correct.
damn, knew I was right about something. I'm watching the debate right now so no further comment until I confirm I know what I think I know and didn't miss something .. critical.
thank you for engaging, let's see if we can't find a conclusion. one of us is wrong and I think it's you. (humor) I want to know if I'm wrong for certain.. always
At the 40 minute mark and decided to download it and put some comments in. I'll probably go to hell for it but oh well.
It's going to take some time. I'll be back.
Right but for now you can at least acknowledge what he said about the grand canyon, etc, yeah?
Sorry man, had some things to take care of, one of which was sleep but just started back at this. Video downloaded and in my editor, breaking it up and making notes.
As soon as I get to that part I'll come back and respond to the grand canyon question and finish the rest of the video after that. Not more than two hours from now I'd say.
I'm enjoying the video again... I'll be back
His answer would seem to be no. Let the market decide and that's inline with freedom imho.
"What I would want to see is that there is a way for the market to provide a way of preserving large national resources for that greater value, that not everything has to be parceled out to the individual in order for the individual to have a legitimate stake in it." ~@adamkokesh
Who in their right mind would want to see all the natural resources in private hands so only those people will ever get to see it. Parcel it out and destroy something beautiful that belongs to everyone.
and just to add another fly into the ointment, caught a headline of @kennyskitchen 's asking if we own the land or the land owns us. It's on my to read list for sure.
About that wallet.. lol. Do we not agree that the only decent thing to do is to return stolen property to its rightful owner. rhetorical.. should be
What about the property that nobody claims or the rightful owner can't be determined? Good question but a difficult one that Adam has asked for help with.
btw, the "materialistic" remark that Adam made was never directed at you imho. It was used in a generally speaking kind of way.
That's what I've got so far but my goal is to break down that entire video into clear talking points so there can be no confusion. I think it's going to be possible to do on my website, save as draft until done, post it and it uploads automatically to steemit. I think I can..
kind regards
You are moving goalposts now, though.
We discussed the national parks/ Grand Canyon thing. You stated:
Now you’ve heard Adam’s clear position on that specific topic, and instead of conceding the point, you move the goalposts and attempt to defend the action.
Defending that plan is fine, but the perceived morality of this was not the point. You said he wouldn’t be weighing in. No you know he would.
That is another conversation and issue. You’re going to have to stay on topic.
As for Jeff Berwick, all I can say is that you would be doing yourself a huge favor to stop “trusting people” in that way, and start using logic as the compass.
Thank you for conceding that Adam would indeed be centrally weighing in and making property decisions.
"What I would want to see is that there is a way for the market to provide a way of preserving large national resources for that greater value, that not everything has to be parceled out to the individual in order for the individual to have a legitimate stake in it." ~@adamkokesh
which part of that don't you understand? Did he not just say to let the market decide and then you turn that around in your mind to mean the exact opposite. Your talking in circles.
Whatever confusion there is here is all on your end.
move the goalposts? wth are you talking about? We've got one question and one answer and you're ignoring both and changing the subject and saying all kinds of nonsense like I'm changing something.
one question, one answer, that was the goal to keep it so simple there could be no misunderstanding. I honestly can't imagine how to bring it down to terms that would be any easier to understand.
Unless I can bring myself to believe that your intellect is insufficient to comprehend what I'm saying, I'm left with thinking you're being disingenuous at the very least.
YOU gave me the question:
I found the answer in the video and presented it to you:
You never addressed the answer. That was the whole point of the exercise but then you'd be proven wrong. I can't relate to people who are not forthright.
I've yet to hear Jeff Berwick say a single thing that I disagree with, trust has nothing to do with it, his words stand on their own.
and then you make this weird ass comment:
Whaaat? LMAO!
The only thing I concede is that your not interested in the truth or you'd be more direct instead of so shifty.
And then you accuse me of not staying on topic?
No further communication necessary. I'm not going to mute you though because I will have to throw some common sense at any more of your bs.
man.. what a disappointment