RE: Freedom via Playing Politics? Debate Time
I'm new to steemit but not to Larkin Rose and Adam Kokesh. I hope I didn't miss the debate or it's online to view. I love both of these guys as they would both let me be free which is all I ask.
There's something about the tone of this that I don't like. Debate? Why? You guys are so well spoken and infinitely smarter than I am but are you forgetting something. We are on the same side, we need solidarity against those who want to control. Join forces for the good of all. I can't believe I had to say it. In the end, only kindness matters. Take the competition out of this and replace it with a higher goal.
Let me put this another way. I want solutions not more division. Between the two of you, I see only great ideas and solutions if ego doesn't get in the way. Change it from a debate to a collaboration.
This post is with complete good will for you both.
If someone on your "side" was shooting himself in the foot--and shooting YOU in the foot--would you say something about it? Or would you remain quiet, because he's on your side, and you don't want to cause division? Adam's political campaign is not merely pointless; it is hugely counter-productive. As it is now, it will do nothing to achieve freedom, or to get more people to understand and advocate freedom. A lot of what Adam has done and said has helped to spread the ideas of non-aggression and self-ownership. This campaign won't.
with respect to "The Complete and Undeniable Truth", here are some more great words from
John McAfee - closing remarks at the Libertarian debate.
Of course I would say something. All that matters is the truth. There are no other considerations.
I do not, however, see the validity of that analogy.
You that say Adam's campaign is pointless, counter-productive, and will do nothing to achieve freedom. I'd really like to know why you think that because I'm not seeing the logic there. What's your reasoning?
Are you saying decentralizing government, getting rid of the FED, etc etc will have a negative effect on freedom? If his campaign is not 100% in tune with the idea of individual sovereignty, then there can be no benefit to freedom?
I have to say that I've watched "The Complete and Undeniable Truth" hmm a whole lot of times, it's never been said better. Never imagined that I'd be having a conversation with THAT man. :)
But the most unexpected part - to disagree with you. Ok, I'm laughing my ___ off right now at the absurdity of that.
I've only voted twice, both times for Ron Paul. I believe he did a great deal for freedom, as in anytime you advocate for truth. Even so, I did not agree with everything about his campaign. He went further than any candidate I can recall but he compromised some truths I felt, like we need to do an independent investigation of 9/11. I kept waiting for it, it didn't happen.
But I knew getting rid of the FED, IRS, many government agencies would leave us better off.
Then and now.
Anarchism is an individualist philosophy, so let's debate! Debate and argument are necessary to getting down to the bottom of things. Keeps everything healthy and thriving, instead of stagnant and collectivist!
Rather than calling it a debate or argument, I would call it a collaboration. My only philosophical stance is what's right or wrong in reference to human rights. Labels... hmm not out to defend a particular label, really hate labels as they are far too subjective and much time is wasted on agreeing to definitions.
I would love to "collaborate" with you however you'd like though, eyes wide open, brother.
Let's see if we know right from wrong? huge fun to me
If this is how you feel I’m not sure we can collaborate on much of anything. Agreeing on defintions is foundational and essential for avoiding confusion.
Ok, if that is how you feel. I get that always, guessing it's me. Anyway, hope you don't mind if I just go ahead and express my philosophy.
I'm a human being. I have a right to live. To say there is any rightful authority over me is tantamount to saying my rights are less than what others have which in my humble opinion is a non-starter in the logic department.
"The only true law is that which leads to freedom." ~ Jonathan Livingston Seagull
What could that law possibly be? A law that leads to freedom?
-You can't infringe on another person's unalienable rights.- What scenario could not be adjudicated by that simple principle.
And as long as you don't do that, there is no rightful force that can be used against you.
There can be no crime without a victim.
We are sovereign and complete unto ourselves, we are our own government.
no questions for you because of what you said but I do wonder what label you'd give a person who believes in the above.
labels are divisive, violence, "the greatest illusion in this world is the illusion of separation". There is only one thing that can save us and that is solidarity. "We all hang together..." - "United we stand..." - some truth there imho
"in the end, only kindness matters" ~ Jewel
Ok - When you say anarchy, I'll think freedom and
when I say freedom, you can think anarchy.
and we'll be on the same page. ;)
Government can't coexist with "freedom" - the two are wholly incompatible to individual sovereignty - unalienable rights
no left no right no anything else, there's only freedom and tyranny.
Let's start with this question if you'd like: What rightful authority is there over humanity?
My answer: the truth and nothing else.
If we have equal rights, no human can have authority over another.
But the truth.. you can run, you can hide, you can reject it all you want but it's not going anywhere. It will still be right where it's always been when a person gets around to being honest enough with themselves to lift the veil.
Starting point or your suggestion?
I was checking out some of your youtube videos, a lot to like.
Would you agree with this "premise"?
"ALL people are created with equal and unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. No one has authority over another because no one has more or less rights than anyone else.
The vast majority of people just want to be left alone, free to work and love and provide for their family. It's pretty basic, honest, honorable.
They want their children to be able to enjoy a life of peace and prosperity where people live by each other's happiness."
words from here: http://www.truthabides.com/premise/
Is there room for good will in your anarchist philosophy?
Looking forward to your debate with Adam. btw, a possible core difference between you and Larken vs Adam might be this:
Then, if that's even close, the question becomes in THIS case, does the end justify the means.
Does calling it a debate vs a collaboration violate the non-aggression principle? Not sure if there's any validity to that but it makes me want to laugh for some reason.