RE: ***DEBATE PROPOSITION*** ATTN: @adamkokesh/@kennyskitchen
I didn’t misunderstand anything, and I’m not trying to sound impersonal or confrontational, but intentions don’t really matter to me. I’m just examining the facts here.
As for point 1:
Yes, his plan involves assuming ownership of vast swathes of federal land and personally deciding (via his hand-selected inner circle of “custodians”) who gets to own them as non-profits. His platform explicitly states that these will be kept as lands “open to the public.” This means that the voluntaryist/libertarian ethic-based natural law right to homestead unowned lands would be impossible.
As far as the legitimacy of the method, hear him, in his own words both disavow it, and affirm it’s legitimacy in the video below:
As for point 2:
He has said in his own words that he will have no authority “EXCEPT distributing the property.” Not sure how you can argue with that one. To hear Adam Kokesh himself affirm this, please watch the video below.
As for point 3:
Politicians often say one thing and do another. This is not an emotional attack on Kokesh, his plan simply, by definition, is not a Voluntaryist one. Ends do not justify means.
I have attempted to ask him about this rationally and calmly to which the response I received was “If you have a better idea step up to the plate.” The second time I critiqued part of his platform he told me I was an “annoying and ignorant troll.”
He conveniently evaded talking actual property norms and principle (not “ideals,” but foundational tenets) and opts instead for high-school level retorts and non-sequiturs.
I would have no problem whatsoever with the constant fundraising and politicking if he would stop referring to this “presidential platform” as a voluntaryist/voluntaryist-compatible initiative. It gives those of us who actually understand this stuff a bad name and dupes newcomers to voluntaryism.
Thanks for commenting, and I hope if Adam really cares about principle as he says he does, he will re-examine the illegitimate (not to mention impossible) means by which he seeks to gain control to “relinquish control.”
First, thank you for your detailed response. Second... @joshsigurdson smoked the shit out of Gary Johnson! I knew he was bad but not that bad yeesh!
Those videos are well done, did you do those? I guess I didn't look hard enough, I would love to ask him these same questions now.
What exactly would a non-profit be in the absence of a federal tax program I wonder?
And it is a nice thought to give that "endowment" to vets, but you are correct in that they are not the only ones who were stolen from, we all were(are).
I guess I presumed "open to the public" meant have at it, but if it's owned by non-profit or whatever then it's private all over again.
So I totally get your point, he should probably drop the voluntaryist label. I still kind of like the effort though, it's a fun idea to play with. Do you think the libertarian label still applies?
"Libertarian" is such a broad label that yes, I think it could apply. Thanks for being open to checking things out here. I usually just get an earful from Mr. Kokesh's supporters as if I were the devil incarnate whenever I raise any points of contention. Glad others are also willing to take an objective view.
I totally get the enthusiasm, but I also hate to see such a beautiful philosophy as voluntaryism applied as a label to plans that would require force to uphold, and honest voluntaryists or new anarchists donating thousands of dollars to a pipe dream about changing Nazism "from the inside," which is essentially what this is. The state is at it's core evil, and to imagine that they would, via their own systems allow a vocal opponent to assume a seat of high power in their own system strikes me as, well, pretty delusional. Another election in which voluntaryists are persuaded to legitimize a system that is, down to its very core, pure evil.
But yeah, I get the enthusiasm many have, I just think it's misplaced. That said, I'm watching too, far away from my own little seat, not as a fan or supporter, but in anticipation of reality showing up.