You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: NO FORCE ONE!
I didn’t say that the dissolution of the federal government was evil.
Assuming centralized control over lands and other resources that he doesn’t have most direct demonstrable link to (say claiming to now be “custodian” of a national park miles away people in the local community are already using and dictating how they can and cannot use the land) by a magical “executive order” is not compatible with Voluntaryism, by definition. This is not a legitimate way to acquire land or resources, as it relies on force to do so.
I make my case and citations here, and also use quotes from Mr. Kokesh himself to show his position is a contradictory one.
In a perfect world we would give each person back what was wrongfully taken away from them. There is way too much to figure out to who gets what. Have you entertained the idea that government property is unowned property. In my view it must be unowned and it would be way to complicated to dish out all stolen government property to the proper owners as there are too many variables for it to even be feasible. If Adam Kokesh is successful it would be our best option as a world war or an economic collapse would be the only possible alternative outcome. I look forward to further clarification of these issues if you don't mind.
Exactly. To attempt to do so in a centralized fashion, outside of the bounds of the libertarian property ethic would be illegitimate, impractical, and immoral.
This is why Kokesh’s plan isn’t Voluntaryist, and isn’t viable.
From my understanding Mr. Kokesh is mainly offering to be a temporary custodian in a transition of giving back the stolen property from the federal government to the individual state governments with hopes that the states would follow suite and continue to decentralize. Do you have a better idea of how to do this and have you offered it to anyone with as much of an audience and resolve as Mr. Kokesh or even to him for that matter?
Why do I need a “better idea” if the plan violates individual self-ownership and property rights, which is unacceptable? Do I need a “better idea” to suggest that cops shouldn’t torture suspects illegally, for example? Can’t I make said critique with or without an alternative plan for criminal justice?
If you want to be critical you could be more constructive and offer ideas to make it more inline with self-ownership or you will be doing nothing but allowing the already terrible status-quo to continue unchallenged. You could offer something such as more agorist means or whatever but just to say it's not voluntaryist enough without offering up a more voluntaryist approach seems a lot less helpful to me.
That's an illogical claim. Refusing to support a plan not in line with the voluntaryist axiom of individual self ownership does not automatically translate into "doing nothing but allowing the already terrible status-quo to continue unchallenged." That's silly. I have already offered other ideas but unfortunately they remain ignored and the knee-jerk, emotional reactions continue.
If you've offered other ideas then where can I find them?
"If you have a better idea for ending slavery, and still being able to pick the cotton, where is it!?"
Irrelevant. My idea? Respect property and innovate. Look around here on Steemit. It's already happening. Farms. Homesteaders. Ghost computers. Anarchist support networks. Homeless being helped. Hungry being fed. Direct, no middle-man transactions.
Am I to believe that is all bullshit and that I need to follow one man's plans for how things should work? I'd rather stick with the principles of ISO and property. That's the best plan there is. People don't like it, though, because the actual risk involved is perceived easily and there is no messiah figure to lead everyone and provide a false sense of security.