RE: A New Dallas Accord to Unify The Freedom Movement
@adamkokesh, I understand your dismay and discouragement. You would think that people who have so much in common, could use that commonality to overcome their differences. While I agree with you when you say we should: "Be loving towards everyone. Be as forgiving as possible. Be accepting and understanding”, I’m not so sure about keeping divisive points out of the platform. I fear that this approach will lead to more candidates like Gary Johnson, who are libertarian on the surface, but as soon as you scratch it, the statism comes oozing out.
Do we want to build an organization bound by the lowest common denominator? Or do we want an organization built upon the moral principles of individual human rights, with members who all agree with those principles and work toward them, whether that be in the political arena, or daily life? Do we want to compromise on those principles, keeping the disagreeable parts out of the platform, just to give us a little more critical mass so that we can be more effective at winning elections? Or do we want to fight even harder to demonstrate why our principles are superior, and increase membership through education and setting the example?
I guess what I’m saying is, yes, I agree with your philosophy of love, forgiveness, acceptance and understanding, but I do not agree with the idea of bringing back “The Dallas Accord”.
I'm concerned that there's a worse problem. How do we, those of us who refuse to be ruled, coexist in a world where the vast majority of people want to be ruled?
That's what the whole election process is about after all, correct? It gives all those people the illusion of picking their rulers.
Even if given the chance to vote for liberty, I don't believe the majority of people would. We'd be better off creating a different model. We saw what happened to Ron Paul for example. He was just doing what he did to point out the obvious and to further the message. Did he have any realistic hope of winning? I doubt it.
Still, trolling the establishment would be worth it. Anything we can do to further the message of liberty is worth it. We just need to understand that we are surrounded by people incapable of being self-ruled. They will demand a ruler.
Can we change enough people to make them refuse a ruler? Man, I don't know. That's... asking a lot.
You make some good points. Ultimately, IMO, the libertarian party should be about minimal government. Minimal government means the purpose of government is to protect individual rights and nothing else. Anything more than minimal government moves into the area of ruling people. So when Adam suggests keeping divisive points out of the platform, I believe this compromises on the fundamental purpose of the libertarian party and allows government to continue ruling people.
You ask if we can change enough people to make them refuse a ruler. Maybe, maybe not. I am skeptical. However, if we are to succeed in this, the only way it can happen, IMO, is by providing a clear alternative to the Republican and Democrat parties. A libertarian party based upon the lowest common denominator, that seeks growth and public acceptance rather than debate and inclusion of its principles, even if they are divisive, is not a clear alternative - it's more of the same.
Government has never been very good at protecting individual rights.
How can it be when it is, by definition, a coercive collective? The smallest minority is one. Governments cannot protect minorities. It has never happened, and it never will happen. This is why his plan is a peaceful dissolution of the federal government.
I'm all for governance, but it needs to be entirely voluntary. As soon as someone's will is forced upon another, the system is tyrannical and should be fought against. We can and should have a society based on mutual consent, peaceful interaction, and voluntary agreements.
Those who want to be ruled make it easy for those who want to rule to have the system we currently have however. How do we, those who do not want to be ruled, stop them from trying to rule us?
Great feedback! Thanks! I think I must have left something out of my original post that I'll have to get back to with a future post. Basically, yes. We want to build an organization around the "lowest common denominator" of people who care about freedom as a principle. We don't have to sacrifice that. So let me ask you this way: Would you rather have a debate club of anarchists that is always right about everything, or an organization that is accepting of people who don't agree on everything, but are willing to vote in our direction? Because the first answer gets you what we have now. The second answer, at worst, gets us someone like Gary Johnson as President because with more people, you can, you know, actually WIN elections! As for my campaign, the way that I have made a platform based on principle (dissolving the whole federal government) will bring in people who want local governments that are conservative or liberal. We should be ready to welcome them and ready to win!
We must reflect a little more deeply. I know some very seasoned senior activists, one in particular, who points out that the federal government has already been dissolved. I used to doubt that, but I am thinking more and more that it's essentially true. Since the establishment is a private corporate-banking-old blood line force that took over the government long ago, then the government itself, in terms of its origins and founding structure, is no longer with us. Over time, the interlopers seceded from the original Constitutional order and overthrew it, thereby effectively dissolving it. They did this by altering the Constitution without the proper amendment process, which disintegrated the original social contract. Once the private banking cartel moved in and solidified its position in 1913, then the real rulers dissolved what little remained of the original sovereign state. Government, in and of itself, is not the core culprit--rather, it's those who altered its function and form so much that, eventually, dissolution occurred. Yes, one could argue, let's "dissolve the dissolvers," but that's not what's being discussed here.