You can’t go from 0 to 60 in one step...
Would you make this argument 200 years ago if we were talking about slavery?
“But who will pick the cotton!?”
Immoral is immoral.
Adam is not being inconsistent or antithetical to principle.
He stated openly in our debate that his plan was not a voluntaryist one, and that it is not in line with voluntaryist principle. It’s a “compromise.” Oddly enough a compromise that blatantly violates the foundation property norm of Voluntaryism.
He also toyed with/suggested the idea that under his “custodial leadership” individual might be fingerprinted in order to homestead unowned land.
This is not a voluntaryist position in any sense.