There are still some people who are attempting to use the political system to try to promote the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression. But both tactically and philosophically, that is a really bad idea, which is doomed to be counter-productive.
First, I want to acknowledge the one potentially good outcome, which would be using the ridiculous circus of “politics” to bring attention to the philosophical principles underlying voluntaryism. However, to do that without being completely counter-productive and self-contradictory, one would have to run a “campaign” that is very clear and loud on several points:
The results of elections have absolutely no moral significance. Individual rights don’t depend upon constitutions or legislation. The entire game of political elections (choosing masters) is inherently illegitimate and immoral. Freedom doesn’t come from “government” or political action; freedom is always the diametrical opposite of “government” and political action.
In other words, an actually consistent anarchist “running for office” would intentionally make a mockery of the whole charade, making it quite clear that the outcome of the election does not matter in the slightest, because political “authority” is 100% mythological bullshit, with no relevance to right and wrong, or to what human society ought to be. An actual anarchist would not speak of any political or “legislative” agenda or plan, because he would know that constitutions, elections and politician scribbles have absolutely no legitimacy to begin with. In short, the only anarchist political “campaign” I would have any respect for (and I would still object) would sound a lot like this:
“This whole game of politics and voting is a stupid, bogus charade. Pressing buttons in booths doesn’t give anyone any special power or authority. I am only playing the part of another clown in this ridiculous circus in order to point out the absurdity and illegitimacy of it all, and to use the platform—and whatever attention I might get from it—to condemn statism entirely, in principle, from top to bottom, without exception, and to promote and spread the ideas of self-ownership, non-aggression, and a purely voluntary society: ideas which are in every way incompatible with the very notion of ‘government’ and political ‘authority.’ I will not win this election; I do not want to win it; winning it doesn’t matter in the slightest. If you vote for me (or anyone), you are still horribly misguided and duped.”
The moment an “anarchist” political candidate starts taking himself, or his campaign, at all seriously, you should run away from him as fast as possible.
(Incidentally, almost every tyrant rose to power by promising that, if given power himself, he would use that power to free the people from the injustice and tyranny coming from someone or something else.)
And if a supposed “anarchist” candidate ever says anything starting with “If elected,” then you know he is lying to himself, lying to you, and is only strengthening the insane notion that it matters who “wins” that silly clown show. There are several reasons why it is completely irrational to think that an anarchist getting electing is going to do any good, including (but not limited to) the following:
1 - Basic math dictates that, long before any anarchist would ever win any major election, it would already be completely unnecessary for him to run at all. For example, if we reach a point where 25% of the population believes in non-aggression and self-ownership, they would still be losing every election, while also easily having the numbers to simply ignore any authoritarian regime out of power.
2 - There is no office, including President of the United States, which can unilaterally legislate (or “un-legislate”) anything. Those who understand how federal legislation works (as bogus as it is) know that the President is the last step in the process, and can do exactly nothing by himself, except for Executive Orders which either apply only to federal employees, or carry out specific powers which Congress already delegated (i.e., pretended to delegate) to the President. They aren’t just a magic wand.
3 - The entire show of federal elections has nothing to do with reality. If you aren’t a loyal puppet ready to do the bidding of your masters, you have exactly no chance in hell of getting anywhere near the White House. Ever. (Ron Paul’s campaign was a fine example of someone who had massive real support from many millions of actual, honest people, and who was squelched, suppressed, silenced, demonized and destroyed by both parties, and the mainstream media, so that he never had a chance of winning.)
4 - When (not if) a voluntaryist candidate loses, it then looks like hypocrisy and “sour grapes” to declare that whoever did win doesn’t really have the right to rule. To play a game, lose it, and then whine about the results, is not exactly the best way to spread a coherent, consistent, principled message of liberty.
5 - Even in the best cases, a political campaign will automatically be perceived by most people as being about a certain person more than being about any idea. And the “cult of personality” routine, implying that we need a certain savior/leader/hero to save us, is the last thing that voluntaryists should be doing, or should be presenting to the world as their message.
6 - And most importantly, to campaign based on some legislative or political agenda clearly and obviously implies that you think that elections and legislation are actually legitimate and relevant. To try to play the role of savior by saying that, if given political power, you will use it to give people their freedom, is philosophically entirely statist, and psychologically a sign of some serious megalomaniacal delusions. Furthermore, anyone looking to a political candidate to grant them freedom obviously doesn’t know the first thing about self-ownership or non-aggression.
Democracy is the best trick tyrants have ever come up with. It is a way to give the slave class the illusion of control and influence, while giving them no real power. It allows the masters to pretend that the slaves have “consented” to the arrangement by choosing a master. Most importantly, it creates at outlet for the anger and frustration of the abused peasantry which uses up their time, energy and money, without ever getting them one inch closer to true freedom.
Watching supposed “anarchists” joining in that game, legitimizing it, and acting as if that game can be used to achieve true freedom—pretending that if you give the Ring of Power to the right person, he will use it to free you—is, at best, extremely misguided and counter-productive. And at worst, it is just another variation of what politicians always use politics and “democracy” for: empowering and enriching themselves—growing their own egos, their reputations, their influence, and their bank accounts—by exploiting the fear, anger, frustration, desperation and helplessness of everyone else. That is not the road to freedom.
P.S. Some people, in trying to justify political involvement, will talk about how we need to move towards a free society gradually, in steps, and that it can’t be done all at once. Aside from the obvious historical fact that “government” never gradually reduces and gets rid of itself (quite the opposite), whatever happens along the way, the only point that matters is digital, not analogy: every individual either owns himself, or is the property of someone else (e.g., the collective, or the ruling class). A slave trying to get his slave-master to be nicer, even if it works, is never the way to achieve freedom. Likewise, trying to get “legislative” permission to be more free has nothing to do with actual freedom, and thinking that way is still just playing into the hands of the parasite class.
P.P.S. Some people will point out, and rightfully so, that Ron Paul started a lot of people on journeys that ended with those people becoming anarchists. But that had everything to do with the ideas Dr. Paul expressed, and nothing to do with elections or legislation. Indeed, in his closing comments on the House floor, Dr. Paul said about himself what I had been saying about him for years, including this:
“In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. … In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. … I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom. Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek. … Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior.”
So why are you afraid to debate me on this point?
Why do you take swipes at me while I'm in jail?
Why do you talk trash and spread lies about me behind my back, yet can't mention my name here?
The cowardice of the messenger betrays the cowardice of your message. Let us confront the state every way we can!
http://KokeshForPresident.com/platform
Hello Mr. Kokesh.
Do you feel disapionted because Mr. Rose his post is exactly the same, and consistent with all he has written before (about voting/ elections/masterplans etc.) and he applies volutaryist principles always in the same way?
Would you have hoped that all of a sudden he would have said; Go vote (only this time, or only on Adam)?
If Stefan Molyneux was running for not president or present an new masterplan, the same post would have been written, would not use a name either, and aplied the same ideas/principles. I can however see and understand, that you could take it personal.
If Mr. Rose would have written this post a month from now, was it then o.k.?
Because it would have been written at some point....don't you think?
Expecting differently is setting yourself up for disappointment?
Or do you disagree on that?
And nice politician-esque blustering in your first line. If you can actually address the points of the article, instead of doing the politician emotionalism and tap-dance routine, I would be happy to publicly debate you on it. Know a good moderator?
Adam.... I am very disappointed as being someone who has been inspired by your words in the past!
Your platform is logically and ethically inconsistent with anarchist/ voluntarist principles. Voting for anarchy is like fucking for virginity. It's antithetical to logic and reason!
A 100 dollar self-upvoted comment. Fucking gross.
I'll debate you.
I think the real issue is that you don't want to because if you got too deep into this stuff, you'd find yourself trapped. Lots of folks asking. Why let your fans down?
Are you able to actually debate ideas or do you just engage in name calling?
101$ upvote man...this just pressing of button to upvote can seriously fill my pocket for 6 months...
this is called finger power 😀
I criticized your campaign for giving bail donations to a statist political party while you were in jail, because that's when it happened. I don't "talk trash or spread lies." I point out inconsistencies and bad tactics. And, like all politicians, you responded with emotional tantrums and personal attacks, instead of substantive responses. I intentionally left out quite a few things in the article that would have been about you personally, because in the long run, they are irrelevant. The principles are what matter. And in principle, "running for office" in the name of freedom is philosophically and tactically daft, for the reasons explained in the article--NONE of which you even responded to in your comment.
Well said Larken. This is why I believe anarchists should be careful of following people who intend on running for president even if the platform is to eliminate the office.
This post is really good. I just had to copy a small paragraph and paste it into my post. If everyone would think that way, things around would be pretty different
I would like to know more about anarchy and volunaryism and how it would work in a modern society. As a person who has never voted I am tired of seeing the corrupt farce that is democracy and how people (in Australia) are forced to vote.
If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, that anarchy and volunaryism could only be implemented through opting-out of the democracy game with great numbers then people need to be educated on how these two ideals would work. How society would function. How roads will be built, how prisons would be maintained etc
I love Ron Paul and relate to a lot of what he says and do subscribe to the idea of less government than more.
Give Rothbard's For a New Liberty a read.
Cheers, I'll check it out.
If you're open to that, you might also enjoy checking out Freedom by Adam Kokesh and The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose. Also watch the Philosophy of Liberty video. Those (among much other study) were the most helpful for me in realizing the myth of authority.
Thanks for letting me share my views with you. I hope they are useful.
I think you're in the right place. I'm sure there are TONS of people on steemit that will gladly introduce you to voluntaryism. If not, I'll do it. But to be honest, there's already a lot of replies that probably give you a lot of the basics. But a lot can be answered with the free market. Check out Austrian Economics. Mises.org is a great source and many books there are free in pdf format.
It sounds like you are making a decision to support one political philosophy versus another by weighing the outcome according to what you like. I know that people do that, but Larken is saying that the government itself is illegitimate. In the strictest sense, he is saying that regardless of whether the government steals things on your behalf that your like or steals things that you don't like, either way the government is illegitimate and should be rejected regardless of the outcome.
Above he says "Pressing buttons in booths doesn’t give anyone any special power or authority." Politicians think they are on a higher moral plane than you and feel justified in taking your money, but there is no objective basis to conclude that any one person is on a higher or lower moral plane in such a way... democracy is built on an imaginary distinction based on the magic power of pressing a button in a voting booth that entitles one person to steal from and micro-manage another.
Of course that's what people do when presented with new information/ideas, to suggest any less is not rational. Whether the government is illegitimate or not is by all means a matter of opinion. There a literally hundreds of millions of people who disagree with that statement. In fact I would say an overwhelming high percentage would say that we need some form of government. There are hundreds of millions of oppressed people who would die to have a democracy that we have.
That's all fine and dandy but to be honest most people are awake to the corrupt and thieving nature of government but to move people from their cushy sofa's the alternative and and more importantly the transition to the alternative needs to be clearly laid out. The government is not going to hand over power without a fight. So how will that fight look like? Protesting? Shit you can't even get people protesting for serious moral violations at the moment.
Sorry for the late response. I'm new to Steemit and did not see your reply.
You originally said people would want to know the outcome of a society that undergoes some type of anarchy. People would want to know:
Realistically, yes, most people would want to know that. Some people are less concerned with the quality of roads than with abiding by certain moral principles, like not initiating aggression against them by taking their money in terms of a tax. Larken might not care if some roads fell into disrepair or if some poor people go no welfare check because he is more concerned with underlying principles.
As for how such a change might happen, I do not follow Larken's suggestion of all out war. I suspect people who hear a message of anarchy or voluntaryism would first cut out social welfare and regulations. Where it all ends, I have no idea.
And while I feel I'm an anarchist (more like an agorist), that is MY biggest issue... how to support people who can't work, or can't work full time (like me).
Not that the gov't actually GIVES money to people in need because their formula for giving money to people is IDIOTIC, what they give to people is so little that there's NO WAY to live off of just over $1,100/month. You'd have to make money some other way to even pay the bills, let along have ANY kind of life that is normal.
There are MANY homeless people who can't even qualify for money because one person in the family makes a measly $16-18/hr. which is NOT enough to pay for 2 adults & a baby, PLUS pay child or spousal support.
I found out the fucking gov't looks at his GROSS income, NOT his NET.
Like I said, they are either stupid, or they do this on purpose so they don't have to pay out. I believe it's the latter.
Myself I have health issues & can't work full time because I don't have enough energy. Whenever I try to work 40 hours, I'm either making too little or I burn myself out.
Many seniors can't work because they are ill.
While I'm ALL for freedom, these to me are the BIGGEST issues & SHOULD be discussed, but every time I bring it up to anarchists they JUST ignore me like little children.
And I don't give a SHIT about the roads LOL who cares about fucking roads. How we can support ourselves is WAY more important than roads.
As it is, in the US most of the roads are in a total state of disrepair & there IS a gov't right now.
I really don't believe that anarchists are serious about freedom.
I've reached out to a few over the last 3 years & not one of them has ever written me back or wanted to have a SERIOUS discussion about this.
ALL talk & no action.
Hey you! 🙌😎 trying to find Amanda on here too!
Amanda's username is @dragonanarchist
megalomaniacal delusions yup nailed it right out of the ball park!
Anarchy day by day we are comming closer to realiza how muhc we need it.
The two guys hanging picture says it all.
I got to give it to you Larken you never shy away from the truth. So how will Frodo throw away the ring of power if we don't give him the ring?... I guess we all have to be Frodo maybe some of us can be Sam. I still think there is some good that comes out spreading awareness of anarchy.
I agree 100% Larken, but if you can admire Dr.Paul for what he did, I think we can give Adam the same respect. Not voting for him but remaining supportive in spreading his message, which is far closer to liberty than anyone else by a long shot. Aside from the contradictions to voluntaryism, it would be great to get it out to a lot of people. The Freedom book is pretty solid. Ron Paul meant to wield the power to gain liberty as well.
I always enjoy your content sir!
Why should anyone support a message that involves a proposition to utilize an immoral, illegitimate system, to illegitimately, centrally assume ownership of massive resources and lands?
Aside from the small drop of arsenic in the water, it’s great water, and we should get it out to the people!
Ron Paul is openly a statist. He is not claiming to be anything he is not.
Kokesh needs to stop calling himself a Voluntaryist. It is fraudulent, false advertising.
For exactly the reasons stated in the post and my comment--we know he's not going to win, so the point is to spread the message of freedom, which again is far more about liberty than it's not. Yes, he should drop the voluntary label, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have a massive effect to bring people around full circle, just like Ron Paul did for me and countless others.
He has directly stated that he is running to win, and not merely to spread the message of freedom. Ron Paul's ideas helped me along the path as well. He also didn't pretend to be a Voluntaryist, selling a falsely advertised plan.
People can donate to the LP all they like. I'm just letting folks know it's a scam.
Hey, I'm just letting people know that you're wrong:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i5PaC0_EXIg
Whoops. Looks like I missed this one. There are other vids of him saying he is not for anarchy, and wouldn't describe himself as an anarchist. The point I was making was he never said his plan to assume authority as president was voluntaryist in nature as you do. That's a pretty clear and easy distinction. He has also said directly, "I'm not an anarchist." Watch this video from 2:56.
Are you ready to have a formal debate yet, or are you just going to keep ignoring the actual points being raised?
Somebody else chimed in over on the other post you responded to today and they don't seem to think I'm just an annoying troll, but actually understand the critique and asked you some questions as well. Are they just being "annoying and ignorant" too? I'm ready to talk ideas in a formal setting when you are.
Step up to the plate?
Fair enough. But Ron ran to win too. And so for all those folks who still have the training wheels on, like we did when we first heard the Dr., I want him to take it to the masses.
Seems we're both repeating ourselves here. Thank you for your time and I look forward to following your work!
Thanks man. Same to you.
@johnnyhurley - I agree with you.
People need to first have the seed introduced to them, then once they get over their initial shock, fear, etc. they need to take baby steps to learn.
Then it can take years before someone is fully onboard with releasing their chains. It's what they've known their entire life & most humans AREN'T open-minded.
I first started questioning the gov't back in '93/'94, but it wasn't until 2012/13 when someone pointed me to Larken that I was like YEH, I agree with THAT.
Even then I just agreed. I didn't become a full-on activist until about 2 years ago & that's ONLY because I had some time since I was sick & couldn't work so I started learning.
Most people can't hear the message b/c they are chained to their 9-5 job working min. 40 hour. Many are working way more than that, sometimes 70 hours per week.
The EVIL CORPS & gov't create a society where EVERYTHING is so expensive than unless you make a shit load of money, you are forced to work 2-3 jobs.
Even if someone is only working the typical 40 hours per week, they usually HATE their job which puts a HUGE stressor on them & by the time they get home, all they want to do is eat & go to bed or spend time with their family.
To learn requires mental energy. In fact, the brain uses the MOST energy to run a human body.
That, & the fact that the EVILS poison us so our brains don't work properly, it decreases our energy, or it makes us ill so we have those 2 symptoms.
If you don't have a clear brain & tons of energy to live, forget about convincing/teaching people there's a better way.
If even one of these 2 mainstream people capture a WIDER audience & get people thinking, they will start to open their minds a little bit where it's easier to converse with them about taking it to the next level.
But I certainly don't respect or like people who mislead others.
So how exactly do we implement anarchy if any form of political involvement is contradictory to its principles?
Surely we need to win power to destroy power?
Do slaves need to become the new slavemaster, before they can be free?
No, we don't.
Just fucking leave the system, create your own income, make yourself a home or occupy like I do and learn how to be Self Sustainable. There should be no involvement especially with politics. People pressume that i go to protests.. no i havent and i never will. We can all start a real protest by choosing to leave society.
This is a great post because its a good question. No real anarchist even cares about politics, because to an anarchist it dosnt really have anything to do with them- if you own a registered property, or have debt and are still going to the supermarket to spend your taxed wage etc then you are not an anarchist in my eyes.
many have anarchistic thoughts and tendancies, but are still just conformists.
I hate the hypocrsy that I live in. Like you said, I have anarchistic thoughts and tendencies but I bought in to the system early. I am 25 with a fucking mortgage, a wife(I have no problems with her just the idea of a "government-sanctioned" contract) and work a job I hate due to me buying into the system back when I was still in the U.S. Air Force. My wife and I both just only recently begin to question our real motives behind why we made the choice to conform and came to the same conclusion -- fear of exclusion from the crowd. All we are doing now is saving money for land, fixing up our house for resale(luckily we have a ton of equity which will make it easy to dump this place soon), and building a self sustaining lifestyle. However, when once you put those shackles on it is tough to just drop it. I want to just go off grid and abandon everything as it is but I have not quite figured out the best way to go about that. Thoughts?
Hi! Its the hardest part to leave the crowd and the things we were raised to know as "life". For me it took years before I ended up leaving,although i did go live in thailand and west africa,but then i still had to come back when money was finished,and start the same shit again,look for a job,look for a room to rent. Wow, its the definition of insanity!
What you say about shackles.. I dont think we get to " put them on" they are put on by firstly our parents as they have them,and the gran had them,its NORMAL - everybody else is doing it,so that must be life!!
When the bubble bursts and your seeing that everything isnt right, then you have already left the crowed. What remains is the conditioned mind that your left to cope with- the you who wants to start fresh and the mind whos says "yeh but.." Or "what if"..
The people who were my mates in England are pritty much envious that I did something with life and i know my family are too. Its great to be a freak and be different,everyone trys to be different even though in society individulism goes only so far as the illusion of freedom that one think they have,its all very limited to conformaty.
If i had a mortgage, i would cancel it 100%. Unless there was a year or two left to pay. I wouldnt buy land because at the end of the day you will have a piece of paper saying that you own that plot, but we all learn that pieces of paper (cash,contracts,parking tickets,certificates) ARE ALL JUST PIECES OF PAPER! And oneday id guess in 10 years,all pieces of paper will be worthless. 800,000,000 jobs will be nonexisting in 15years or less due to technology and how many years is a mortgage?!
I fancy the chances of buying a huge boat with cash and NOT registering it,keeping the reciept, and go to find an island,or hidden continents with all the left over cash turned into silver and gold :)
Sounds though like a good start to a change that your both making, the futures scary but fun! Hey if the changes you make dont work out then just go back,put ya chains back on and forget your dreams. But who the hell does that once they wake up- nobody lol. Theres many people already done it,but they dont live in the concrete shitholes 😁 nature smells much better! Oh wait fuck - freedom smells much better i meant! Ok freedom in nature then. Sleep now but we chat more!
@rascalblack - don't beat yourself up. Everything starts with a thought in our minds, then we need the courage to act on it.
The fact that you are ONLY 25 & have already questioned the world we live in AND you once worked for the gov't, speaks volumes.
I'm proud of you for having your eyes WIDE open despite having been in the Air Force, so kudos to you.
Have you already joined a lot of homesteading groups & channels on FB & YT?
While I don't recommend FB or YT, b/c they have the largest community/following, it's a good idea to start there & try to move them over to steemit or search for them on here once you know their username.
Be well.
There are plenty of forms of political action that don't involve voting or campaiging under the enemy's system.
Which church was responsible for the secularization?
These are all very good and truthful points as usual Larken. But let's says that we used the political platform that is in the 3rd (or 2nd, depending on how you look at it) place that a lot of the general public might be looking at, we may have a chance at waking up more people to the concepts of freedom, NAP, anarchy and so on. When I was campaigning for Ron Paul halfway through I knew he was not going to win, but I knew he was going to be remembered. And so, like you say, "people becoming anarchists" was the result. We need a good campaign to get people to look over here and not look over there. Lots of very smart people that I know, are still looking over there.
Let's make a new type of anarchy. In my state situation can be describet like this. The law is on side or rich people who are the ones that creates that same law. And those rich people are mostly war profiters. They created this country on homeland war, and made a profit from it, and now they are creating laws so they could profit more. Because the sold our gold reserves so they need law to shield theyr illegal profit. We need a silent anarchy. How to acomplish that? I think that first step would be to infiltrate countrys court so you can manage the execution of law. The law is the first problem to solve.
The game you are sugesting wont work, as thats the game they have been playing for years and even lifetimes. Meaning they know it in an out and wil beat you. Unless you really studdy the rules of the game played, but then its a question of time and what wil be the most effective way.
Well, indeed it is their game but I think that they are playing it with less caution as the years go by, and that can be seen in their action and speech and bealive me its not in their intentions to look that way. So maybe they are creating us a chance and time to beat the in their own game.
Thank you.
Self ownership was an idea termed by john locke, and believe me that idea has long been proven to facade and has no connections to liberty whatsoever, Actually it represents something totally opposite.
i don't think you have slightest idea how systems work and what was the aim of that system in the first place.
and what questions need to be asked to see the darker side of a brilliant idea.
you will need to read a lot before judging and your post only looks like an unorganized rant to me. A lot of info still seems unknown to you and that is why your post looks more like an outburst. i could have suggested you some book but looking at your post i can say, you are in a hurry to reach some decisions.
that is why i suggest you to watch Justice by Michael sandel: A harward series which is the shortest form of review you can get for every kind of philosophy by the public through questioning. if you still have some questions then maybe you can join the next session at harward to clear your doubts or put your point.
finally i would like to say that it is really easy to point fingers towards the fault, Stay away from that.
Watch Justice Here on Youtube.
Be at Peace,
Instead of handing out homework, can you actually express a point for yourself? Your entire comment was just a vague, condescending complaint, with no actual substance.
Hmm. Sounds like your post, @larkenrose.
As i said, it is not about a point...no matter what i say you seem to be in an outburst. they will only make you more angry. no solution comes from an angry mind and no discussion can take place.
i did not intend to give you homework, that is just a session where you will see that you are asking many questions that have been asked and answered over and over. I will not get involved in that centuries long discussion with you.
Not an argument at all. Just an unsubstantiated claim.
Lol at your "be at peace" bullshit after that condescending pontification.
Make an argument. The rest is just noise.
There is an old Quote by Emanuel Kant :
Here is the part where self ownership and john Locke are discussed in real life situations:
here is the part where basic libertarian principles and taxation are discussed.
but i still suggest you to watch the whole debate series, it does not endorse any philosophy in particular, it just puts all of them up for debate among students and tests them in real life situations.
I am sorry if my last comment has offended you in any way. i was just trying to say that we ought to put all theories to test in real life situations and keep questioning them Before Reaching to the Decision about any particular theory.
And it even takes more diligence when we start to pitch those theories to other people. If you intend to stick with your philosophy for life and further spread it. Be ready to read through any book, theory, questions or whatever some idiot throws at you and learn your opposition better.
And most importantly to accept all criticism with warmth. that helps in converting a non-Believer.
Democracy was also devised to give power to the people as a concept. Nothing is Good or Bad. It is us, who make anything good or bad, hell or heaven. Even Good, bad, hell, heaven they all are subjective.
to declare any philosophy best above all, you need to judge many things for other people that i learned from a fellow steemian @joeyarnoldvn who commented on my intro post and made me realize a whole new dimension and calm my anger a bit,
be ready to learn and get surprised that is the essence of life. always look for those who disagree with you.
Video Source:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL30C13C91CFFEFEA6
The only thing I agree with you on is that this HAS to be well thought out & solutions created prior, BUT I still believe in freedom.
I STILL hate gov't & I don't believe for one minute that the US of A is a DEMOCRACY. In fact based on my research, it NEVER was.
That's why they allowed the Fiat to be created in order to start a society where they could control what people make, spend, how they can spend it, etc.
If I'm not mistaken, they even outlawed gold, silver & other forms of currency.
It's a police state controlled by criminals in the gov't who PROTECT the EVILS of the world. It's been like even shortly after its inception.
If you can't see that, you don't have your eyes WIDE open & you haven't studied enough. You aren't going to learn this from mainstream propaganda.
Even so called politicians who mean well when getting into politics are either very naive about the EVIL game that is played, or they think they can actually MAKE a difference.
Once they start, they either lose any kind of election as they get further along, or once in power they are blackmailed, threatened (including their family) or they become the evil they claim to be different from.
And we CAN'T just talk about the American gov't, this is a world wide systemic problem.
I would have watched your videos, but since they are from Harvard, I wouldn't bother.
Harvard creates MANY of the EVIL people of the world being that it's an Ivy League school.
But a lot of people seem to get a kick out of submitting funny names as official presidential candidates
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2016
if "Toy Testicles" runs again they have my vote.
Larken, do you remember when we were hanging out a PorcFest a couple years ago at your rock and some dude came along trying to give us his business card because he was running for office, looking for votes? Do you remember how he was treated and basically laughed away?
I asked the group a simple question, "Is the freedom movement worse off or better off because Ron Paul went into politics?"
The silence was telling.
I appreciate how much you've mentioned Dr. Paul in this post and how much his political work (or, to be more precise, his lack of political action) impacted the thoughts and minds of many people to move them closer to voluntaryism and, eventually to abandoning the myth of authority all together. So many people that started with "That guy is crazy" ended up with, "You know, maybe we should end the Fed..."
You didn't mention Kokesh, but it seems to me that's who you're targeting here with your argument. I'd really enjoy hearing you two discuss this in an open forum for us to watch, as I respect you both. I don't think Adam's plan is perfect by any means, but I do think it's much, much better than what we have going today. If by some miracle he were to win, I would, as an anarchist, enjoy the benefits of the outcome of his executive order, and I think it would bring the world a littler closer to a voluntaryist reality. Having read his book and spent time with him in person, I do believe he would help deconstruct the myth of authority in the process, even if he had to use some of the remnants of that myth to accomplish his goal. I should say "our" goal because I think all of us anarchists want to see a peaceful dissolution of the federal government.
I get how some can't stomach his approach and think it violates some core principles of self-ownership, property rights, and the concept of authority and legitimacy itself. I respect that. I also have to acknowledge that massive human suffering is happening right now at the hands of the military industrial complex (something Adam has intimate, personal knowledge about), the central banking system, and the violent monopoly on force that is the U.S. Federal Government. Can I morally advocate not implementing a plan which might decrease the time and amount of that suffering? As voluntaryists, aren't we called to act to defend those who can't defend themselves when the NAP is being violated? Don't we find the grey area of using defensive force (as an example) as necessary to prevent a worse harm?
It's possible I just need to be patient and this massive complex will dissolve itself in due time without any "mainstream" dialogue taking place in the political process. It's possible it will happen as fast as it possibly can if we just keep blogging and UTubing and talking to our friends, family, and neighbors.
It's also possible we're missing out on a great opportunity to allow someone to try something whose ideals we know in detail (Freedom, IMO, is an excellent book that is very digestible for anyone at any level of their freedom journey) that might accelerate the process. By running for "not president" and putting in place a plan to relinquish the mythical "rulership" power on day one, I think he's acting in good faith with the principles we share. Again, it's not perfect, but isn't better than doing nothing in the political arena? The ultimate goal of freedom is to reduce human suffering, right?
The divide and conquer approach has been used very effectively against all individuals who try to raise awareness against collectivist control. If we continue that process and attack every approach (even if it might not be our preferred approach) to increase and raise awareness about freedom in the world, then are we really working together for the greater good or falling prey to an old but effective tactic?
When you say (from my interpretation) a political campaign would have to take everyone from 0 (full Statist) to 100 (full Voluntaryist) in order to be valuable, I feel you're forgetting how human brains actually function and how long it takes for lasting change to take place. I used to believe a lot of really silly things (as you did also which you've talked about before). It took a lot of study, effort, and reasoning before I finally came around to better views of reality. I think all formats for helping that process along should be supported as long as they don't violate the NAP and ultimately push us further backwards in terms of the number of people that believe in the myth of authority.
If we become so focused on principles (and so convinced of their absolute perfection) as to lose all pragmatism, then we risk falling into the trap of dogmatism and ideology which has historically harmed humanity time and time again. I'm not suggesting everyone should directly support an attempt to use the system to dismantle it, but I do think there may be some value in not preventing those who want to give it a try from at least attempting it without having their ethics or morals questioned in terms of their belief in non-aggression and a future non-coercive, voluntaryist society. If they directly violate the NAP in the process, by all means, we cast them aside and look for other opportunities. If they abandon voluntaryist principles entirely, then yes, clearly they are not advocating for our shared ideals. But if we disagree with a few points or tactics but share the overall desire to dismantle the Federal Government and the harm they are causing every day, shouldn't we find a balance?
I greatly respect you, Larken, and I'm fully open to being completely wrong here. I respect how many years you've spent advocating for freedom and how many lives (including my own) you've impacted in positive ways. I also have respect for Adam and the years he's spent advocating for freedom and how, from his perspective, this is a more effective approach than being thrown in jail for protests or any number of other things he's done over his activist career. I don't fully agree with him on every point (just as I don't fully agree with you), but I do think it's worth a try, just as I think Ron Paul running for office did actually help humanity.
Luke, this response is a bit abbreviated, but all I have time for right now. But I want to at least address a few things here. First of all, there are quite a few things about Adam's campaign in particular that I find dishonest, hypocritical, statist and creepy, which I DIDN'T bring up, because I was sticking to the general principles about "voting for anarchy," which matter to me more than one person's absolutely doomed attempt at a political career.
As my article already said, Ron Paul running for office, and holding office, accomplished damn near nothing, as he said himself. Him stating IDEAS (mostly "statist lite" ideas, but with a lot of good substance) is what did some good, and it did good only because it started a lot of people on journeys that LED PAST THAT.
Did you really just say this about Adam?: "If by some miracle he were to win..." Dude, no. Please tell me you were on some strong hallucinogens when you typed that.
And to wish for, as you put it, a "mainstream dialogue taking place in the political process," is like hoping that the Vatican will have an open chat considering the merits of atheism. The ruling class and its mouthpiece, if
it ever did anything other than ignore Adam's campaign, would be to use it to demonize and ridicule voluntaryism, which would not be difficult.
You also said this: "It's also possible we're missing out on a great opportunity to allow someone to try something whose ideals we know in detail..." Do we know them in detail? Everything I've seen about his
campaign stinks of flip-flopping, compromising sell-out BS and trying to make alliances with all manner of statist political opportunist.
You said: "Again, it's not perfect, but isn't better than doing nothing in the political arena?" No, it is WORSE than doing nothing in that arena. Adding our own clown to the circus is not an improvement, and will do
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce human suffering. Because he has absolutely no chance of winning, and every chance of making the "freedom movement" look like a cult of unprincipled weirdos.
You: "The divide and conquer approach has been used very effectively against all individuals who try to raise awareness against collectivist control. If we continue that process and attack every approach (even if it
might not be our preferred approach) to increase and raise awareness about freedom in the world..."
Again, trying to BECOME the new master, under the promise that he will use the Ring of Power for good, is to LEGITIMIZE collectivist control, and achieve nothing else in the process.
You: "When you say (from my interpretation) a political campaign would have to take everyone from 0 (full Statist) to 100 (full Voluntaryist) in order to be valuable..." I said nothing of the sort, and implied nothing
of the sort. I said voluntaryists should advocate voluntaryism, not slavery lite.
You: "If we become so focused on principles (and so convinced of their absolute perfection) as to lose all pragmatism..." 1 - Fuck pragmatism. Being pragmatic, compromising with statists, and abandoning principles in favor of being "realistic," serves the state. And not freedom. 2 - There's nothing pragmatic about adding our own clown to the circus, when he has ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of winning. I don't mean hardly any. I mean none. Zero. Please don't do the embarrassing wishful thinking routine, like Adam is doing, by pretending there is ANY chance he would ever win.
You have no right to impose force either directly or indirectly on another human being, Luke, regardless of how pragmatic you think an idea may sound.
I think you misunderstand the word “principle.” It’s not a compromisable thing. It means “foundation.” To be “pragmatic” and ignore the one or two or 1700 individuals who may be harmed for the “greater good” of a “pragmatic approach” is to throw away the foundation of non-aggression. Without that, the plan, idea, or movement by defintion can no longer be called voluntaryist. It’s not about dogma at all, but logical chains of reasoning.
Ron Paul never claimed to be a voluntaryist, as Larken pointed out. Adam does. There’s a huge difference there.
I would like to see this conversation as well. I have offered Adam an open invitation for a formal debate but he has yet to answer save for calling me an “annoying, ignorant troll.” I’ll debate anyone on this, but most, sadly seem to shy away from talking logic and definitions.
What Voluntaryism is is not up for debate. Voluntaryist plans don’t by design include even the violation of one person. That’s the whole point. It’s digital, as Larken said, and about the individual, not what’s best for “the movement” or “the masses” That’s utilitarianism. Communism. etc.
Adam should stop using fallacious titles and self-descriptions, then maybe he could legitimately spread some sort of message like RP, and not a poisoned, bastardized version of FREEDOM. It would still be statism, but at least it would be honest.
Right. As if those are all anarchists are doing. Have you spent much time talking to folks around here, Luke? There’s a ton going on you seem to be unaware of. Many of us don’t have the time to sit on our hands and wait for an intrinsically evil process like a US political election to save us. We’re saving ourselves.
If only Harriet Tubman would have petitioned and voted for more “pragmatic slavery” instead of starting the underground railroad...
Principles, in complete isolation, don't change anything. Morality, ethics, virtue, philosophy, etc... those things arise when you apply our principles to the real world. I don't think that mapping is ever 100% perfect nor do I think any single individual has 100% perfect principles when it comes to increasing freedom while also improving well-being for humanity. I do not believe we need to throw away the foundation of the NAP in order to reach some form of Nash Equilibrium in terms of what benefits humanity.
It's a little odd to me that someone like Ron Paul or Adam Kokesh, who wants to increase freedom in the world, will be discredited by you if they don't have a label you agree with. To me, the labels someone uses isn't that big of a deal if they are in fact increasing freedom and well-being in the world. Labels are part of tribalism. I only ever started using the "voluntaryist" or "anarchist" label to describe myself when so many others started using it to describe me and it seemed a fitting short-cut I should stop correcting people about.
This sounds a little too close to a no true scotsman fallacy to me. For example, the NAP is a principle, yes, but it also has to be applied to the real world. Some argue that by driving a car which pollutes the environment, we are committing aggression towards those impacted by that pollution. That's just a simple example, and without falling into a slippery slope fallacy, we can see how difficult it is to take our principles and apply them to reality without concluding life itself in the modern world is an aggression against someone else. This is why we have thought experiments like the trolley problem. Applying our principles is what improves the world, and it's not easy to do.
Graham, you and I have been discussing this topic a lot the last few days and in many comments you've mentioned how Adam or his followers describe you as an “annoying, ignorant troll.” I do not think you are ignorant, but there are times I get annoyed discussing things with you. Have you considered the style of communication you use may lead to that description and if so, do you care or does it concern you enough to change the language you use in order to have more healthy conversations?
As of right now, I've posted and commented 11,126 times on the STEEM blockchain (this comment will be number 11,127). I was discussing Should Anarchists Vote? back in September, 2016, two months after you and I joined. I've posted many times about anarchy and voluntaryism and have had many very fruitful conversations here. When you disregard that in the way you do with comments like this, I personally feel disrespected. When I engage in dialogue, I have a need to be respected otherwise it seems to me that I'm just being trolled.
You and I have different communication styles which we've discussed at length. My hope is those different styles won't prevent us from contributing useful ideas to each other.
This makes a lot of sense and explains a lot. Many of us would be happy if both yourself and Kokesh would stop using it. It has a very well-defined meaning, and Nash Equilibriums on violence are not part of it, with all due respect.
I've had many people call me this, and you are the first to suggest the label doesn't apply. How does this work? How do we define consensus on the use of labels that you'd agree with? Is it even based on consensus, from your perspective? Are all the other people who consider me a voluntaryist misinformed? Is there some authority we need to ask? (that last one was a joke, not a passive aggressive attack). Can you give me more examples of "many of us" so I can extend this dialogue further to other voluntaryists to get more perspective? I'm not asking rhetorically. If people who know me and have observed my actions think I'm in violation of the NAP or some other core principle of voluntaryism that would invalidate that label, I really would like to learn from them.
IMO, a "voluntaryist" is someone who applies voluntaryists principles to reality to the best of their ability.
That's it. It's open to subjective interpretation even if the principles themselves are not. If someone applies the principles 80% and someone else applies them 50% (according to someone's subjective opinion and experience with them), we could say one is "more voluntaryist" than the other. This isn't complicated, but I feel like when I discuss things in this way you aren't open to that and respond with things like "Are you serious?" which, to me, is not very respectful.
I get how the single line in Adam's platform regarding national parks is not in alignment with pure voluntaryists principles because it doesn't go all the way to explicitly and immediately open them up for homesteading. At the same time, I don't agree it's a new violation of the NAP since it is already centrally owned and controlled so I see it as a step in the right direction which could be improved on in the future. As I said in a different comment, I also think we could potentially help by suggesting a better plan. Given everything else this plan does to increase voluntaryism in the world (from my perspective), I don't think that one line means the whole approach and those who support it should abandon the voluntaryist label which (again from my perspective) most clearly aligns with what they are trying to do to remove rulers from the world.
It works by defintions of terms. Just because I am the first person you have heard suggest it to you says nothing about the validity or lack thereof of my claim, in and of itself.
Supporters of plans that A. Require the acquisition of power via force-backed means (the statist electoral process)and B. require the further violation of individual self-ownership of other individuals (it doesn’t matter if it’s “already happening” in the same way that preexisting slavery wouldn’t justify a new, “nicer” movement with “just a little” slavery) even after said illegitimate “election,” are in contradiction of Voluntaryist principle insofar as said support extends.
Thus, someone claiming to support said violatory plans is, insofar as their support extends, not functioning in the capacity of a Voluntaryist.
Insofar as a biological male is a male, he cannot be said to be female. Insofar as an idea whose application depends on initiation of force is supported, the support cannot be said to be voluntaryist.
I get the impression that this article is in effect critizising what Adam Kokeshis doing, am i correct in asuming that ? If so do you not think he is doing valuable word by running for not pressident as an anarchist? Asuming you know his plans with it. @larkenrose
The idea, that most my not get accurate enough, is to use means that speaks to the most of hte people that isnt too radical as to scare people. As then you get nowhere as you only trigger the defence mode of the ego.
The gouvernment isnt what needs slowly to change, its the minds of men that do. As if you try to tell an inmate of a metal prisson that hes imprissoned, he wil opose you. Untill the physical prisson manifests before him and hes forced to act. 1 min to midnight.
Individual self-ownership is a radical reality and a non-compromisable, axiomatic truth.
If folks need their water made more palatable with a little sweet tasting poison, I submit that the problem is with the people, and not the real, non-Kokeshian message of liberty.
I fully agree! Once we have 25% voting will not matter anymore and before that we dont have control and obviously we also should not.
What I do in elections is voting for clown parties. What I think could be a good idea is making a party that will vote "no" on everything. It depends a lot on how the political system is organised. Where I am from we have proportional representation and even 10% that will just blockade the system would bring some trouble to the political circus. Since I am allowed to vote I might as well stick the finger to the system and in that way I am still not trying to force anything on anybody.
@frdem3dot0 - the problem with that solution is that the voting is ALL rigged.
It's said that whoever wins is known MANY years in advance by the powers who control us & I'm not talking about the gov't here.
There's many more EVIL people than the ones they put into power in the gov't.
Why do you think Trumpet won even though Killary got more votes?
They were talking about him running for power many many years before he even said a thing on camera.
His uncle was part of the secret societies where these EVIL people run amuck. They are the ones who took down Tesla the poor guy.
Did you speak with Ron Paul and Adam Kokesh in anarchopulco? I'd love to hear those conversations if that happened
"Voting" legitimizes a system I do not consent to. My latest vid goes into where I stand.
Love always!
No amount of voting can ever make the state legitimate.
Indeed, adam, And in fact, registering to vote is highly problematic. When One registers anything, One is giving it to the (king/state/ruler(s)) in exchange for a privilege. In the case of registering to vote, One is giving One's sovereignty, One's SELF, to the state to have done to One whatever They choose in exchange for the privilege of wasting time in a booth. THEY choose the officers of that corporation Most call "Our government."
I do hope You choose to spend an hour watching My playlist on YouTube (would put them on DTube, but They're all AVI's and it seems DTube will not accept AVI's... Here's the link - watch on YT, or You will only see the first (with artifacts from the free software I use; the remaining ones do not have the issues as I found a workaround):
The one area where Libertarianism seems to loose me is around the ownership issue. Ownership of something produced by the individual holds merit without exploring the ownership of any resources required for production. Yet the red line seems to be property ownership. If not from threat of violence from some central authority where and how is the right of property transfered to an individual? Is the posession being nine-tenths rule the only factor?
In your opinion, will we ever escape this desire for a government when a majority actually seem to desire the life of a slave over accepting responsibility for themselves? Also, for those who'd rather not choose freedom, is it not their right to have that freedom to choose?
My biggest problem with government is that there is no simple way to opt out. Given the option, everyone could then choose between freedom and enslavement.
I agree with this article’s primary premise. The best way to achieve anarchy is not through politics and democracy.
The best way to promote anarchy is to demonstrate that is not only works, but is superior to other forms of social order.
A SEASTEAD micro-nation with no income tax and no prohibitions on the best recreational drugs could show the world how prosperous such a system can be.
Let’s quit trying to tear down the old system by playing the old game; let’s make a new system, and change the whole game! Instead of telling people why the old system sucks, let’s show them how awesome the new system can be.