You knew I'd write this, but Kokesh is no Paul. Paul was trolling the government. Kokesh is trolling HIS SUPPORTERS. That's been clear for a VERY long time too on Steemit and elsewhere. It is incredibly frustrating to me that so many people failed to see the obvious too. People have to be consistent. Their actions have to match their objectives. Noticing inconsistencies is not that difficult either.
Graham has been pointing out the TRUTH and defending genuine VOLUNTARYISM on Steemit and elsewhere for years. Most people abandoned him and distanced themselves for various reasons. Fuck that in particular. It's disgusting. It takes a huge effort by many people, and now some people form the past are basically coming forward to say, "Oh, my bad. I was mistaken." Really? REALLY?!
I can't speak for people, but as it relates to me personally, my own relationship with Graham was based on the way he interacted with me personally. His approach made it very difficult for me to appreciate his perspective. I do my best to withhold judgement on people until I have direct experience with them to corroborate the claims made. This approach allows me to avoid judging someone based on hearsay. It also means I might be late to the party in rightfully judging someone as a bad actor if I've only ever seen good (from my limited perspective).
As I've mentioned in comments above, I'm not as interested in exposing people as I am in exposing bad ideas and promoting good ones. From the beginning, to me, this seemed all about Adam the person which is a conversation I wasn't all that interested in, especially if the ideas put forth by Adam in Freedom are good (and I think they are).
I'm sorry to hear this has been so frustrating for you. I think in any healthy community we need all kinds of diverse perspectives. Maybe some people do have to focus more on the personalities, reputations, and identities involved. Maybe that's not for everyone though.
Finnian is frustrated for good reason. It appears you still don’t quite grok the scope of this, @lukestokes, and are going even further to continue misrepresenting the situation.
I made it painfully clear it was about principle and voluntaryism from the beginning. It is very disturbing to me that this is still being presented by you as being a personal thing. It is, was, and always has been only about one thing: individual self-ownership. I will not stay quiet when those pretending to support this axiom denigrate it, communication styles suitable to everyone or not. A is A. A is not B. Whether I am caustic or not, and whether that is not a healthy communication style, does not change the reality of what was being indicated.
I really wish you could give me a chance here, but even now you are misrepresenting this as though I had some personal beef with Kokesh. I could care less about slimy politicians. Slimy politicians that call themselves voluntaryists, however, need to be called out loudly.
I'm not sure what you want from me. When you say "those" and you talk about "slimy politicians" I see a focus on people. I prefer a different approach. I'm not saying you don't also focus on principles and if that's what you're hearing than please allow me to clarify: I know you care very deeply about voluntaryism and self-ownership principles.
AND I don't prefer the way you focus on individuals (from my perspective), writing whole posts about them (as you did about me). We have different approaches and preferences. Let's leave it at that.
I focused on principle, from the start, and the record is on the blockchain. Yes, I will leave it at that, and let others arrive at their independent conclusions.
Before marginalizing dissidents and targets, though, I would urge and encourage you to please step back, and truly consider the argument next time, and not the person making it, as the primary factor.
In other words, to take your own advice and admonitions here.
Thanks, Luke.
Not everyone is compatible with everyone's approaches. Like, some people ca't stand how bubbly I am in my videos, and that's ok. Others love it. Kafka is very passionate and in your face sometimes. I get it, I can handle it. I don't vibe with certain other people and I vibe with others. Not everyone is compatible.
All kinds of diverse perspectives? Kokesh is not a Voluntaryist. Kenny is not a Voluntaryist. When someone says or writes that they are for individual liberty and self ownership but prove otherwise, they should be called out for being inconsistent. This has NEVER been about attacking anyone in particular. It has been about defending the truth and the life long objective of furthering individual liberty's cause.
You were wrong, and you defended the wrong people. You were defending people who were being inconsistent. Either you're for furthering individual liberty and self ownership, or you are not. What Graham, myself, or anyone else does is meaningless compared to that primary objective. None of us are important. The objective is. This is the problem I have with so many fair weather friends in this battle.
There are very few principled people who put the mission before the individual. Graham has ALWAYS done that from my experience. Larken has too. I will not drop my "ideology" to get along either. What we are fighting for is worth way more than you, me, Larken, and everyone involved combined. The literal liberty of future generations is at stake. Fight like you understand that fact.
You don't believe in private property, Kenny. Sorry, you're no friend of mine or individual liberty.
You're calling out individuals while saying it's not about individuals? That's confusing to me.
My diverse perspectives comment referred to the different perspectives Graham and I have about calling people out and trying to control labels. To me, it comes across like a form of identity politics. Others may not see it that way, but that's how I perceive it.
I'm fine with saying we have different approaches. What I see as calling someone out (or even attacking them), you see as a principled action about protecting a larger ideal and not about the individual at all. Okay, we have different approaches and preferences there. I'm fine with leaving it at that.
Imagine thinking that claiming a stance which violates the central axiom of voluntaryism, is not voluntaryism, is “identity politics” 🤦♂️
By labels you mean the term Voluntaryist though, right? If you do not believe in self ownership, you cannot be a Voluntaryist. If you do not believe in private property, you cannot be a Voluntaryist. I'm not trying to control that label. The term means a very specific thing. Therefore, do not fault people who try to defend it.
The Voluntaryism wikipedia page doesn't mention property other than in reference to Frédéric Bastiat's book The Law which references what responsibilities the government should have (such as protecting property). You and I would probably agree that's not anarchy or voluntaryism as much as it's minarchy. My point in bringing that up is that no one person has a monopoly on the definitions of these words. Your definition of voluntaryist includes private property. I think others who do not violate the NAP may take a different approach on that point. Does that mean they aren't voluntaryists if the base meaning is "a philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary"? To me, that's not even worth discussing. To me, the use of labels in this way is tribalistic.
There are many flavors of anarchy from ancap to ancom to a number of others. I don't try to police those labels or who uses them. To me, that's a waste of effort. In my opinion, it's more useful to build things to create a voluntary society than to argue. I've wasted too much time in ancom/ancap debates to see any real value in it.
I don't fault people for trying to defend what they care about. If I think the approach they are using hinders their stated goals, then I may comment on it, especially if I become a target of the approach. That's the beauty of voluntary interactions: we're all allowed our own opinions.
Every definition of voluntaryism is ultimately founded upon ISO (individual self-ownership) and by extension property. This is basic, elementary, libertarianism/voluntaryism. It matters not if “Wikipedia” specifically states it or not. Logic and concrete reality dictate it. Without self-ownership (the foundation of property) voluntary interaction cannot occur, as it takes free, self-owners to be able to voluntarily choose any action.
An opinion about a rock being an apple pie would be equally irrelevant.
The position that all human interaction should be voluntary requires ISO, otherwise—clearly—voluntary can have no meaning.
Kokesh’s campaign is incompatible with this, and thus, is not Voluntaryist by the common and accepted definition. Nor is such an interpretation of “voluntary” logically feasible as ISO is required for voluntary interaction to even occur.
Saying an apple is a fruit and a rock is not, is not claiming a monopoly on the concept of “apple” anymore than saying “a circle is round” is an “opinion” or “interpretation.”
I don't give a fuck about what a wiki page states. I don't care because it is not the truth simply because it is listed there. Do you automatically believe everything on Snopes and Google too? LOL
There is no way to avoid trampling on my individual rights if you do not believe in individual property rights. If you plan to try and take away what I have rightfully and fairly obtained, you are a wannabe tyrant.
My life is spent obtaining my property. It is not simply the time spent. I will defend it with deadly force if necessary too.
Sounds like something ben farmer would say...
Except, I live it and believe it 100%. He's just a wannabe tyrant who's deceiving people. Search for yourself. I have said and written numerous times that individual liberty is worth ANY price to me. People who agree are my friends. People who choose security over liberty are not.
With your "by any means necessary" approach I would also consider you a tyrant.
"ANY"? I wonder; would you doxx someone like ben did? Would you run for office like AK? Would you kill someone? I have no idea how you might answer these because according to you:
Are you just dumb or a bad troll? I shouldn't have to explain that I obviously mean only using violence in defense.
Ben didn't just try to Doxx. He tried to ruin someone's life. There's a reason Larken is comparing Kokesh and Farmer to Stalin. Maybe you're not capable of understanding such simple concepts though?
You're the one who said "ANY price" not "any price within reason" don't get butt hurt for being called out on your inconsistencies.
Yep, Sounds a lot like what Ben and AK would say too...
P.s
You keep on acting like I'm defending AK and Ben. I'm not.
Any support from this new attack would be much appreciated, matey.!!...( I am presuming it's not from the kaft/kok thing goingon.., but a lefty commie that I just wrote about..)
https://steemit.com/blog/@lucylin/and-they-wonder-why-communist-scum-are-seen-as-scum-anarchyhasnogods-is-in-bloom
You call out Adam as not being a voluntaryist due to a litany of violations of self-ownership & the NAP, like:
Literally in the same comment, you say that I am not a voluntaryist, not separating either of us through the rest of your post, or in any way explaining that your statement about me is simply because we hold different beliefs on the idea of land ownership, and not because of any actions, threats, or other violations that I committed (because I haven't). You don't offer a single time that I've been inconsistent with anarchist/voluntaryist principles:
I don't believe in the holy water, but wouldn't spit in it... I don't believe in the metaphysical properties of dreadlocks, but I wouldn't cut someone's off... I don't believe in race, but I wouldn't tell someone they can't identify as _____... I don't believe in land ownership, but I wouldn't commit violence against you (or even talk shit about you) because you do.
You already know all of this, because we had LONG conversations about it, and by talking about me as though I "writes that they are for individual liberty and self ownership but prove otherwise" (especially in the same thought as someone who is actually being accused of violating the NAP), is at best dishonest.
Hoping the agreement to support Kokesh via TribeSteemUp is terminated now?
Ya, James pulled it back at the beginning of October (or thereabouts) when you first posted all the screenshots from the greyhat.
This is great news. Thank you, @jamesc for doing the right thing.