In discussions with @kafkanarchy84 and others, I've mentioned how much I prefer discussing ideas over discussing people, and I appreciate you opening the video mentioning that tension. I also see how those who choose to harm others have to be called to account in a voluntary society. I was completely unsatisfied with Adam's reply to my tweet you mentioned. I expected a response was going to come from them on this issue. I scaled my support back from Adam many months ago, but I still had him on my Steemvoter until now. I was trying to support his ideas.
I really do like the book Freedom. I listed it right along with your book in my post on the myth of authority. In a similar way, I really appreciate some early works from people like Stefan Molyneux (such as his Bomb in the Brain series or his video on human enslavement), though their actions and ideas today are almost unrecognizable compared to earlier content.
I hope we can separate out the difference between supporting ideas and supporting people.
Good ideas deserve support.
Bad people deserve to be called out.
Good ideas from bad people don't make them bad ideas. At the same time, spreading their version of those good ideas could, in the long run, get people to equate good ideas with bad people and harm the progress so many good people are working towards as far as bringing about a voluntary society.
In my personal interactions with Adam and Ben (they came to Nashville a while back), I saw what appeared to be voluntaryists trying to improve the world by removing the federal government through a tactic which would surely fail but might raise some awareness, especially if the book Freedom was involved. I've made comparisons to Ron Paul running for office and that having a positive influence on those who eventually decided to spend their energy working to increase freedom in the world. My thinking was the position "everyone running for office is always bad all the time" can't be true if we have a data set of one where the net result was positive. Not sure if you remember, but I asked about Ron Paul at ProcFest and was surprised how many there agreed he did have a hugely positive influence on their lives while at the same time making fun of the poor guy running for local political office who was trying to hand out his business cards to us. We've discussed this before so there's no need to have the discussion again, and I do respect and appreciate your perspective that all forms of political action at any level is always bad all the time.
I see why my comparison is so disliked because, unlike Ron Paul, Adam isn't acting consistent with the ideas he's spreading. Prior to this happening, I haven't had the conversations you've had with people harmed by Adam, so that part of all this wasn't as real to me. I don't like to get caught up in hearsay drama over how other people act unless I know the people involved. Otherwise, there can be a lot of she said / he said back and forth, and it can be difficult to know what's a smear tactic and what's for real.
Initially, in my personal dealings with Adam, I didn't see or experience anything I'd consider a violation of the NAP. He approached me about a Freedom book drop idea in New Orleans, and I connected him with a friend who I thought might want to support it as well as with the SmartCash community which did support it. What happened after that was disappointing. From my perspective, the project was mishandled from a business point of view with unreasonable expectations about cryptocurrency always going up in value and overly optimistic projections on timing and costs to get the books printed and delivered according to the timeline promised to the supporters. When Adam called me in August to see if I'd be interested in finding more financial support for the project, I told him straight up how I think the project was managed very poorly. During that conversation he talked about using some DOXing tactics against a local politician regarding zoning drama with his property which I didn't agree with, but at the time I rationalized it as a defensive action against an aggressor (an agent of the state). It seems I was naive to think he hadn't at least considered using these same tactics on others and justifying it as defensive. I don't normally bring up content from a private phone conversation, but I hadn't thought about it until just now and how others knowing about it may be relevant to protect people in the future.
The lack of response to this issue from either Ben or Adam is disappointing and hopefully this video and any events/conferences/etc that pull their support for Adam will get him to deal with this stuff openly.
Been tough dealing with all the shots about just “seeking attention,” or being “divisive” coming from you and others this past year, after I noticed these discrepancies and glaring lack of principle from Kokesh early on. You may not like how I communicate, and I can respect that disagreement, I guess, but I hope you will take a step back next time, and consider what the other party is saying, before jumping to conclusions and riding the bandwagon.
Thank you for sharing your side of the story here as well. Just more evidence of the same brand of threatening and dishonest behavior from the “anarcho” statist.
My interactions with you weren't meant as shots but (mostly failed) attempts to communicate how your approach was not helping you accomplish your goal (at least as it related to me understanding your perspective). I wasn't jumping on the bandwagon to judge Adam because my own lived experience to that point and the ideas he put forth in Freedom were in conflict with what was being said about him. I really am sorry it was so difficult for you. You may not see it this way, but I was trying to help you see the approach you were taking was causing at least some of that difficulty.
I hope we get to a place where the people don't matter as much as the ideas. When we focus on the people, we get stuck in hierarchies as I've talked about before. I also appreciate how we need to clarify reputations within the communities we're involved in, and I do respect your attempts to do that, even if your approach turned me off.
Thank you for your efforts. I hope in the future we can communicate more effectively.
Implying that someone is seeking attention and telling me I behaved like a “troll” is not an examination of an argument. Glad you see now.
Is it at all possible in any way that you did behave in some ways like a troll? Is that even in the realm of possibility? If so, then why not accept others may perceive some of your behavior as trollish? Please, don't try to control my perceptions of your actions. You disagreeing with my perceptions doesn't change them. They are mine based on my own experience with you.
I'm not sure how a troll behaves exactly, except for the ones I've dealt with. I would be very interested in learning more how trolls tend to act in a context such as this. I see it as people either trying to communicate, understand or be abusive. When I see abuse on my stuff, I delete it (like on YouTube) because I won't tolerate that kind of things. I've had heated convos with people here, but it always ended with us understanding each other better, even if we didn't agree.
What I know of Kafka, is that he can be passionate at times. I can realte to that, though I won't publicly show it all the time. He won't hide from it and will show it. In a way, it's a way to be vulnerable.
Could that have been the cause of him being targeted, perhaps, but it is not a fault in my opinion. He saw a wrong being done, he called it out. He saw abuse being repeated, he repeatedly called it out. If that got him targeted, probably, but it's also what is necessary. If no one had ever said anything to me that I was being abused when I was, I would not have one day opened my eyes and realised it was true. Did it cause friction? Yes! Did it make me angry? Yes! But it helped me, saved me. I would do the same for others. Granted this is different than witnessing real live abuse, but it is repeated behaviour that is unfair. We need people who are not afraid to stand up for others and call others out.
I think that even if Kafka had had the most amicable approach, been diplomatic with his words, used non-vigilant communication to a T, it would not have changed a thing. He was still calling them out, pointing out something he believed to be wrong, like upvoting a comment that insults another with an upvote worth $80.
But I would like to know more about how trolls act, because I just see it either abusive behaviour or not.
Good stuff, Luke. Always appreciate your honestly.
🤦♂️
Luke, I agree with everything you just said. In case you hadn't seen it, when yet ANOTHER person asked Adam to finally respond, he posted (on Twitter), "We already released a statement. People saying otherwise are deliberately misleading you." But he was referring to THIS, which only the most delusional, slimy politician would try to pass off as a response, since it says exactly NOTHING about the case.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. That really does sound like a politician's answer. Vague and non-specific. Disappointing, but I guess that's just because I had invalid expectations to begin with.
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 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.