I hope this is a joke. This is so evasive.
His platform says that national parks will be preserved as non-profits “open to the public.”
This will be centrally decided (which non-profits get the land) by himself and his “custodians,” correct?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
How would you solve the problem? You keep ignoring this simple question. I get it, you do not agree with Adam's plan. He has one, it seems to me all you can do is criticize. Can you constructively give everyone your plan?
Like I said, you are committing a logical fallacy. Whether or not I have a “plan” to save the masses is irrelevant to the fact that Adam’s plan is immoral.
Am I not allowed to say that minimal slavery is still slavery, and wrong, without an idea as to how to end it, or is it still wrong?
See what I mean?
I do have a plan though. The thing is, voluntaryism is about individuals, and one man’s one plan isn’t going to save the world. It’s already happening. Look around steemit. Family protection organizations are being formed, ghost computers are being built, the poor, homeless and hungry are being helped, sheltered, and fed.
Is this not enough of a “plan” for you? Or is the leveraging of the intrinsically violent political system necessary to bring about change.
Much respect man.
All I am trying to say is that we are on the same side, I understand you disagree, you do you. I disagree as I said with Rand but what if he can do something good for the world, why should I not appreciate that. Adam is commited to the cause of Freedom and I think that his plan is the best I have ever seen to getting us to a Volentaryist society.
His plan is not voluntaryist, by defintion. I don’t even understand how you guys think this is debatable.