Solid plan supported by John Locke's philosophy. Not that it matters but still fun that it fits. For those that do not know that was the primary influence on pretty much ALL of the founders. Nicely explained brother!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Assuming centtralized ownership of vast swathes of unhomesteaded land via political edict is not supported by Locke’s philosophy.
Right that is the point of my comment. Did you watch the video? Adam plan is to localizing and decentralize.
Yes I watched the video. He plans to assume control and authority via a collectivist process (electoral process) that is illegimate according to libertarian/voluntaryist property ethic.
He will then centrally plan the redistribution of lands and resources not based on libertarian/voluntaryist property ethic (unhomesteaded lands cannot be claimed from miles away), and will assign the ownership of these lands via his inner circle of “custodians” to non-profit organizations.
Those already using the lands, or paying he most for them, or having most direct provable link to the land will be forced to follow the plan of Kokesh and his “custodians” instead of the logical, rational, and individual self-ownership-respecting natural law of the libertarian property ethic.
Are you sure you watched the video? To repeat what Adam said in the video, because you either did not watch it or are intentionally being ignorant of the facts, "the American people will have elected to not have a federal government" therefore if he or anyone else tried to take control the People will rise against them. This is ecactly what Locke talks about in his books on government. Locke talks about removing consent and moving either back to a community or to a natural state. Again, watch the video.
Besides if you really want a stateless society, what is your alternative? I and I am sure Adam would love to hear your proposal.
I disagree with the method for reducing government that people like Rand Paul or Thomas Massie are employing in the Gop. I think that it will fail, but I applaud their willingness to try an approach. We, it is my belief, are working to the same ends. Intread of attacking our allies, I would rather fine tune my way. "It is hard to light a candle, easier to curse the dark instead." - Nightwish, I prefer to light a candle.
False dichotomy. “If not slavery lite, then what!?!?”
And no, Adam, in his typical fashiom just called me an “annoying and ignorant” troll when I raised these points. The same way he called another well-known figure here a “coward.”
This is why the formal debate is necessary.
His plan includes controlling the distribution of vast swathes of land he can no way lay legitimate claim to. I watched it. I’ve read his platform. But go ahead and call me ignorant. That seems to be the trend with Adam and his supporters when it comes to respondinng pretty standard points of critique.
We’re going to be debating this soon anyway, in a formal setting. Maybe you’ll see what I mean more clearly then.
Would you explian to me how returning the rights to individuals does any of what you talked about. Again, in the video Adam talks about first dissolving the federal government, then the states, when things are in the community level things are voluntary or you can pull back to your own propoerty. Thank you soo much for allowing me to show others how brilliant and easily defended these things are. Unlike you, it is not required of me to attack. I can stay true to th NAP. We simply have different opinions. Again though what was your plan again? Or are you still just attacking without any real plan of your own? Many people like to critisize others while doing nothing themselves. I really would love to hear how you plan on acheiving your goals. Or are you just shouting down those who are taking action and offering no real alternative?
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?