You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Voluntaryism: Do the Ends Justify the Means?
I am "pessimistic" about Adam winning (and being able to implement his impossible and inherently bogus "Executive Order" plan) because he has exactly no chance of winning. None. Like I just said in my other comment, if his campaign was actually about spreading the message, I wouldn't have most of these objections. But it's not. It's about a procedural/legal "plan" that he KNOWS has exactly NO chance of ever happening.
If Adam had directly answered your question during the debate about if he thought he could win, do you think he'd have any chance what-so-ever of getting the Libertarian nomination?
I think he's playing this smart. I'd be surprised if he really thought he was going to win, and at the same time, I wouldn't want him to ever say out loud "There's zero chance we can win" because that would ensure the value I see here (him getting the nomination and getting media attention through it) would certainly not happen.
I don't see how he can spread the message of voluntaryism through a plan to engage the political process until he actually gets to participate in the political process. Whether or not he has a chance to win is, to me, secondary to whether or not he has a chance to obtain a platform to spread the message. That said, I'm looking forward to the discussion you mentioned you'll have on this. If there's a better way, maybe Adam will adopt it.
He’s politicking. You said it. Thst’s what politicians do. They cannot answer things directly. That’s why he’s being called out. Dishonesty.
If there's value in playing their game then it makes sense to play it by their rules. Those of us who understand this don't see it as dishonesty but as not showing your cards you plan to play before playing them.
Politics is a childish game. We know this. The minds of the people we are trying to free don't yet. Again, please read my post before commenting further. I gave what I think to be a good analogy for this in the "Simon Says" example.
Those of us not looking to gain political favor can be more honest.
Yes, it is a childish game.
I'm glad Ron Paul played it for the platform it gave him.
I hope to be equally glad for Adam's efforts in the future.
Ron Paul had a consistent message, didn’t pretend that his platform was Voluntaryist through and through, and was not petty, childlike, and vindictive when people critiqued his ideas.
Night and day.
I disagree. I have 0 faith in the political process and haven't voted myself since 04, but I WILL vote for Adam when I get the chance.
You're basically saying we can't trust him because in order to actually win, it requires him to at the very least, act/play the part of 'politician'? I actually prefer this over being all philosophical since we already know the ignorant masses don't respond well to reason/logic, I thought this was a given...