RE: Voluntaryism: Do the Ends Justify the Means?
Right now I don't have time to write a ridiculously long response to your ridiculously long post. :) I will mention that tomorrow I will be having a debate/discussion (probably more of the latter) with someone about how "political campaigning" can best spread the message of voluntaryism, WITHOUT legitimizing the circus. I will try to remember to post a link to that here, after it is posted.
The one other thing I will say is this: I hear a lot of people defending Adam's campaign, talking about him "spreading the message." But if you look at his actual campaign, it doesn't. It pins EVERYTHING on an impossible and bogus "Executive Order" that will never happen because Adam will never get elected. THAT is the main focus of his campaign. "Spreading the message" ISN'T.
Adam has done a LOT over the years to actually spread the concepts of non-aggression, self-ownership and voluntaryism. That is what he should still be doing. This campaign doesn't do that. Go LOOK at his web site (www.kokeshforpresident.com)! Most people taking his side seem to just be HOPING that at some point he will get around to focusing on principles and philosophy again, even though nothing about this campaign indicates that.
Ron Paul talked about principles, principles, principles. He NEVER switched over to some pie-in-the-sky legislative agenda or political solution. Even as a statist, he spread libertarian ideas way better than Adam's current campaign does. WISHING Adam was spreading a coherent message of freedom doesn't make it so. With this campaign, he isn't.
Thanks, Larken. That discussion sounds great. I look forward to hearing it.
I don't think it's blind hope to imagine he'll ramp up the messaging about freedom once he gets put into a position to do so. He's been doing that consistently for over a decade. IMO, it would be irrational to imagine him doing anything else. I don't think his campaign platform was written for you or me. I think it was written for Libertarian statists who just might be ready to accept what they've been doing this whole time hasn't worked at all.
He'd have no chance of getting the Libertarian nomination with a message of pure anarchy. I just don't think there are enough people (yet) who are ready for that within that group. I hope he gets the nomination and someone like Stossel does another Libertarian debate. Adam (or you or pretty much any fully-principled voluntaryist who can communicate well) would dominate that debate and spread voluntarist ideas far and wide through that platform. That would be really helpful, just as Ron Paul's messages were.
I get why you and many others don't like the approach, but I do think it's a strategic play, and I agree with Jeff Berwick's opinion that we should be up for trying all kinds of approaches.