***DEBATE PROPOSITION*** ATTN: @adamkokesh/@kennyskitchen
A couple weeks ago, @kennyskitchen let me know he’d contact @adamkokesh about setting up a debate with me, to be hosted by Kenny.
These guys are both very busy, but I sure would like to know whether the response was a yay or nay.
Here are three potential debate resolutions. I would be arguing the negative position in all three cases:
RESOLUTION: Becoming President via the American Electoral Process is a legitimate means by which to assume control and authority over lands and resources.
RESOLUTION: Centralized, redistribution of unowned property and resources by political mandate is compatible with the philosophy of Voluntaryism.
RESOLUTION: Running for and becoming POTUS is a legitimate means by which to acquire authority over other individuals.
If this debate is something you’d like to see on Dtube/Steemit, please upvote and resteem!
I’m itching to prove that the Kokesh 2020 presidential campaign platform is by definition, not a Voluntaryist platform, once and for all. Since it is by defintion not one my job would be easy, which may be why @adamkokesh won’t debate/hasn’t responded.
The run for president is fine. The fraudulent peddling of the plan as a Voluntaryist one is not. Get your own label! This one is already well-defined and well taken! It’s embarrassing to those of us who get it to have the Voluntaryist label plastered on authoritarian political initiatives.
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DTube and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
Yes prease! I wanna see this.
Great! You must do it. We will watch. Best of luck. Thank you.
I would try to tune in for this....
I would love to hear/see this, resteemed x
Thanks, @trucklife-family!
De nada
I really hope this happens! I think that it is a bad situation for AK either way. If the debate goes forward he will be at a loss with the positions he holds, if the debate doesn't go forward I think it is confirmation that he knows he will get taken apart in front of the audience he is vying for. There is obviously lots of people interested in seeing this so it would be kind of weird that he was not willing to enter this public of an engagement. He does seem to like the bright lights. =)
Well, I’ve now personally invited him on here. Not sure if he’s seen it, but yeah. It would be fun to hash these things out in a formal setting and finally get to the bottom of things.
I am friends with the both of them and I know @kennyskitchen really well, I was in Acapulco with them for the conference. Forgive me if I'm missing something from @adamkokesh 's platform but it seems to me that he would also be taking the negative on all three of your resolutions as well.
He is not attempting to take control of land and resources and he would agree fully that becoming president is not a legitimate means to do so.
He will not be trying to tell anybody what to do with federally controlled land and he certainly will not be trying to redistribute it to anybody, he just wants to relinquish federal control of it. Voluntaryism would dictate that anyone can then claim it and develop it. He would agree that the two ideas are incompatible.
The whole point of his campaign is to use the office to immediately dissolve it. I have never heard or seen anything from him that would suggest that he believes there is ANY legitimate means with which to wield authority over others. That is at the core of voluntaryism and anarchy and is the central theme of his FREEDOM! book.
So again I am not sure why you think Adam is supportive of any of the resolutions you put forth. If you have seen or heard from him or his content that directly or indirectly supposes affirmation of them could you point me to it? Because if it is true I would very much like to know so that I am not supporting a closet authoritarian. Ultimately his campaign relies on a huge amount of faith in him doing what he says he will should he actually get elected(fat chance right? but who knows..). But as far as I can tell he means what he says.
So please if you would show me what makes you think he believes in the legitimacy of the kinds of authority you are talking about. Thanks in advance for your time!
Completely agree I think OP just misunderstood Adams intentions. Would still be interested in seeing this debate though.
just remember that all of these -isms are schisms.
The only good ism is jism.
JUST, LOL.
Not at all.
Ah yes, voluntarism is also a good one. Any others?
Great post!!!!
To hear the speech version of this post click the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvote this reply.
This great you've to continue I will like to watch it on dtube thanks