Nice work. I have to admit, it sounds straing to hear you talk about raising money for the party. It's something I'll have to get used to for the time being. Keep them doggies rollin'!
Nice work. I have to admit, it sounds straing to hear you talk about raising money for the party. It's something I'll have to get used to for the time being. Keep them doggies rollin'!
Maybe it sounds strange because it is strange.
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@larkenrose/voting-for-anarchy
I just saw that @larkenrose post in my feed. I am going to reaf the whole thing right now...it's a big'un. Thank you for the link.
No one is saying that you can vote for anarchy. We can vote for localization. Check out the platform:
KokeshForPresident.com/platform
Also, you should really look out for people who say they love freedom but spend a lot of effort shitting on other people's activism.
How is pointing out places where your platform contradicts individual self-ownership “shitting on” activism? It’s the foundational axiom for all libertarianism.
If you think that either myself or Larken have got no point why don’t we formally debate it? Lots of market demand for that here, as voiced by many folks already on the formal debate invite post I made. I think we should look out for individuals who have knee-jerk reactions to honest criticism.
WAIT. No one would argue whether or not we could vote for Anarchism if the stipulation was the "measure" had to pass with 100% approval. So the question now becomes: Should Adam Kokesh (or Patrick Smith in Texas, running for Governor) attain 34%, is it legit to carry out his plans?
So, if everyone agrees on the 100% deal, Adam has every moral platform he needs to continue his quest through the LP. It's ballots or bullets to make change in government. Pick one, people. Or will this upcoming debate with Larkin Rose contain a 3rd option?