Common Voluntaryism Misconceptions:
Following the NAP is not pacifism. Those who violate the NAP can and should be met with force if other methods like NVC fail.
It’s no rulers, NOT no rules. Regulation that actually works is welcomed in a decentralized, voluntary system.
Building better systems is not idealistic, irrational utopian dreaming. We can pragmatically improve things right now with smart contracts, cryptographically-provable bonds, voluntary arbitration, free markets with skin-in-the-game actors, trusted reputation, and verifiable identity systems.
Libertarian/Voluntaryist world-views do not condemn the poor to suffering. On the contrary, they aim to free individuals to voluntarily interact for mutual self-benefit while encouraging personal responsibility and expanding empathy to voluntarily care for those who can’t care for themselves.
If you think all human interactions should be voluntary, and no one can delegate rights they themselves do not have, then look into voluntaryism. You may be a voluntaryist, even if you’ve never heard the term.
(Still traveling with the family, but wanted to get these thoughts down while I was thinking them.)
Why then do you support @adamkokesh? I honestly cannot wrap my head around it, Luke. His policies violate what you have written here directly, as he will take up centralize "authority" and "power" (his own words) via a presidential election (non-individual-self-ownership-based property acquisition).
@finnian, can I get some corroboration here? Luke seems to believe the only one taking issue with the lack of logic and principle--and downright fraudulent approach to activism--is me.
I'll never understand the inconsistencies. This isn't a matter of opinion or how people handle themselves. Either you are furthering individual liberty and seek all human interaction being voluntary, or you are not. You cannot run for any political office and believe what a Voluntaryist believes. Hell, you cannot even vote without being immoral. How someone can argue that running for an office isn't horribly inconsistent is beyond me. I cannot help but question people's motives.
Inconsistencies should be pointed out between friends at all times. I've had to do it in the past that caused serious strife, and the closed group I was in at the time basically split in two. One side decided to back a scammer and known thief, and the other remained consistent and cut ties with the person. As was discussed on fascistbook today too, I will not drop my ideology to compromise with statists. How do my goals benefit from compromising with my enemy? They don't.
I'll never understand the inconsistencies. This isn't a matter of opinion or how people handle themselves. Either you are furthering individual liberty and seek all human interaction being voluntary, or you do not.
Thank you, @finnian.
The objective is what's important, friend. When people put individuals before the objective, I cannot help but question their motivation. Hate me. Ridicule me. Do what you must as long as my life long objective is furthered, I will not be concerned at all. Individual liberty is worth ANY price.
Graham, please, we've had this discussion over and over and over again. You've used memes to make your arguments that were, in my opinion, very disrespectful to me. I've spent so many hours trying to explain my position to you that I have no interest in continuing to do so yet again. Your concerns over your interpretation of how national parks would be handled seem like nitpicking to me when compared to the harm the U.S. Federal Government inflicts on humanity every single day. IMO, anyone who supports peacefully dismantling that system deserves support, regardless of your interpretations or critiques of the labels they use. Thankfully we don't have to agree in order to continue in our own ways to bring about a more voluntary world. I wish you well, but I don't personally prefer the approaches you take to make your points.
Hey. Nevermind. I agree with Adam:
Thank you, Finnian
Luke, the feeling of being disrespected is mutual. You have a habit of being automatically dismissive of arguments you do not wish to entertain.
Adam has gone so far as to state in a debate with me that homesteaders may need to be fingerprinted...
The issue was never simply "national parks" though. There is no need to be dishonest in your assessment of my critiques of Kokesh in this way.
This is basic logic: Non-propertarian acquisition of authority/resources is illegitimate, and in direct logical contradiction with what you have outlined here.
I am glad individuals are waking up to this. Happening on FB now. I hope the awareness continues growing here as well.
Thanks for your time.
It seems like you’re happier about awareness concerning philosophical disagreements than about peacefully dismantling the federal government. If people like Adam or Ron Paul or whoever decrease the amount of time the Federal government exists, I will support that. I want forward progress, not debate club infighting. People don’t have to agree 100% to make the world more voluntary, and I see Adam’s plan as making the world more voluntary (even if it’s not perfect).
Another personal jab, right off the bat.
How is pointing out that someone is going to violate the individual self-ownership of others “infighting”?
Did you really remove your self vote and re-add it again with more power in order to be at the top of the comments on my post even after I made it clear I have no interest in discussing this again with you?
Yes, I really did! Is that unbelievable to you, Luke? I did this after you buried my comment by upvoting all the others.
You are so smug man. And still terribly religious, I’m afraid, for all your empty talk about being rational and logical. The fact is, you’re very condescending sometimes, man.
It’s sad, and an embarrassment to the rest of us Voluntaryists out here actually interested in principle.
I almost always vote up comments I like by around 5%. That's not "burying" your comment. I did not upvote "all" the others. You talk about personal attacks but then call me "smug" "terribly religious" (!?!) "condescending" and "an embarrassment."
Please don't compare the two men. They are not even close to being the same. Adam cannot even do what he said he was going to do as "not president."
Ron Paul was trolling the government. Adam was trolling his supporters.
Saying Adam was "trolling his supporters" implies you genuinely believe he was trying to mislead those who support him in a fraudulent way. Is that your actual position? I had a short call with him recently, and I told him pretty bluntly how I think he was a too optimistic about the cost of his book drop campaign (and about future cryptocurrency prices). I told him the same when he first told me about the project. I still think it's a good book and it should be read by many people so I still like the idea of the project, even if he executed it poorly so far.
As to comparisons, I hear you, and I was just saying people who want to remove or limit federal government is a category both Ron Paul and Adam Kokesh fit into (if you grant that Adam is genuinely true to the book he wrote and the many years of activism and civil disobedience he's participated in). If we want to end the comparisons there, I'm fine with that. And yes, Ron Paul's exit speech was one of the best forms of government trolling I have ever seen. :)
I don't know why people in the Voluntaryism movement seem to be playing identity politics. It's not like I'm going around with signs supporting Adam. I support his ideas as expressed in FREEDOM. I hope they spread. I also support is intention to peacefully dismantle the Federal Government (even if it's not perfect in practice). I'm confused why other voluntaryists wouldn't also support that intention (regardless of the human being putting it out there).
And I get it, some people don't like Adam Kokesh. Okay. I like that he wrote a helpful book and is trying to change things. Do I like everything about him or his plans? Of course not. No one is perfect. I also don't think he deserves the level of criticism thrown around, especially in comments on my post here that had nothing at all to do with him. Why are we even talking about him? If you disagree with someone's ideas, ignore them, don't give them the power of your time and attention.
Yes, I don't believe he ever really planned to succeed, and most importantly I repeat that he could not even have done what he said he planned to do if elected. It was a joke then, right? When I asked him, he said it was not. What other explanation is there?
We are discussing him and the issue because consistency matters. I'm not sure what his true motivation was to run for office, but it wasn't something that would have benefited the cause of individual liberty. That much I am pretty sure of.
Am grateful to found this great thought here, I just ran into this post and framework form my contraction I don't seem to understand where all this arguments is coming from but am enjoying it here, I just met great minds here, but I still agree with you to the right to some extent. But it where does this arguments coming from, your post seem to explain a thought form some other comment or post subject
Posted using Partiko Android
The original post is mostly just a thought dump from various conversations from people who don't yet understand anarchy or voluntaryism. You can learn more about that here, if you want.
As best I can understand, the comments from @finnian and @kafkanarchy84 relate to their disagreement with me in that they think I should be condemning @adamkokesh for various reasons. They do not think he's a true anarchist/voluntaryist because of his desire to use the systems of the State (running for US President) to spread ideas and a platform for peacefully dissolving the federal government. Since Adam has little to no chance of actually winning, but running a presidential campaign with the starting point of "It's impossible for me to win" will not gain much support, they also take issue with Adam pretending like he can win in 2020 in order to get support. @kafkanarchy84 has been disagreeing with me on this for some time now. I've tried to engage respectfully, but it just comes across as a personal attack. I decided a while back to stop engaging with Graham's posts because we see things differently and apparently have trouble communicating together. I had thought we were fine with leaving each other alone, but surprisingly the continued conversation related to Adam Kokesh or Graham's opinions of me personally came out on this thread again many months later.
I have a similar perception on things. Material items are not the key. Nicola Tesla died a lonely, broken man, without a penny to his name. His room fees were paid by Westinghouse until the very end. The man pushed humanity forward. But not just one step. He pushed us leaps forward. It's just one example in history. Many others exist. Human interaction should be voluntary. On the other hand society is a connective hive. One of us making progress now on the internet means we can all take a step forward. I believe this to be extremely powerful, the collaboration, willful collaboration.
Do you know of any books on Nicola Tesla that you recommend?
Yes. I enjoyed reading this. The work is derived from Tesla's own writings. https://www.teslasautobiography.com/
Thanks!
Tesla was an amazing, incredible human being. Sometimes I wonder what the world would be like if people like him were given more support and time.
What is the NAP? (I know you’re out having fun, no pressure to reply quickly!)
non-aggression principle
Oh alright duh, should’ve gotten that in context lol. Thanks.
Sorry, I normally spend more time explaining things and avoiding jargon (NVC is non-violent communication if you were curious about that one also), but I just posted this one quickly from my phone before heading out for the day with family traveling.
More great insights from the one and only! Agree fully. Also I just left an, ummmm email, like comment on your last post, wouldn't want you to miss it. Hope you are well. From Kiev Ukraine -Dan "World Travel Pro"
Thanks Dan! That was a great comment, and I'm really excited for you. I look forward to meeting you in person!
Looks like I am not the only one to have vented this morning :) Especially after what has been happening the last couple of days.
Put down the electronics and have your holiday.
What are you referring to from the last couple days? I've been traveling for a while now and feel somewhat disconnected.
This trip is mostly a business trip, but I convert them into mini-holidays and bring my family so we can have fun too. :) Hopefully I'll get around to posting all the pictures and videos of the fun things we've been up to.
Hey bru, seems you have stirred up quite a discussion here. I was referring to the purge of voices happening on the main social platforms. How this is not correct (regardless of personal opinion) and honestly this is leading to a very slippery slope. It is all glaring obvious that divide and conquer is in play here. Well I wrote about it yesterday as I couldn't let things stand.
Lucky that you can make a business trip work with family. Living the life of a modern digital nomad :)
I am all about less govt.
Great post, and yeah, I definitely agree there's some strange stuff going on with regards to the existing (or legacy) social media systems which are governed by central control. We have our own problems on steemit also with large token holders hiding what they want, but at least the content is always on the blockchain.
@lukestokes - You: We have our own problems on steemit also with large token holders hiding what they want, but at least the content is always on the blockchain.
Can you please explain what that means?
Thanks
A large whale can flag a post with a lot of voting power just because they don't like someone, not because the post is bad or because the person violated and community standards, but simply because a whale wants to. That post would then be hidden by default in the Steemit interface so you have to click "show" to see it. It's always there on the blockchain though.
@lukestokes - oh I see what you mean, so if even I flag a comment it gets hidden, or only by Whales?
And what constitutes a whale?
NOT cool.
I would think it would take several people flagging before a comment/post is hidden.
Comments are paid out or shown/hidden based on the Steem Power of the people who vote it up or down (i.e . "flag"). If someone has a lot of Steem Power (a lot of stake in the system) they have more say in who is valuable and what is not. If they make bad decisions which harm the entire network and the value of the token, then they are harming themselves. Unfortunately, some people don't think in these terms and do it anyway.
I've been trying to get into it for a while now since I think it lines up with many of my own principles. But, I have to admit that it's very hard to explain to others. By hard I mean it could get quite confusing at times. I just play fast and loose, and just give some bullet points or guidelines about it. I really do think it's a great way of life to follow.
Maybe give FREEDOM a read (or you listen to it free on YouTube). I think it breaks things down pretty nicely.
Thanks, Luke! Will try to look for it on YouTube later.
Thanks for posting the pointer to your earlier post on The Myth of Authority, as I had not read that. However, on reading it, I'm a bit puzzled by some of its claims or assertions regarding cryptocurrency and especially Steem/Steemit. Although the Steem blockchain is decentralized in its storage, its rules are not. Instead, they are agreed upon by a relatively small set of witnesses who are, in essence, elected. Those witnesses are our the authorities, or perhaps even more, those witnesses/developers who make the hardforks and convince other witnesses to adopt them are our authorities. I don't see how this differs from other elective federal/state governments.
For instance, I feel that my posts and posts I upvote should get rewards whenever they are upvoted, not just within 7 (or 6.5) days. If there were no authorities, shouldn't I be able to make that happen, at least for my own posts and my own upvotes?
HF20 looks like it is going to further complicate many of the Steem rules. It is already very difficult to tell what effect user actions have on Steem, so much so that there are many posts trying to analyze current and HF20 implications. I'm not sure that I like all of the changes in HF20, yet if I want to live and play in Steem country, it seems that I will be "compelled" to accept them. Compelling is not voluntary. One could argue that I don't have to use Steem, but that is like saying if you don't like the country, then move out! Sounds like authority to me.
There is also clearly a hierarchy here. Since Steem has a GINI coefficient near 1, a few users have considerable power over most other users. Most of us are well aware that one large user can downvote us out of existence and deny us any part of the reward pool. That has a negative effect on freedom of speech--more so than on many other platforms.
In your Myth post you say that we should recognize that people are generally good. I agree with that. In fact, we see that here on the blockchain with a number of amazing groups and individuals working to reward quality and engagement. Unfortunately, it doesn't take too many bad apples to ruin the pie. Crypto (and Steem) has been subject to a large number of scams and greedy, self-serving behavior. In fact, I would say that even though it is not really anarchy, by being closer to anarchy crypto has suffered much more. Witness the hacks and bug exploitation that has allowed siphoning massive amounts of crypto without anyone being able to do anything about it--except, that is, to assert authority and force a hardfork. Unfortunately, it seems to take some kind of central authority to control the few bad actors.
So it seems that we need some rules, and something has to make those rules. Something else has to sometimes change or even override those rules when they have unintended consequences. I have a vague suspicion that our difficulty with all this stems from some combination of Hayek's conceit of knowledge and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
What is NAP ? I don't understand
Some one should explain
It's the non-aggression principle which you can read more about here.
I am LARA KAYE . Editorial Team is a gracious group of giving cryptocurrency advocates and blockchain believers who want to ensure we do our part in spreading digital currency awareness and adoption. We are a team of over forty individuals all working as a collective whole to produce around the clock daily news, reviews and insights regarding all major coin updates, token announcements and new releases. Follow us on Steemit, Join us in STEEMET. Stay tuned.
Good point, Luke. Any human change comes from these notions.