Author Topic: Kokesh endorses McAfee  (Read 5295 times)

MattATatTat

  • Guest
Kokesh endorses McAfee
« on: May 18, 2016, 01:00:33 PM »
I gotta admit that I have trouble with the fact that Adam spends a lot of time talking about moving past the idea we need government with a new Voluntaryist mindset, yet doesn't see a problem supporting someone who wants to use the illusion of authority through Government (even as limited as McAfee wants it) to tell me how to live my life...again, even as limited as he suggests it will encroach on people.

I can understand the desire to use a presidential campaign as Adam wants to in 2020 to spread the message of Voluntarism (more as a tool of education), but to support someone who believes in the system of government (as limited as it may be) comes off a little hypocritical.

Just my opinion...

Magnaniman

  • Guest
Re: Kokesh endorses McAfee
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2016, 02:07:51 PM »
I completely disagree.

I don't believe that reality is that polarized.  White or black.  Authoritarian or libertarian.  Enslaved or free.  There are many degrees and facets of control that our government claims over us.  I agree that none is best, but I also believe that less is better than more.

To move towards a free society, among other things, I will support people and policies that limit government, which I will continue to do until government is gone.

MattATatTat

  • Guest
Re: Kokesh endorses McAfee
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2016, 02:29:07 PM »
If morally you view government as being "immoral"... are you willing to put aside your morals to justify a method in achieving a particular goal?

Simply put...how can you support a system you claim is immoral and still claim to be in-line with being a "moral" person?

Magnaniman

  • Guest
Re: Kokesh endorses McAfee
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2016, 04:47:16 PM »
As I just said, I don't categorize everything into one of two polarized opposites.  There are many shades of grey in the world and nothing is purely good or evil.  There are benefits to despotism, just as there are negatives in voluntarism.  I know that there is no single best way for all people to live and what is best for some people at one point in time may or may not continue to be good for them as time passes.

I support systems that are *MORE* moral than what we have, that will allow us to transition into truly moral interactions.  More freedom is better than less freedom.  Yes, absolute freedom is the best, but that belief will not stop me from advocating for more freedom than what we have now.

AndrewG

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Kokesh endorses McAfee
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2016, 05:26:31 AM »
As I just said, I don't categorize everything into one of two polarized opposites.  There are many shades of grey in the world and nothing is purely good or evil.

Really? Nothing purely evil or good? I'll give you that that may well be true most of the time, but if you don't think that the people who people who orchestrated 9/11 or Sandy Hook or any one of 100 other staged events were full of pure malevolent intent (whoever they might have been), I fear that with that mindset we are far away from the mark of truly freeing anyone, including ourselves. For a person I've noticed is willing to move forward at a barely perceptible rate of growth concerning the removal of these terrorists, you sure did speak in an absolute right there.
Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

MattATatTat

  • Guest
Re: Kokesh endorses McAfee
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2016, 11:14:02 AM »
I think it again comes down with MORALITY. If you understand that government is IMMORAL by it's definition (to Govern...to control...to control others is IMMORAL), to support changing things through government is a total contradiction to what the person knows in their heart is Wrong / Immoral.

To sway back on forth on your morals is not a good thing, especially when they are in positions of authority ("I was only following orders" mentality).
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 11:16:34 AM by MattATatTat »

ThoughtWater

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Kokesh endorses McAfee
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2016, 02:28:09 AM »
Matt,

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you're arguing against. Do you have a problem with John McAfee, the Libertarian Party, or voting in general?
You're bringing up some good points, but let's narrow it down some more.

If it is one of the three or a combination thereof, what are the core principles that it, him, or they, violate?
Love is that which enables choice.
Love is always stronger than fear.
Always choose on the basis of love.

MattATatTat

  • Guest
Re: Kokesh endorses McAfee
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2016, 01:59:49 AM »
I consider voting an immoral act as you're basically using the government as a middle-man to impose your will on others. If I can't walk to my neighbor's house, ring the doorbell and ask for half of what's in his wallet while pointing a gun to his head...why is it appropriate for me to vote for a proposition in which imposes a tax (theft) on others and use the government to impose what I feel is right and moral on others by voting?

doubleplusgood

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +4/-0
  • pls respond
    • View Profile
Re: Kokesh endorses McAfee
« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2016, 10:21:23 PM »
I consider voting an immoral act as you're basically using the government as a middle-man to impose your will on others. If I can't walk to my neighbor's house, ring the doorbell and ask for half of what's in his wallet while pointing a gun to his head...why is it appropriate for me to vote for a proposition in which imposes a tax (theft) on others and use the government to impose what I feel is right and moral on others by voting?
I agree. I have never registered to vote and never will. Participation implicates consent unless unavoidable.