Jason Bermas [of Loose Change/ Infowars/ Prison Planet /Alex Jones fame] exposed (as a statist and run of the mill dumbass) at Occupy Bilderberg 2012 by (evidently) intelligent, articulate, knowledgeable badass Adam Kokesh…
Helpful hint: When the old geezer starts talking at about 6:40, go ahead and skip forward to 8:41. (You can tell by the look on his face that Bermas wished he could have done that too.) I just saved you 2 minutes of your life.
Kokesh seems to really know his stuff. Bermas does seem rather clueless in this video.
I’m glad you changed your post. I had no idea what you were insinuating with “well at least kokesh seems to know his stuff”…as if there was some downside to him or something he said.
Kokesh will be a Ron Paul type; uncomprimising and educated in what matters. He has a military past, media influence, and supporters. He is fairly polarizing, but not in the manner of Alex Jones.
I laughed.
I initially said that because Kokesh didn’t convince me, I’ve heard that stuff a million times before but I was also impressed that he clearly knows the arguments, he understands the premises, he does a pretty solid job of presenting the ideas. He did have a very solid argument against someone who basically accepted the premise of unconditional self ownership and property rights as a matter of principle. How can you at once talk about unconditional self-ownership and then say it’s ok to tax people? That seems a little hypocritical. Not that hyprocrisy is an uncommon human trait or anything. In a game theory sense hyprocrisy may or may not be a smart tactic depending on how one expects people to respond to it. But I digress.
Kokesh never really entertains the possibility that people might be willing to do something that they might ordinarily think is wrong under extraordinary circumstances, that perhaps his inexorable moral rules are really just guidelines for others. He takes a sort of damn-the-torpedoes ethic here saying that if it’s wrong it’s wrong regardless of the context, an uncompromising view that has never appealed to me. Take for instance the example Bermas gives of emergency medical care. I’m with Bermas, I don’t care if it means people are being forced against their will, I want emergency care when I need it. I’m willing to advocate the initiation of force to get that legal right even if I don’t theoretically have a moral right to it. Perhaps Bermas is too even if he’d ordinarily disagree with me about other forms of the initiation of force. When faced with the logical consequences of his moral positions is Bermas really willing to go the distance to uphold them? Kokesh shows that he might not be. It’s a game of chicken.
On any given day Bermas might consciously advocate unconditional self-ownership or whatever but also be aware that the day when he gets really hurt and needs medical attention he might not care if someone is being forced to take care of him. His brain knows this but his rational mind is attempting to rationalize the discrepancy away. He seems to be suffering from a kind of cognitive dissonance. He clearly wants to advocate something but he’s not sure if he actually would want to live by it if it were applied consistently. Hence his entertaining response, basically trying to have his cake but also eat it too.
Bermas demonstrates the problem with moral principles: they’re unconditional. Life, however, has changing conditions. One rule, one strategy is a self-imposed limitation. Different situations may necessitate different types of strategies, but people with moral principles must stick to their one rule regardless of what happens in order to remain consistent. One ends up feeling bound to a moral rule just for the sake of it. I can see it in Bermas’ face, he’s conflicted. Bermas can’t just say what he’s thinking because he’s worried that he’ll be viewed as less because of it and he wants to impress Kokesh. At the same time something just doesn’t sit right in his mind. I wouldn’t view him as any less but I’m probably the enemy in Bermas’ eyes. Suddenly he’s not sure what side he’s on anymore. Can’t say I would’ve been any less afraid though, Kokesh looks crazy. He’s also bound up in the liberty movement and they have a tendency to eat their own the minute they suspect a heretic. They don’t do compromise.
Very well put. You should be posting more often, Mr. Bloom.
Wha? Of course he understands people do things they think are wrong. He’s literally talking to one such person right at the moment he’s making his case.
You make no sense.
Exactly. You’re essentially a moral relativist and have no real consistent philosophy for anything, as you’ve shown over the course of your posts here. You essentially just go along with whatever seems appealing to you and basically think violating the rights of others is fine as long as it’s a case that you don’t really care about, or it concerns something you don’t like anyway, or especially, if you personally benefit from it.
I didn’t get that impression. It seemed to me he said exactly what he was thinking and when it was immediately destroyed by Kokesh he had no more response and had to try to literally laugh it off. Multiple times. The entirety of his philosophy was shown to be as inconsistent and arbitrary as the movements of a decapitated chicken, and his depth of thought as shallow as a rain puddle, all in a matter of minutes. He wasn’t holding anything back, quite simply, because he had nothing left to hold back. At one point he even admits “You’re a smart guy, Adam. I don’t even know what to say to that.”
People don’t say that when they want to impress someone. They say that when they are being shown up and want to save whatever dignity they have left by admitting they’re out of their league and avoid looking more ignorant and inept than they already have.
Well yeah…in a short conversation standing on a street curb someone has just rocked the foundation of the philosophical belief system he has held his entire life. Of course he looks conflicted.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. He obviously at least knew who Kokesh was, if not already been acquainted with him in the past. The only thing he could have possibly been afraid of is looking even more dumb, or having more doubt enter his mind about beliefs he’s held his entire life.
Eat their own? Do you have some examples?
And yes, “compromising” on principles is not something principled people tend to do. I don’t see that as a vice.
JJ vs. Bloom,
This is gooood!
Yes but does he understand why?
Does he understand that not all people have principle values? Does he understand that some people might make exceptions to “moral rules” for practical purposes?
I mean what the hell is the point of having moral rules anyways if they’re just going to be deadweight in a time of need?
Sounds about right. Why is that a bad thing? I weigh issues. I try to consider trade-offs. I try think of things in terms of cost-benefit. It seems a logical way to think. I might be willing to violate someone’s rights if I think I need to in order to get what I want (or need.) I might not. It depends. I expect the same from everyone else. That’s how the real world game is played. People are rarely known quantities, life is inherently uncertain. I don’t see any reason to have principle values in the world I live in. It seems to make far more sense to have variable values. I may or may not support something, I try to consider all the information I can before arriving at decisions. I don’t want to be pinned down by any definite set of values. My values change depending on the context.
The funny thing is that while this guy Bermas might see me as an enemy, I’m probably more sympathetic to his views that Kokesh is.
I think you see what you want to see. But then I probably do too.
I don’t think Bermas knew how to present his points very well. So when he began to flounder he got embarrassed and frustrated. He was obviously not as well versed as Kokesh. Perhaps that’s because Bermas has been a drone for so long that when he was finally asked real questions about the extent of his beliefs, he didn’t know what to say. He looked to be struggling that whole time to me. Struggling to find the right words to describe his beliefs, struggling to find cohesion. Or maybe he just didn’t realize that some of his beliefs were in contradiction with other beliefs. Perhaps he’d never given it enough thought. Some of these things may seem obvious to the initiated but the universal relevance of the principle values of libertarianism can take a while to really set in. I know it took me a while to realize why I could never be a libertarian. Five years really.
It’s easy to repeat a stock phrase about “rights” it’s another thing entirely to be asked to apply that stock phrase consistently to an entire worldview.
I do think he was trying to save face, but why? What’s he got to lose here? His libertarian card?
Or maybe he was going through what I went through when I first encountered anarchists. Maybe he suddenly realized that he wasn’t comfortable with the logical implications of his beliefs. Maybe he realized that he just couldn’t really go along with it.
Perhaps the doubt entering his mind is about the kind of company he’s keeping. I know I sure as hell wouldn’t want to associate with anarchists. Kokesh looks scary to me, I’d want nothing to do with him.
This video? The distrust you’ve expressed for “left-libertarians” simply because they might not fit in lock stock and barrel with your ideas? The constant “who’s a real libertarian” nonsense I’ve seen in the liberty movement since I became aware of it?
You guys regularly try to call out anyone who you don’t think is libertarian enough. I’m sure right now Rand Paul is the new persona non grata after backing Romney. You guys get mad at someone just for playing ball. It’s silly to me.
That’s exactly my point. Principled people pigeonhole themselves into one position. They cannot alter this position, they cannot compromise. They’re predictable. They cannot readily adapt. They cannot adopt alternate strategies. They cannot support anything that might violate their principles even if it’s only a little bit. They’re easy to beat (EDIT: in games of strategy) unless everyone is exactly like them (EDIT: In which case someone will realize they need to adapt a more unprincipled set of values) but ofcourse people are rarely principled to begin with so principled people are always vulnerable to people willing to bend the rules even a little. EDIT: This is basic game theory. A conditional strategy is always preferrable to an unconditional strategy if the unconditional opponent’s strategy is already known to their opponent. In such a scenario it’s possible for one side to know exactly what the other side is going to do in advance. Unpredictability (being unprincipled) can therefore be quite strategically useful as it can help to avoid complete anticipation by the counterparty.
Ofcourse you don’t see it as a vice, you’re a libertarian.
bloomj31: Kokesh never really entertains the possibility that people might be willing to do something that they might ordinarily think is wrong
John James: Yes he does. He’s talking to such a person at the very moment you claim he isn’t entertain the possiblity that such a person exists.
bloomj31: Yes but does he understand why?
I’m just going to leave that at the “yes” you agree with me that you were wrong because the rest of your comment is completely irrelevant.
Exactly. You’re an egoist/nihilist…which is I find it ironic that you would expect me to attempt to explain to someone like you why something is “bad”.
Yes, it’s quite obvious you think saying these things and believing this way makes you sound reasoned and logical.
Again, exactly. You’re a relativist. I don’t see how you don’t yet get this.
That’s quite true. You are his enemy and he wouldn’t even understand why. But at least he’d be correct in calling you that way.
…said the egoist.
:EDIT:
Nice to see you reconsidered and admitted your guilt of the same offense you accuse others of.
Oh really? You mean like, “his depth of thought is as shallow as a rain puddle”? You mean like, “in a short conversation standing on a street curb someone has just rocked the foundation of the philosophical belief system he has held his entire life?”
That’s funny. It only took me about two threads to figure that out about you.
Great. So you agree with me that you were wrong again.
I just told you…dignity. Ego. Again I find it ironic that someone such as yourself doesn’t understand this.
Oh really? You mean like, maybe he hadn’t really thought much about beliefs he held for his entire life?..like “his depth of thought is as shallow as a rain puddle”?
Again I don’t see how this is disagrees with what I said. In fact it seems like you just simply reword what I say and write it back to me, as if that would somehow refute me.
Wait a minute. You just told me a few sentences ago that he was shocked by his introduction to anarchist philosophy…now you’re telling me he’s starting to have doubts about the kind of company he keeps? If he keeps company with anarchists, how the hell is he just now understanding what they’re about?
Again, you don’t make sense.
Nice to know you judge people solely by their appearance though.
How is this video an example of libertarians “eating their own”? Bermas openly admitted he wanted socialized health care. (Sure he tried to claim “oh…well…only in certain circumstances”…but it’s against freedom no matter how he tries to slice it.) Bermas is not “one of them” (i.e. libertarian), and I wouldn’t be surprised if he openly stated he does not associate with that term.
And I don’t think you could rightfully characterize my position as “distrust” of “left-libertarians”. Anyone who feels like looking into it can read the thread on this. For one thing, I don’t see how I expressed “distrust”. Disgust maybe, but I don’t see where trust comes in. And indeed, the entire crux of the argument was whether the term was even accurate…as in, does it even make sense to describe such people as “libertarian”.
Again, if they change and distort the definition of “rights” to a dangerous degree which results in prescriptions that go against the institution of and rights inherent in private property, they aren’t libertarians…so I don’t see how how this is an example of anyone “eating their own”.
I mean, if you want to try to claim that people who actually believe in freedom calling out and attacking statists for the statists that they are, or enemies of liberty for the advocates of tyranny they are, “eating their own” simply because the latter groups happen to call themselves libertarians, then I suppose that’s your prerogative.
But that would just mean I could accuse you of eating your own for opposing me right now.
Isn’t relativism great?
I think people are called out for not being libertarian, period.
Obviously. Again, you’re a nihilist. Of course adherence to principle is silly to you. I honestly don’t see how you don’t understand this yet. You keep saying these things as if they’re going to mean anything to people who disagree with you about the fundamental nature of human existence and interaction.
I honestly don’t even know why you come here. I don’t know why any of this stuff matters to you.
Not on their principles, no. That’s kind of the point/definition. Normally I’d pose your question “Why is that a bad thing?”…but obviously I don’t expect someone without morals to have an answer for that. Which again is why I don’t see how you can speak as though you think it is bad. And why you bother trying to discuss any of this stuff.
Again, that’s kind of the definition. But thanks for reiterating it.
? At what? Badminton? Maybe that’s cuz they don’t give a shit about badminton.
Exactly. So why you think essentially regurgitating someone’s own understood positions to him and simply assuming they are bad, is going to accomplish anything, is beyond me.
(And it also makes me curious where a relativist gets off implying things are bad.)
Or I could take the yes off and leave the rest of the question as “but does he understand why?” Do you understand why?
I also noticed that you conveniently left out how I said “under extraordinary circumstances, that perhaps his inexorable moral rules are really just guidelines for others.”
It’s not just that Kokesh knows that people do things that they might think were wrong under certain circumstances, it’s that he doesn’t make allowances for people who might hold somewhat different views under extraordinary circumstances. He treats them the same. I don’t understand that. Why doesn’t context matter?
Does Kokesh or do you, for that matter, understand that perhaps these moral values serve more as guidelines for some people than they do categorical imperatives? Do you understand why that might be?
Well why do you think it’s bad? Why do you want people to be rigidly principled? Would it serve your cause?
It all depends on what side he picks.
Well it’s taken me a long time to get here. To find conviction so to speak. Before I wasn’t sure if I knew why I couldn’t be a libertarian, now I know.
No I’m saying that he was trying to save face but mainly in front of Kokesh and the on-lookers. He got put on the spot. But really this doesn’t matter. We’re arguing over something we basically agree on which is that Bermas didn’t do so well. But I said that in my first post.
Why does he care about what Kokesh thinks?
Maybe he doesn’t really talk about this stuff that much. Maybe he just does his job and goes home? I dunno, I don’t really know the guy. I’m just going on what I’m seeing in the video.
Ofcourse I judge people based on appearance. Why wouldn’t I? If you look crazy I’m going to assume you might be crazy. Kokesh looks nuts to me so I’m going to assume he’s nuts. I wouldn’t want to associate with him.
I think you should take whoever you can get. I think you should work with people to get them wherever it is you want them to be along the ideological spectrum. I think it’s unwise of you to try and purge “heretics”. All you do is lessen your ranks and disenfranchise people. Perhaps you purify the idea base but is that really worth it? I don’t think so.
Exactly, why do you care if someone’s not quite anarchist? They might still be closer aligned to you than other people. Don’t people have to start somewhere? Why do you go on witch hunts to cast out those not quite in agreement with libertarian principles? Do you really think that you’re advancing freedom with your current strategy?
I get why I think what I think. I’m trying to understand why you think that unconditional rigid adherence to moral principle is a good idea. Or scratch that, a desirable position. Do you live a life that rigidly adheres to your moral principles regardless of context, regardless of consequence? Why or why not? And why on earth do you think anyone would want to live that way? That’s what I’m really curious about.
I don’t think it’s “bad” I think it’s foolhardy. I think it’s undesirable. Why do you think refusing to compromise on principles under any circumstances is such a smart idea? Would you not initiate aggression to get anything in life? What if you could be reasonably certain nothing undesirable would happen to you personally?
I’m not really trying to refute you about how poorly Bermas did, we’re both in agreement on that though my perception of his faults might be different from yours. But I don’t think that matters. I agree that Bermas did a bad job. I said that in my initial post. I’m trying to explain why I didn’t find this interchange to be a very compelling argument for voluntarism. Why is rigid adherence to principle values (perhaps to the point of it being self detrimental) a more desirable position to take than a position that at least makes room for possible exceptions? Why worry so much about principle values, particularly if they might deny you access to something you might want and could otherwise have if you didn’t hold principle values or even if you were willing to break those values under extraordinary circumstances?
I mean isn’t the purpose of this thread at least partly to show why the voluntarist argument is so compelling?
EDIT: I’m tired I’m going to bed.
Best thread here.
How is that at all relevant? You said “Kokesh never really entertains the possibility that people might be willing to do something that they might ordinarily think is wrong”. I said that’s obviously nonsense, since he’s talking to such a person. Case closed. “Why” is completely irrelevant. If you want to make some new assertion and debate that, go ahead.
Well, given that my “cause” is to have people abide by the non-agression principle and the system of property rights described here, I would say yes…having people be rigidly principled would serve…you know, given that that is kind of the goal itself.
(I gotta say, I’m starting to get kinda bored.)
Not really. You are an enemy of freedom. He alleges he favors freedom. That I believe. Whether or not he comes to understand what true freedom looks like and what method of order maximizes that is not really relevant. Whether he comes to realize the truth of the matter and abandons his support of the State, or remains blind and continues in his “limited government” thinking, either way he is ideologically opposed to your nihilism.
As opposed to…God?
You literally just admitted “he was trying to save face but mainly in front of Kokesh and the on-lookers”…and now you’re asking me why does he care about what Kokesh thinks?
Seriously?
You knowing him is irrelevant. I was simply pointing out your assertions contradict each other.
I’m really growing less and less interested in you.
Wonderful philosophy.
Are you serious? We’re talking about an ideological battle and you’re suggesting that people who’s fundamental ideological beliefs oppose each other could just simply all of a sudden agree with each other in effort to “take whoever they can get”. That doesn’t even make sense. If they fundamentally disagree, no one has been “gotten” at all.
I have no idea what you’re even talking about.
No one ever said persuasion is not attempted. But it sounds like you’re saying that if persuasion is not achieved, people whose ideologies are fundamentally opposed could simply agree just to “keep the band together”.
One more time…
a) there never was any “band” in the first place, for, if they fundamentally disagree, then there are no “ranks” in which these people ever stood together at all.
b) even assuming they were together at some point, it sounds like you’re saying if once they disagree, and can’t come to an agreement, they should simply pretend the disagreement doesn’t exist.
This makes absolutely no sense.
Why do you care whether I care or not? You’re a nihilist. Again I still have no idea why you’re even here and why you even spend time talking about this stuff.
And I’m sure I could find rapists and murderers that you are closer aligned to than other people. Does that mean you should “team up” with them? I mean after all, if you try to disassociate yourself from such people, all you do is lessen your ranks and disenfranchise people. Perhaps you make yourself look a little less bad in the eyes of people who actually have a morals, but is that really worth it?
I don’t. Why do you care?
Do you really think you’re getting anywhere by presenting me with your relativist nonsense as if it were some kind of superior reasoned philosophy?
Congratulations?
I wish I could say the same thing about you…that I’m curious as to why you think egoist/nihilist relativism is a “good idea, scratch that, desirable position”…but I’m really not.
As I said, I’m getting quite bored with this.
Are you seriously asking me if I would aggress violence on someone simply because I thought I could gain something and get away with it?..and wondering what’s wrong with that?
I still don’t get what you’re looking for. You’ve basically admitted you don’t believe in right or wrong, you’ve stated multiple times you don’t have morals/ don’t take moral positions/ don’t think about morals, etc. (despite arbitrarily making moral judgements when it suits you), and you’ve essentially shown you are indifferent toward minimizing conflict. So I have no idea what you expect to hear from me, or why you’d want to hear it.
Again, you’re a relativist asking someone to explain to you why one philosophy is better than another. You’re like a blind man asking someone to show you something.
Basically you’re asking me why egoism isn’t a desirable philosophy? Why people simply and quite literally doing whatever they wanted without any real order maintained by established law based in fundamental principles which minimize conflict?
It still kind of amazes me that there actually exist people who would need such an explanation. But only kind of.
As of course, you yourself have contradicted this view multiple times in your praise of government and law enforcement. Yet another reason I’m growing less and less interested in dialogue with you.
Not really. It’s to show an example of an eloquent argument being made.
Couldn’t sleep. I edited a lot of my original post. You didn’t seem to include much of it in your response.
But this bores me as well. I feel like we’re talking past one another. But it doesn’t matter. I think I’ve said what I have to say.
Well it’s not my fault if you publish something and then go back and attempt to rewrite it after I’ve started to respond.
We’re not talking past anything. You are just asking for something which you don’t believe exists. You’re a blind man asking to be shown something. You don’t seem to understand the implications of your own relativism.
You constantly contradict yourself, you have no moral compass, you are basically an egoist, and you don’t seem to care about any of those things. Which is all why I have no idea why you come here and attempt to discuss these things. But it’s also why I easily grow bored with you. And most likely why you grow bored in discussing these things as well…you don’t really care about these things and you don’t really have a consistent philosophy for anything, so you’re basically a tumbleweed going wherever the breeze takes you at the moment you’re viewing the thread.
Your dialogue never progresses anywhere because you’re a nihilist and can essentially never follow a reasoned and logical path, since you have no real foundational basis on which to build (or argue, for that matter).
It’s actually quite interesting that people engage you as long as they do. This is really only my 4th post to you and I really have almost no interest in any more discussion you might try to have.
Hey, there’s no need to redefine words. Not everyone who isn’t a moral absolutist is a nihilist. Or maybe they are in your world; I dunno.
John James @ bloomj31: You have no real consistent philosophy for anything, as you’ve shown over the course of your posts here. You essentially just go along with whatever seems appealing to you and basically think violating the rights of others is fine as long as it’s a case that you don’t really care about, or it concerns something you don’t like anyway, or especially, if you personally benefit from it.
bloomj31: Sounds about right.
You were saying, troll?
Well I’ve never enjoyed talking to you.
Still you edited a post earlier in this thread and I waited for you to finish but I don’t care really, none of these posts were really for you.
They were for anyone else who might be on the ropes about engaging people like you on these issues.
Word to the wise: it’s a waste of time for anyone who’s not dead set on taking a completely uncompromising moral view of the world no matter the consequences, the context, the purpose of the action, the extraordinary nature of the action etc. They will go after anyone who values things conditionally, even if it’s only under very narrowly special conditions that you might disagree, as can be witnessed in the video and this thread.
They will never advocate the initiation of aggression for any reason, no matter what the cause, no matter the circumstance, no matter the context etc. They will never consider an alternative ultimate goal than absolute freedom and they will never compromise with anyone on anything to achieve that goal. There is no middle ground whatsoever.
All people like John James seem to ever care about is being morally right, damn the torpedoes. I could never live that way and I hope that anyone who feels the same way saves valuable time by reading this and steering clear.
So what? Is having a 100 percent morally consistent philosophy the single most important thing in the world? I don’t always see every situation in the same way. I look at facts, I think about context. I may find certain arguments compelling in one instance and less so in another. I make exceptions to my guidelines when I think they’re deserved. I don’t care if my philosophy isn’t 100 percent consistent. To be 100 percent consistent, I’d have to embrace libertarianism and libertarianism is awful if it’s taken to its most extreme logical conclusions. Who in the hell would want to live that way?
I do care about what appeals to me, I am willing to violate the “rights” of others (whatever those may be) if I think it’s warranted and I do give different levels of consideration to different people, actions and things and I do give special consideration to things that I believe will benefit me.
This does not strike me as odd. What strikes me as odd is that anyone else would live any other way.
Do you really practice what you preach John James? I doubt it.
