Adam Kokesh eloquently makes the case for voluntarism

[John_James]

@bloomj31

Yes but does he understand why?

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.

Sounds about right. Why is that a bad thing? 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.

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”.

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 may or may not support something, I try to consider all the information I can before arriving at decisions.

Yes, it’s quite obvious you think saying these things and believing this way makes you sound reasoned and logical.

I don’t want to be pinned down by any definite set of values. My values change depending on the context.

Again, exactly. You’re a relativist. I don’t see how you don’t yet get this.

@bloomj31

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.

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.

I think you see what you want to see.

…said the egoist.

:EDIT:

Nice to see you reconsidered and admitted your guilt of the same offense you accuse others of.

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.

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?”

@bloomj31

I know it took me a while to realize why I could never be a libertarian. Five years really.

That’s funny. It only took me about two threads to figure that out about you.

I do think he was trying to save face,

Great. So you agree with me that you were wrong again.

but why? What’s he got to lose here? His libertarian card?

I just told you…dignity. Ego. Again I find it ironic that someone such as yourself doesn’t understand this.

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.

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.

@bloomj31

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.

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.

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?

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?

You guys regularly try to call out anyone who you don’t think is libertarian enough.

I think people are called out for not being libertarian, period.

@bloomj31

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.

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.

They cannot alter this position, they cannot compromise.

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.

They cannot support anything that might violate their principles even if it’s only a little bit.

Again, that’s kind of the definition. But thanks for reiterating it.

They’re easy to beat

? At what? Badminton? Maybe that’s cuz they don’t give a shit about badminton.

Of course you don’t see it as a vice, you’re a libertarian.

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.)