_________________
"Justice is this: Do for others what you would want them to do for you, and don't do to another person anything you would hate." (From Knights of the Colours creed)

I'll support him fully in 2020 if he decides to run, and if I'm still alive, no doubt.


But I have my doubts that we'll be able to stop this train via the democratic process. Throughout this entire primary season, while supporting Ron Paul completely I've come to terms with the fact that the establishment would do everything in their power to belittle and marginalize him, and likely make sure he doesn't win. And even if he did win, I couldn't imagine what they would do (false flag terror, assassination, etc) to him.

For a true patriot like Adam, or anyone involved in this movement, they'd be facing a similarly impossible task. Honestly, I think revolution is a foregone conclusion. The only question is when.

_________________
Join Us In Creating Excellence

Anarchy will not come to this area of the world through political action. That is the "save the village by destroying it" syndrome. The people will accept anarchy when their morals change. This whole concept is rather silly. And even if the intent is to inject ideas and educate through a presidential campaign, no one will take you seriously because of the inherent contradiction of an anarchist pursuing power over people. In other words, Adam would have to sacrifice his morals in order to make an attempt to increase freedom a bit?

just seems like grand standing to me.

Much better to live your morals and show people why your way is better through your own life. Think about it. What message do you send by running for the highest political office in the world? "Politics is the way to improve the world." Or the less PC version of that...."Violence is the way to change the world."

When people ask you to run for office, Adam, tell them they need to take responsibility for their own lives and stop looking for a flawed human savior. Ron Paul may have sparked this r3VOLution, but he is not the answer.

I think Adam is mostly tongue-in-cheek about running for President, but I think he's absolutely on point on his "platform." Maybe we should start hashtagging #Kokesh2020 every time we tweet about liberty or freedom.

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

The first thing I did when I got that e-mail was open a new tab, go to GoDaddy.com, and see if AdamKokesh2020.com or Kokesh2020.com were registered yet. Negative to both. Get on it, Adam!

@NateForLiberty, I'm not sure how elimination of the Federal government even remotely resembles anarchy. Are you serious? Being governed only by state, county and city governments is "anarchy" to you? Before there was a Federal government the entire earth was anarchy and chaos? Eliminating the largest and most destructive later of government is only common sense, once it's reached this point of absolute despotism.

_________________
"Justice is this: Do for others what you would want them to do for you, and don't do to another person anything you would hate." (From Knights of the Colours creed)

Anarchy is the absence of ANY government or central authority, no?

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

Is Adam Kokesh not an anarchist? Does he not believe there shouldn't be any government on any level?

I don't know what the going argument is here but, I'm not an anarchist. I'm all for state laws with an extremely limited federal government to over see them. But again, that's why I support Ron Paul's ideas of what purpose the federal government should and shouldn't serve. I don't know which ideas are better honestly, I just think for the time being, too radical of a change would just force people back to the other extreme when things "went wrong". So, I think that if anarchism or anarcho-capitalism are the ideal forms of free living, that it will still be awhile before we see it. However, I don't see how anarchy would be the ideal way of life (lawlessness altogether), it would look exactly like Pakistan outside of the inner city where again, there aren't any real "laws". Not sure if you guys saw what I wrote in another thread or not but a buddy of mine who now lives in Hong Kong was stopped by the Pakistani "police" in one of those areas (which may be considered people who just try to keep the peace), and he was driving without a license. The "police" served as judge and jury, and as his punishment, they took his shoes, every dollar he had in his pocket, and towed his car, forcing him to walk home. I think that's important because, laws don't make people do things or not do things, they are there mostly for following regulations. In a "lawless" society, where people do as they please, or, form groups of people to protect the community and hand out punishment as THEY see fit, is the dumbest idea I've ever heard in my life, and I've heard some incredibly fucking stupid ideas in my life that I'm still hoping my liver will filter out of me or something. If all of the laws that infringed on peoples individual liberties were repealed, and the federal government was taken back down to an extremely limited role of over-sight with a voluntary standing army that only acted while under attack or during a declaration of war, that would be my ideal government. That's where I'm right now anyways.

"Anarchy" does not mean "without laws". It means "without rulers". There are natural laws which mankind has discovered about the universe like gravity, electromagnetism, and the speed of light. Likewise, there are economic laws which are universal, not because people "accept" these laws, but simple because these laws exist. These economic laws would be the same on Mars as they are on Earth. Government exists to usurp these natural laws. And in fact, in an anarchic society, "laws" are far stricter and drastically more punishing than any law created by a government. You are not an anarchist because you don't understand anarchy. You seem like a reasonable person, therefore, I believe if you were to really look into anarchy you'd realize it is the only moral option.

I agree with you that drastic change is not the way to do it. Which is why running for political office in order to change the country is silly. Education and changing people's morals is the only lasting way to bring about the change we all seek. We must reject the initiation of force as a viable option.

I totally agree with this part. I wasn't going to say anything because I don't want to seem like I am discouraging Adam to pursue his path but, being an activist has so many advantages over being a politician, if the goal TRULY IS to change the direction of the country and not just another job position.



This part I don't agree with entirely. Maybe it's the terminology as it's defined differing from the terminology as it's understood in the liberty movement, but anarchy is 'defined' as a type of lawlessness. And since we're dealing with communication here, I'm basing my judgement on anarchy as it's defined, which sounds like a terrible idea.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

Granted, if there were 14 million more laws, or no laws at all, I'm going to do what I think is morally correct. However, not everyone is like me, or you for that matter. I don't think the system is that bad in the sense that, it doesn't need ABSOLUTE reform, just, alot of reform and putting things back into their proper places. To me, it's like taking a car to the junkyard because the sparkplugs went bad. It's not rational thinking. A "system" based on morality, especially at this point in time, is just not feasible or even a good idea in my mind, but a people based on morality is a good idea because then the laws don't really matter anyways, they're just there for checks and balances between the government and the people (is what they are supposed to be outside of this corporate corruption we're experiencing). But, being everything has been so grossly out of balance, I can understand people wanting to uproot things and start all over, it's just not necessary. But like you said above, continuing educating people on the differences between spoonfed bullshit from greedy people, and actual morality, is the only thing that's really even necessary.

Maybe my understanding of anarchism is superficial and ill-understood, but from what I've seen from "anarchists" and by the definition of what anarchy is, I haven't looked much into it. I've always kind of looked at it like, every system of governing (or non-governing) has flaws either in regards to the governments interpretations of it, the peoples interpretations of it, or the governments and peoples willingness to honor them. I feel like the only reason most of us are't dead right now is because of those laws protecting us, and SOME people in government honoring those laws. *shrug* The ones that they are not honoring, and instead, creating unlawful laws against us using the Constitution as a gauge for law, we aren't honoring either. So in my mind, without those things in place, it would have already been a bloodbath.

Sure, we can go back and forth about how anarchy is defined. This online dictionary contains a different definition than the one you posted...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

(definition 1c is particularly interesting)

Point of interests, governments love to redefine words in order to control the flow of information. Hell, they even redefine actions! Offensive war becomes defensive freedom fighting becomes kinetic action. It's all bullshit.

Monarchy = 1 ruler
Democracy = the majority is the ruler
Republicanism = the law is the ruler
Anarchy = there are no rulers.

Keep in mind that in a republican form of government where the "law" is the ruler, men make those laws. The United States started with the smallest government and has become the single most murderous regime in the history of the world. And all of that in 2 short centuries. We hear this line of wisdom all the time, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Yet we still believe we can limit power by taking it. We are acting like fools while proclaiming great wisdom.

An anarchic society is based on universal laws. Laws not invented by man but fundamental to the universe. Economic laws like supply and demand which determine pricing. How many times have governments intervened in this organic process by setting prices, and how many times was havoc brought about because of the false prices? Or government created fiat currencies that rob people of their wealth. Bad people who look to steal, cheat, and murder create governments in order to pacify the masses against these universal laws. And in doing so, they can steal, cheat, and murder to their hearts content without repercussions.

Limited governments never stay limited. The whole point of a government is to control and the only way to do that is to grow more powerful than the population being governed.

What we have now is chaos. Anarchy, where no one man is given power over another, is non-chaotic.

When the people are moral there is no such thing as morality. When the people are "enlightened" there is no such thing as enlightenment. When the people reject the initiation of violence, there is no more government.

Government is the INITIATION of violence, nothing more and absolutely nothing less. You can try and dress it up all you want, but you know in your heart what government really is.

Basically, your argument is "I'm alive because we have laws." That is saying (in the less PC way), I'm alive because I've sided with the biggest bully on the block.

We should all reject this way of living.

I don't disagree with you that words and meanings are tampered with inorder to channel people this way or that way. Maybe that's why I try to avoid attaching them to myself as much as possible with the exception of "human being". I proudly wear that one. It doesn't carry all of the other expectation-limitations as narrowly defined words do, in regards to whatever they may mean at any given point in time.

Like I said, it's entirely possible that I'm not right about this and that you are. Don't take it as me suggesting your ideas are of no importance. I'm just saying, where I'm at right now, I think that with the system as it is, it needs MAJOR MAJOR reform, not to have the ideas disregarded outright.

And there will never be a time when there are no rulers. That's like suggesting we have control over the alpha male nature of men, the alpha male nature of groups. It's just insane man. It's like suggesting we have control over gravity. Some things are a part of nature itself. That's why these systems were developed in the first place to insure Justice and Fairness in large societies. It's just that, Justice and Fairness has been missing because it's been purchased for so long, that's part of the reform I'm talking about though too. I don;t hate corporations just because they're large and successful. Many of them were formed by people who grew up extremely poor, and worked harder than most to establish what they have today. Some of those corporations are beneficial to the people at large. Some aren't, and those are the ones I'm against. If people were born into the world understanding everything about the nature of their own being and the world around them, it would be a non-issue. We don't live in that world.

I understand where you are, I actually just recently transitioned from minarchist to anarchist myself. It's funny that you mentioned the alpha male aspect as I have been thinking about that a lot recently. The reason we have "alpha males" in our society is simply evolution. Those humans who followed the alpha male were more likely to survive dangers of nature and other alpha male led groups. Those that didn't have the alpha male organization were easy prey. However, with the invention of the internet and instant communication with any individual in the entire world, the days of the alpha male are over. Surviving the elements has become almost a non-issue for most people (with the exceptions of natural disasters). So people are now capable of surviving on their own and are able to communicate/coordinate with anyone anywhere at anytime. There is no longer a need for alpha males. And we are even seeing this evolution in the world today as "nerd" culture continues to rise.

Also, the thing about people being born into the world without understanding and that is why we need government....

People gain understanding through experience. Government stifles a human being's experience and therefore makes it close to impossible for them to ever gain true understanding. If you want people to get better, you need to free them from the oppressive control over their lives. It's like the child who doesn't know the stove will burn them. You have a parent that instead of telling the child it will burn, locks them in a room and punishes them and tells them how bad they are for wanting to touch the stove. The child never learns and begins to believe they are a bad person. And when this child grows up and has children of his own, he locks his children in a room and tells them how bad they are for wanting to touch the stove, etc. etc. Then one day and child suggests that maybe children don't need to be locked up in a room, that they can be free. The response they get is, "OMG! Children will touch the stove and burn to death!! Is that what you want!!".

People need to learn a better way to live with one another. As long as government exists this will never happen. Is it any surprise that throughout all of history mankind's behavior remains basically the same and throughout all of history there have been governments? Correlation does not equal causation, of course, but at the very least it proves that government over its 5000 year history has NEVER worked.

@NateForLiberty I don't know if Adam is an anarchist, but I do know he's a libertarian and that the platform he suggested is a libertarian platform, not a platform of anarchy. So you can understand the distinction, Thomas Jefferson was a libertarian. He wrote the Declaration of Independence and served as President of the United States. Read anything he wrote if you're interested in libertarian philosophy. By contrast, the plains Indians were anarchists. They had no formal government and no laws at all, but lived pretty well for several thousand years... until they were conquered by fascist statists who didn't share their appreciation for human liberty.

_________________
"Justice is this: Do for others what you would want them to do for you, and don't do to another person anything you would hate." (From Knights of the Colours creed)

I don't want to speak for Adam, but I'm pretty confident he's an anarchist. But really, anarchist/libertarian, whatever. The point being, should the government be there at all is what is really the question. Adam is talking about dissolving the federal government. That is not libertarian.

Before the Europeans showed up the plains Indians were constantly warring with each other. They also didn't have the horse which allowed for fast long range transportation. Plains Indians did have a hierarchical structure within each tribe, but most importantly lacked technology that the Europeans had developed. It's also funny that you talk about Jefferson being a Libertarian, but then talk about the fascist statists who conquered the Indians. Do you not think that Jefferson had a very pivotal role in conquering the Indians??

So, the Indians were not an anarchical society.
Thomas Jefferson was one of these fascist statists who contributed to the conquering of the Indians.

I understand your philosophy. I have always looked at law as a plan B for when the people themselves fail at raising their children to understand the world the way you do or similarly the way practical people do. I think law as a plan B isn't bad, maybe I should word it that way because I think you feel like I think government intervention should always be plan A. I don't. I am all for a very very very limited government. But not the outright abolition of law in general. I can think of thousands of laws that should be outright tossed in the trash, and maybe I'm instilling too much hope in Ron Paul but that's kind of what I'm hoping for during his Presidency, (if we can collectively get it together enough to make sure the country at least takes a step in that direction). All this talk about anarchy and these different forms of government has me feeling like I'm trying to tie my shoes while I'm running. In my mind, focusing on getting Ron Paul elected and people experiencing liberty again is the first step.

This may be the best one-paragraph summary of anarchism I've read yet. Well said, friend.

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

Cannot agree with this more.

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

Points of agreement many of us can rally around. While I agree with anarcho-capitalist principles, I still support Ron Paul simply because I believe he may be an effective path to non-statism (and certainly 100x better than the current establishment).

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

I support Ron Paul just like I support Adam Kokesh, Stefan Molyneux, Michael Moresco, Tom Woods, and other individuals. I support them not because I believe they can take power and use it benevolently to save me from evil, but because they never shut the hell up about mother fucking LIBERTY!



(oh, and I enjoyed this thread. you's guys r cool )

@Nate I never once insinuated the plains Indians or anyone else in the history of humankind lived without any violence or skirmishes between tribes. And having elders and a chief IS NOT FORMAL GOVERNMENT any more than having a mother and father in a household is FORMAL GOVERNMENT. Neither did I ever suggest Thomas Jefferson or any other human being in history wasn't somewhat hypocritical. Why are you trying to steer this thread off topic by diverting attention away from the point of the thread?

_________________
"Justice is this: Do for others what you would want them to do for you, and don't do to another person anything you would hate." (From Knights of the Colours creed)

uuuuummm, ok. I was responding to you. You made two assertions which were incorrect.

I'm also interested to know what an "informal government" is and how that relates to anarchy.

If AK were elected president, I would submit my resume for a cabinet position. And if appointed csar of Health and Human Services, I would install cold beer drinking fountains on every parcel of public land. Then , Adam would sack me for being a libertine instead of a libertarian, but not before I had diverted the entire research and development budget into finding the perfect cure for a hangover.