A New Dallas Accord to Unify The Freedom Movement
In my decade plus of activism, I’ve been constantly dismayed and discouraged by drama and infighting within the freedom movement. I’ve been physically attacked, slandered, libeled, and been the victim of rumor campaigns and character assassination attempts. I have even personally contributed unnecessarily to the public criticism of other activists and been involved in disputes that never should have gone public. The message of freedom is founded in love, but we don’t always live up to the message that we advocate. If we want to succeed as a movement, we must continue to bring our culture in line with our ideals. As it pertains to interpersonal conflict among activists, (“movement drama”) I have found a solution that works for me, and I would like to share it with as many people as possible so that we may all join hands (or at least be able to concentrate our fire) and be a part of this beautiful dance forward for humanity.
While a certain amount of conflict is inevitable in any cooperative human endeavor, sometimes it seems like we have more than our share. This is understandable, and not to be resented or resisted. We have more than our share of passionate, driven, and victimized people in our movement. Oftentimes, it is our victimization by the state that drives us to freedom activism.
We also have a certain amount of conflict that comes from the nature of what we are doing by challenging existing power structure. Some of this is overt in the form of supporters and beneficiaries of the status quo opposing us directly. Some of this is indirect in covert efforts of sabotage, downvoting, trolling, and of course, disruption by the government itself. COINTELPRO is the infamous FBI program from the 60s aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting activists. If you’re not familiar with COINTELPRO, please at least read the Wikipedia article on it. When you consider what has been revealed about government interference with activism historically, it would be incredibly naive to think that their tactics have gone away instead of evolved.
It is critically important that we continue to develop an approach to conflict to minimize its effect on ourselves and our work if we are to succeed. At a recent speech in Philadelphia at the Free Your Mind Conference, I asked an audience of several hundred people, “How many of you have been regularly involved with an activist group that you were passionate about, but quit because of drama within the organization?” I was shocked when I saw a third of the hands in the room go up. I wanted to cry. Think of all the loving energy robbed from humanity! Regardless of the source of conflict, whether organic or manufactured, the answers are the same: Be loving towards everyone. Be as forgiving as possible. Be accepting and understanding. Take responsibility for your actions. Live by your values. Focus on the positive. Don’t be distracted by drama. Don’t let anyone throw you off your game. Never push people apart when you can bring them together. Be willing to work with people you disagree with to achieve a common goal. Are you noticing a theme here?
Regardless of the source of conflict, the response must be to move past it, or else we condemn ourselves to be forever drowning in it. If we allow ourselves to be divided, surely we will be conquered. This is even more critical when you understand that in order to succeed, our movement needs to grow and we already have the most radically-minded, anti-authoritarian, freedom-loving one percent of the population on our team. The next wave of libertarians are going to be a bit more … normal - and that’s ok! But just thinking of people in general who are more practically-minded than ideologically minded, are they going to want to join a divided movement or a unified one? Are they going to want to join a debate club or a cause that will forever change the world? Are they going to … ok, you’re smart. You get it. Flies and honey and vinegar and all that.
To go one step further, I would like to address what has been a focal point for our movement and an unfortunate focal point of several enduring ideological conflicts: The Libertarian Party. Whether you like it or not, most people who will hear about libertarianism in the foreseeable future will hear about it because of the efforts of the LP. While many of us complain that the party doesn’t perfectly represent us as the face of the movement in the political realm, most don’t bother to do anything constructive about it. So what I am proposing is a formalization of the approach that I have outlined here. In the 1974 Libertarian National Convention, there was an agreement called “The Dallas Accord,” that sought to unify the factions of the party by keeping divisive points out of the platform and making the LP the party of “big tent, smaller government.” It’s time to bring back The Dallas Accord as a formal affirmation of a working attitude based on our values. Let’s make the LP the biggest freedom funnel possible! Let’s welcome everyone who is “freedom-curious” with open, encouraging arms! Let’s have a motion to bring back the spirit of unity with a New Dallas Accord at the 2018 Libertarian National Convention!
Of course, this is much bigger than the LP and much bigger than what we normally think of the freedom movement. If we want to render government obsolete, it has to be about more than politics. It has to be about moving humanity forward in terms of how we relate to people. It has to be about unifying around the core principles of our message and living by our values! So please support this effort in your attitude, communication, activism, how you talk to statists, and hopefully in joining me as a delegate at the 2018 Libertarian National Convention!
***If there is a positive response to this post, I will reach out to other party activists to craft the exact language of this proposal and see how many people we can get signed on before releasing it. Please support this effort by sharing this post with anyone who cares about freedom and encourage those who you think should be involved to email me at [email protected] to share their input.***
I am the author of FREEDOM!, a book endorsed (I mean banned) by the US Department of “Justice.” You can get a copy here. I’m running for Not-President in 2020 on the platform of the peaceful, orderly, and responsible dissolution of the United States federal government. You can find out more here. Whoever has the top comment on this post after 24 hours can claim a free signed copy of FREEDOM! by sending me a message with their address.
@adamkokesh, I understand your dismay and discouragement. You would think that people who have so much in common, could use that commonality to overcome their differences. While I agree with you when you say we should: "Be loving towards everyone. Be as forgiving as possible. Be accepting and understanding”, I’m not so sure about keeping divisive points out of the platform. I fear that this approach will lead to more candidates like Gary Johnson, who are libertarian on the surface, but as soon as you scratch it, the statism comes oozing out.
Do we want to build an organization bound by the lowest common denominator? Or do we want an organization built upon the moral principles of individual human rights, with members who all agree with those principles and work toward them, whether that be in the political arena, or daily life? Do we want to compromise on those principles, keeping the disagreeable parts out of the platform, just to give us a little more critical mass so that we can be more effective at winning elections? Or do we want to fight even harder to demonstrate why our principles are superior, and increase membership through education and setting the example?
I guess what I’m saying is, yes, I agree with your philosophy of love, forgiveness, acceptance and understanding, but I do not agree with the idea of bringing back “The Dallas Accord”.
I'm concerned that there's a worse problem. How do we, those of us who refuse to be ruled, coexist in a world where the vast majority of people want to be ruled?
That's what the whole election process is about after all, correct? It gives all those people the illusion of picking their rulers.
Even if given the chance to vote for liberty, I don't believe the majority of people would. We'd be better off creating a different model. We saw what happened to Ron Paul for example. He was just doing what he did to point out the obvious and to further the message. Did he have any realistic hope of winning? I doubt it.
Still, trolling the establishment would be worth it. Anything we can do to further the message of liberty is worth it. We just need to understand that we are surrounded by people incapable of being self-ruled. They will demand a ruler.
Can we change enough people to make them refuse a ruler? Man, I don't know. That's... asking a lot.
You make some good points. Ultimately, IMO, the libertarian party should be about minimal government. Minimal government means the purpose of government is to protect individual rights and nothing else. Anything more than minimal government moves into the area of ruling people. So when Adam suggests keeping divisive points out of the platform, I believe this compromises on the fundamental purpose of the libertarian party and allows government to continue ruling people.
You ask if we can change enough people to make them refuse a ruler. Maybe, maybe not. I am skeptical. However, if we are to succeed in this, the only way it can happen, IMO, is by providing a clear alternative to the Republican and Democrat parties. A libertarian party based upon the lowest common denominator, that seeks growth and public acceptance rather than debate and inclusion of its principles, even if they are divisive, is not a clear alternative - it's more of the same.
Government has never been very good at protecting individual rights.
How can it be when it is, by definition, a coercive collective? The smallest minority is one. Governments cannot protect minorities. It has never happened, and it never will happen. This is why his plan is a peaceful dissolution of the federal government.
I'm all for governance, but it needs to be entirely voluntary. As soon as someone's will is forced upon another, the system is tyrannical and should be fought against. We can and should have a society based on mutual consent, peaceful interaction, and voluntary agreements.
Those who want to be ruled make it easy for those who want to rule to have the system we currently have however. How do we, those who do not want to be ruled, stop them from trying to rule us?
Great feedback! Thanks! I think I must have left something out of my original post that I'll have to get back to with a future post. Basically, yes. We want to build an organization around the "lowest common denominator" of people who care about freedom as a principle. We don't have to sacrifice that. So let me ask you this way: Would you rather have a debate club of anarchists that is always right about everything, or an organization that is accepting of people who don't agree on everything, but are willing to vote in our direction? Because the first answer gets you what we have now. The second answer, at worst, gets us someone like Gary Johnson as President because with more people, you can, you know, actually WIN elections! As for my campaign, the way that I have made a platform based on principle (dissolving the whole federal government) will bring in people who want local governments that are conservative or liberal. We should be ready to welcome them and ready to win!
We must reflect a little more deeply. I know some very seasoned senior activists, one in particular, who points out that the federal government has already been dissolved. I used to doubt that, but I am thinking more and more that it's essentially true. Since the establishment is a private corporate-banking-old blood line force that took over the government long ago, then the government itself, in terms of its origins and founding structure, is no longer with us. Over time, the interlopers seceded from the original Constitutional order and overthrew it, thereby effectively dissolving it. They did this by altering the Constitution without the proper amendment process, which disintegrated the original social contract. Once the private banking cartel moved in and solidified its position in 1913, then the real rulers dissolved what little remained of the original sovereign state. Government, in and of itself, is not the core culprit--rather, it's those who altered its function and form so much that, eventually, dissolution occurred. Yes, one could argue, let's "dissolve the dissolvers," but that's not what's being discussed here.
Always supported you and got along great! I appreciate all the shares of my posts in the past as well! Infighting is a serious problem and is the death of a movement. Even though I'm more of an individualist Browne-Out offgrid type
YES! MORE @ADAMKOKESH ON STEEM! (sorry for the CAPS my friend, I am hyped)
Me too man. Me too ;)
Me too! Thanks!
Great message @adamkokesh! And this is dedicated to Cointelpro and similar agencies
Always operate as if you have spies everywhere. You probably do, and then they cannot do very much damage. That's what I suggest at least. ;-)
waaoow too strainge
Only discovered you a few months back on YouTube, and I really loved the way you engaged with people on the street by getting them to question what they believe and then to realize what freedom is and means. I'm from South Africa a true welfare state with 1/3 on our population on social welfare, and it will only end badly. Dig you work, great post!! Taxation is theft.
Thanks! Great feedback! #TaxationIsTheft
The man, the myth, the legend @adamkokesh !
Love the idea Adam. (also really glad I just joined Steemit, lucky me!)
The wiki article you linked to suggests this Accord was a failure as the anarchist membership dropped 50%, with increases in other segments. I am curious to see what you and others suggest for changes that would make the Big Tent Idea successful.
Would stating the goal of a voluntary society, but recognizing that there are several points of view on who/what/when/where/why/how far? be a better way to frame this. Kind of a “Come along with us, you can hop off anytime, but this is where we're going” vs. the anarchists in the back of the car asking “are we there yet?” and wondering if they are even going in the right direction?
You're asking solid questions man. Gave you a follow and I
Great questions! We'll be keeping that in mind as we draft the actual language. Stay tuned for that coming in a couple weeks or so. Thanks for the input!
Love love love love your brother!
Love you too, sister!
long life freedom
:)
followed and upvoted
THANKS!
no problem bro
i like your posts , valuable and great :)
That's a high standard to maintain! We'll see if I'm up for it!
i m sure u will do :)