Adam Kokesh interviews Starchild of the LNC at the California Libertarian Convention

19 thoughts on “Adam Kokesh interviews Starchild of the LNC at the California Libertarian Convention

  1. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Both guys were highly rationale and Starchild is always so sensible!

    I would note that “revolution” usually happens when there is a crackdown by government or a let up in oppression – and usually in the context of severe economic problems and/or war.

    Also, re: nuclear weapons, didn’t Rothbard say they are NOT weapons of defense but of aggression? In fact he said: “These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. https://mises.org/library/war-peace-and-state

    Also, even if nuclear weapons are never used or threatened to be used, they are inherently highly polluting weapons that need billions of dollars in polluting engineering to create, move and store, not to mention to dispose of for the next 10,000 years. So even if you bought your nuke ready to go, it still will cost hundreds of millions to dispose of so that you don’t pollute other people’s air, water and land with it.

    Kokesh did great job of explaining why Arvin’s approach on consent was NOT from children’s rights perspective, which is problematic. Plus with the general macho flash modus operandi. I wish people would use “macho flash” more again today.

    For reasons he expressed very well, I do think Starchild should take a break from LNC and encourage and support some other radical. Even Tom Knapp!

  2. dL

    A good interview. Nicely done, Starchild…

    The only minor disagreement I might have with Starchild is on the subject of nuclear weapons disarmament conflicting with NAP. I think the party should be officially full throttle for unilateral and/or multilateral disarmament. They are government weapons; they are weapons of aggression. They are not weapons of self-defense(private or otherwise) and serve no legitimate self-defensive use other than perhaps in some insane geopolitical MAD calculation.

  3. DJ

    dl: They are not weapons of self-defense(private or otherwise) and serve no legitimate self-defensive use other than perhaps in some insane geopolitical MAD calculation.

    Me: I beg to differ. Weapons are weapons- their use is up to the individual. Gov’t use is no more valid than your’s – or mine. Insane? Telling an individual what his choices are limited to. That’s authoritarian at its core. The ‘threat’ of use can be effective from gov’t’s or individuals- a complete disarmament won’t happen. If and when it does happen the topic can be revisited. Until then the choice is the individuals- not the Party’s or the gov’t or the neighbor.

  4. DJ

    CM: Also, even if nuclear weapons are never used or threatened to be used, they are inherently highly polluting weapons that need billions of dollars in polluting engineering to create, move and store, not to mention to dispose of for the next 10,000 years. So even if you bought your nuke ready to go, it still will cost hundreds of millions to dispose of so that you don’t pollute other people’s air, water and land with it.

    Me: If- thought policing.

  5. Seebeck

    dl: They are not weapons of self-defense(private or otherwise) and serve no legitimate self-defensive use other than perhaps in some insane geopolitical MAD calculation.

    Me: I beg to differ. Weapons are weapons- their use is up to the individual.

    You would be wrong.

    The difference is this: a weapon that can be directed and used for self-defense (but not always done so), such as a blade, gun, or blunt, is far different than a weapon that when used takes out aggressors (defense) and non-aggressors (aggression) at the same time, such as bombs of any type. A nuke is clearly in the second category as it takes out innocent people as well as aggressors (see Nagasaki as the obvious example), as are most bombs, chemical weapons, bioweapons, and so on, especially in this day and age of asymmetrical sixth-generation warfare. The most “brilliant” smart bombs in the world still cannot differentiate between the innocent and the guilty when detonating, and they only are used to guarantee a kill regardless of the collateral damage, human shields, etc.

    That’s why dl is correct.

  6. Andy

    I agree that there is a difference between a gun or a knife or a blunt object and a weapon of mass destruction, like a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.

    Here is the problem though, how do you stop people from getting weapons of mass destruction?

    Some people have made the argument that there’s be less motivation to use, or threaten to use, weapons of mass destruction in or against a libertarian anarcho-capitalist society, and this might be so, but regardless of whether it is or is not, this does not answer the question of how you stop people from getting weapons of mass destruction.

    The technology to create weapons of mass destruction is out there, so there may not be a way to stop determined people from getting them.

  7. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    I didn’t understand the “thought policing” comment, but frankly Libertarian views don’t matter.

    I finally got around to researching what hypersonic weapons are all about and the bottom line is this: because these MACH 15 weapons can come out of no where with no warning, it makes accidental war inevitable since slightest miscommunication on normal rocket launches can necessitate defensive first strike.

    Missile defense is being made irrelevant. So it makes it incumbent on most aggressive nation with hypersonics to strike first. Or the country or countries most on defensive, assuming they can figure out where the enemies subs are, of course. But better only a 100 nuke strikes than 2000, I guess!

    Someone makes a point that a 1000 NON-nuke bombs sent at critical infrastructure could cripple US capabilities. But I’m sure a few hundred nukes would survive to send at most likely adversaries.

    Anyway, by 2020 or so Russia and China will have them. US is behind but probably will catch up fast. Israel is developing a variant. So enjoy the last few years of your life. Or if you live 30 plus miles from nearest target (depending on megatonage used against it), start getting your shelter and supplies ready. You don’t want to die slowly crushed by your smoldering home/business/car, do you?

    I didn’t see too many analysis of how this changes balance of power and chances of war, so first article is some guys interesting speculations. Rest are mainstream. Do you own searches. This is just my initial review.

    https://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/striking-the-enemy-at-hypersonic-speeds/85483

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/real-missile-gap-looming-hypersonic-weapons-25650

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/15/russia-hypersonic-weapon-likely-ready-for-war-by-2020-us-intel.html

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/11/hypersonic-arms-race-us-may-not-be-losing-to-russia-china.html

  8. Libertydave

    I have a question for all those who advocate banning all nukes, do you also want to ban nuclear power plants?

  9. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    And time you see something wrong or a complaint, look for a govt law, subsidy, etc that brings the problem about. For nuclear power plants, the Price-Anderson Act covered their butts in case of accidents to encourage companies to build them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

    It “governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially compensate the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government. At the time of the Act’s passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because electric utilities viewed the available liability coverage (only $60 million) as inadequate.”

    There are lots more subsidies, I’m sure, the major one being govt efforts to construct facilities to bury their waste for 10,000 years. Right now almost all waste is stored on sight just waiting for the right fire or terrorist attack to devestate the surrounding 20 miles.

  10. robert capozzi

    Absolutely LOVE it when NAPsters argue about private nukes…without my prompting!

  11. dL

    I have a question for all those who advocate banning all nukes, do you also want to ban nuclear power plants?

    LiberttyDave, nukes are a government weapon. Although there are individuals who might have the knowledge to build one, no single individual could ever actually build one. So, it is not a question that purely reduces to self-ownership or private defense.

    Of course, corporations could build them. They build them today. Whether it be nuclear weapons or nuclear power, “private corporations” build the devices and sell them to the government(weapons) or operate them with a government license(power plants). However, in either case, the government retains the strictest control over the nuclear material(in the US, the Dept of Energy owns the nuclear material).

    However, the question whether a corporation could “sell” nuclear weapons in a free market without violating the principles of the free market is easy one. No. As M. Seeback pointed out above, nuclear weapons are indiscriminate WMD. A modern hydrogen fusion bomb is meant to be dropped on population centers, i.e, cities. The casualties from one such detonation(instantly and over time) would ~ 1 million people. Add up the potential restitution for a million people and then calculate the annual liability insurance premiums. Financially, it is not feasible for for any entity to make use of nuclear WMD because of the attendant financial liability(the same would true for any bacterial, viral, chemical WMD). And corporations selling WMD to other corporation without financial liability insurance is just government. And in that instance, people are more than than justified to use sabotage/confiscation to destroy those weapons. And obviously, the entities that bought and sold them would not rely on them to secure them because they are not weapons of defense(they are weapons of annihilation).

    The question of nuclear power is not immediately as obvious. Obviously, there is no such thing as a hydrogen fusion power reactor(as of yet). Nuclear power uses a controlled fission reaction to produce heat that can then be used to produce steam(and hence work/energy). While there is no danger of a chain reaction detonation with nuclear reactors, there are nonetheless two liabilities that have to be accounted for. One is the possibility of radiation escape that can have serious long term health consequences for anyone in the relative vicinity((e.g, Chernobyl) . Hence, the high liability insurance costs. The other is the long term disposal and storage of the spent fuel rods, which if IIRC have a half life ~ 1000 years. To my knowledge, nuclear power is not financially profitable without government subsidy. And while I know for certain that one would ever insure nuclear weapons, I’m only guessing(though with a high degree of certitude) that no one would ever insure nuclear fission reactors(for immediate plant safety and the safety of off-site long term spent fuel rod storage).

    Now the question of nuclear fusion reactors may be a different story. Until that day…

  12. DJ

    Seebeck: You would be wrong.

    The difference is this: a weapon that can be directed and used for self-defense (but not always done so), such as a blade, gun, or blunt, is far different than a weapon that when used takes out aggressors (defense) and non-aggressors (aggression) at the same time, such as bombs of any type. A nuke is clearly in the second category as it takes out innocent people as well as aggressors (see Nagasaki as the obvious example), as are most bombs, chemical weapons, bioweapons, and so on, especially in this day and age of asymmetrical sixth-generation warfare. The most “brilliant” smart bombs in the world still cannot differentiate between the innocent and the guilty when detonating, and they only are used to guarantee a kill regardless of the collateral damage, human shields, etc.

    That’s why dl is correct

    Me: ANY weapon can be used for mass destruction. Wrong in this instance is an opinion- a wrong opinion. Innocent people get killed all the time (en mass) with pistols and rifles by trained in their use “professionals” and idiots. If an idiot gov’t threatens an individual that individual has the right and obligation to retaliate- in kind- Period. Mass is mass it doesn’t matter who pulled the trigger. Gov’t’s are known for their idiocy. When all is said and done guilty is guilty and I’d much rather be guilty of retaliation for me and mine than guilty of retaliating for a gov’t fool. If that is wrong, so be it. I’d much rather be wrong (in someones opinion) than killed by an idiot gov’t that knew there would be minimal retaliation because only gov’t has that authority- given/granted deemed right.

  13. DJ

    CM: I didn’t understand the “thought policing” comment, but frankly Libertarian views don’t matter.

    Me: Then why express an opinion?

    In answer to your question about thought policing- introducing “if” in the conversation creates a “might happen” scenario- what “might happen” is thought policing based on what?

  14. DJ

    CM: And time you see something wrong or a complaint, look for a govt law, subsidy, etc that brings the problem about.

    Me: I’m guessing “and” is supposed to be “any”. That said, you’re absolutely right. I’d be willing to bet most laws are based on thought policing- what “might happen if”. In this instance a “law” banning civilians choice to nuclear whatever. Laws are enFORCED based on what?
    And that’s not to say I support a lawLess society as some one will probably try to misconstrue- I’m just saying “giving” authority to gov’t (with no accountability) over civilians is a slippery slope that gets greased daily.

  15. DJ

    dl: So, it is not a question that purely reduces to self-ownership or private defense.

    Me: Purchase makes it possible. Of course the price is prohibitive (improbable), but not impossible. The gov’t purchases so I guess civilians could- a consortium perhaps. But, my point is; shall not be infringed. That is far reaching, simple and eloquent. Gov’t authority is given/granted and too often assumed. Civilians have the right to ‘choose’ which is inherent and cannot be taken, only restricted by a law or force or threat of force or incarceration, most of the time based on “what might happen if”- so all of a sudden there is no more simple, only “far reaching” and convoluted by law makers, enforcers and authoritarians whose desire far exceeds their own ability who have to rely on law and force to enforce their desires with no chance of accountability because- given/granted/assumed authority.

  16. Anthony Dlugos

    “Absolutely LOVE it when NAPsters argue about private nukes…without my prompting!”

    It is comical. A 24-minute interview with two people who seem completely unaware that nearly everything they are talking about makes the party completely unelectable, consequently making their arguments, whatever side they take, the veritable definition of the word moot. Angels Dancing on the Head of a Pin doesn’t begin to describe it.

    Said arguments continues on into this thread.

    Better clear up the argument as to whether or not the party stands for the private ownership of nukes. We wouldn’t want such a debate get in the way of focusing on criminal justice reform. lol

  17. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    DJ (or is that DL?) wrote: introducing “if” in the conversation creates a “might happen” scenario- what “might happen” is thought policing based on what?

    OK, parents. Enough of this “IF” the kid jumps off the roof, it “might happen” they die.

    If you are talking about a rational for state lawmaking, identify “thought policing” as such.

    In the real world, “if… might happen” is useful. IF i don’t gas up the car, it “might happen” I run out of gas in the middle of a 50 mile stretch of desert.

  18. Anon-Tipper

    Finally got to listen to this. I really liked Kokesh and Starchild’s conversation on Vohra; probably the best perspective on the situation. Nice interview overall, thanks for posting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *