I'm not sure what you want from me. When you say "those" and you talk about "slimy politicians" I see a focus on people. I prefer a different approach. I'm not saying you don't also focus on principles and if that's what you're hearing than please allow me to clarify: **I know you care very deeply about voluntaryism and self-ownership principles.**

AND I don't prefer the way you focus on individuals (from my perspective), writing whole posts about them (as you did about me). We have different approaches and preferences. Let's leave it at that.

You're calling out individuals while saying it's not about individuals? That's confusing to me.

My diverse perspectives comment referred to the different perspectives Graham and I have about calling people out and trying to control labels. To me, it comes across like a form of identity politics. Others may not see it that way, but that's how I perceive it.

I'm fine with saying we have different approaches. What I see as calling someone out (or even attacking them), you see as a principled action about protecting a larger ideal and not about the individual at all. Okay, we have different approaches and preferences there. I'm fine with leaving it at that.

>what we are fighting for is worth way more than you, me, Larken and everyone involved combined

Sounds like something ben farmer would say...

You call out Adam as not being a voluntaryist due to a litany of violations of self-ownership & the NAP, like:
* Claiming that political power is valid, that voting can instill power
* Threatening people (generally quite vaguely from what I've seen from Graham)
* Attempting to hire someone to violate someone else (allegedly, all the communications I've seen from Graham show Ben Farmer as the one doing this. I'm not saying it didn't come from Adam to Ben, but I haven't specifically seen that so far)

Literally in the same comment, you say that I am not a voluntaryist, not separating either of us through the rest of your post, or in any way explaining that your statement about me is simply because we hold different beliefs on the idea of land ownership, and not because of any actions, threats, or other violations that I committed (because I haven't). You don't offer a single time that I've been inconsistent with anarchist/voluntaryist principles:
* Self ownership
* Non-Aggression
* Voluntary interaction

I don't believe in the holy water, but wouldn't spit in it... I don't believe in the metaphysical properties of dreadlocks, but I wouldn't cut someone's off... I don't believe in race, but I wouldn't tell someone they can't identify as _____... I don't believe in land ownership, but I wouldn't commit violence against you (or even talk shit about you) because you do.

You already know all of this, because we had LONG conversations about it, and by talking about me as though I *"writes that they are for individual liberty and self ownership but prove otherwise"* (especially in the same thought as someone who is actually being accused of violating the NAP), is at best dishonest.

You don't believe in private property, Kenny.  Sorry, you're no friend of mine or individual liberty.