I’ve read it several times over and submitted questions to your livestream years ago. As I have said, I used to be a huge supporter. Your willingness to dismiss genuine criticism that it seems you do not understand is truly damaging to your own credibility. I am not attempting to be a full time activist where credibility with the legions of people is necessary to my livelihood, but am simply someone that cares about voluntaryist principle. My perceived “credibility” with others is not my main focus, nor should anyone’s be, but delivering the real message of voluntaryism.

Myself and others who understand that the electoral process (instrinisically violent by very nature) is not a legitimate means by which to assume ownership and power, regardless of how majestic and well-intentioned the master plan, have some real concerns. You yourself have called the majority selecting a leader via the US electoral process a “scam.” There’s that. Second, your plan will then centrally determine how resources are to be divvied up, and prohibit homesteading by those individuals with most direct demonstrable links to the land via the national parks program you have proposed (as the personally selected non-profits who gain ownership must keep the lands “open to the public").

To say that the only choice is either a plan which violates ISO or statism is a false dichotomy. The innovative community of anarchists here on Steemit already bringing about a more free world through direct, principled action and innovation know this.

I have submitted 3 debate resolutions. I have read your platform multiple times. Why not address the concerns of individuals like Larken, myself, and others in a formal setting, instead of redirecting us to a yet vaguely defined “platform.”

I would be much more interested in what you are doing if you did not call it a voluntaryist plan or at least addressed these concerns in detail.