I thought part of this exchange was worthy of its own post
as it very clearly demonstrates some of the most common strains of lazy, emotion-driven, utilitarian thought that are incessantly trying to creep into the pure and simple voluntaryist/anarchist philosophy of individual self-ownership.
Here’s a small section of 
Luke’s comment:
So you won't support a plan to transition from one state of violence to a state of less violence if even "one person" is "harmed" from your perspective (even if many millions would be harmed less)?
My response:
False dichotomy. One, the “plan” violates libertarian property ethic. I’m a voluntaryist and don’t view majority vote or political mandate as granting any kind of authority or ownership.
Two, the “lesser evil/greater good” argument can be disposed of easily. The state of lesser harm you reference is not only presented as a false binary (why do we need a plan that by design harms people at all? The abolitionists should have voted for “some slavery”?) but is also illogical as the goods you are trying to measure are incommensurable.
Imagine a one-on-one situation of pushing an old lady to get to the checkout counter faster at the grocery store.
It may help you. It may not even damage her. It’s still wrong. Just adding more numbers of people to, and collectivizing the scenario changes nothing. Even if 5,000 people could theoretically benefit from the old lady being knocked down, the plan is still an unethical one.
Trying to magically quantify incommensurable goods such as people’s well being, happiness, and how much their property matters in comparison to that of “the masses” is a purely personal and subjective practice, and one that is decidedly not voluntaryist/libertarian in nature.
Check out this great article from Reason: The Myth of the Greater Good
I also wanted to include one more of Luke’s criticisms, as many Kokesh fans have been leveling it at me:
It's easy to criticize others but much, much more difficult to actually bring solutions to the table.
My response:
Bro, again. Just because someone says beating your kids with a crowbar to make them behave is wrong, and doesn’t bring another “solution to the table,” that doesn’t make beating your kids with a crowbar right. Get it?
Besides, myself and others have lots of ideas. Not that I owe you one (I pointed out the irrelevancy of that strange claim earlier), but hey, I’m feeling generous.
Last US election around 43% - 45% percent of individuals didn’t even vote. This means that technically, if we were going by majority input here, nobody won.
Voluntaryists all over are already building systems in practically every field imaginable which are making the state more and more irrelevant. Individuals are getting direct help and support, financial, spiritual, and otherwise right here on Steemit thanks to blockchain tech, cryptocurrencies and instant, private encrypted communication, etc.
Why attempt to magically change an intrinsically corrupt institution (the state) via an instrinsically immoral process (a force-based electoral process), when these solutions and innovations in non-compliance are already being created?
First, it is a totally unrealistic plan which will divert massive resources away from individual Voluntaryists (would the mafia let a vocal opponent of organized crime assume a seat of high power and “dissolve them???). Why should anarchists donate to what is, secondly, an immoral plan.
Let’s build our own systems, individually, based on individual networking, innovation, and non-compliance, and make the state less and less relevant. Conflicts and bloodshed, god forbid, may indeed come, as the state will fight these things. Welcome to being a voluntaryist. It’s not for the weak of stomach.
This is better than a deluded waste of resources on a pie-in-the-sky plan to “change Mordor from the inside.”
There, I presented a solution. It doesn’t matter though, because even if I hadn’t, it’s still wrong to violate people and is a blatant false dichotomy to say that we must choose either between a plan which, by design, contains lots of violence, or a plan which, by design, contains only a “pragmatic amount” of violence.
Summary:
I started off in critiquing Kokesh’s plan through honest questions about ideas. Now, I am starting to somewhat not care about being very civil. His supporters, including Luke, and himself, tend to immediately make things personal, and not address ideas, regardless of all the hot air they spew about logic, epistemology, and NVC.
Well, guys. When you’re ready to drop the passive aggressive, personal insult stuff and talk property and ideas, I’ll be here. Until then, FREEEEDDDOOOMMMM!!!!!!
I’d encourage all interested parties to read the entire, quite lengthy exchange in full, in the comments section of this post. I’ve officially removed my witness vote for 
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DTube and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)