Yes, he is. He has already claimed directly:
I would...have no authority whatsoever, EXCEPT in the, you know, DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROPERTY...
~ Adam Kokesh at the 12:25 mark of THIS VIDEO. (emphasis mine)
There are other direct quotes as well. He will have authority, but whence derived?
The glaring problem is, for voluntaryists, authority cannot be acquired via federal “majority consensus.”
This not only is not a voluntaryist position, it also perpetuates the statist myth: If we just get the right guy to use the immoral system, we can make things right. This is why we Voluntaryist base everything on ISO, the market, and property rights, and not arbitrary assignments of power.
So, again: By what means would Adam acquire authority to determine centrally which resources go where (as per his platform)?
I Agree with you. Here is the paradigm as in illegitimate operation but in operation none the less. This territory has been conquered by force of arms. The current illegitimate ruler defends its sovereignty by force of arms but also respects the rules it set up for itself. Congress is the current ruler however their own rules allows for and demands change only be made by congress. Therefore participation in this illegitimate system is required to dismantle it and make it all voluntary. Currently no one can disobey without criminal charges.... only congress can change the way it is without incurring criminal charges as illogical as they are.
Adam, it seems, isn’t content for congress to change things and will usurp its power by executive order. No less illegitimate than congess itself but may work. It’s worth a shot.
Ends do not justify means, and violence is not required to end violence. Violating the ISO of peaceful individuals, and assigning arbitrary, non-private property based power to as "leader" is not worth a shot in the eyes of Voluntaryist principle.
He should, for the sake of accuracy, drop the title.
So how do we create a voluntary society given the fact that everyone is being indoctrinated with the belief that the current US System is not only Moral and Legitimate, it is the culmination of fixing history’s mistakes..... ???
The answer to that question, is in the question. Spread the message of reality to undo the indoctrination. This only ends as more and more individuals wake up to the nature of the religion they have bought into. The approach Adam is taking is not only morally illegitimate, but reinforces the false notion that change only comes through submission to violence-based political mechanisms such as Federal elections.
Live free. Spread the message. Yes, there is a risk. Some of us, god forbid, may end up in jail or dead. I hope not. But participation in the political circus will not protect anyone from this violence, or mitigate that risk, anymore than covering oneself with paper can stop an attacking lion.
That’s the morality you’ve chosen. Neither Participation or Open Acrive Rebellion are moral or legitimate. I have to say that you’re consistent. It wasn’t long ago that I believed the Right of Conquest was a legitimate way to claim a country and by that virtue insure the title to my home and limited protections from squatters - so creating what we want... using the current systems own rules to do so isn’t so alien to my mind.
Not at all. That's the reality of life itself. Individual self-ownership is a biological and metaphysical reality. It is the basis for any and all Voluntaryist conceptions of property.
Thank you.
There was a once a time when involuntary servitude resulting from breach of contract combined with an inability to make the victim of the breach whole was a moral and legitimate reality . Where do you stand on that aspect of what I’ve heard called true libertarianism? Also for crimes of theft as well.
If an individual signs such contract voluntarily, it would be binding. That thing is, no sane individual would sign such a contract unless under duress/threat of violence, in which case the contract would not have been voluntarily agreed to. It’s a self-nullifying argument/problem in a sense.
Could you point me to an example of any individual signing said type of contract, who was not under duress, violation, or threat thereof.
Secondly, this is the state we find ourselves in now, in the current paradigm. It is a problem of the state and initiation of force, and not Voluntaryism.
EDIT: I’d also add that while one can sign away the rights to property (an extension of ISO), one can never really sign away their own self-ownership, as it is a natural reality which cannot be transferred. Contracts are legitimate when two or more self-owners are party to them voluntarily. Once self-ownership is signed away, the contract becomes illegitmate, as there would only be one self-owner party to the contract if the condition you reference were executed, thus resulting in a contract agreed to by only one self-owner (i.e. it would not be a “contract” anymore at all, but a tyrannical command on paper).
The answer is right there in the question. It’s not a voluntaryist position.