He is going to personally oversee every department of the Federal gov as “custodian” (i.e. President) until it is “dissolved” (would take years) and allocate funds to businesses and groups of his persoanl choice, not based on principles property or the free market. No. Definitely no problems there...
Couldn’t make this shit up...
Well, assuming that he did become "not-president" and liquidated DOD assets. I'm hoping he wouldn't have done so by selling these armaments and tanks to other countries. Say it's 2020 and you get a phone call from America. The caller ID says it's the not-president of the united states.
Smith: Hello
Kokesh: Is Graham there?
Smith: Tis me Mr. not President.
Kokesh: I've been thinking about that post you made a couple years back and i'd really like your feedback on how I should disperse these funds in the right way, can you help with some ideas?
Smith: ...
My answer would be:
One, this a dream because the state would
never let you win the election and two, statist titles don’t grant “extra property rights” so you should probably stop trying to be the “great man” and go home bro.
I agree with you that his odds or chances of winning seem very slim, all things considered. Let me try answering my own question since you either won't or can't. It's all DOD property and the DOD is abolished. All of the money/propety was funded by the taxpayers who are"persons" and various other corporations. What about retroactive full tax returns where the difference of what was not returned goes back to the person or entity who paid it. They can use the records of the abolished agency to go back as far as it takes to get it all disbursed. How's that sound, better?
You are missing the point. And there’s that pseudo-intelligentsia bs again: you either won’t or can’t. Ha.
How about this. I’ll answer your question, if you first answer mine. Can a Voluntaryist gain legitimate ownership (exclusive use/control in view of the libertarian property norm) of property via Federal majority election?
Yes or no?
Well, it's highly questionable for a voluntaryist to be participating in an election in the first place. This because, taxation is theft, conscription is slavery, and war is mass murder. All of these things are inherently against voluntaryist and libertarian principles. Yet, he's claiming to act as a voluntaryist when/if he gets into the office.
So the promise is made that he won't be using force. If given the benefit of the doubt in this scenario the property would be derived from the DOD. So if the not-commander and not chief brings all of the armed forces home and tells them to seek employment elsewhere. Then who would be left to complain about the DOD property being liquidated?
If a voluntaryist finds a 100-dollar-bill floating around outside like a leaf on the wind can s/he gain legitimate ownership over it? I think it might depend upon whether or not there is a counterclaim. In my opinion the most legitimate counterclaim for the proceeds of the liquidated DOD property would come from the taxpayers. This is why my proposal was to return the value to those who initially sent it.
I'm not sure if that answers your question, but I did give it an earnest attempt. Also, I don't know what pseudo-intelligentsia means or why when I used the words "either won’t or can’t" upset you. I chose those words to be as accurate as I could because I did not know which one it was specifically.
One thing that gives me serious pause, is how does a not-president expect to get paid if s/he won't accept stolen (taxpayer) money for payment. I'm not sure if he addressed whether or not he'll be accepting remuneration for his service and or who will be footing the bill.
I agree that the whole thing is questionable, of course. And thanks for the effort. This question is an easy yes or no, though, and I’m finding it surprising that you do not know how to answer it.
Do you know the means by which libertarians can acquire proper legitimately?
This might help:
https://mises.org/library/what-libertarianism
The correct answer to the question is “No,” by the way.
So if he did liquidate the DOD whose property rights do you reckon are being violated? If there's no victim I don't see how the issue of legitimacy comes into play. That's like if you took that 100-dollar-bill went to spend it and the store owner starts to talk to you about whether or not you have legitimate ownership over the money in your possession.
Point being, if there is not a party that would claim the liquidated DOD property was stolen, what does the legitimacy of it's acquisition matter? The funds came from the collective of the people, so even if he illegitimately acquires the property and returns it to the people that's okay in my book. I personally like my idea of what to do with the funds better than his.
It's like if you found a wallet on the ground and you picked it up and looked at the license drove to the mans home and returned it to him. If it were your wallet and I did that. Would you say, you didn't have permission to acquire my property? Na, you'd be like thanks dude.