Adam Kokesh Discusses Plan to Peacefully Dissolve the Federal Government

24 thoughts on “Adam Kokesh Discusses Plan to Peacefully Dissolve the Federal Government

  1. Great ideas

    I’m not going to watch the video, and the federal government is not just going to allow itself to be peacefully dissolved. Regardless of whether you wish it would or not it just won’t happen.

  2. Anthony Dlugos

    “…the federal government is not just going to allow itself to be peacefully dissolved. Regardless of whether you wish it would or not it just won’t happen.”

    Correct. Those who suggest they can just wave their magic wand and make it happen are typically just interested in self-aggrandizement, selling books, and creating a cottage industry of selling RTE meals and assorted whatnot to easy marks who don’t have a pot to piss in but will spend their last dollar on more bullets, then hashtag “TAXATION IS THEFT” all over social media when they look at their meager bank accounts.

  3. Thane Eichenauer (@ilovegrover)

    A fine update on the latest activities of Adam Kokesh. I spent about 15 minutes out of the 60 minutes watching it. It is certainly more enjoyable than watching the news tell us what Donald Trump tells it about the location of the USS Carl Vinson strike force.

  4. Andy

    Some of you people don’t get it. Is Adam Kokesh likely to get elected President in 2020? No, and NEITHER IS ANYONE ELSE WHO IS NOT THE NOMINEE OF THE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC PARTIES.

    The Libertarian Party could run a celebrity billionaire for President, and we still would not be likely to win the presidential election in 2020.

    Sitting US Senator Rand Paul could switch to Libertarian in 2020, and run for President, with say Andrew Napolitano or John Stossel, or a billionaire as his running mate, and we still would not be likely to win the White House in 2020.

    The Republican and Democratic parties are so entrenched, and the system is so corrupt, and the election game has been so rigged, especially at the higher levels, that NO MINOR PARTY OR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE STANDS A LEGITIMATE CHANCE OF BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT.

    Major changes would have to take place in order to have any realistic chance of changing this. The Libertarian Party does not even “control” one town or county in this county. The Libertarian Party has ZERO people elected to the office of Sheriff. We’ve only got two sitting state legislators, and they are not in the same state, and both were elected as Republicans and switched to Libertarian after being elected. The Libertarian Party has ZERO people elected to the US House and the US Senate.

    The mainstream media is in bed with big government, and is therefore NEVER likely to give Libertarians fair coverage no matter who we nominate. Sure, getting a billionaire or a sitting US Senator or a celebrity as a candidate would probably get us more coverage, but we are still not likely to be treated fairly in the mainstream media as compared to the way they cover the Democratic and Republican party nominees. Just look at the way the mainstream media snubbed Congressman Ron Paul during his presidential runs, and he ran in the Republican primaries twice. Yes, he got mainstream media coverage, but there are numerous examples of them treating him unfairly.

    Libertarians can still get elected to office, but the chances of this happening are FAR MORE LIKELY at the local level. If a Libertarian runs for anything higher than a seat in a state legislature, their odds of being elected drops quite a bit. The higher the office, the less likely chance that a Libertarian has of being elected, and this is especially true at the presidential level, where the odds of anyone being elected who is running as a Libertarian Party candidate are close to zero.

    Given this reality, the purpose of the Libertarian Party’s presidential campaign is NOT to get elected. While it is nice to go through the motions as if you are trying to get elected, without significant changes in this country happening beforehand, anyone who thinks that a Libertarian Party candidate stands a real chance at winning the presidential election is just deluding themselves. So the point of the Libertarian Party running a candidate for President is not so much to win the election, but rather to win over the hearts and minds of as many people as possible to the ideas of liberty. The Libertarian Party’s presidential campaign SHOULD BE viewed as an advertisement and recruiting tool for the Libertarian Party, and the greater libertarian movement.

    Adam Kokesh is running a “push the anarchy button” campaign, much like Darryl W. Perry did for the 2016 Libertarian Party presidential nomination. Adam seems to be coming into the more organized, and probably with better name recognition, than Darryl Perry did.

    I have met Adam Kokesh in person twice, and I hung out with him for a few hours. I think that he is realistic enough to know that barring some kind of miracle, he’s not likely to be sitting inside the White House in 2020. If he were to get elected, could he really shut down the federal government within a four year term? The only way that there’d be a chance of this happening would be if there was a major upheaval in this country, and I doubt that is going to happen.

    Shutting down the federal government and figuring out what to do with all of its assets, and how to pay off all of those who are expecting Social Security checks and federal government pensions, and etc…, is a big undertaking. I will say that Adam is working on coming up with as realistic scenario as possible to accomplish this.

    I don’t really agree with the way that Adam frames the issue of immigration, as he pushes it in a left-libertarian “right to travel”, consequences, market conditions, and property rights be damned manner, BUT, he does understand that in the anarcho-capitalist society that he is trying to create, that property owners would establish their own immigration policies. The only way that I think that so called “open borders” could work without causing disaster, would be in an anarcho-capitalist society, so I appreciate the fact that Adam’s platform is trying to create the anarcho-capitalist model, but, 1) Adam is only talking about shutting down the federal government as President, so there’d still be the state and local governments of which to contend, and 2) this would already be a big undertaking, and I don’t think that it would be made any easier if while you are trying to accomplish all of these things, you lifted all immigration restrictions and millions of people started pouring into the country. Some people here think that I think that the government should restrict immigration, but my actual position is that coercive government should not exist, so given this, I don’t think that the government should control immigration or anything else. So my position is more along the lines of how do we handle the situation right now in our present reality, where government does exist, complete with a welfare state, forced association, and mass democracy. Ideally, I don’t think that the government should handle fire fighting, or roads, or criminal justice, but this does not mean that in our present reality, I don’t think that government fire departments should not put out fires, or that the government should not maintain the roads, or that the government should not prosecute people for legitimate crimes (murder, rape, assault, theft, extortion, fraud, arson, etc…). I do not consider it to be a realistic, or sound, policy proposal to say that the government should lift all immigration restrictions and just allow anyone to waltz into the country, no questions asked, WITHOUT first addressing the other issues I have brought up that make this problematic, such as the welfare state, forced association laws, mass democracy, etc… Adam says that he wants to end all of these things, at least at the federal level (which is all he could do as President), and I agree with him, but I question how realistic this would be to pull off.

    Regardless of any of the merits or demerits as to how realistic it would be to pull of Adam’s platform over a single term as President, or even over two terms as President, the fact remains that NOBODY that the Libertarian Party runs for President is going to stand a legitimate chance of being elected President anyway. So the more important questions here are a) how many minds can Adam Kokesh unlock, and b) how many people can Adam Kokesh get to become active in the cause of liberty?

    2020 is still a long way away, and a lot can happen between now and then. I don’t know who all else is going to declare for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination, and I don’t know if Adam is even going to remain in the race. I will say this though, and that is that Adam has already shown that he can be an effective communicator of the message, as he has already reached a lot of people. Over the last year or so, I have encountered a few people while in the course of gathering Libertarian Party ballot access petition signatures, who, WITHOUT ME PROMPTING THEM, came up to me and started talking about Adam Kokesh. That’s pretty good for somebody is not a mainstream celebrity, and for somebody who is not even an officially nominated candidate.

    I don’t know who I am going to end up supporting for the LP’s presidential nomination in 2020, especially since we don’t know who all is going to run for the nomination, but I will strongly consider supporting Adam Kokesh if he remains in the race.

  5. Andy

    ” to pull of Adam’s platform”

    Should read, “to pull off Adam’s platform…”

  6. Anthony Dlugos

    “Shutting down the federal government and figuring out what to do with all of its assets, and how to pay off all of those who are expecting Social Security checks and federal government pensions, and etc…, is a big undertaking. I will say that Adam is working on coming up with as realistic scenario as possible to accomplish this.”

    oh, thank god. I thought he was just winging it. lol

    He’s a shoo-in for sure now.

  7. Andy

    Anthony, you conveniently ignored the rest of my post. Adam is not a “shoe in” for President, and neither is anyone else who runs for the LP’s presidential nomination in 2020, including any Republican posing as a libertarian who you may end up backing for the 2020 nomination. Winning the White House in 2020 is not the point, since this is so unlikely to happen it is not worth discussing. The point is to win the hearts and minds of as many people as possible to a strong libertarian philosophy, and to get them active in the cause.

  8. Anthony Dlugos

    You’re not going to win hearts and minds by proposing to peacefully dissolve the federal government. To say that message is going to fall on deaf ears is the understatement of the millennia.

  9. Andy

    Anthony, that is your opinion. Adam Kokesh IS ALREADY WINNING OVER THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF SOME PEOPLE.

    Will a better messenger who has a slightly less radical platform emerge for the 2020 LP presidential nomination? I do not know. Stay tuned.

  10. George Phillies

    In the event that politicians of Kokesh’s stripe get adequate control of Congress and the White House, the Federal government could be peacefully dissolved. Mind you, I would urge readers to worry about more likely eventualities, as depicted in “Invasion of the Saucer Men”.

  11. dL

    In the event that politicians of Kokesh’s stripe get adequate control of Congress and the White House, the Federal government could be peacefully dissolved. Mind you, I would urge readers to worry about more likely eventualities, as depicted in “Invasion of the Saucer Men”.

    It would not happen through an act of the legislature or the executive. It would happen via the secession of the larger states like Cali, Texas, NY etc similar to the dissolution of the old USSR. The one difference with the Soviet analogy would be that the USSR dissolution followed on the heels of Gorbachev’s “liberalization”(in the end, the Soviets dissolved rather than crack down) whereas the US dissolution would likely follow on heels of increasingly Trumpist-like authoritarianism.

    Since government is at best a zero sum game, there would be winners and losers in any dissolution. Obvious winners would be those in the US prison system. Obvious losers would be those seniors heavily dependent on SS and medicare.

    “Invasion of the Saucer Men” predates most. Instead, the better warning of dissolution dystopia would something a la “The Hunger Games” built around transnational corporation capture of Nuclear weapons and space militarization tech. Benjamin Tucker circa 1928 had become irreversibly pessimistic RE: the consequences of any sudden dissolution of the federal government. A century of time has made the prospects of that prognosis worse, not better. To me, the two obvious issues to mitigate against the worst possible outcome of government collapse/dissolution are: (1) abolition of nuclear weapons (ii) banning of space militarization.

  12. DJ

    There’s a natural order to consider: When havoc is created, chaos ensues and catastrophe is inevitable.
    But bless his heart he’s speaking up, planting seeds that when nurtured will bear fruit.

  13. Anthony Dlugos

    “Adam Kokesh IS ALREADY WINNING OVER THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF SOME PEOPLE.”

    If he is, kudos for him for doing so. The last I heard, he was making women sign eerie contracts regarding M&M’s and reenactment of Brazzer videos. But, I guess he could be moonlighting as John Locke.

    In any event, regardless of the righteousness of his mission, he’s as qualified to be president as a teetotaler is to be in charge of quality control at a bourbon distillery, and it makes about as much sense.

  14. dL

    In any event, regardless of the righteousness of his mission, he’s as qualified to be president as a teetotaler is to be in charge of quality control at a bourbon distillery, and it makes about as much sense.

    “To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. ”

    Libertarians should wear “not qualified” as a badge of honor…oh, and btw, government is not a business.

  15. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    May 8, 2017 at 19:29
    ‘Adam Kokesh IS ALREADY WINNING OVER THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF SOME PEOPLE.’

    If he is, kudos for him for doing so. The last I heard, he was making women sign eerie contracts regarding M&M’s and reenactment of Brazzer videos. But, I guess he could be moonlighting as John Locke.”

    You must not have heard that Macey has issued an apology to Adam for unfairly trash talking him online,

    Macey apologizes to Adam – The end of an episode

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ARNJMwHM90

    “In any event, regardless of the righteousness of his mission, he’s as qualified to be president as a teetotaler is to be in charge of quality control at a bourbon distillery, and it makes about as much sense.”

    The goal of Libertarians should not be to elect people to office to run big government, but rather to elect people to office to shut it down. Also, as I said above, we realistically have close to zero chance of electing anyone President, regardless of who we run, without other major changes happening in this country first. We aren’t likely to elect anyone President when we have ZERO Libertarian cities/towns or counties, ZERO Libertarians in the US House or US Senate, and only two Libertarians in seats in state legislatures, neither of whom were even elected as Libertarians. So considering that we have so little chance at electing anyone as President, Adam’s experience, or the experience of anyone else whom we may run (even is say US Senator Rand Paul were to run for President on the LP ticket), is not relevant, and even if our ticket did have a realistic chance of winning the White House, we want somebody who is going to adhere to libertarian principles once elected, and while experience in elected office in order to prove oneself beforehand would be nice, it is not the most important criteria.

    I have no experience or fancy credentials, and if I were to somehow get elected President through some miracle, I’d be the best President this country ever had.

  16. Andy

    dL said: “Libertarians should wear ‘not qualified’ as a badge of honor…oh, and btw, government is not a business.”

    I agree with dL here.

  17. Great ideas

    “.I have no experience or fancy credentials, and if I were to somehow get elected President through some miracle, I’d be the best President this country ever had.”

    ROFL! Well at least Andy is humble and realistic. I’m pretty sure that’s what Trump thought too. Instead, he is turning out to be the worst in recent memory, and without doubt will end up as the worst of all time before he is done. But, maybe Andy would be way better than Trump since after all Trump did run a large organization with numerous employees and Andy… hasn’t.

  18. Anthony Dlugos

    “Libertarians should wear “not qualified” as a badge of honor…”

    “I have no experience or fancy credentials, and if I were to somehow get elected President through some miracle, I’d be the best President this country ever had.”

    “Adam Kokesh Discusses Plan to Peacefully Dissolve the Federal Government”

    The reductio ad absurdum of “All you need is NAP! ((All together, now!)”

  19. Andy

    The goal of a libertarian is not to run an ever expanding government, but rather to shut it down, or at least to shrink it as much as possible.

  20. Starchild

    Three quick thoughts…

    (1) It’s important to aim high. We may or may not achieve our goals, but we certainly won’t if we don’t even articulate them or attempt to enact them.

    (2) If I support liberty, it’s counter-productive for me to spend my time online arguing against it. If I find someone else online pushing for more liberty, or bringing it about faster, than I think is wise, instead of getting into it with them and arguing against liberty, I will look for a forum or topic on which I can argue for liberty.

    (3) Non-aggression may be a relatively simple and straightforward concept, but there’s nothing “absurd” about it. It’s the proper, compassionate and sensible basis for public policy.

  21. George Dance

    The old libertarianism:
    “Libertarians want people to be able to live peacefully together in civil society. Cooperation is better than coercion. Peaceful coexistence and voluntary cooperation require an institution to protect us from outside threats, deter or punish criminals, and settle the disputes that will inevitably arise among neighbors — a government, in short.” — David Boaz

    The new “libertarian libertarianism”:
    “The goal of a libertarian is not to run an ever expanding government, but rather to shut it down, or at least to shrink it as much as possible.” — Andy Jacobs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *