Funding inexcusable evil

Hiding “good” ways to spend stolen money in a giant government budget bill doesn’t make you the good guy. Doing the same in a smaller government funding bill isn't any better. Vivek Ramaswami demonstrated you could continue to fund the feral government with a one-page bill. If you were crooked (or dumb) enough to want to do such a thing. There's no good argument for doing so.

First, you can’t do good things through bad methods like taxation or government. The inherent bad cancels out any intended good.

Second, sneaking something like funding for childhood cancer research into a huge spending increase bill just means you’re using kids as hostages or human shields. That makes you a monster who is trying to hide behind sick kids. 

It's not a good reason to continue funding government for even one more day.

Shut it down. Shut it all down.

Government “shutdown”? Make it real and permanent and don’t look back.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate any support.

They aren't statists because of their powerful intellect

It's interesting to me that statists can't seem to understand the simplest concepts. Or won't.

If you say the government of India has no right to block the internet, and that using the excuse of "drugs" and "terrorists" doesn't change anything, some lovely statist will tell you that you're "woke" for believing terrorists have rights. 

If you make clear that only someone who is w0ke would believe rights are given, or can be taken away or lost, and that anyone who violates the life, liberty, or property of another is the bad guy, "even if" they call themselves a government, they'll say you blame the victims of 9/11 for their own deaths.

They have nothing but straw men and mindreading. That's what serves their purpose best. Not rational thought or ethics; just Cathy Newmanesque "so what you're saying is..." nonsense.

Yes, I'm used to it, but it still amazes me that they try this hard to avoid understanding or thinking.

(illustration by Grok- me as a Star Wars character. With, apparently, a donut snake.)

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate any support.

Why did his mind go there?

I saw a video where two women were in public, along a street, shooting "at" each other. More like spraying bullets kinda, sorta, possibly in the general direction of the other woman. The shooter recording the video would say a phrase, then repeat it multiple times before moving on to another phrase and getting stuck in another verbal loop. The stupidity on display was ridiculous.

Someone asked, "Why is there an incessant need for them to repeat things OVER and OVER?"

My response was "When you have a vocabulary of only a few dozen words you run through the list pretty quickly and have to start repeating them."

This comment got me labeled a racist and a bigot. It caused at least two commenters to believe they could read my mind and know what I was thinking but didn't express.

One person said, "Why do you have to be racist just say the s**t is stupid and move on your f***ing inbred".

Me: "Has nothing to do with 'race' and everything to do with someone stupid enough to spray bullets indiscriminately. Why did your mind immediately go to 'race'? That’s weird."

Him: "Don’t act slow dips**t you know exactly what you ment [sic] when you said that KENT"

Me: "I said nothing about 'race' nor did it ever cross my mind. Look at everything I post on here and find anything that would disprove that. Do you think smart people spray bullets randomly in public? Really? Would you?
https://kentmcmanigal.blogspot.com/p/kentforliberty_24.html"

He declined to comment further, as far as I can tell.

And, no. I wasn't saying anything about the "race" of the woman making the video. But I am saying something about her intelligence: it was apparently incredibly low. 

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate any support.

"Notable", according to Grok

I asked Grok to describe me. This is what it said:

Kent McManigal is a notable figure known primarily for his advocacy of libertarianism, specifically anarcho-capitalist or voluntaryist principles. Here are some key points about him:

• Libertarian Activism: McManigal describes himself as an anarchist, a Voluntaryist, and an abolitionist, focusing on spreading the ideology of radical libertarianism. He emphasizes the importance of individual freedom without the interference of government or coercive laws. His views advocate for a society based on voluntary interactions rather than state enforcement.
• Writing and Blogging: He maintains a blog titled "Kent's Hooligan Libertarian Website," where he regularly posts content discussing liberty, independence from government control, and critiques of political systems. His writing often touches on the concept of liberty from a post-political perspective, suggesting that politics itself is a form of organized coercion.
• Publications: McManigal has authored works like "Kent's Liberty Primer," which serves as an introduction to libertarian anarchism. This book delves into concepts like the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP), negative and positive rights, and critiques of governmental systems, providing insights into how one can live a life of liberty in a world often dominated by state control.
• Public Presence: He has been active in sharing his views through various platforms beyond blogging, including columns in local newspapers like "The Eastern New Mexico News," where he discusses political topics from a libertarian viewpoint. He also engages with audiences on social media, particularly YouTube, focusing on liberty, independence, and nature.
• Personal Philosophy: His philosophy includes a strong disdain for politics, viewing it as manipulative and coercive. He advocates for individuals to take personal responsibility for their lives, promoting a culture of non-aggression and voluntary cooperation rather than reliance on or submission to political structures.

Kent McManigal's work is aimed at encouraging individuals to think critically about liberty and government, advocating for a world where personal freedoms are paramount and state intervention is minimal or nonexistent.

--

I asked Perplexity the same question and it gave me this answer:

Kent McManigal is a freelance writer known for his work on liberty, libertarian, and anarchist issues. He shares his thoughts primarily through his blog, KentForLiberty. McManigal describes himself as an explorer and creator of innovative solutions, and he is the creator of the Time’s Up flag. He prefers not to be labeled as a political writer, as he finds it hurtful when his work is described as such.

--

Of course, Grok warns, "Grok can make mistakes. Verify its outputs." So, what do you think? Did Grok do a good job? Did Perplexity?

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate any support.

Daylight "Saving" Time is a lie

Trump says he wants to abolish Daylight "Saving" Time. Hopefully, he isn't like most people; confused about which is which. Standard Time is the one in effect now; DST is the other setting where everything starts an hour early and pretends it doesn't.

Even a Google search result that relies on AI got it wrong, saying something about "the transition to autumn DST". Yes, it was focusing on "Autumn DST" [sic] to argue there is no increased mortality due to that particular clock change. No, the autumn transition is to Standard Time. That's the one that doesn't have increased mortality. DST is the one that kills people.

Daylight "Saving" Time, and every argument in favor of it, is based on lies.

Supposedly, farmers needed that imaginary "extra hour" of daylight. That was a lie. Farmers never started work by the clock anyway; they go by the sun and weather. Your clock settings are irrelevant to their workday.

People say they want more sunlight after work/school. I suggest they just wake up earlier, and petition their job to open earlier in the summer and they say they can't. But that's EXACTLY what's happening anyway. Businesses are opening and closing earlier, it's just that self-centered people demand everyone mis-set their clocks to hide the fact. That doesn't change it. It's a lie.

Plus, DST is the summer setting, when most govschools are closed anyway. Another lie.

When anyone argues in favor of Daylight "Saving" Time, I'm always reminded of the old joke about the old Native man observing that only the paleface are stupid enough to try to make a blanket longer by cutting a foot off the top and sewing it to the bottom.

It may have been a joke, but it's still true.

It takes me a month or more to adjust to DST (if I ever truly do), but a day or less to adjust to Standard Time. I'm not a morning person, and every person I've ever seen who insists on forcing everyone to pretend businesses aren't just opening and closing an hour early, but that "time changed", is a morning person.

I hate DST. I've always hated it. I hated it when I was a kid in school. I hated it when I had a normal job. If there wasn't much daylight left after I got home, I didn't demand everyone else change their clocks to suit me. I just lived with it. In the summer, there was plenty of daylight left (here, it doesn't get dark in the summer until nearly 10pm during part of Government Wrong Time). In the winter, it's just winter. The sun goes down earlier regardless. Mis-setting your clocks won't fix that.

Set your clocks however you want. Just don't coerce others to adopt your setting. 

DST affects me more than most people because I live on the western edge of the Central Time zone where solar noon is already an hour late most of the time. I can live with that because there's a reasonable argument for time zones. There is no such argument in favor of DST. During DST, my clocks are wrong by up to 2 hours. 

Daylight isn't being "saved" by mis-setting clocks for most of the year. It's all lies.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate any support.

Penny jury made the right decision

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 15, 2024)

The Daniel Penny trial had me worried. I don't trust juries to do the right thing anymore; too often they simply rubber-stamp whatever the state-- meaning any political government-- wants. Most jurors seem to believe, "If the defendant isn't guilty, why is he on trial?"...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate your support.

Bad judgment used to enforce bad rules

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 10, 2024)

Recently, online society was outraged over the unnecessary death of a pet squirrel and raccoon. Intelligent people were angry over the absurdity of "saving" animals by killing them. Others said the uproar showed how far society had fallen-- why would anyone care about a squirrel?

It's not about the squirrel and raccoon. It's about those who would steal happy, healthy pets and kill them because an arbitrary rule had been broken. It's about those who will do anything they are told to do, no matter how obviously wrong it is, because they follow orders.

It's about the poor judgment of every government employee involved, and about the poor character of the person who ratted them out to the state.

Think about how many people had to sign off on this raid. A judge had to have such terrible judgment he thought this was a good idea. Everyone involved in the raid had to ignore human decency. Did none of those involved, from the judge to the person who killed the pets, say, "Hold on- no one is being harmed here, and it would be wrong to do this"? They've all shown bad character, poor judgment, and a willingness to commit evil to keep the paychecks coming.

This is why governing others, which no one has a right to do, is unethical.

Everyone involved in this enforcement travesty should be fired immediately. They should never be hired by anyone, ever again, for the rest of their life. I wouldn't sell them a crust of bread, a drop of fuel, a spark of electricity, or a box to live in. If they starve to death, cold and wet under a bridge, I wouldn't lift a finger.

Government employees who will invade a home to steal and kill happy, healthy pets will participate in mass arrests and send you to a concentration camp if so ordered. They'll pull the trigger if you refuse to comply. Especially if those giving the orders say it's for "public safety" or say you're "illegal".

Legislation like that used to kill these beloved pets may be based on good intentions. People make bad decisions-- not limited to those who take government jobs. Animals can carry disease. They can bite and scratch. This doesn't justify tyrannical rules. It doesn't excuse the abysmal judgment shown in enforcing bad rules.

It's not about the squirrel. It's about society, responsibility, and judgment. There must be harsh consequences for behavior this evil.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Alien Invasion 2024

With all the unidentified objects reportedly flying around in American skies, I'm getting definite 1947 vibes. 

Now, we just need a new Roswell incident.

This time, we know without a doubt the craft are piloted by hostile aliens-- US government employees or contractors.

They are hostile to liberty and are alien to everything I value, even if they didn't come from another planet or the center of the Earth.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate any support.

Aggressive gangs need not apply

One thing that distinguishes me from most people is that I don’t need to be surrounded by aggressive gang members to feel safe. 

I also don’t imagine that any of those gangs are “my team”.

Cops are not my guys; no more than the actual (and pretend) criminals they are supposed to protect me from. 

The military is not my team; no more than the foreign aggressors they pretend to fight "on my behalf" are.

It doesn't improve my quality of life to be robbed to fund these gangs and their skirmishes.
It certainly doesn't make me safer to get caught in the crossfire between these various gangs. Quite the opposite. 

I’m better off without the “protection” provided by aggressive, theft-funded gangs. 

I feel sorry for those who imagine they aren’t. In fact, it's a mindset I can't relate to at all, even though I've tried.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate any support.

Reminder that the Right isn't right either

The Right-- call them "conservatives" or Republicans-- are just as wrong as their opposition but on different issues.

They are wrong about police, "borders", the military, and many paternalistic things.

Cops are not the good guys, and they need to be abolished. No, this doesn't mean (other) criminals should be allowed to run rampant- just that cops are not the answer.

"Borders" are a violation of property rights. Closing them works both ways and I don't advocate caging Americans to "protect" us from foreigners or drugs. Government programs to import foreigners, handout programs, and other such things to artificially encourage people to come here are big problems and need to end, but closing "borders" isn't the answer.

The military doesn't protect your freedom or keep you safe. It puts you in danger and empowers the state. And, it sucks up your money and uses it against you.

Taxation is wrong, no matter what you use the stolen money for. It's not only wrong to spend it to import foreigners; it's also wrong to spend it on "border" control, police, or a military.

Prohibition "for your own good" is wrong. 

Censorship is wrong. 

Anti-gun "laws" are all completely wrong, in every instance. The Right simply can NOT be trusted on guns, either. They are usually less awful than the others, but seem to always be looking for some excuse to make up or enforce rules against guns and gun owners.

The Constitution isn't the savior of liberty that the Right seems to believe it is. It established a state, and that's either an unforgivable mistake or an intentional plot.

Opinions about morality are fine. Government making up or enforcing legislation to impose someone's version of morality on those who don't share it is wrong. Making things illegal only makes everything worse.

None of this means the Left is any more correct-- they aren't. They are just wrong in different ways on different issues.

-

Thank you for reading.
Also, I always appreciate any support.

Don't discourage the next guy from doing the right thing

I don't know if I would like Daniel Penny, him being an ex-Marine and all, but I'm convinced he did the right thing when he subdued the mentally ill guy who was acting in a threatening manner on the subway. 

It's an injustice that he was ever put through a trial, but I'm glad he wasn't convicted. I was afraid the jury would do that thing where they hate to let an innocent person go completely free, so they convict him on some nonsense "lesser charge".

Heroism isn't a behavior anyone should be discouraging. 

It doesn't matter what your "race" is, or whether you are closely related to the mentally ill person. This benefits YOU, too. Why act like you want aggressors running rampant, victimizing whoever they feel like? You don't want that unless you want more cops, because more cops would result, and this would just cause more problems for everyone.

Society shouldn't allow government to punish (or even arrest and try) those who step up and protect their fellow humans from those posing a credible threat. Even if the aggressor dies in the process or soon after.

Stop acting like you identify with the bad guy rather than those standing between the innocent and the bad guys unless you want the rest of us to assume you are a bad guy, too.

If you are a piece of garbage who is calling for "vigilantes" (anti-vigilantes; criminals running around committing archation, if we're being honest) to go after "white" people who aren't committing any crimes, just because of their "race", don't be surprised when this doesn't work the way you imagine. I mean, seriously!

-

Thank you for reading.
I always appreciate any support.

Everything within the State; nothing outside the State

Going back to a recent post, I find it fascinatingly disturbing that people who believe in the state believe there is no alternative between "I hate poor people and want them all to die" and "Taking people's money without their consent is wrong". It must be either/or to them.

If you insist that taxation is unethical (call it theft, extortion, or whatever) their interpretation is that you hate poor people and you want them to die. No state intervention = Death! Really?

To them, those are the only possible choices. I think that says a lot about them, as human beings-- and it's not good.

In response to one of these people, after being called every horrible name in the communist book, I said "If you make a cooperative medical expenses pool, and call it whatever you want, I think that's great. But you have to allow people who don't want to participate to opt out."

The reply? "Oh yeah I'm not against that", and that was the end of that. I guess the wind was out of their sails.

Is that really such a difficult thing for statists to think of? It's like the options have been programmed out of their brains. To them, if The State isn't the one doing it, no one is doing it. 

I know this is what govschooling would like to indoctrinate into kids, but is it so hard to realize that's a false narrative once you're outside that toxic influence? Apparently.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

Real crimes need individual victims

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 8, 2024)

President Biden was right to pardon his son, Hunter, after his conviction on gun and drug charges. Where President Biden went wrong was when he then failed to pardon everyone else who has been convicted on similar charges. People are sitting in prison today for the same acts. All such charges are bogus, regardless of who is facing them...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

One will win presidency, we all will lose

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 3, 2024)

Strange things are going on. I see smart people-- who seem truthful-- saying the presidential candidate they prefer has this election in the bag. They give evidence to back their observations. While I have no way to be sure, their evidence looks credible. Yet, they don't agree with each other but are taking opposite positions.

It's obvious that both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris will win in a landslide.

Since there's no possibility my preferred election outcome will prevail, I'm in a unique position to see the craziness washing over the land. I've watched this happen most of my adult life.

I would say one side will be sorely disappointed at how the election turns out once all the votes are tabulated a month or two from now, but I doubt this will be the case. Anger is more likely than disappointment. The national media corporations will have already declared a winner, and gone are the days when "Dewey Defeats Truman" will be recanted.

One side will say the election was rigged-- and they'll be right. Was it rigged enough to affect the end result? I don't know. I do think election rigging will make the final tally closer to 50/50 than it would otherwise be.

Elections are too big not to rig. They've been elevated to ridiculous importance. The payoff is too high to not try to rig them. Government has too much power to just let things happen naturally, and presidents are the human face of government power. Plus, the risk of getting caught and being punished, or having the election thrown out, is so low as to not be a concern.

Whichever side you find yourself on, don't freak out. You are still the only one with a right to govern you. All others are usurpers.

Personally, I think government will keep doing the evil it does, regardless of who holds the office of President. You can call this "The Deep State" or simply the bureaucracy. No matter who holds the office, you are still threatened into getting licenses and permission to do things you have a natural human right to do. You still have to pay government a yearly ransom to keep from having your property violently ripped from your possession. Government continues to grow in power and meddlesomeness.

Elections have little chance of changing this for the better, and that's the only outcome I would care about.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

It's the end of 2024 and "taxation" is still unethical

You can't do good through evil means.

So many seem unclear on this truth.

These people are statists, and I'm talking to them.

People are suffering and dying and in need of medical care. Yes, it's a tragedy. You can't fix that by stealing from others with "taxes". No matter how many nasty names you call those who point this out, this fact remains unchanged.

Theft is wrong. It doesn't change things if you call it "taxation" and say people will die without it.

If anything is that essential, find a solution that doesn't require harming others. If you spend all your time and effort trying to justify "taxation" you're a huge part of the problem. You could be making a positive difference, yet you choose to justify theft instead? You're blocking actual solutions because you are too attached to your ability to steal to fund things you want. That's gross.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

"Disgraced"?

People like to call certain politicians "disgraced". It's often funny, but is it true?

Not really. Not unless you're giving politicians more credit than they are due.

Politicians and ex-politicians can’t be disgraced because they never had any grace to lose.

(Illustration by Grok)

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

Dangerous cowards

I think cowardice is behind a lot of statism. Cowards are not harmless-- they can get you killed. Cowards are exceptionally dangerous.

Fear makes them overreact, and often makes them beg for bullies-- like government-- to save them from their multitude of fears. And since it isn't possible to save anyone from their own fear, there's no end to it. Ever.

They'll cheer your death if they are afraid of you and your liberty.

Never trust a coward.

Once you realize someone is a coward, get away from them as fast as possible. You're not in a good situation. And be prepared to defend yourself from them if they corner you.

(Image generated by Grok)

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

"Expanding gun rights"?

In many online comments, you'll see anti-gun bigots whine that the Supreme Courtjesters have recently been "expanding gun rights".

This is simply a lie. These people expose their ignorance about what rights are.

Getting the criminal government out of the illegal business of rationing and controlling guns and gun owners is not “expanding gun rights”, it’s respecting rights that have been routinely violated.

The Supremes won't even go all the way into forcing government back into the box it is required to stay in. If they did, they'd rule that every gun "law", from top to bottom, is immediately null and void. You could go online today and order a full-auto AK-47 direct from Russia, to be delivered to your house.

If the Court decided that you were allowed to shoot anyone who annoyed you, that would be illegitimately "expanding" gun rights-- you can't have a right to violate others' life, liberty, or property. Anti-gun bigots who generally believe in this kind of imaginary "right" would really shriek if "gun rights" got expanded the same way they want other "rights" dreamed up and expanded. 

But, telling government it has no "authority" to stand in your way of owning and carrying any sort of weapon you choose, openly or concealed, everywhere you go, without asking government permission, doesn't "expand" anything. It just limits the violations that have been occurring for at least the past 90 years,

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

Don't be a tool

Some of the worst tools of authoritarianism are people who asked and paid the state for a license or a permit to do something they already have a natural human right to do. 

Some of these people don’t want to see others living their liberty.

Whenever someone turns a fellow human in to the enforcers, it's usually one of these people.

I would never do this to someone. I'm completely supportive of anyone doing something they have a right to do without having jumped through the "legal" hoops. Even if they are doing something I got a license to do. Any license I've ever had made me feel bad about myself. It makes me feel good to see people who skipped the license.

How about you?

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

Why AI will be limited

Grok, the AI from X, can now read and summarize bills so political criminals can't hide what's in them. They can't claim "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" anymore.

Musk says they are also adding all court cases to Grok's training set so that it can render verdicts.

Do the Constitution next.

Program an AI with the text of the US Constitution and, as long as no one puts a finger on the scales to tip it in favor of government power, it would expose the criminality of 99.999% of the federal government. (The rest is also unethical, but that's the fatal flaw of the Constitution.) It could bring down the State-- which it will not be allowed to do. 

Either AI will never be trained on the text, history, and tradition of the Constitution, or someone will have to put a lot of fingers on the scales to make sure that AI can't understand what was written there. 

AI will be used against you, but not against the State. Unless you do that part yourself.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

Politics just justification for stealing

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 1, 2024)

Once again, I've been told, by someone who is very serious, that every human interaction is inherently political. Few approaches to life are more tragic than this one. If you believe every interaction between people involves a political element, you're doing it wrong.

Politics is cheating. It's what you resort to when you can't persuade others to cooperate. It's the method of the mugger, not the person offering products or services. It's the use of force, coercion, aggression, threats, and lies instead of good arguments, consent, and mutual benefit. It's the choice of the freelance criminal and politician rather than the good neighbor...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Election season scary time of year

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 27, 2024)

We're entering the magical time of year. For the next few months, living in a fantasy is socially acceptable.

The strangest season is when monsters lurk in every shadow, free handouts are available for the asking, and everyone gets to pretend to be something they're not. Yes, it's election season.

It would be nice if people got only the politicians they voted for. Those who refrain from the ritual wouldn't get saddled with a politician at all. This change might reduce the number of voters to a reasonable level; something government wouldn't want to let happen. They need you to go along with the charade. It usually keeps the peasants from revolting.

The problem is less the specific politician in the office, and more the existence of the office itself, and the institution the office is a part of. The president may be the least important factor.

Changing the hood ornament on the car that's running you down is effective...at making you feel like you've accomplished something. It won't save you from being run over, but at least you can feel good about what ran you down. Or, this is how it looks to me.

Every election since I've been an adult has been "The most important election in our lifetime". I'm not even saying this is a lie, but it is a sign— a sign we've allowed presidents to become too important.

If a presidential election can destroy or save America, presidents have too much power, and this means government has too much power. The way to fix this isn't to elect better presidents, it's to remove the power from them and from government. Permanently, not just until you get the president you want.

I know you probably believe government is necessary. You've seen how badly people behave themselves and how they avoid doing the right thing. You'll get no argument from me, but the conclusion most people draw from this is backward. If people can't be trusted to govern their own lives-- to make smart, ethical choices-- there's no way I trust them to vote. Adding all these irresponsible voices together doesn't make them smarter or more ethical. It doesn't dilute the bad; it intensifies it.  Allowing this chorus of irresponsible people to choose a politician to impose on the rest of us is insane.

If the monsters of Halloween became real, they would be less frightening than voters.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.