Am I More Palatable Now?

For those of you who want a more "political" looking candidate McManigal, I offer this picture of me.

2008 Presidential Election blog

Another blog has mentioned me. The writer of the 2008 Presidential Election blog doesn't particularly seem to agree with me, but here is what he said:

Libertarian Party Leader

Kent McManigal (Is this guy serious? I hope NOT)

This one was tough. Kent did not lead in both polls, but when averaged between the too, he was the leader. I googled him and he is listed well. He makes a lot of crazy statements on his site that make it apparent he is not serious about being president. He has a blog and a website that describes him as anti-government with plans to have his massive inauguration party/meet up on the White House lawn where he will burn Social Security cards and put the White House up for bid to sell. He has listed Andrew Wiegand as his running mate. I listed Kent only because he was ahead in the polls.

I really don't see the big deal. I am not a threat to anyone. If you prefer to live a less-than-free life, I can't stop you, nor would I even try. You don't like parties or bonfires? Stay home then. You like your Social Security cards and IRS papers? Keep them for nostalgia. I think the White House would make a lovely museum to remind Americans what can happen if government is not kept in a pinch-collar on a very short leash.

Fincher Railroaded

Hollis Wayne Fincher has been railroaded. What else would you call it? I don't wish to get into another debate on the right to own weapons (if you wish to rehash it, look at my earlier blogs and comments), but I do want to comment on the Hollis Wayne Fincher guilty verdict. Of course he was convicted. How could he not be when the judge tampered with the jury to make certain they would convict him? He was not allowed to use the defense that he has the individual right, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, to "bear arms".

Suppose that next year congress passes a law outlawing certain books. You take a moral stand that the law is wrong, and publicly announce that you will continue to own and read, perhaps even publish, those "illegal" books. Being arrested for owning a Bible or an encyclopedia and not being allowed to argue that the "law" you are being charged with violating is illegitimate almost guarantees you will be found guilty. Unless the jury is made up of very strong people who resisted the judge's instructions to simply decide if you had indeed broken the law. Counterfeit "laws" should not be obeyed. Regardless of your stand on the right to bear arms, if you are not allowed to use the government's highest law in your defense, then what has become of America?

Free Wayne!

Communists

What is a "communist"? It is someone who ascribes to the system of communism, which Dictionary.com defines as "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state."

I could never be a communist since I do not believe in a "common good". However, depending on your religious beliefs, you might not want to toss it out so quickly. The early Christians were communists. Acts 4:34-35 says:

"Neither was there any among them that lacked, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold. And laid them down at the apostles' feet and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Note that this was an entirely voluntary form of communism; not the state enforced Marxism that is generally meant by the word "communism" today. Still, I could not live this way, since I view the fruits of your labors as yours alone to do with as you wish. If, however, you choose to put it in a common account, to be used "for the greater good", that is your business and not mine.

Overwhelmed

Somedays it seems like the police state is overwhelming us. You read about cases like Cory Maye, Hollis Wayne Fincher, Kathryn Johnston, Sean Bell, Peyton Strickland, and Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, and it just feels that "they" have us outnumbered. There is hope, though. At least these stories are not being totally ignored. Even the average American is hearing about some of these people. Perhaps a few of them are beginning to see the United States for what it is: a grave threat to America. Don't forget any of these victims of US tyranny.

Remember your duty to use the power of the jury box to judge the legitimacy of the law that someone is being accused of violating; if the law is nonsense or if you believe it is unconstitutional, then find the defendant not-guilty. Regardless of what the judge tells you to do. It is your right and duty, and has been for around a thousand years. No corrupt puppet of the police state can order you to do otherwise. Support and practice jury nullification.

Political Teens Blog

A new blog, The Political Teens Campaign, has been started for all of you politically minded teens out there. It was started by Daniel Myers of the Politics One blog. I think it is a great idea and wish Daniel the best of luck.

No-Excuses

I like the little blurb about me on The Next Prez's Friday Top Five this week:

5. Kent McManigal (steady) -- Still holding down the fort for libertarians from the L. Neil Smith no-excuses corner of the party.

Polls

If you have the desire to do so, here are a few polls where you can vote for the candidate(s) of your choice.

Next Prez, third poll down, on the right.

Politics One, also the third poll down, and it is bright yellow!

Libertarian Poll

Thanks for your votes!

A Reason to Hope for the Future

A Missouri teen videos cops during one of their increasingly common illegal roadblocks. This kid has guts.

Excited by the Opportunities

As we watch the state grow larger and more tyrannical, we can take comfort in knowing that there will come a point where it will be impossible to keep such a gigantic, authoritarian government from collapsing under its own weight. It has happened countless times throughout history, and will happen again. Authoritarian control is counter to the needs of people. For a time, the lazy or covetous among us will keep trying to hand us over to the state for their benefit. Eventually even they will see that it is not in their best interest to support a government that has only its own power as a motivating factor. Then, even these state worshippers will begin withdrawing support from the institutions of tyranny.

When this happens, we will watch the state crumble under its own weight, and we can be excited by the opportunities for liberty that will be opened to us. If we don't try to trade liberty for the temptation of controlling someone else, even those we may not like, in order to impose our wishes on their lives, we can have a free America. The secret is, don't replace the collapsed system with another system. To do so is to start down the road to authoritarian terrorism once again. It is the road that all governments eventually travel too far down.

A Quote About Cops

Here is a good perspective on what is wrong with the police in America today, and it was written in 1964. I wonder what Mr. Vance would think of the badge-wearing predators we have infesting society in 2007...

Humanity many times has had sad experience of superpowerful police forces.... As soon as [the police] slip out from under the firm thumb of a suspicious local tribune, they become arbitrary, merciless, a law unto themselves. They think no more of justice, but only of establishing themselves as a privileged and envied elite. They mistake the attitude of natural caution and uncertainty of the civilian population as admiration and respect, and presently they start to swagger back and forth, jingling their weapons in megalomaniac euphoria. People thereupon become not masters, but servants. Such a police force becomes merely an aggregate of uniformed criminals, the more baneful in that their position is unchallenged and sanctioned by law. The police mentality cannot regard a human being in terms other than as an item or object to be processed as expeditionsly as possible. Public convenience or dignity means nothing; police prerogatives assume the status of divine law. Submissiveness is demanded. If a police officer kills a civilian, it is a regrettable circumstance: the officer was possibly overzealous. If a civilian kills a police officer all hell breaks loose. The police foam at the mouth. All other business comes to a standstill until the perpetrator of this most dastardly act is found out. Inevitably, when apprehended, he is beaten or otherwise tortured for his intolerable presumption. The police complain that they cannot function efficiently, that criminials escape them. Better a hundred unchecked criminals than the despotism of one unbridled police force.

- Jack Vance, The Star King, 1964 (later included in The Demon Princes)

Freedom of Speech

Do you have the right to falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? Yes, you do. You have a responsibility to not do that, though, to be sure. Here again, I must state that rights are non-negotiable; not subject to restriction. Don't get yourself in a self-righteous knot, though. This is not quite the same as shooting people since the other people in the theater have some control over whether they panic and stampede or not. Still, if you cause a panic and people are injured or killed, you will be held accountable. If a theater owner wants to make certain that you do not cause a panic, would it be within her rights to cut out your tongue before allowing you into the theater? Not at all. She could tell everyone that false alarms will not be tolerated and if you cause one, you will be held financially responsible for any damages, and will face punishment for any harm that your actions cause anyone. If you have done this even once, I am quite sure you would not be welcome in any theater that knew of your actions. You should not be punished for "crimes" you have not yet committed, nor should you be denied your rights or property in order to prevent you from committing these potential "future crimes". Unfortunately, this is what the US police-state attempts to do. It is the entire foundation of victim disarmament "laws".

The First Amendment forbids government interference with speech. It also quite obviously protects your freedom to air your disagreements with the government or its indigenous vermin. I believe that freedom of speech is specifically about protecting unpopular speech. If just about everyone agrees with what you have to say, no one would be likely to try to stop you from saying it. If, however, your words are inflammatory, then dictators are likely to try to silence your dissent or to put you in a "free speech zone" where your words will have less of an impact if they are heard at all. Remember this when you hear authoritarians talking about "hate speech" or "religious extremist speech". Whether you agree with what is being said or not, do all you can to protect the speaker's right to be heard. You may be next on the list to be silenced.

Democrat vs. Republican - Yawn

Government is all a game; there is no difference but in name. Yet, coming from a republicanoid background as I do (did?), the sight of Democrat congresscritters celebrating their coup sends chills down my spine. I must continually remind myself that, once again, these are all still the same old authoritarians who believe they have a divine or social mandate to run my life as they see fit. I am just an unknown pawn in their game called "The United States". I am worse than anonymous to them; they don't care nor do they want to care. How is this any different from last year when the Republicans "ran things"? I used to care more deeply about the issues that the Republicans pretended to care about, but I have come to see that there is only one true issue: self ownership. Government is still all about increasing governmental "oversight" (read "control") over daily life. It is still all about "protecting" us from.... something. I forget who or what they are protecting me from today. Terrorists? Environmental doom? Guns? "Trans fats" or tobacco smoke? Sex? Fortunately I can protect myself from most of the things I need to be protected from (none of which are on the Tyrannocratic radar), and the ones I am powerless against I will take my chances with. So, thanks for the offer, government, but you can keep your "safety", and if you don't know where to put it, I could suggest a good place.

Being True to Myself

I have had a lot of well-meaning people suggest that the only way to make a name for myself in this campaign is to abandon the very things that set me apart from the other candidates. If I were comfortable with that tactic, why would I even continue to run?

I am here to remind others what "libertarian" means. If you are uncomfortable with some of the implications, then I am doing my job. I do not know everything. There are some issues and some situations I have not thought out fully, and some I have not even made myself aware of, I am sure. Anything that comes up can be solved in a true, uncompromising, libertarian, Zero Aggression Principle, sort of way. These types of solutions are permanent, not expedient, and sometimes are more difficult to embrace. Especially when we have lived in a culture of expediency and authoritarianism for so long.

I am still getting suggestions that I must change the way I dress in order to be taken seriously. George Phillies might look good in a suit; I do not. If you had never seen any pictures of me, would it change your opinion of me in any way? What if I had used a nice studio photo of a handsome model in a professional looking suit instead of a photo of myself? Would the ideas springing from my mind take on more legitimacy? I am my mind. Part of my mind makes it difficult for me to dress as others would wish I would dress. Just ask my parents. I don't do it to be difficult or to shock people, although that seems to be the general concensus. It is part of what makes me Kent McManigal. Perhaps I will take a self portrait that looks more "normal" soon. If I do, see if it changes your perception of me. If it does, then America is probably doomed.

Free Market

I'm on my way out the door to the modern American version of the street market: the flea market. A place where you can engage in free trade and find good products; many that were made before manufacturers discovered flimsy, plastic substitutes for wood, glass, and metal. There is a bit of an outlaw feel to the whole thing. You can haggle over a price instead of simply accepting the price that the barcode scanner demands. You can suggest a trade, or pay with your silver or gold coins. You can stumble upon treasures never imagined to exist if you dig through the boxes that no one else wants to take the time to explore. You can meet vendors who can't fit into the mainstream job market (for whatever reason) and who are more interesting for their differences.

If there is a flea market in your area (and I am sure there is) give it a try, if you haven't already. In its own way, it is a little bit of anarchy in the best sense.

An Apology (Re-Posted From My Comments)

JK Pratt - I owe you an apology. You were simply asking a valid question and I responded sarcastically. I am truly sorry.

I have been thinking about this issue and I will say I do not believe that people get killed very often for refusal to pay taxes, since I am sure most people are intimidated into compliance sometime during the process long before it reaches the fatal confrontation. If they did not ever give up, then, and only then, would they be killed.

Thank you for making me think more about this.

Rights Redux

I suppose that in light of recent discussions I should make clear that I do not think that "rights" come from government, nor do I think that government has any authority to restrict rights. I have written this all before, I realize, but it bears repeating, I suppose. Rights existed before government and rights will outlast government. The problem we have is that government does not want you to recognize this fact. Government wants you to think that they grant you a right, perhaps by passing a "Bill of Rights", and that therefore, government can take away or restrict that right. This is not a description of a "right, but of a "privilege". Privileges can be restricted or outright revoked. Rights can not.

People do not always use their rights in a good way. This is illustrated by the ubiquitous example of "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater". This would be a stupid and evil thing to do, but this also doesn't mean that everyone who goes into a theater must have their tongue cut out in advance to keep them from shouting "fire". If guns offend you, you have a right to not own one, but you do not have a right to forbid your neighbor from owning one. I have a right to carry an AK-47 down the streets in New York City if I choose to do so, though the city would undoubtedly choose to immorally arrest me if I did, but I do not have a right to point that gun at innocent people. The citizens of New York City do not have a right to not be offended or frightened by the sight of a gun. No one has rights that are more important than anyone else's rights. "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."

Rights are absolute, but not everything is a right. You have a right to live, and to defend your life. You have a right to live as you see fit, as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. You have a right to do what you enjoy as long as you do not violate the rights of others. You have a right to avoid involuntary servitude: the fruits of your time and labor belongs to you alone, unless you choose to share or give it away. On the other hand, you do not have a right to "universal government paid health care", or a right to walk through a crowd swinging a sword, a right to not breathe second-hand smoke, or a right to not be offended. Stop and think a moment and it is easy to see the difference between a right and something that is not a right.

Are some people so devoid of personal responsibility that they fear that if they own and carry defensive weapons they will suddenly lose control of themselves and become murderous maniacs? Or is this what they fear that you and I will do?

I believe that by looking at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights we can see how far America has fallen from what it was established to be: a beacon of liberty. If we could somehow get America back in line with the Constitution, I could live with that. I really want a truly free country where no one would ever need to fear the government as long as they are not initiating force or fraud on another person. No constitution can ever guarantee that. Personal responsibility can.

Firefly

I highly recommend that you watch the cancelled FOX network TV show Firefly. It is a science fiction/space-western. The principles are not strictly libertarian, but it is pretty good entertainment without the state-worship so prevalent today. Plus, it is just very fun to watch. There is also a feature movie, Serenity, which is a sequel to the series.

I am not associated in any way with anyone who gets money from a purchase or rental of Firefly, but plug it here strictly for your anti-state enjoyment.

As a point of interest (or, perhaps, not): Many of us "Freedom Outlaws" now refer to ourselves as "Fireflies", in part because of this show, and a suggestion from Claire Wolfe, the demi-goddess of freedom.

More on the Second Amendment

I suppose the whole issue of "interpreting" the Second Amendment is very upsetting to some people. Funny. Since that is what courts have been doing for years. The Second Amendment is not difficult to understand. The opening statement, by mentioning a "militia", seems to be a big part of the contention, even though that only explained why the founders thought it was necessary, but didn't limit its scope in any way. It would be like me saying "Gold coins being necessary for the purchase of a good meal, the right of the people to own and to spend gold coins shall not be infringed". It does not limit the owning of gold coins to only people who wish to eat "a good meal".

Another problem I have is that it seems very few people understand what "infringed" means. Let's go back to my gold coin analogy. Suppose your "right" is a gold coin. If someone shaves a little bit off the edge, they have infringed that coin. It may not even show up without a microscopic examination, but the damage is done. Those shavings can never be returned to their proper place, and each one steals a bit of value from the coin.

People who have an issue with my interpretation of the Second Amendment should read the writings of the founders from the time of the adoption of The Bill of Rights if they don't believe me. You will find that they did mean for it to be understood just as I understand it. You might find that I am a radical; yet I am not wrong.

I Am a Radical

I am a radical. There is no sense denying it. Like most of you, though, I am not a violent radical, unless I get attacked. I think radical actions need to be taken in order to save America from government extremism.

First of all, Americans need to be educated about what freedom really is. Then they will see that government is the opposite of liberty. This is what I attempt to do every day.

Second, they need to be shown that there is always an alternative to government intervention and control. We do not need to roll over and cooperate every time some pin-head with a badge or a zombie with a title gives us an order. Think before you comply.

For years I tried to fit into the mainstream of "average Joe-American" political thought. It didn't work for me. I could see the "man behind the curtain" too clearly, and could see that he was totally without merit. So I sit here sharing my awakening with you, hoping that it will make you think; even if you don't agree with me. This is what makes me a radical.

As has been often quoted and paraphrased: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
Karl Hess for Sen. Barry Goldwater; attributed to Cicero.