Getting Along

This blog is about politics. That means it is likely to lead to arguments. I understand why some people believe so strongly in opposite positions. Most of the time, regardless of what the "politically correct" may tell us, one side is right and the other is wrong. That is just the nature of reality. I don't care if anyone calls me names, but I ask that you only attack the positions of the other commenters; not them personally.

I have certain ideas about right and wrong, and about how one should relate to others, and about rights and responsibilities, and ... well, probably just about everything. Other people may not agree with me on everything. That is alright with me.

For most of my life I was a "libertarian in a vacuum" or an anarchist in an alternate universe. Or so it seemed. I knew no one else who thought of things in a way similar to me. I didn't even know OF anyone else who did. I had to get along with statists of every stripe. Maybe it is why I still can, as long as they don't throw the state at me.


I could not live off of Social Security or other forms of welfare, and personally feel it is wrong to do so. Other people do not think the same way. I don't go around asking my acquantances about their personal finances. It is none of my business and I really don't want to know. That doesn't mean I wouldn't put an end to welfare if I had the chance.


I think it is better to avoid working for any government entity in any capacity. Yet I know people who do and I don't lecture them about it. It would only alienate them and change nothing. Probably the only exception to that rule would be "a shunning" if anyone I knew worked for the BATFE. My tolerance can only go so far.

??

Who is the bigger threat to your freedom? Some guy wearing rags hiding with his AK-47 in a burned out building in Iraq, or the US federal government raking in as much of your money as it can get away with while it passes laws restricting your actions from its nicely appointed offices in our own "back yard"?

Which of these should a warrior who swore to uphold the Constitution be risking life and limb to defeat?



_________________________

Militaristic Brainwashing

I've been following, and participating in, a discussion in the comments on The War on Guns. The one commenter is completely obsessed with the military. Yet she is a libertarian. I admit I can't even begin to comprehend the thinking that makes one acknowledge that big government is a bad thing, yet support the biggest violations of rights and the most egregious initiations of force that can be imagined. This libertarian is willing to completely betray liberty in defense of war, because keeping troops in Iraq until they can be brought home, one at a time in the distant future I suppose, is "absolutely crucial" to her. How is supporting the military, the US government's agenda, in this way increasing liberty anywhere? I am baffled and disgusted. I decided to bow out before I said something rude. Maybe I am a simplistic "war protester"....I don't know. You read it and see what you think.

Ordinary Objects in Extraordinary Numbers

Not that this relates to anything, but I have always had an affinity for ordinary objects in extraordinary numbers. One BB isn't too interesting, but a barrel full of them is really fun to play with. A jar of jelly beans is common, but a swimming pool full of them, now that is something to see (and swim around in). A box of .22 LR cartridges is useful, but a 5 gallon bucket filled to the brim with them just cries out to have your fingers run through them.

I am not sure why this has always had this effect on me, but I wonder if this is why I also desire a really free society. A few liberties can be found just about anywhere , even under the worst totalitarian police state, but total freedom, limited only by the rights of others, makes me giddy with excitement.





_____________________________-

Assessing the Situation

In Anthem, the protagonist, the self-named Prometheus, says:

"But I still wonder how it was possible, in those graceless years of transition, long ago, that men did not see whither they were going, and went on, in blindness and cowardice, to their fate. I wonder, for it is hard for me to conceive how men who knew the word "I", could give it up and not know what they lost. But such has been the story, for I have lived in the City of the damned, and I know what horror men permitted to be brought upon them.

Perhaps in those days, there were a few among men, a few of clear sight and clean soul, who refused to surrender that word. What agony must have been theirs before that which they saw coming and could not stop! Perhaps they cried out in protest and in warning. But men paid no heed to their warning. And they, these few, fought a hopeless battle, and they perished with their banners smeared by their own blood. And they chose to perish, for they knew."

"That word" spoken of above is "I". Ayn Rand, through Prometheus, is speaking of those who are fooled into believing that society owns their life; that "we" is the most noble concept, rather than "I". Replace the concept of "I" with the concept of absolute individual rights (not a stretch) and you are looking in a mirror. This tragedy is happening all around us today. Prometheus is speaking to, or of, those of us today who see out-of-control government at every level stealing liberty and taking power as those around us make excuses for giving up our liberty. Unless more individuals decide that liberty is more important than not making a scene, some future Prometheus will have to rediscover the concepts of "I" and "liberty" all over again. Will he pity us or revile our choices?

____________________________

Arm Yourself

From End the War on Freedom I found this article: Arm Yourself by Charley Reese. I particularly like this part: "Of course, if you are as fit as Chuck Norris and have the martial-arts skills of Jet Li, then maybe you can survive without a pistol, although bringing a black belt to a gunfight is not going to do you much good."

Political "Change"

I hear political analysts and voters (especially very young socialist voters) emphasizing that a vote for their particular candidate is a vote for change. The tragic and pathetic thing is that they are focusing on superficial racial or gender "differences" instead of looking beneath the skin to see the collectivist inside the hide. Electing an authoritarian to replace an authoritarian is not voting for change at all. It is shortsighted and ignorant. It is an admission that you are OK with everything that Bush the Second has done and with everything that Clinton the First did before that. Pretending that the race or gender of a candidate equals change is exactly the kind of faulty thinking that the state has been encouraging for the past few generations. It looks like it worked. Now the voters are so completely racist and sexist that they can't see past those traits. That is very bad for America and the world of liberty.

Still Selling Things

I've put more of my paintings on eBay for sale, and will be listing more things (whatever I can find) in the next few days. Please keep checking.

Thanks!


________________

"Public Resource"

When I was the "pet store guy" I had many brushes with the state bureaucracy. One such brush was with the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Their minion dropped off a brochure about "Exotic Pets and Prohibited Wildlife" for me to hand out to the subjects. Reading through it I was so disgusted that I posted a copy in my store with the most moronic sentence highlighted. It said "As a public resource, wildlife belongs to the state of Colorado, to all citizens." (7th paragraph)


In other words, "the state", "public", and "citizen" are interchangeable to them. The word "public" can be a very nasty word, excusing all kinds of collectivist abominations. Same with the word "citizen", which seems to be just a way to describe someone who is fully absorbed into and complicit with the collective. You must look a ways down the list of definitions of each of those words to find something that isn't collectivist. With that way of thinking, "public" and "citizen" would mean the same thing as "state".

When did the state purchase the wildlife? Did I sign over ownership to that part of my food reserves to the state? Or when was a treaty signed by the wildlife agreeing to belong to the state? Probably at the same time I signed the agreement handing myself over to the state.

Wolves or a Coyote?

Forget any connotations that have previously gone along with "wolves" or "coyotes" for a few minutes. I am not talking about the "wolves and sheep", or "wolves and sheepdogs", or anything else like that. I have a different point here that doesn't involve those. It may not be original, but I just thought of it.

Wolves are pack animals. They need a leader. Either you are the leader, the alpha-wolf, or you are just a member of the collective pack. Wolves are the statists of the canine world.

Coyotes are loners. They will often hang out with their mate, but they don't travel in packs. There is no "alpha-coyote". They must prey on smaller or weaker prey than wolves do. Coyotes are the canine anarchists.

Because of these traits, wolves were selectively bred over thousands of years to become domestic dogs. With dogs the obedience programming has been stregthened and the aggression has been minimized. Their need for a leader makes them easily manipulated by a strong human "alpha-wolf". Coyotes, on the other hand, do not respond to orders. They don't get the concept of following an alpha animal. They have therefore not been domesticated to anywhere near the extent that wolves and their decendants have been.

The problem is that when a pack of wolves confront a lone coyote, the coyote will lose. It is a simple matter of numbers. When confronted by the state and its enablers and apologists, the anarchist will lose unless he fights an all-or-nothing battle with his mind and is lucky. Human anarchists have the advantage of having a strong mind. Knowing the disadvantages of "one against the pack", we can avoid getting into situations where we are devoured or displaced from our territory.

The pack works well for wolves, and for predatory statists. The question arises: are humans a pack animal which needs a leader? Or did we fall into this pattern because of the manipulation of the human wolves?

Thank You!

I just wanted to take a moment to thank those who have stepped up to help me out in my time of financial difficulty. It really makes me glad to be associated with people like you! Thanks again!

"....And Bingo Was His Name-O"

A family once decided they needed a big dog for protection so they picked out a puppy. He was of a breed well-known for aggression, but the family thought they knew how to train him properly.

Almost from the first, the dog had a tendency towards misbehavior. Killing a chicken here and there; roaming onto the neighbors' property and growling at them, or even biting some. His food bowl was guarded jealously and with suspicion. The family always defended the dog's honor and claimed his intentions were good, but never stopped his behavior.

Through the years he became more and more of a problem. Each time he misbehaved and got away with it, it made it harder for the family to face the truth about him, and it solidified the bad habits in his personality.

Eventually he began to attack family members at home, too. The others would scold the wounded, saying they must have tormented the dog or something. If anything, the dog would get a harsh "look", but was never really punished.

So now, the family lives with a very aggressive dog. Some members, those who have seen the dog attack without provocation, now fear and loathe the dog. Other refuse to see the truth. Now only a few choices remain for the family. Either keep going as they are until the dog either kills the family, or take the responsible initiative to take the dog on a one-way "walk". There is no Cesar Millan for this dog. And "Government" is his name-o.

Help!

I am in a financial bind (worse than usual) and I am selling my gold. If you have been wanting to buy gold, this might be a good time for you to look at what I am selling on eBay.

Edited to add: I am also selling some original paintings that I have painted in years past.


*********************************

Wealth: The Silencer

If I were wealthy, or even "comfortable", you would probably not be reading these words. That is a terrible admission, isn't it? If that were the case, I would be living in a decent house surrounded by a large amount of acreage. I would be doing as I want, hopefully shielded from local governmental eyes by a large buffer-zone, and by my silence.

I might attract some unwanted attention with some of my activities, though. I probably can't totally avoid being a troublemaker. I would be shooting daily, practicing my survival skills (and trading skills with carefully selected people as well), and generally minding my own business. I would probably be setting up an off-grid homestead that government could consider a "compound", but would probably not attract attention because I would not talk about it. I would probably not leave my property very often if I had my choice. I have hermit-like tendencies.

That is my ideal life. Wealth would silence me.

I am not one of those who wish to turn society upside down, hoping to move to the top in the upheaval, as is the case in many revolutions. I simply wish to free society from the parasites (governmental and freelance) that are feeding off it. That would be enough to improve life immeasurably. I want a politics-free world. Unfortunately it is not wise to ignore politics under the current circumstances; not while the police state is being established.

"Do Not Attempt"

Does anyone else ever notice the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen during car commercials? You know, the one that says "Professional driver on a closed course - Do not attempt". The sad thing is that when the disclaimer sneaks in, about half the time , rather than leaping from rooftop to rooftop, the car is simply cruising down a straight road. If we really are not competent to attempt that, what is the point in having a car?

That is the mindset of the government. "We" are to be considered stupid, incompetent children who are not able to look out for ourselves. Our defense is to be left to the professionals (who often kill us by "mistake"); our health is subject to government oversight; our consciences don't work properly so we need government holding a gun to our head to make sure we do not run amok "burning and pillaging" one another.

Life does not yet come with a disclaimer: "Profession human in a controlled environment. Do not attempt". Celebrate that oversite by living without permission.

Roswell, Texas

I have been interested in the Roswell, New Mexico UFO story since I first heard about it in the early 1970s while living in Waco, Texas (not in the mid-80s when some people try to say the story really started). Since I began life on Earth in the region of Roswell, New Mexico, it made more of an impression with me than it might have otherwise. Not to start any rumors, but it might explain some things....

Anyway, when I heard L. Neil was basing a tale on the event, I had to check it out. I didn't start reading it until a few months ago, but after I did, I kept waiting anxiously for each new installment. I became apprehensive when I realized the story was winding down and began to dread each new panel, fearing that it would be the last. My fears were realized last week when I got to the panel that said "The End".

I got a kick out of the historical figures who populated the alternate-universe Federated States of Texas. (Roswell is in Texas in this universe, which is not that much of a stretch; Texas was originally much larger until it got divided among many other current states. Even the part of Colorado I lived in was once part of Texas.) Scott Biesser's artwork is amazing, and perfectly complements the story written by L. Neil and Rex May. The only disappointment for me was that the story didn't incorporate as much of the original Roswell incident as I had expected. Once I got over that, though, I got drawn into the world presented and enjoyed it immensely.

If you enjoy graphic novels, or if you want an introduction to them, head over to Big Head Press and check out Roswell, Texas by L. Neil Smith and Scott Biesser. I think you will enjoy it.

More "Laws" to Ignore

This relates to my point about illegal laws and counterfeit "laws": Who Shall Guard the Guards? by Mike Vanderboegh. And here is another take on this declaration of war by The State against you and me: US vs Olofson: A pseudolegal Case by L. Neil Smith.

Err on the Side of Freedom, Please

I will begin by making a couple of assumptions. You and I are human. All humans make mistakes. That being the case, wouldn't it be better to make certain that we always err on the side of liberty instead of on the side of governmental "authority" and power? If there is a question of "is government allowed to do this?" I think it is always better to assume that the answer is an unequivocal "NO!" until clearly shown otherwise. But maybe that is just my nature as an anarchist who values peace, rights, and liberty over the death, chaos, and slavery that government invariably brings.

Silly "Moral Superiority"

I am a night-owl. Even as a very young child, and all through my life, it has been about the same, with only minor changes. No matter what time I go to bed, and even if I can then go to sleep, I am at my best during the hours between midnight and 2 AM (normally). I am at my absolute worst between the hours of 5 AM and 10 AM. Which is really bad for most of the jobs I have held. I have had bosses lecture me about how if I "would just get in the habit of going to bed earlier you would adjust". It didn't work during 12 years of government schooling, so why would it now? I suppose I could adjust to living on a diet of broken glass and arsenic as well. You can just see the moral superiority of the "morning people" dripping from their jaws as they tell me how to "fix" myself.

I also think that almost everyone, male and female, looks better with longish hair. It is just my preference. Yet I have tolerated (with strained tolerance) the endless comments and lectures about how I would look so much better, or could get a better job, or be taken more seriously, etc. if I would cut my hair. It seems to me that a lot of people don't have short hair for any reason other than they think it is morally superior. I am not talking about people who really like their own hair short, but those who dislike other people's long hair. There is a difference.

These two things are unrelated: one is a physiological part of my makeup, the other is an opinion, yet the one thing that ties them together is that I have never heard a night-owl lecturing a morning person that they are wrong or bad for their biological clock's setting. I have also never known of a long haired person requiring that others not cut their hair shorter than a standard length or lecturing short haired people about needing to take pride in their appearance by letting their hair grow a little.

Petitioning Our "Leaders"

A while back at the urging of David Codrea of The War on Guns, I sent emails to "my" congressmen in regard to the nomination of Michael Sullivan as director of the BATFE. I finally got a response from Senator Bob Casey. He wrote:

Dear Mr. McManigal:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the nomination of Michael J. Sullivan of Massachusetts to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.

Mr. Sullivan’s nomination was voted out of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on November 8, 2007. His nomination is currently pending before the full United States Senate. I am currently in the process of evaluating Mr. Sullivan’s personal, professional, and academic accomplishments. At the appropriate time, I will make a judgment on Mr. Sullivan’s nomination. It is important that we have strong, effective leadership at the top of the ATF. Please be assured that when making a decision, I will have your views in mind.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to frequently visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov/. In the months ahead, I will continue to develop the site in order to allow you to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington. If you wish to e-mail me, you can do so on the web site.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

Here is my response to him (which I had trouble getting to go through for a while):

Mr. Casey,

I realize you are no friend to peaceable gun owners, but this matter goes beyond this single issue.

The ATF has a sordid history of abusing its authority. Mike Sullivan has contributed to this abusive atmosphere greatly during his tenure. He has also demonstrated a lack of intergrity in carrying out his duties as US Attorney of Massachussets. His office has been cited by a judge for "extraordinary misconduct".

You say "It is important that we have strong, effective leadership at the top of the ATF." Leaders lead; they do not make up the rules as they go along, as Mike Sullivan has been doing. One only need examine the campaign of intimidation against gun retailers which has been accelerated under Sullivan's "leadership". With an agency of questionable Constitutional authority, such as BATFE, it is imperative that the new director errs on the side of individual liberty rather than on the side of governmental control and power.

I am confident that you are not ignorant of this man's history. To say that you are wiating for the appropriate time to make a judgement on his nomination makes me think that you value his stance against the Second Amendment and against American gun owners more than you are troubled by his ethical shortcomings. This is deeply disturbing to me. Michael J. Sullivan has no business having any position of authority. I hope you will not ignore these facts.

Sincerely,

Kent McManigal