A smackdown would amuse me

This is the one and only reason I hope the left-statists lose hard on election day:

The arrogance, smugness, and entitlement they demonstrate are illustrated so well by this Wall Street Journal photo from October 20, 2016. I didn't see it until a few months after publication-- it was in a stack of fireplace fodder a neighbor gave me. But I actually laughed out loud when I saw it the first time. And political stuff never has that effect on me.

Now, I don't like right-statists at all. They are enemies of liberty. All statists are: right, left, independent, or whatever. But I don't think the left-statists have quite learned their lesson yet. So, under those conditions, I would still rather the left-statists not "win".

Sure, I would love it if no one showed up to v*te for any of these clowns. Or, if only anti-state candidates ran.

I probably still wouldn't v*te, but it would be an interesting and encouraging development.

But that's not going to happen this year. After election day there will either be a glut of left-statists or right-statists, contributing to the overall glut of statists seeking the opportunity to molest you and me.

I don't care about politicians. I don't want any of them to win and rule. But I still want the left-statists knocked down at least one more time. Just because they are so elitist, arrogant, and think they are so smart.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Just leave your leg in the car

• Your artificial hip.
• A thought in your head.
• A letter in your pocket.
• A phone on your belt.
• A pacemaker in your chest.
• Your hearing aid.
• Your tattoos.
• A gun in your pants.
• Your cane or walker.
• Glasses on your face or contact lenses on your cornea.
• Dye on your hair.
• Fillings in your teeth.

None of those things are any of my business, and if I invite you onto my property I won't make the ridiculous demand that you leave any of them behind.

Even if I imagine I have the "right" to do so, doing so would still make me a self-centered, property rights violating jerk.

I know there are environmental conditions, such as artificially strong magnetic fields and radio signals, which could make it necessary to either leave certain things behind, or which make it dangerous for people with those things to be in certain places. Like how neckties aren't safe to wear around certain spinning equipment. That's not what we're talking about here.

My rights end where yours begin, and yours begin-- at the very minimum-- at the surface of your clothing/possessions or skin. My rights can't penetrate beyond that level; inside your personal space. That's the absolutely essential kernel from which all property rights grow.

If I'm not willing to respect all your rights I am not obligated to allow you on my property, but if I do allow or invite you onto my property, I am obligated to respect your rights. All of them. If I demand you strip naked and submit yourself to being raped as a condition of coming onto my property, that would make me a rights-violating jerk. Some might imagine I would be within my rights to set that condition, but I don't. To me, that's utterly ridiculous.

You may have a different opinion. If so, fine. I don't demand you surgically excise your differing opinion and leave it behind as a condition of coming onto my property. Because I don't imagine that anything you aren't using to actually initiate force or to damage my property or take it from me is violating my property rights in any way.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some financial help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Twinsies!

I see the left-statists whining that the "NPC" thing is "alt-right", but it works equally well both ways. Don't you think so?

It's hard to "dehumanize" someone who has dehumanized themselves. And nothing is more dehumanizing than collectivism. Of any variety.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Well, maybe a slight exaggeration

I need to be a better person; more ethical. The more ethical I am, the more libertarian I will be. The more libertarian I am, the more anarchist I become. It's a process.

My newspaper editor says, with obvious hyperbole, "...Kent McManigal... is the standard by which all libertarians are measured. McManigal has zero use for government. He thinks we can resolve all issues one on one, that individual freedom trumps majority rules every time."

It's in the newspaper; it must be true! 😉

In spite of his confidence in me, I know I'm not there yet (and never will be). But I'll keep working at it. That's a promise I make daily to myself.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Actions matter more than identity

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 19, 2018)

Instead of worrying about who someone is, it seems smarter to focus on what they do. Anything other than their actions is none of your business and can't harm you, and not many of their actions are your business, either.

The color of someone's skin isn't my concern, nor is the language they speak. Who you love is between you and those you love, and your religious beliefs don't involve me.

I'm not worried about where someone was born or what government permission slips they may lack.

What people do is all that can matter.

I would hope people don't harbor beliefs which they use to justify violence, including the violence of laws, against those who aren't harming anyone else. Yet, unless they take action, not even those twisted beliefs can hurt anyone.

If you aren't creating a victim through your actions-- and being offended isn't being victimized-- those who oppose you are wrong.

What you wear, what you carry, what you ingest, what you do in your own home-- none of those things could possibly be any of my business unless it harms others or makes a credible threat to do so.

If you aren't complying with zoning laws, property codes, licensing schemes, or other illegitimate laws, I'm on your side.

Why would I care if you break laws as long as there is no individual victim; not an imaginary victim like "society" or the state? And, although I don't want you to harm yourself and would do what I can to help, no one has the right to violently intervene to stop you.

Those who worry about who someone is rather than what they do often complain about government until they can use it against someone they don't like, especially if they notice their target ignoring an illegitimate law. Suddenly, they are in favor of government violence. If they weren't against the person, they wouldn't care about the law. Hypocrisy is ugly.

But what if you fervently believe you need to meddle in someone else's life? Do I care why you do the wrong thing? No. I only care that you act to violate someone's life, liberty, or property. Your excuses don't matter.

Whoever you are is fine with me. Anything you do is OK with me as long as you aren't harming someone, even if I don't understand it. It's a waste of time to fret over shallow things which can't possibly matter. You be you; that's good enough.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Assume government?

When someone asks what government ("The State") "thinks" on some issue-- what the "law" says or what the general statist thinking [sic] is-- my first thought is always along the lines of "Who gives a ...?"

And I'm not only talking about whether or not something is "illegal".

So many people assume government. I assume liberty.

They can't imagine liberty, so they obsess over this or that justification for governing others. They feel the need to know what George Washington said about some subject before they can form an opinion about it. They worry over what the Constitution says. They can't consider anything outside the box of what some long-dead statist molester believed.

They act as though they believe government is to be considered first. Anything else comes later, if there's still room. They pretend discussing government is the adult thing to do. They are misguided.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Fauxcahontas, Grey Owl, and Dull 'Hawk

So, professional archator Elizabeth Warren may have a trace of Native DNA-- assuming the expert who interpreted the results of her DNA test isn't politically motivated to confirm (however trivially) her claims. A trace doesn't make her Native.

If it was an honest mistake on her part, that's easy to understand.

If it was an intentional lie, it was worse than that of Grey Owl. Much worse.

She used the claim, whether an honest mistake or a lie, as some sort of entitlement to govern people other than herself. That's wrong on every level.

My mountainman name, Dull 'Hawk, has been mistaken for an "indian name", but I've never claimed it is. It's just the mountainman style. I have a respect for many Native things, while not idealizing them in any way.

I had been told my whole life that I had Native ancestry. From both sides. My dad's adoption paperwork even said so. But a couple of years ago, both my parents had DNA analysis done, and there's not a trace from either of them. (So much for government record inerrancy.)

I was surprised, but it really made no difference.

I am curious whether, had our DNA samples been somehow mixed up, the expert who examined and interpreted Ms. Warren's DNA would have found evidence of Native ancestry in a sample of my DNA which he thought was hers.

When I believed I had Native ancestry I didn't use that belief as an excuse to bully, boss, or otherwise govern anyone. I didn't use that belief for gain. I had Native friends who opened their arms to me, asking unprompted if I had Native blood, and I said I thought I had a little, but that wasn't the basis of our friendship. Two of them have said I have a "Native Spirit". Not that I believe in such things, but I accept the compliment in the spirit in which it was offered.

Yes, I like wearing buckskin and bone (or dentalium) chokers, but I've never claimed it was for any reason but that I liked them and it was a mountainman style. Same with my long hair. And, if asked now whether I have any Native blood, I would say "no". But I'm still me, and since I never tried to use it to my advantage or as an excuse to get anything from anyone, my conscience is clear. I was mistaken; now I know better. No harm done.

I wonder how Ms. Warren's conscience feels, assuming a professional archator has one which functions.
_______________

Reminder: I could very much use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

"Proportionality"

--This post is necessitated by this and this. It expresses my feelings, not rights nor right and wrong. Just human feelings and emotions. I am probably wrong for how I feel, but it doesn't change how I feel.--

I have never been a fan of "proportionality", and have mentioned this many times over the years in this blog.

It is easy for critics to cry "proportionality" after the fact, when they weren't there for the violation and weren't the victim. It is also a wonderful hiding place for violators.

If someone shoots you and you shoot back, but after the dust has settled it turns out his bullet "only" grazed your arm while yours ventilated his cranium, that wasn't proportional. Shame on you for not aiming to graze. Right?

Or, he could shoot at you and if he has time before you shoot back, he could claim he didn't kill you so you had better make sure to only do proportional damage to his body.

Obviously, a kid stealing candy from a store isn't as bad as an adult stealing your car or backing a trailer up to your door and cleaning out your house. Yet, at heart, the acts are the same; it's just a matter of degree. The kid needs to understand the seriousness of what he did so he might decide to never do it again. If you pat him on the head and say "It's OK" you are not doing him any favors. Each situation will be different, including whether he actually understands that he stole the candy. But there needs to be some awareness instilled in the kid.

Because, yes, if someone is in the process of stealing your car I do think shooting him is perfectly proportional, whether anyone agrees or not. I don't want the child thief to grow up and become an adolescent or adult thief, because then I believe it would be a great service for someone to kill him. I would like to avoid that outcome.

To me, once someone has demonstrated a total lack of concern for your life (including taking your property, which you traded your life for) they have shown that you shouldn't concern yourself too much with their well-being. Your mileage may vary.
_______________

Reminder: I could sure use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Killing thieves

Is theft worth a death penalty?

I bring this up because it's related to my newspaper column from yesterday.

The only legitimate death penalty is carried out at the scene of the attack by the victim or a rescuer. Anything later-- including anything done by government employees-- is revenge. And murder.

Back in the old days, horse theft was a capital offense. However, unless they shot the guy in the act, it was murder (ethically, if not "legally"). For example, if they "strung him up" later.

The reason horse theft was treated so seriously was that horses were essential. Horses were a matter of life and death. You lose your horse and you may die because of it. Today cars take the place of horses for most Americans.

I think you are completely within your rights to shoot a car thief to stop your car from being stolen, even if "the law" disagrees. Probably not right to chase down a guy you know to be a car thief and hang him.

If it's a kid stealing candy from a store, then I wouldn't be in favor of shooting him. Same with a starving man in the wilderness stealing food from a cabin-- as long as he doesn't do unnecessary damage and tries to pay restitution.

But then, I'll never grieve a dead thief no matter what he steals, and not even if I consider his death to have been murder. I can separate my feelings from what I think is right.

I've said it before and I'll say it again-- I don't really believe in proportionality very strongly. I'll say more about that in tomorrow's post.

But maybe I'm just overly emotional about thieves at the moment.

Just a few weeks ago my mom's last remaining uncle-- the last of that generation of the family, at 94 years old-- had everything stolen from his house. Everything. Inside and outside. He has been living with his daughter since his wife died and only going out to his house once a week or so to check on things. Someone knew and used the opportunity to clean him out. Would I have shot the thief had I caught him in the act?

Fortunately for my mom's uncle, upon finding out about the theft, his granddaughter decided to cruise through a trashy part of town along the main road from his house. Over a fence as she drove along, she recognized her grandfather's pickup. Looking over the fence, she also saw his lawnmower and other stuff. She called the cops and they all went inside and found all his possessions (along with a lot of other people's stuff, too). They didn't find anyone there, but they took all the surveillance cameras (he had many of them watching every bit of his property) and got video of the thief bringing the stolen items to the house (not the sharpest guy, apparently). The cops know who the guy is, and said he's on probation. Do you think I would be sad if someone killed this guy, whether or not it was defense? As long as he lives, he's going to be a thief. He needs to be dead.

But, would it be right to kill him? Not unless he's caught in the act, and some would say, not for "only stealing". I suppose there's room for debate.
_______________

Reminder: I could sure use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Reaching out-- with updates

Lots of recent medical bills mean I'm severely short of money*.

I realize no one wants to hear that.

If you can't help, or don't care, or don't want to help, etc. then I'm not talking to you. Go in peace.

If you want to help and can help, then I would sure appreciate it.

However, I would rather not be the helped by the same people who are the ones who always rise to the occasion. I would prefer they sit this one out, even if it means no one helps this time.

Anyway, I hesitate to even mention how much I need, but it's around $500. Even more would be better, but anything would help some. And, at this time, Paypal is probably more helpful than anything else. Here's my link: PayPal.Me/Dullhawk

Thank you.

*Update: And I just lost $50 per month from another source, unrelated to the blog. This is getting disastrous. This will be an ongoing problem until that money is replaced from another source. Please subscribe.

*Update again: I just found out I will no longer be paid for the lawn work I do for my parents. There's another decrease in my income. Yay. I guess we can just assume this trend will continue.

Income always seems to decrease, while expenses always seem to increase. How is that even possible?

I sharpen knives locally-- that's the only thing I really feel like I do well. I'm not comfortable shipping knives, so that's why I don't offer that service online.
I sell things on eBay. Not enough to really help, though.
I also do some lawn work. (Which, as noted above, I found out I will no longer be paid for.)
I'm not just sitting around. But things are getting worse and worse, financially. I know I'm not the only one-- almost everyone who has canceled their subscriptions and given a reason has said it was because their financial situation got worse.

-

..

What does "race" have to do with it?

There are a lot of things called "racism" that I don't think qualify. Such as the recognition that some cultures are "better" than others, or that people should be rewarded for their merits and abilities.

But there are some things not necessarily considered racism that sure seem like it to me.

Such as... I don't understand unnecessarily bringing "race" into conversations where it is irrelevant. Like if someone is saying: "This Black guy at work gave me half of his hamburger..." or something like that. Why mention "Black" at all? What does it matter to the story? It almost never does.

Now, if you are trying to help someone identify an individual, I can see the point. "Look for the Black guy wearing the fedora" makes sense. Just like if you had said "look for the guy with the big nose and long red hair". That is a basic description to help you know who you are talking about. It's useful information.

It probably doesn't really matter, it's just something I notice, especially when it comes from people very proud of their post-rascism.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

That's not a duck

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if something doesn't fit the minimum definition, then it isn't the thing being discussed. No matter how much someone might invoke the "No true Scotsman" fallacy to try to make you ashamed of noticing.

Ducks are not mammals, even if one type of mammal has a bill and lays eggs.

A knife is not a dill pickle, even though I can imagine ways to make a knife out of a dill pickle.

And people who don't at least reject the initiation of force (more generally: archation) are not libertarians.

This includes those initiations of force and property rights violations they really like and support. Things like "taxes", "tax farm borders", and other property violations; arrests, imprisonment, and other forms of aggression.

They might be really close to being a libertarian in most ways, but just like an ichthyosaur was really close to being a dolphin in a lot of ways, the differences blow the comparison to pieces. The differences break the definition.

Yes, I know recognizing this is intolerant of me. I'm not saying I can't work with them where we agree, even while pointing out why they aren't what they claim to be.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

High court's power unconstitutional

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 12, 2018)

Every time there's an open spot on the Supreme Court, a political free-for-all erupts to fill it. Those who believe they have a claim on your life, liberty, and property take the nomination of a Supreme Court justice very seriously, indeed. It's no wonder, given the power those calling themselves "government" currently enjoy.

Almost none of this power is constitutional; even less is legitimate.

In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court decided to steal for itself a power not granted by the U.S. Constitution: to be the final arbiter on what the Constitution allows government to do. They stole this power so long ago that almost no one even realizes the coup took place.

That was the end of the Constitution as the operating manual for the U.S. government. The brakes on government were disabled, and now almost every part of your life is under some form of government control. Everything not prohibited is mandatory.

For any branch of a government to decide how far that government is allowed to control or meddle in your life is a conflict of interest. No one working for government should ever have this power.

The people are supposed to have power over government, not the other way around. As has been said many ways, by various people: when government fears the people there is liberty; when people fear government there is tyranny. If you have ever stopped to wonder whether something you were about to do was legal or not, though it would harm no person or private property, you've felt the birth of tyranny.

How did we get here?

Constitutionality isn't difficult to judge. The Constitution wasn't written for lawyers, but for average people. It's not up for interpretation or "judicial review", it says what it means. If a law limits what government can do, it is probably constitutional. If it limits what you can do, or would force you to do anything, it is almost certainly unconstitutional. Read the Constitution yourself if you have doubts.

Only the Supreme Court, acting outside what it was allowed to do, could have misinterpreted the document so badly, leading to a government which is at least 95% unconstitutional, and laws which are approaching 99% unconstitutional. Just kidding-- it's much worse than that but few would believe the truth.

Under these conditions, you don't have to wonder about the hysteria surrounding a Supreme Court nomination. It's a consequence of the power the Supreme Court has but was never intended to possess.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Do you care if someone benefits "unfairly"?

A lot of people are very concerned with making sure no one gets anything for free. Very concerned with not allowing anyone to have the opportunity to be a "free rider".

This confuses and amuses me.

I do lawn care, with another person, for my parents. As part of that, we mow and trim the alley behind their house. I also trim around the dumpster my parents use. It isn't exactly in their part of the alley but is next door, adjacent to their part. No one else trims around it. But since my parents use it, and they both worry excessively about snakes, I take a few seconds and keep the grass and weeds in front of the dumpster cleared away.

Yes, I know this act benefits others who haven't paid to get the benefit; I don't care. But it annoys my assistant that I do this. Badly. She says that's "not our job". She doesn't want other people to benefit in any way from our work.

That's how the statist mind works. It's sad.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Government is creepy

Feel free to ignore the LP plug on the bottom; it doesn't change the truth of the rest.

So, imagine you were in a relationship with someone and they gave you this note. 

Imagine it was an arranged "marriage" set up long before you were born, by superstitious ancestors. 

What if the "partner" also refused to abide by the conditions that were put on them at the time this arranged "marriage" was written up?

Would you feel obligated to abide by these rules? 

Would you love the one who imposed these conditions on you?

How could anyone see this as anything other than maximum creepiness?

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Dishonesty and double standards

There's a mistake I run into a lot, in completely unrelated places. People labeling non-governmental aggression as "anarchy". And only non-governmental aggression.

Aggression isn't anarchy; it is archation. It's unrelated to anarchy.

Aggression is aggression, and it doesn't matter whether it is freelance or justified by "law". You have no right to commit aggression or other forms of archation. Period. Nothing can create that imaginary right.

If there is looting after a hurricane or after a sportsballing ritual, that's not anarchy. It is archation.

If a cop "arrests" a person at a checkpoint for "drug possession" or for having a gun, that's aggression resulting in a kidnapping. Nothing can make it right. Not your fear, not "laws", and not "safety". This is every bit as much archation as the looting. But even worse.

If one were "anarchy", the other would also be "anarchy"-- but neither is. They are archation.

Aggression performed by freelance idiots isn't somehow worse than aggression committed by armed government employee idiots. Archation isn't made better or worse depending on whether a "law" allows it or not.

Is this dishonesty, or a double standard, or is it both?

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Your rights end where the rights of others begin

You have the right to an education. You do not have the right to rob people, or force them to ransom their property, so you can have a "public" school.

You have the right to health care. You do not have the right to rob people, or force them to serve you, so you can have "free, universal" health care.

You have the right to control your property. You do not have the right to rob people, or control their property and consensual trade arrangements, so you can have "secure borders" and unconstitutional "immigration control". Other people's property is not yours to control, not "even" if you call yourself government.

You have the right to own and to carry a weapon. You do not have the right to rob people, or force them to give you the gun you want, so you can exercise your right without cost. It's funny that those who want to enslave others for "positive rights" always seem to overlook this identical argument.

The ONLY responsibility others have with regards to your rights is to not violate them. To not ban books, to not declare a War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, or establish medical licensing or an FDA, to respect private property, and to not make up anti-gun "laws" of any kind. If they are doing something which actually interferes with your rights, they are the bad guys. If you expect others to be enslaved so you can have what you want, then the bad guy is you.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Why bother?"

The argument that it's useless to abolish government ("The State") because someone will just come along and establish another one is very weak. And irrelevant.

Someday you are going to die. Does this mean there's no point in defending yourself from some evil loser who wants to murder you? Does this mean it would be pointless for me to step in to save you if you were hanging to the edge of a cliff?

Illness and pain are a fact of life. Does this mean you should never bother taking a painkiller or trying to medicate your way back to health? Maybe you shouldn't even bother trying to avoid getting sick or needlessly injuring yourself.

Government is death and illness in a (largely) self-imposed form. You don't need it. It's holding you back and making you weak.

Sure, some moron would probably try to set up another government if there were none. So? It's still better to kill off the superstition now and then deal with any remission later.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Government and astrology

Government (by which I actually mean The State) is "real" in the same way astrology is "real".

They both exist as a collection of related beliefs. No one can doubt that the beliefs exist and this belief has effects. People truly believe in them and will argue about their "reality". They can point to the horoscopes in the newspaper or online, to the jewelry created in the form of the various astrological signs, to the "laws", and monuments, and giant buildings full of people. But those are just indications that people believe in these things and act on their belief, not that there's any concrete reality beneath the beliefs.

People actually alter their behavior based on their beliefs in these things. People choose who to date based on astrology and choose people to kidnap, rob, and murder based on government. But the beliefs are equally stupid.

In the end, you have nothing but beliefs and people willing to do things based on that belief, but nothing real holding up those beliefs.

Aren't you glad you aren't superstitious like those people?

That being said, sometimes it is necessary, when you are speaking to the believers, to refer to the thing as if it's real in order to point out the flaws in that system of belief. This way you can show that it doesn't actually work as advertised-- although they probably won't listen.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Enough problems without government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 5, 2018)

If you build a house in certain neighborhoods in Hawaii, you run the risk of having your house swallowed by lava. Along most coasts, hurricanes and tsunamis are looming dangers. In mountains, avalanches and landslides are seasonal threats. If you choose to build in Moore, Oklahoma, remember that tornadoes seem to enjoy the local scenery, and build below ground.

Pick your spot, then deal with the risks which come with it.

Unfortunately, no matter where you choose to live on this planet, political government-- imposed on you by a ruling class or by your friends, family, and neighbors-- is a constant threat to your life, liberty, and property.

While the other risks are natural, the threat posed by government is completely artificial and unnecessary. People chose to create it, then struggle to maintain it in their minds; the only place it really exists. The government buildings (and the employees who inhabit them) are things the believers will point to as proof of government's reality, yet those physical things are nothing more than idols built to the idea-- concrete monuments to a figment of the imagination.

Frequently, the natural disasters are made worse by relying on this figment. A news story about the people of Puerto Rico, who were still without power or fresh water months after their devastating hurricanes, said they were questioning whether the U. S. government cares about their survival.

It doesn't. Government cares about its own survival. As long as your survival doesn't get in government's way, it is content for you to survive. Your survival takes a back seat, though. This is why the U. S. government has a plan for "continuity of government" in case of a civilization-ending disaster, but no plan to save America's productive people. Those who are the embodiment of government believe their survival is more important than the survival of the rest of the world.

You might claim having government around protects you from some bad things. Burning your house down prevents bedbugs in the same way, but seems similarly drastic.

The threat posed by belief in government is greater in some areas but seems unavoidable everywhere, and that's insane. Getting away from government is part of the reason the frontier has been historically popular, and without a frontier or other state-free spaces, there's a ticking time bomb which can't be defused. Society will eventually pay a price it can't afford.

The world has enough trouble. Why create and perpetuate a completely unnecessary problem?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com