What's the "Big Idea"?

Sometimes blogging is so frustrating. I was on my errand this morning when a brilliant idea for a blog struck me. I was turning it over in my mind when I had to pull to the side to let an ambulance pass. Then I saw that it was headed towards the house of someone I know. I didn't see if that is where it went or not... it might have been next door. Anyway, when I got to the computer, my brilliant idea was gone. Evaporated. I have tried to remember for the last few hours to no avail.

Has "The Big Liberty Idea" vanished in the rush of daily life in this same way? Perhaps the kernel of the idea that would have made us all throw off the chains of oppression was just forming in someone's mind once, and then in a moment of distraction, it was gone.

Take the time to daydream a little everyday. Maybe "The Big Liberty Idea" will come to you. If not, you will still have spent some valuable time inside your own mind. That is a good thing.

What Freedom Means to Me

"Freedom" is not having to think about government, its rules, or its enforcers. It is being able to pursue happiness however you want as long as you do not harm anyone else. Government harms others so the practice of governing is not a "right" and is antithetical to freedom.

Governments are established (it has been said) in order to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No other reason. If government is not doing its job, it should be fired.

Has the government, at any level, enriched your life today? Has it protected your individual liberty in a concrete way today? Has government gotten out of the way and allowed you to pursue happiness? Or has government and its minions endangered your life by filling our land with badged highwaymen hopped up on "authority" and adrenaline, and forced you to be disarmed for freelance criminals to prey on? Has government taken anyone you know prisoner for the simple act of owning or using something in a non-aggressive way that the government does not approve of? Does government forbid you to do the things that bring joy to your heart, and fill your life with meaning, simply because the majority of lawmakers do not understand your interests? If you have experienced government doing any of these things, in direct violation of its charter to exist, then you have first-hand knowledge of why government must be brought back in line with the laws that apply to it, or if it resists, be abolished. The rules were clear. Government is established for A, B, &C, yet government does -A, -B, & -C. That adds up to zero. Zero government, with individual responsibility, is what freedom means to me.

In Defense of Violence

The Zero Aggression Principle states: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation". "Initiate", as in "start it". Even very young children recognize the clear difference. "He started it" is often the cry for justice from their lips. Violence when used in self defense is not the same as violence used to hurt an innocent person. Initiated force (offensive violence or aggression) is wrong; reactive force (defensive violence) is just and good. A moral individual will recognize the difference even while governments refuse to. This is one reason (out of many) the D.A.R.E. program is so evil; in its blanket condemnation of all violence, it does not differentiate initiated force with self defense force. That is because the authoritards only think that they can properly use violence; against us.

The blind rejection of self defensive violence has left our society crippled with crime and government. Evil individuals and governments will never learn to behave themselves if there are no painful or fatal consequences for their crimes. We must reintroduce the predators among us to fear. Violence in the form of self defence must be encouraged and rewarded, and people whom governments demonize for using self defense must be supported by all lovers of liberty.

"Top Ten Reasons Why an Anarchist is Your Best Friend" by Retta Fontana

I have linked to the writings of Retta Fontana once before, but here is another excellent piece on anarchists: They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

I was called a "hippy anarchist" on one website. A black powder shooter group I used to hang out with had bumper stickers that said: "I am NOT a hippy! I am a well-groomed MountainMan". Maybe we are hippies; with guns. In any case, I am an anarchist. Read Retta's piece and see why.

Donations? - I Need Your Feedback

I am having an ethical crisis that I need some input on. Some people feel that I should accept donations. I have very strong feelings against this for a couple of reasons. I want this to be the first truly grass-roots campaign. I want my supporters to be my campaign staff. I have asked you, my supporters, to spend your time and/or money however you see fit on this campaign. Some people feel I am handicapping my campaign with this stance.

One of the very first promises I made was to not accept monetary donations. I don't want to break a promise. Not without a compelling reason, and not without the consensus of my supporters that it would be the right thing to do. If you think I am wrong to refuse donations, tell me so, and explain why you think I should accept them. I have thought long and hard about this and can't seem to find an answer on my own.

I have two reasons for not accepting donations. The reporting regulations are one reason. The other reason is that I hear people complaining about how donations corrupt the candidates with influence, so I thought that if I refused donations, I could avoid any appearance of "political favor-ism". I didn't think it would be a divisive issue. I can't really imagine that there are that many people itching to donate money to me anyway.

The only reason I have not yet filed with the FEC is that I don't have a "campaign committee" (and the required bank account) or a treasurer or a "guardian of records". Since I wasn't planning on accepting donations, I wasn't too concerned with the FEC. Now it appears that in order to continue the campaign I will need to file. The FEC seems to have no option for "does not accept donations". That really lets you know what the "game" is all about, doesn't it.

Anyway, I have promised to think about accepting donations if enough people really think it is important for me to do so. Please let me know what you think, either in a comment here or in an email to dullhawk@hotmail.com .

Thank you.

Conservative President 2008 Interview

Conservative President 2008 asked me four questions recently. Here is the interview:

Libertarian McManigal Q&A

Thank You LPHQ Staff

I would like to thank the Libertarian Party HQ staff for publishing the interview with me in the recent issue of LP News. Your recognition of my campaign is very important to me.

I have not yet changed my position on accepting campaign donations for myself, but I would be glad to participate in Liberty Decides '08 to raise funds for the LP and their eventual nominee. I feel it is important to build the LP so that it can be an effective counterbalance to the authoritarian parties which get most of the public's attention. The people of America need to know they have a choice. The LP is fundamentally different enough, not being just another flavor of authoritarianism, that it can serve as a polar opposite to "politics as usual" which disgusts so many people. We should all help in any way we can.

The War on Guns: Guest Editorial: You Can't Repeal the Law of Unintended Consequences

The War on Guns: Guest Editorial: You Can't Repeal the Law of Unintended Consequences

Washington DC's Gun Ban

I apologize for needing to talk about gun "laws" again. The tyrants keep making it necessary.

The rulers of Washington DC, like any hive of villains, think it is a good idea to keep honest people disarmed against their predations. As I have pointed out in the past, only crooked politicians and freelance criminals fear guns in the hands of ordinary people. No one who wishes to disarm you does it for your benefit, but for their own, so that they are empowered to do things to you that you would not permit them to do if you had the means to effectively defend yourself. "Gun control" is the act of predators taking preemptive steps to protect themselves. That is why it is called "victim disarmament".

Now a court, with an uncharacteristic act of self betrayal, has declared that the Washington DC "laws" against gun ownership are unconstitutional (that means "illegal" in case you missed that chapter in the civics book). It makes me wonder why the court did that. Of course the DC villains will appeal the ruling; they must; it is a matter of life and death to them. The court knew they would, too. I believe that they are thinking that in the long run, this ruling will help them get rid of that "pesky Second Amendment" once and for all. I don't know how yet.

Perhaps the Supreme Court will decide to look at the case. If they do, there are a couple of things that could happen. They could say that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but of course the gun ban doesn't violate that in any way since (...insert twisted justification of your choice here...). They could rule that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right and so only applies to "militias" controlled by the villains themselves. I don't think the Supremes will have the integrity to rule against the villains who want to keep DC helpless. As long as "judges" work for the government and are paid by the government, it is in their self interest to side with the government. (I propose that in cases where the government is involved, judges only get paid when they rule against government interests. But that is another issue.)

The entire concept of "collective rights" is absurd. A right is something that is held within an individual. Like a life. For poetic purposes, sometimes a culture is said to have a life, but to be killed off, it must be killed one individual at a time. A right is the same way. Just as with a life, a right must be individual to have any meaning at all.

Gun Laws Equal Death

Here is a good article from WorldNetDaily, "How gun control trades life for death". The irony to me is that WorldNetDaily conservatives would imprison people who do not bow to the "law". They also worship the Law Enforcement Jackals who would murder us for carrying the means for defending the defenseless. Make no mistake: Victim Disarmament is murder. Under the dishonest euphemism of "gun control" it brings only death and destruction to the innocent. The monsters who propose or enforce these "laws" are guilty of empowering the murderers. Real thinking, feeling, caring humans do not require defenselessness from others nor do they allow themselves to be disarmed. They will strike back at any thug who tries. No honest police officer will ever arrest or harass anyone who is simply violating any gun "law". If they do, they are only a common thug.

"Me Libertarians"

In talking to people about politics, I have noticed a thing I will call "me libertarians" Almost everyone I talk to fits into this group to one extent or another. These are the people who want to be treated as they would be in a libertarian society, yet they want to control others with the authoritarian "iron grip". I may be wrong, but I think this is because they feel that they are personally trustworthy and capable of running their own lives, while everyone else is not.

Where does this idea come from? From government. Who is it that pits the races against one another, and has a stake in keeping our society from becoming "color-blind"? Who attempts to cause strife between men and women using "family law" and favoritism in the divorce courts? Who makes an issue of sexual orientation while most of us don't even notice "who is what"? Who implements policies that favor one group to the detriment of another group? Who makes it OK, and encourages, for smokers, gun owners, and certain religious groups to be treated as third-class citizens? Government.

Americans are better than that. Remember who the real enemy is, and don't be distracted by the red flags government pins on the other guy. Refuse to check the "race" box when you fill out forms. It doesn't matter and would never be asked except by a racist. If someone who you are not sexually attracted to shows an interest in you, you can respond without over-reacting. No matter what gender the person may be. Just because they are interested in you, it doesn't threaten you in any way. Don't cooperate when the government and its mass-media lapdogs try to demonize a segment of the population.

Don't delegate your responsibilities to government or its thugs. Remember that no one, especially not government, has the right to initiate force or fraud against you and don't take it if they do. As Robert A. Heinlein said: "An armed society is a polite society".

Remember, a libertarian is not someone who takes liberties; but is someone who gives liberties. Don't be a "me libertarian". Spread the responsibility and the freedom. Give the other guy the benefit of the doubt. I'll bet he or she will strive to meet your expectations.

"When cops turn into thugs" by J.D. Tuccille

Here is a good blog about a rare case where bad(ge) guys are held accountable for their crimes.

Updates on KentForLiberty.com

If you haven't visited KentForLiberty.com in a while, I invite you to see the changes I have made. My "Political Hierarchy Chart" now has its own page, along with an updated description. I am constantly tweaking the site, sometimes to the detriment of my blog. I have added links to several other things as well.

Interview on Presidential Election '08

Here is a short interview I did for the Presidential Election '08 Blog.

McManigal Quoted in Article about "Survivalist"

In a recent case in California a man was arrested after guns and ammunition (and food and water) were found stored in his burning house. An online request was made for information about "survivalism". I spoke to the reporter in order to balance what I was afraid would be a one-sided response. The "law" enforcement spokescritters had already had their say, casting aspersions on the man who was universally viewed as a good neighbor. Here is the article: Link

Plus, also read this by Vin Suprynowicz.

My Purpose in Blogging

It has been pointed out to me that I am stubborn, and have an attitude that "I am right and you are wrong". I really don't know anyone who doesn't have that attitude. That is human nature. Each of us sees things from our own unique perspective. If I didn't think I was right, I wouldn't write anything down for anyone to read. What would be the point? I would just read what others had written and I would keep my opinions to myself.

The purpose of this blog is not to tell you what to think, but to tell you what I think so you can make an informed decision as to whether to support my candidacy or not. As a libertarian, I would never force my opinions on you; that is what separates libertarians from all other political persuasions. Do you want a candidate who is afraid to tell you what he believes? I have reasons for believing as I do. Whether they are good enough reasons for you to accept is not my call; it is yours. I attempt to lay out my positions, my beliefs, and my reasoning for you to see. If you think I am loony, ignore me. If you think I am mistaken, correct me. If you think I am right, let me know.

Dangers of Being Armed or Unarmed

Anytime one goes out in public, and many times when you think you are safe in your own home, you are in danger of being victimized by a criminal.

Many people (many more than gun-haters know) take responsibility for their own safety and the safety of the public at large, by carrying a weapon. The chance of being victimized on any particular day is very small. Of course, it does happen without warning and you should always be prepared.

On the other hand, the chance of being stopped and victimized by a cop who is willing to enforce victim disarmament laws, having your weapon discovered, and being arrested or killed grows larger each and every day that those counterfeit "laws" stay "on the books".

You can avoid that danger by abdicating your responsibility and walking around unarmed.

Or you can beg permission from the "government" to be allowed to carry a weapon. Subject to their whims, restrictions, fees, and inclusion in criminal databases, of course.

Either of these options robs you of your humanity in a real way, since it is an admission that you belong to the state. Unfortunately, the danger from cops is probably getting greater than the danger of being victimized by freelance criminals. It makes the decision more difficult.

Who is a bigger danger: freelance criminals or cops? I wish I had the answer.

.

The Political Hierarchy Chart

This chart was designed to show the relationships between the various political philosophies. As you pass from freedom at the top, through apathy in the middle, down to the Authoritarians (those who wish to control or punish others) on the bottom, you pass through all of the ways that people relate to one another. You can find a larger version of it on my website, too.

The Philosopher Candidate

Recently, in a private email, someone referred to me as "the philosopher candidate". At first I didn't know how to take that. To me a philosopher has always been someone who just sits around and thinks instead of actually doing anything. But then, being the philosopher that I am, I sat and thought about it.

I suppose I am a philosopher. A philosopher of libertarianism; of individual liberty and responsibility. I do think about these things a lot, even when I am doing mundane chores. Especially when I am doing mundane chores. In my mind I weigh the ins and outs of actions and reactions. I try to imagine a truly free world and what it would mean to the future of humanity. To each individual who has been freed to live his or her life to its full potential; free of coercion. The implications excite me, as I hope you can tell by reading this blog.

America has had presidents who were warriors, businessmen, an actor, farmers, teachers, a lot of lawyers, an inventor, and myriad other things in their "before President" lives. Why shouldn't there be a philosopher in that mix? And if a philosopher is an honorable thing to be, why shouldn't that philosopher candidate, that Philosopher President, be me?

JPFO Third Party Gun Poll

Here is a good poll from JPFO. They ask whether you would vote for the candidate of a pro-gun third party (you know what I am banking on). Please go vote on both of their questions.