Stand up for your right to liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 23, 2023)

When the residents of an area allow crime and societal decay to go unchecked, there's nothing politicians or police can do about it.

Just look at what has happened to so many of the big cities around the country.

It's not about "too few police", as if that were even a thing. It's about the regular people who live there allowing bad things to happen and simply accepting it or expecting someone else to do something about it. Part of the problem is lifelong training to "let the police deal with it".

They are shirking their responsibility. It's a losing strategy.

Police and prosecutors make this decline worse if they spend any time and effort trying to punish those who take responsibility for life, liberty, and property in their sphere.

If hordes of looters know they'll face no effective defense from the owners and employees of a business, no police force or law can convince them to behave. They'll run rampant, destroying property and endangering lives as they go.

If homeless people know no one will stand up to them if they use the sidewalks as a toilet and as a bed, and aggressively demand handouts, why would they stop? They are as obligated to respect private property as anyone, and giving them a pass because of their mental issues isn't being kind to them. Just the opposite. You have to expect people to behave well and stand up to them when they don't.

The places where these things go unchallenged testify against the regular residents as much as against the politicians, police, criminals, and the mentally ill. At some point, you have to stop complying with counterproductive rules and take responsibility for your surroundings. Even if it's only your small patch of property. Don't allow bad people to have their way on it.

You can do this without violating the rights of anyone to live as they see fit. This right to live as you want never includes the right to harm others or damage or take their property. There is no such thing as a right to steal, a right to vandalize, or a right to attack people. No rule can override the human right to defend life, liberty, and property from all violators.

Take responsibility and stand against those who demand you stand down and you'll have a society worth protecting. Don't, and you'll end up with Seattle, Chicago, or San Francisco.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Government "jobs"

There are two types of government “jobs”; those that would still exist in a free society and those that wouldn’t.

Those that would exist in a free society are things like librarians, teachers, road repair crews, record keepers, etc. Things that plenty of people would find useful enough to spend money on even without being forced at gunpoint to do so.

It makes me sad to admit that "police" would also exist in some form since there are so many people who seem to honestly believe they couldn't live without them. As long as I don't have to fund them and I can shoot them if they archate, and expect unbiased arbitration afterward, I can live with it. I still wouldn't hire them. I'd probably shun them.

Those "jobs" that wouldn't exist in a free society are useless "jobs" like IRS thieves, BATFE parasites, DMV trolls, Congressvermin, etc. "Jobs" that are totally worthless and harmful to society. If you have to threaten people with violence to get them to use the "service" you offer, your "job" needs to be abolished. These are by far the worst "jobs" out there, and even the worst of the government "jobs". They are make-work "jobs" for utterly useless people.

-

My surgery fundraiser.
Thank you!

Exciting evening

We spent a couple of hours last night in our storm cellar. We called our next-door neighbor and she met us there, too.

A large tornado was seen on the ground somewhere northwest of us, heading southeast, which is why I was ready to go. I was watching the sky in that direction-- I could still see pretty well due to constant lightning flashes. Then the tornado sirens started blaring and we stuffed cats (and the chinchilla) in crates and ran to the cellar. 

The cats weren't happy-- except for Whiskers the one-eyed cat. As long as my daughter is there, he's content. The chinchilla didn't express his opinion.

It was really hot and stuffy (and a bit crowded). We sat there and listened to the wind, rain, and hail.

Finally, when the worst had passed and the radar on our phones showed the dangerous parts of the storm had moved on, we came up and went back in the house-- getting drenched as we did so.

This is only the second time we've retreated to the cellar for a storm. The last time was probably 10 years ago. This was the first time the tornado sirens were screaming at us.

I checked the house and yard this morning and there doesn't seem to be any real damage. Leaves stripped from my "trees" and stuff moved around a little by the wind (we have worse winds without storms-- we didn't get the 90-125 mph winds reported in some other areas).

Around town, some trees lost large pieces of themselves. I'm about to take my daily stroll around town and I'll see if anything else seems damaged. 

Anyway, it was thrilling and we survived just fine. I kind of thrive in survival situations-- even minor ones. I'm still glad I have a storm cellar.

-

My colon surgery fundraiser.
Thank you!

Global communism-- inevitable or stillborn?

I can't help but find it funny when a communist lectures me about my need to grow up and face the real world.

Communists are so very convinced of the "inevitability" of communism. We are all going to be there eventually. We might as well stop fighting it now-- we are just wasting our time. 

Well, I'm accustomed to being on the "losing" side. Still not convinced it's the wrong side.

I had a discussion with one communist a couple of days ago. It was illuminating.

He couldn't help himself-- he needed to assign me to "the left" or "the right". So he told me I'm a capitalist ("the right"). 

When I said I support the market, the communist launched into a lecture about how capitalism requires government, cops, theft, and exploitation. I tried to steer him back to the topic of the market, but he only wanted to criticize capitalism.

He hates that rich people are allowed to spend their own money (which he believes isn't theirs) on what they want. He says they are tyrannizing me by doing so. Should I feel tyrannized by them if they aren't using legislation against me?

He also started in about the communists' favorite Phantom Menace: class. To me, "class" is in the same category as "race" a distinction that doesn't make any difference since it doesn't say who is archating against whom. I don't give one Planck Length about someone's supposed "class".

He couldn't have an intelligent conversation because he couldn't get past "class" and "capitalism". He's stuck in the mud.

They can't stand that I say I don't care if they establish a communist community as long as they don't force anyone to participate. He told me I'll be begging to join them as soon as I run out of canned beans and dogs. OK. If that's true it doesn't change my position even a little.

He wasn't willing to have an actual conversation because...well, I'm not sure. But I could see it wasn't accomplishing anything to keep trying to discuss it with him.

So I set him loose to go hallucinate at someone else.

Communists: they aren't that smart but at least they can sometimes fight their own straw men to a draw.

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

So much pandering

I wish businesses just did business and stayed out of social issues and politics. Just offer products and services and stop pandering to various demographics.

I don't have a leg to stand on to criticize this, since it’s a mistake I made when I had a business. Twice. Still, it annoys me and I wouldn't do it again. 

Of course, it could be argued I pander to liberty lovers, but since I am one and it's not just an act I put on to manipulate others, I would disagree.

Maybe I would feel differently about pandering in general if major corporations pandered to my love of liberty. I suppose some gun manufacturers kinda do that, but it doesn't really have much of an effect on how I feel about their products. Since I don't have money to spend on buying guns it doesn't much matter anyway.

Some pandering targeted at me misses the mark. Due to my location, I constantly see ads extolling the virtue of this or that "truck" (really a pickup) Made For Texans or something silly. It usually makes me roll my eyes and mutter "Stop pandering" under my breath. 

"Pride" month is just more of the same and curdles my innards.

When I notice the pandering, I hate it. Perhaps if they are pandering to me it doesn't feel like pandering. When they are pandering to someone else, the pandering is obvious and looks stupid.

Is there more to gain than to lose by spending so much time, effort, and money pandering rather than simply offering products and services? I have no idea, but since it seems they are all doing it nowadays, there must seem to be some benefit. Even as it makes me disgusted with them and their "brand".

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

Completely unnecessary

Any good or truly useful thing that gets accomplished by people working as "the government" could be done voluntarily. "Government" is completely unnecessary for those things, even if cheating by stealing the funds and forcing people to go along makes it easier.

The bad things done by people working as "the government" are only tolerated because people believe if evil is done by "government" it's either not evil or "that's just how things are". No one would let people get away with taxation, prohibition, criminalization of self-defense, etc. if there weren't a belief in government behind it skewing the reaction.

If it is true that without government it couldn't be done, then it needs to go undone. No matter what "it" is.

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

I am "a problem"

I don't know if you've seen the terrible video-- if not I don't recommend watching it-- where Blue Line Mafia thugs in California target a Cannabis grower, trespass, and shoot his dog. Then they rob and kidnap him.

A copsucker commented that the cops were right to shoot the dog because it "took an attack stance".

I pointed out that the dog was guarding its home and humans from trespassers.

The copsucker said they weren't trespassing because they had "papers" saying they were authorized to be there.

I observed that the mafia giving its goons "papers" saying they have permission to trespass doesn't change anything.

Copsucker told me, among other things, "You are a problem".

He then posted a news article that he believed bolstered his side. It said the Cannabis grower didn't have all the required tangle of permits/licenses, the dog was a danger, and the resident had "resisted arrest".

I thanked the guy for sharing an article that made my point. He said, again, "You're a problem".

I wonder what such a copsucking parasite would propose as a "solution" for a problem like me. I'll bet it involves armed mafia goons getting permission from their mafia bosses to aggress against me.

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

Fighting entropy never ends

In the six weeks I was kind of out of commission after the surgery (doctor's orders to not lift anything heavier than ten pounds), a lot of household tasks and repairs piled up, Not only at my house, but at my parents' house, too.

I've spent the last couple of days trying to catch up. I can tell my body needs to get used to the routine again, too.

It's amazing how quickly things start falling apart when you're not actively staying on top of them.

Fighting entropy is just a fact of life if you don't want everything to fall down on your head. That's why I don't really understand those who claim that it's pointless to get rid of government since someone else will just come along and establish another one.

Yeah. So?

To keep things in good order you're always going to have to fight decay. And political government is societal decay. You can either fight back by keeping things in good working order, or you can surrender to the rot. I'm not going to accept the rot and decay without doing all I can to keep things working in spite of those who want to make things political.

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

That's what everybody says

I had an exchange with someone I've been close to for over 20 years that showed me how unreliable what "everybody says" can be.

Not that I wasn't already aware, I am just astounded by how many people fall for it. And in some cases, by who falls for it.

She lives in Florida. She was saying she's thought about getting a gun. I was making a few suggestions and she mentioned that in Florida she could just walk into a gun store and walk out with whatever she wants, "no questions asked". 

I said that's not how it works; the fedboys still force stores to do background checks. She said, "Not in Florida... they just changed the gun laws... no background checks". I said she'd discover that isn't true if she tries to buy one. She didn't believe me, because "everybody says" differently.

Then she went on an anti-Florida rant, saying it is now the worst place in the country, "a s#!tshow", because the governor is a "pig" who has "literally made it illegal for trans people to exist". I said she should know that's not actually true. 

But she really believes these things because it's what "everybody says".

She knows me well enough that she ought to know I've never lied to her and never would. But, when "everybody says" something enough, I guess it's hard to accept that "everybody" is mistaken or lying.

She knows I oppose all laws and all politicians. I'd prefer politicians be criticized based on fact, not on what "everybody says". I suggested there are good reasons to dislike politicians and it's not necessary to make up things to dislike them for, but that's what is happening in this case. Again, she doesn't believe me because of what she's hearing from "everybody".

She doesn't watch the news, but like most of us, I'm sure she is exposed to its narrative second-hand. She uses "social media", but I'm not sure which ones. She talks with her cow-orkers at the Disney-area convenience store where she works. But mostly she interacts with the public. She believes these things because they are the things "everybody says". "Everybody says" these things because that's what someone has been brainwashing them to believe. She's not going to look into the truth to see that "everybody" is mistaken or lying. 

At least she doesn't v*te.

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

Obama is disappointed in me

I saw a short clip of an interview with ex-president Obama. The clip I saw was about guns. It's clear he's just so disappointed that after he made gun ownership a partisan issue, it has become a partisan issue. (Of course, he ignores those of us who don't fit his political model.) He's disappointed in us! Oh, how will I ever be able to stand the pain?!

He doesn't understand why America didn't follow Australia's anti-gun example. Maybe you should explain it to him.

He drove a bigger wedge between the part of society that understands the importance of self-defense and the antisocial faction that believes government knows best. Yet, he blames you and me for the growing divide.

He's not the only one wallowing in this sort of dishonesty or ignorance.

I encountered a couple of anti-gunners online yesterday. 

One doesn't understand why gun owners won't accept that the only guns the Second Amendment "authorizes" us to own and to carry (she'd probably even disagree with the "carry" part) are flintlocks. She wrote that with quill and ink, of course, just to be consistent. Oh, wait...she didn't.

Anyway, she finally admitted that she hadn't really thought about any of the issues, but she still said the "compromise comic" was "... disingenuous at the very least. I mean I get what you’re implying with it but there have to be compromises going forward!" So, all the "compromises" so far aren't enough? They never will be.

No, not only do there not "have to be" more "compromises" in the future, but those that have already been imposed must be rescinded.

Another anti-gun bigot flung the tried and true turd: "Amendment begins ‘a well regulated militia’—why skip to the end as if the beginning isn’t there?", but when I said "No one skips it. It just doesn’t mean what you want it to mean." he replied, "According to people who love guns more than common sense safety"

So I asked him to describe what he considers "common sense safety", and he answered "Background checks at gun shows and private sales".

If only there were a way to make evil losers obey another law on top of all those they ignore! I'm sure a person who plans to murder a bunch of random strangers will be thwarted when he chooses to go through a background check and fails it. Or, passes it as so many recent evil losers have done.

These people don't know what they want-- not really. They just know they want "more". More restrictions on you, what you are allowed to own, and what you can do with what you own.

It's always something more. Just "a little more". And if they get that, it will be just a little more than that tomorrow. Until we are all slaves to a state.

Which might just be why Obama doesn't like for us to have guns.

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

Take high ground against legislation

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 16, 2023)

Is everything hopeless? The dominant cultures around the world have gone insane. Dishonest ideas, presented as normal or reasonable, are forced on us and the young and the gullible seem powerless to resist. Social media makes diseased ideas seem trendy and cool.

As long as you don't allow someone to violate you, let them be wrong. People have the right to make mistakes and you have the right to defend yourself from the consequences of their mistakes-- without violating their equal and identical rights. This is what liberty is.

Take care of yourself, because if you are unable to stand against the rising tide of insanity, who could replace you? Make sure you are okay no matter what happens around you; no matter what disastrous path society takes.

Don't allow yourself to be forced to act as though lies are truth. It's dangerous to stand your ground against armies of smug liars with power. Do it anyway. Speak the truth even when it costs you; even when those around you claim you're hurting someone's feelings.

Don't suggest "there ought to be a law"-- there are ethical ways of dealing with these lies. Ways which don't involve the other horrific lie, that political government is somehow legitimate in some circumstances. It's not.

People who haven't got a leg to stand on will always seek to make up new legislation to force the world to conform to the way they wish it were. Then they'll use those who enforce legislation to get what they want. Don't be like them.

Legislation is the low ground; take the high ground. You do you, and let them fall off the cliff if this is what they are determined to do. If you try to save them and they pull you over the edge too, no one is better off. If you can keep someone from following them into oblivion, though, do it, within the limits of what you have a right to do.

No one has the right to prevent you from doing anything which harms no other person nor violates their property. No one has the right to punish you for living in this way. A government job doesn't create this right, nor can a law. To stand up against the insanity you're going to need to become comfortable doing things which are unpopular with "the crowd". You're reading this so I have faith in you. You give me hope.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

You're an outlaw. Get used to it.

I couldn't tell you the date for sure, but I'll bet the first time I told you that you are going to need to become comfortable with being an outlaw was within the first year or so of launching this blog-- in other words, probably 18 or so years ago. (The earliest example I found was from May of 2007, which is in the first year of the blog.)

And it's only more obvious today than it was back then.

If you don't want to be a slave you're going to have to be an outlaw. And you might as well get comfortable with it now. Unless you're OK with being a slave, in which case, why are you reading my blog?

Several times over the years my dad has told me it was a good thing his dad died before certain social trends took hold-- because he wouldn't have been able to handle them.

I never want to be that way, but that doesn't mean I'm going to quietly accept certain unacceptable things without speaking out. Even if it's unpopular or illegal to speak the truth about them.

I don't want to be an angry, out-of-place old man, I'd rather be an outlaw who just doesn't care what society, through government, dictates. 

Sure, it would be nice if society and government changed (or in the case of government, died a horrible death) so that liberty was valued and no longer illegal. But my opinions aren't going to change to fit the dying culture if that doesn't happen. 

If the bad guys-- who I have less than zero respect for anyway-- are going to label me an outlaw for doing what I have a natural human right to do, I'm OK with that. Are you?

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

Seeing what they choose to see

 

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

"The REAL libertarians"?

Classical liberalism is "libertarian, but".

Those who call themselves classical liberals like to claim they are "the real libertarians". Perhaps... 

They sure do have big Buts, though.

They like liberty, BUT they believe in a "night watchman" government to do the things they believe are "too important" to allow someone to do them correctly-- without theft and coercion.

If they think it's important, they want to have the least honest or capable among us responsible for it. And they want it done with theft and coercion.

They like to keep the state around for those functions states invariably reach for first when they want to rob, enslave, or murder the people under their power. Police, military, etc... the usual suspects.

Yet, they'll claim others who don't believe in this excessive state (which they'd claim is a "minimal state") are statist, but they themselves are the libertarians. Whatever, fellas.

Claim whatever makes you happy. 

I'll just say classical liberalism is much too statist for me. Every interaction I have with one of them on social media drives this fact home.

To see them attacking someone else as a statist-- while being so completely statist in what they advocate-- is funny stuff.

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

Is it bad to want to overthrow government?

To want to overthrow an evil political government doesn’t automatically make a person bad.

All political governments are evil.

Any institution that would be considered a "government" by anyone who isn't nitpicking technical details is political.

I'm not going to criticize those who are fighting against the Ancestral Enemy-- who, of course, will be labeled as "bad" by the Ancestral Enemy. What else can the Ancestral Enemy do?

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

Reader (?) response

Here's a response to today's newspaper column:

Dear Mr McManigal and mr [Redacted] (a local Republican activist)
Boy howdy, you two are a pair.
Both of you wear hats in the house (now that is not real cowboy or polite)*.
“Liberty is more important than imaginary safety, or even life.”
I wish you two cowboys would saddle up and go to Ukraine and shoot your guns.

I’m tired of listening to your hunter biden, nord stream conspiracies, or the government taking your home protection firearm.

Now an assault rifle with a clip (semi automatic) is another thing.
I wish both of you to volunteer in the emergency room for a 9mm gunshot wound vs multiple 30-06 wounds.   Both stop an intruder, but you don’t want a kid using either.
A 30-06 is a deer rifle (bolt action) not an assault rifle with a clip.
One bullet one kill…. That’s how it worked in the old days.   No mistakes.

I believe you two “voices” contributors in the newspaper are destructive and you both need to be a little more constructive in our society.
Happy Mother’s Day and pass it on.
Sincerely [redacted]

Here's the reply I sent:

Mr. [Redacted 2],

Mr. [redacted] and I are not generally on the same side. I am the polar opposite of Republican/Democrat.

It's very strange that today if you're against Biden you're MAGA. If you're against Trump you're a leftist. If you're against both you're MAGA again. Politics makes people stupid.

I do not support the Ukraine government. I do not support the Russian government. I support every individual who is neither initiating force nor violating private property.

When have I ever mentioned Hunter Biden or Nordstream? Are you hallucinating? 

As for government taking home protection firearms-- that's the whole point of every one of the 20,000+ failed anti-gun rules (they aren't, and can't be, laws) and the criminal gang of the BATFE. A territory where only government employees are armed has a name; it's called a police state.

Assault rifles are select-fire rifles and have been (illegally) rationed since 1934. They are not semi-automatic. A clip is a metal strip that holds a few (usually 10 or fewer) cartridges together, ready to be pushed down into the action of a rifle. You're probably mistakenly referring to magazines. This is why it's difficult to take anti-gunners seriously when they try to speak as though they know what they're talking about while saying things of this sort.

The term "assault weapons" (which is so ridiculous it seems to be falling out of favor with people more often using the objectively incorrect term "assault rifles" for firearms which aren't assault rifles) was made up by Josh Sugarmann in 1988 in order to fool the public into supporting a ban on semi-auto rifles. His argument was: "Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." So even he knew he was lying for a political purpose.

Your point about the 9mm wounds vs "multiple 30-06 wounds" makes no sense. Yes, the more powerful 30-06 is going to do more damage, especially if there are multiple wounds. So? I haven't even heard of any political criminals talking about outlawing rifles that shoot 30-06 yet. They are focusing on those that shoot little underpowered .223 bullets (AR-15s) right now. 

Both a bolt action and a semi-automatic shoot one bullet per trigger pull. That's all. It's still "one bullet, one kill" if that's your goal. Remember, JFK was killed with a bolt action.

Most of the time, though, the only goal is to shoot paper targets. Anti-gunners must be very violent people to constantly fantasize that the only reason to have a gun is to kill people. I support the fundamental human right for anyone who doesn't want a weapon to not own a weapon, and if you think this much about killing others, you should probably opt out of weapon ownership-- including cars or hammers.

No one has a right to shoot someone who isn't currently attacking them or violating their property. You're arguing a straw man you've constructed.

Why wouldn't I want a kid using a 9mm or a deer rifle? Would I prefer to keep guns a forbidden fruit so they'll not know how to handle them correctly, but will be obsessed with getting their hands on one precisely because it's not allowed? This is like pretending the best way to keep kids from drowning is to make sure to keep them ignorant about water and forbid them to learn to swim, and ignore the fact they'll still be curious about water-- even more so since you've made it off-limits. It's counterproductive and will end up in more deaths.

If you believe this is "destructive", then the problem is within you.

Kent McManigal

*Demonstrating historical ignorance 

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!