Kent McManigal: About Borders and Property Lines

Kent-McManigal-colorFrom Kent McManigal, 2008 Libertarian Party and Boston Tea Party candidate:

In which I dispel a few misconceptions about me which are apparently held by borderists.

I believe in private property, and I think shooting someone for trespassing is sometimes the right thing to do. I would never want to second guess a person who shoots a trespasser- especially an adult trespasser. Or a trespasser who is littering and damaging the property, or threatening the owners. Trespass should come with a price high enough to discourage it.

I would not sit still for people moving into my house and declaring they will live there. But I don’t own your house and I know I have no say in who you invite into yours. To pretend otherwise is a form of theft.

I do not want to see “others” move into the area until they outnumber me and begin to push me around. In the same way, I don’t like that I am outnumbered and surrounded by people who follow religions I find abhorrent even now. Religions very popular with mainstream America, including the world’s most popular religion: statism. But, the only legitimate say I have in that ends at my property lines- even if I don’t like it.

I do believe some religions are worse than others, and some cultures are sick and twisted.

I do not believe “The Country” negates private property of those living inside the government’s imaginary borders, but that this belief directly violates private property rights in the most evil way imaginable- by utterly ignoring or denying them. Just like those the borderists want “government” to protect them from.

I do not believe violating your property rights to make myself more comfortable is right. I don’t believe using the force of government to dictate who you can allow onto your property, or rent to or hire, is the answer. It is wrong.

I do not advocate stealing from you (“taxation”) to finance a gang to patrol the “borders” and to molest people both along the “borders” and well away from those “borders”. Theft is theft, and everything such a gang does- except in rare instances- is an initiation of force, and is founded upon theft. You can’t do good through committing evil.

All government “jobs” are welfare. Money is stolen from the owners and handed out to people doing harmful busy-work the market won’t fund. Those “jobs” are used to directly violate the life, liberty, and property of the people forced to pay. This is even worse than the migrants’ (largely exaggerated) use of welfare. End all welfare- including government paychecks. Or be hypocritical and hate some people’s use of welfare while celebrating those on other forms of welfare.

Borderism is socialism. Sometimes it is even communism. It is always collectivism, theft, and aggression- which is what statism is.

If those setting up an armed guard to repel trespassers are acting as though they believe in their own property rights, but advocating “borders” and “immigration control”, they are acting as though they don’t believe in anyone’s private property at all, but only collective property administered by a State. In that case, what are they trying to protect? Is it “property for me, but none for you”? Their behavior makes me see them as being contradictory and deluded. I would gladly help protect my neighbor’s property from invaders, using force or arms, unless he advocated taking my property from me under the guise of “government”. In that case, he isn’t acting as though he believes in my property rights, so why endanger myself protecting his?

If that’s what you advocate, own it. Stop complaining when I or others point it out. If your position is right, why be ashamed and why get angry?

Rightful Liberty leaves no room for Borderism or other forms of communism- not even if you really, really want them. Protect and defend your personal property lines, and help your neighbors if they ask- I would- but keep your hands to yourself when it comes to stealing money to fund gangs to violate life, liberty, and property in the name of your State.

You can read Kent’s blog and the original post here.

This entry was posted in Libertarian Party and tagged , on by .

About Caryn Ann Harlos

Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee and is a candidate for LNC Secretary at the 2018 Libertarian Party Convention. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann's goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.

4 thoughts on “Kent McManigal: About Borders and Property Lines

  1. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    And this is entering crazy-land:

    ==Or a trespasser who is littering===

    Umm…. no. (please don’t come at me with “but what if it is infectious dung?” if he wanted to be clear on what kind of “litter” he was speaking of, he could have done so in a way that didn’t include a bubblegum wrapper)

  2. Green_w_o_Adjectives

    This guy seems to be confused about what government is and what it is actually there for. In actuality, governments protect the property and interests of property owners.

    This guy has some kind of idealistic conception of property that is “his” and where he gets to exert authoritarian rule over it to the point of shooting trespassers without consequences.

    “If those setting up an armed guard to repel trespassers are acting as though they believe in their own property rights, but advocating “borders” and “immigration control”, they are acting as though they don’t believe in anyone’s private property at all, but only collective property administered by a State. In that case, what are they trying to protect? Is it “property for me, but none for you”? ”

    But isn’t that exactly the idea of property (eg the statist idea of property) that advocates of capitalistic “private property” property rights want? If “property” is “exclusive control” then how can there be enough to go around for everyone?

    The way out of this bind (eg, how there is no such thing as “original appropriation” and all property rights guaranteed by the state are based on illegitimate force past or present) is to base our ideas of “justly acquired property on labor (rather than wealth gained via usury). That which is your property is based upon your labor. Evaluations of what labor is worth are not decided violently by authoritarian hierarchies (as in capitalism) but peacefully via deliberation and consent among equals at the workplace.

  3. paulie

    But isn’t that exactly the idea of property (eg the statist idea of property) that advocates of capitalistic “private property” property rights want? If “property” is “exclusive control” then how can there be enough to go around for everyone?

    He didn’t say there would be enough for everyone. He said that the border collectivists shouldn’t have the right to control other people’s property through the state, thereby effectively asserting a right of collective ownership. The same principle would apply to other kinds of collectivists as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *