Don’t “legalize” anything – Kent McManigal

From Kent McManigal:

The whole concept of “legalization” is looking at things backwards.  It seems to me it is taking things that are “illegal” and then having the government say “we could have killed you for doing this yesterday, but today we’ll let you live- as long as you pay all the applicable extortion… um, ‘taxes’.”

Instead of “legalizing” anything- marijuana, gay marriage, concealed carry, raw milk, whatever- The State needs to keep its perverted hands OFF.  The State has no real authority to “legalize” or “criminalize” anything.

No, murder shouldn’t even be “illegal”, since it has nothing to do with The State.  Yes, murder is wrong; the “laws” against it have nothing to do with its wrongness.  And even when “legalized”- such as “war” or murder by cop, it is STILL wrong.

Government has stolen more than your money and other property.  It has stolen your sovereignty and, in most cases, your ability to act on it without risk of being kidnapped, robbed, and/or murdered.  Take it back and stop asking permission.


3 responses to “Don’t “legalize” anything – Kent McManigal

  1. Dear Mr. McManigal, how would you propose to handle murder, rape, robbery, and other actions by which one (or more) person violates the sovereignty (rights) of others? Personal revenge, vigilantism, and mob rule? I am no lover of the State, however there is no guarantee that the “justice” sought by personal revenge or vigilantism will target the actual person who committed a crime anymore than the machinations of the State will. However, with the State, more likely than not, an innocent person will get his or her day in court, and then an appeals process if found guilty. Where there’s life there’s hope. With personal revenge or vigilantism the alleged criminal quite often ends up dead whether he is actually guilty or not. Yes, I know, the State murders many innocent people. That’s why I am not in favor of the death penalty. Better to incarcerate for life the many guilty murderers and other henious wrongdoers than kill an innocent person.

    I have said for many years now that the concept of legality does not equate with justice. But the average person has been brainwashed into believing that without government we would all go to hell in a hand basket. It behooves the rich and powerful to keep this fraud going. It’s just basic human nature for some to want to control others. So, while I agree with your basic premise–we need not legalize any behavior that does not harm or threaten to harm others: it should be our right merely because we exist–society does need a mechanism by which to catch and punish wrongdoers and by which innocent people have some chance of proving their innocence. Ergo, our flawed legal system.

    You can read more of my inalienable rights theory at “The Myth of Inalienable Rights,”

  2. David:
    When the state does “justice”, it does not care about the victum. It is only interested in a conviction. For example, when a thief steals from you, you, through your taxes, pay for the thief’s trial and incarceration. This is not justice for you. What should happen is for a private system of justice, based on arbitration, that would, if it found the thief guilty, would cause him/her to repay your lost property. That provides the justice you deserve and would not require you to incur additional expense.

    In the case of murder, their would be a provision for incarceration. But I doubt it would result in a death penalty.

    This is the ideal that many Libertarians propose. We already have private arbitrators and are in demand. Over time, arbitrators would gain reputations for quality judgements, so competition would result in higher quality and efficiency. Those that did not receive a good rating would be eliminated. That rarely, if ever, happens with a state justice system.

  3. David- Why do you believe you have to make murder or another violation “illegal” before it can be defended against? If it is wrong, which it obviously is, do you need the declaration that it is wrong recorded somewhere?

    I think there is a better chance of justice without involving The State or any “court monopoly”. Let the market find ways to ensure justice. One of my recent newspaper columns addressed that.

    And, I have also looked at the argument that rights are mythical several times. If they are, then there can be no “right” to govern or “right” to rule, so the end result is once again liberty. I am fine with that.