Monday, April 09, 2007

Libertarian McManigal Q & A

Libertarian presidential candidate Kent "Dull Hawk" McManigal answered these questions for the Conservative President 2008.


1. Why are you running for President?

Because there is no candidate that I have seen that I could fully support; no one I want to see elected. I either have deep philosophical disagreements with their stand, or I feel that they allow themselves to be distracted from the real issues by phantom issues that, while seemingly important, are just a symptom of a larger reality. It can be illustrated by the "War on Drugs". This is really about "self ownership". Do you own your own body, or does the guy across town or in a government office hundreds of miles away own you? This then translates into a way to see so many other debates.

2. What makes you the best person for the job?

"Politics as usual" keeps giving America another politician to tolerate for another four or eight years. I don't like politicians and I doubt you do either. Obviously, there are things that make me different from the other candidates. I am a hard-core libertarian. I try to judge every issue through the lense of the Zero Aggression Principle. I don't water down my views for the benefit of people with "delicate sensibilites", yet I will explain my position politely as long as someone keeps asking more about it. I want to make certain my point is understood. I have not spent my life trying to please "the voters". I am not a "political whore" as I have not spent my life making backroom deals and I do not owe any political favors to anyone. I have no desire to "run" the country, as some politicians do, but to allow America to be the free country it was meant to be, and my part in that is to keep government in its place.


3. What is the top issue of the your campaign?

To get the federal government back under the control of the people; in line with the highest laws of the land: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I would also work to remind Americans of their one-thousand year-old right and legal obligation to judge the law as well as the facts of the case any time they are chosen to serve on a jury. If the "law" is wrong, the defendant must be found innocent.


4. Could you get the support of both social and fiscal conservatives?

I doubt it. Social conservatives seem to place too much importance on forcing others to live by standards that are not shared by everyone else. It is more important to them to keep people from behaving in ways they don't approve of (while pursuing life, liberty, and happiness) than it is to work to ensure "justice and liberty for all". If gun rights are the most important issue for them, they should support me, since I will never compromise on that one iota. If, on the other hand, they feel it is important to legislate morality, I would be a huge disappointment to them. It just depends on where their priorities lie. I am not sure how "conservative" my fiscal position is. Taxation is theft. There is no other word for taking property/money that does not belong to you against the will of the owner. I would remind Americans every day that their money is being stolen and used in ways not authorized by the Constitution to finance agencies, programs, and policies that are illegal under the Constitution. I think this is, unfortunately, a radical position; not a conservative one.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your views are very similar to Ron Paul's. Perhaps you should team up with him. When was the last Libertarian to be elected to the highest office in the land? We have to be united as we can't take the White House scattered like lost sheep.

Worldviews Revolution said...

Kent describes himself as an anarchist. It is doubtful he would want to team up with Ron Paul.

Kent McManigal said...

If Ron Paul were running as a Libertarian rather than as a Republican, I would support his candidacy. I disagree with him on a couple of issues. When you campaign under the Republican party's banner, you must accept things as they are dictated to you. The LP, on the other hand, has stated to me that whoever wins the nomination sets the platform for the party instead of the other way around. I am an anarchist, but while I would prefer to shut down the whole corrupt circus immediately, I am willing to work towards the goal of smaller weaker government in stages if necessary. Maybe that makes me a pragmatic anarchist.

Robert Mayer said...

It's so refreshing to see a political candidate be so blunt and honest about his opinions, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Unfortunately, 99% of the voting public would view this fine person as a dangerous kook.

Anarchy is looking better all the time.

Visitors Since 9:16 PM EST. 12/11/2006: free web counter free web counter