New Hampshire Underground

http://freekeene.com/2008/03/01/parking-tickets-and-the-consent-of-the-governed/

There's been a theory floating around America for the past couple hundred years suggesting that government people gain their power and legitimacy via the "consent of the governed". As I understand it, in the world of Legal Land, it is commonly held that silence is tantamount to consent. In that, if the government people demand something of you and you either comply or say nothing that you are consenting to their rule over you.

Some of us liberty activists say that that is absurd. We say that the reason people comply is not because they consent but because they are frightened of violent government people hurting them, their family, or taking away their property.

Perhaps it's not an either-or situation. While it is true that most people comply with government people's demands due to fear of violence, it is also true that if enough people withdrew their consent and therefore their compliance, government people would no longer have their precious legitimacy.

The question becomes, how will the government people respond when people start withdrawing their consent? Will they behave as the theory suggests and respect each sovereign individual's choice to live their life how he wants? (As long as he is not harming others, of course.) Or, will they reveal themselves as violent, antisocial thugs?

With that in mind, I have decided to test the consent theory. I will start simple, with the issue of parking tickets but eventually would like to move on to other, more pressing issues such as gambling and drug prohibition and even property taxes. I doubt I will be very effective alone, so I invite you to join the fun. Perhaps we can get our freedom back!

Earlier this week I received a $5 parking ticket for not feeding the meter as I went to check my mailbox in downtown Keene, NH. Thanks to the help of Rich Angell at Sovereign Solutions, I crafted a letter to the Keene Police Department Parking Bureau:

QuoteNOTICE OF DISCUSSION

    February 28, 2008

    KEENE POLICE DEPARTMENT
    BUREAU OF PARKING
    400 Marlboro Street
    Keene, NH 03431-4336

    To Whom it May Concern,

    I am writing in acknowledgement of the receipt of a "CITY OF KEENE PARKING TICKET" # 60220797, regarding a Subaru, Florida Tag XXXXXX, issued on the 26th of February 2008 at 11:37, demanding the amount of $5.

    It is not my intention now, nor has it ever been my intention to defraud anyone. If in fact, I owe such an amount to your agency, I will pay it.

    To prove that I am, in fact, bound to such an obligation, please provide the following:

    • Evidence of the valid, original contract with my signature binding me to said obligation.

    Unless I receive evidence as noted above within ten business days of the receipt of this response (03/13/08), I shall assume that there is no contractual authority for your agency to demand such a "fine" and that I am not obligated to pay any "fine", with no legal repercussions for any perceived "failure" to do so.

    For your convenience and as a show of good faith I am including a prepaid return envelope so as to make your response as simple as possible.

    Please note that any correspondence is subject to being posted on the blog at FreeKeene.com

    Sincerely,
    Ian Bernard
    (my address)

So, if I have actually consented, then they certainly will have no trouble finding evidence of that. Of course, I have not consented. In fact, at the time I registered to vote here in New Hampshire, there was a paragraph that said:

QuoteIn declaring New Hampshire as my domicile, I am subject to the laws of the State of New Hampshire which apply to all residents, including laws requiring me to register my motor vehicles and apply for a New Hampshire's driver's license within 60 days of becoming a resident.

Prior to signing my voter's registration I made certain to cross this paragraph out and initial it. How could I possibly agree to it? I don't know what all of the laws are in New Hampshire, nor do I care or have enough time to bother reading them. The Attorney Genital's office even sent someone to investigate me for crossing it out. I told him the same thing. I am not dangerous and will not do harm to others, but I do not consent to be governed by anyone but myself.

How will the parking bureaucrats respond to my letter? Only time will tell. Stay tuned to FreeKeene.com for the latest!

Cool :)  Can I print that?

You never need to ask... I don't believe in intellectual property. 

So, the answer will always be yes!

Very cool  8)

I was listening to you guys talk about this the other day .... about how the city of Keene doesn't even break even on the parking enforcement

these are the little things, but it does make sense to stand up to them on this issue ... and let them know about it, since the thugs consider silence to be consent. :) I guess that is why they tell us to keep quiet. ;)


I wonder what they ever did about Manning's uturn ticket and nonconsent.

I saw Dave a few weeks ago... apparently nothing has happened.   8)

+1 Ian  8)

Just curious... if you did not consent to their terms, which I am sure you were fully aware of, then why did you park in one of their parking spaces?  There are other, non-metered options available in downtown Keene.

...a little off topic, but the other day I was driving the speed limit in Danbury heading towards Bristol and in a double yellow line section I was passed by a Grafton County Sheriff car...no blinker, no siren, no apparent emergency. Looked like he was transporting a prisoner. I sooo wanted to speed up and give him a ticket...citizens arrest and all that stuff, but my stylish wheels don't go very fast and I lost him  and my nerve to follow thru !

Quote from: srqrebel on March 01, 2008, 05:33 PM NHFT
Just curious... if you did not consent to their terms, which I am sure you were fully aware of, then why did you park in one of their parking spaces?  There are other, non-metered options available in downtown Keene.

Because the spaces aren't theirs anymore than the bicycle a thief steals from you is "his"!

Quote from: FTL_Ian on March 01, 2008, 06:46 PM NHFT

Quote from: srqrebel on March 01, 2008, 05:33 PM NHFT
Just curious... if you did not consent to their terms, which I am sure you were fully aware of, then why did you park in one of their parking spaces?  There are other, non-metered options available in downtown Keene.

Because the spaces aren't theirs anymore than the bicycle a thief steals from you is "his"!

Good answer.

QuoteGood answer.

well said Richard Dawson!

Quote from: FTL_Ian on March 01, 2008, 02:55 PM NHFT
Prior to signing my voter's registration I made certain to cross this paragraph out and initial it. How could I possibly agree to it? I don't know what all of the laws are in New Hampshire, nor do I care or have enough time to bother reading them. The Attorney Genital's office even sent someone to investigate me for crossing it out. I told him the same thing. I am not dangerous and will not do harm to others, but I do not consent to be governed by anyone but myself.

I enjoyed a good chuckle when you first said this on your show. I did the same thing. In fact, it took me about 45 minutes to cross out every objectionable word or phrase and doctor the applicate to declare myself a Citizen inhabitant and become a voter qualified elector of for the State Republic of New Hampshire. And I made sure to write in, above my signature seal "All my God-given Rights reserved."

The difference is that no one came to investigate me. In fact, I was told there was a "problem" with my application that needed to be taken care of before I voted. The morning of the election, I found that the "problem" stemmed from the fact that the "c/o" before the physical street location was taken for a "40" and some other minor confusion, both of which were very quickly cleared up.

I look forward to seeing how your parking challenge turns out.

Quote from: MTPorcupine3 on March 01, 2008, 07:08 PM NHFT

Quote from: FTL_Ian on March 01, 2008, 02:55 PM NHFT
Prior to signing my voter's registration I made certain to cross this paragraph out and initial it. How could I possibly agree to it? I don't know what all of the laws are in New Hampshire, nor do I care or have enough time to bother reading them. The Attorney Genital's office even sent someone to investigate me for crossing it out. I told him the same thing. I am not dangerous and will not do harm to others, but I do not consent to be governed by anyone but myself.

I enjoyed a good chuckle when you first said this on your show. I did the same thing. In fact, it took me about 45 minutes to cross out every objectionable word or phrase and doctor the applicate to declare myself a Citizen inhabitant and become a voter qualified elector of for the State Republic of New Hampshire. And I made sure to write in, above my signature seal "All my God-given Rights reserved."

The difference is that no one came to investigate me. In fact, I was told there was a "problem" with my application that needed to be taken care of before I voted. The morning of the election, I found that the "problem" stemmed from the fact that the "c/o" before the physical street location was taken for a "40" and some other minor confusion, both of which were very quickly cleared up.

I look forward to seeing how your parking challenge turns out.

What's the objection to the term Citizen? I've always interpreted that to carry more weight over other terms; it implies you have recognized rights whereas inhabitant or resident doesn't really.

Quote from: FTL_Ian on March 01, 2008, 06:46 PM NHFT

Quote from: srqrebel on March 01, 2008, 05:33 PM NHFT
Just curious... if you did not consent to their terms, which I am sure you were fully aware of, then why did you park in one of their parking spaces?  There are other, non-metered options available in downtown Keene.

Because the spaces aren't theirs anymore than the bicycle a thief steals from you is "his"!

Whose spaces are they?

Quote from: grolled on March 01, 2008, 07:19 PM NHFT

Quote from: FTL_Ian on March 01, 2008, 06:46 PM NHFT

Quote from: srqrebel on March 01, 2008, 05:33 PM NHFT
Just curious... if you did not consent to their terms, which I am sure you were fully aware of, then why did you park in one of their parking spaces?  There are other, non-metered options available in downtown Keene.

Because the spaces aren't theirs anymore than the bicycle a thief steals from you is "his"!

Whose spaces are they?

Anyone who paid taxes or fees to had their money stolen by the city.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 01, 2008, 07:18 PM NHFT
What's the objection to the term Citizen? I've always interpreted that to carry more weight over other terms; it implies you have recognized rights whereas inhabitant or resident doesn't really.

If I use the term Citizen, it would be in tandem with the word Sovereign, as in Sovereign Citizen, governed by no one but myself. For a Sovereign Citizen to vote is an oxymoron that I'm still trying to sort out.

A Citizen of New Hampshire is a SUBJECT of the corporation known as the State of New Hampshire, and therefore subject to all its laws and statutes.

An inhabitant is simply one who is domiciled within the geographical boundaries of the Republic of New Hampshire, the land and people we know and love as New Hampshire, not the corporation occupying it. BTW, there are two distinct flags, one representing the State, the other representing the Republic.

A resident is literally Latin for thing identified, a subject or corporation sole, subject to all the laws and statutes at the whim of the municipal corporations at the State, County and Town/City levels.

This subject, the right to travel (as opposed to carrying a driver's license), how to deal with police confrontations, and much more is covered in my Sovereign Solutions show "SORCE Compilation". Go to www.sovereign-solutions.info, click on Free Episodes and scroll.

Quote from: MTPorcupine3 on March 01, 2008, 07:32 PM NHFT
"What's the objection to the term Citizen? I've always interpreted that to carry more weight over other terms; it implies you have recognized rights whereas inhabitant or resident doesn't really."

If I use the term Citizen, it would be in tandem with the word Sovereign, as in Sovereign Citizen, governed by no one but myself. For a Sovereign Citizen to vote is an oxymoron that I'm still trying to sort out.

Ah, so that makes sense. Citizen does imply a higher standing than resident, it's that one can't be a Citizen and subject to another's rule at the same time.

Quote from: MTPorcupine3 on March 01, 2008, 07:32 PM NHFT
An inhabitant is simply one who is domiciled within the geographical boundaries of the Republic of New Hampshire, the land and people we know and love as New Hampshire, not the corporation occupying it. BTW, there are two distinct flags, one representing the State, the other representing the Republic.

Yeah, I've seen the older seal with REI-PUB:NEOHANTONI on it.

Bonus points for Ian! 
Starving the beast and putting bureaucrats on the defensive!
MTPorc, David M. and David too.
Here's a smiley of happy tears for the vehicle violation refuseniks 
:')

Quote from: MTPorcupine3 on March 01, 2008, 07:32 PM NHFT
If I use the term Citizen, it would be in tandem with the word Sovereign, as in Sovereign Citizen, governed by no one but myself. For a Sovereign Citizen to vote is an oxymoron that I'm still trying to sort out.

Something I posted on another thread:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=13112.msg226140#msg226140

"Sovereign," like "love," means anything you want it to mean; it's a word in dictionary between "sober" and "sozzled."
- Manuel Garcia O'Kelly Davis
- via Robert A. Heinlein, in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

I know what you mean by Sovereign, and I agree. But a "Sovereign Citizen" voting isn't the oxymoron, it's the term "Sovereign Citizen" itself. Citizens  are "citizens" of something; citizens vote if their system allows. Sovereignties, being discrete and independent entities, have no need to vote, and a vote would make no difference in their world.

Quote from: srqrebel on March 01, 2008, 05:33 PM NHFT
Just curious... if you did not consent to their terms, which I am sure you were fully aware of, then why did you park in one of their parking spaces?

their?

OK, put it up on newhampshirefreepress.com with your mug shot :)

An NH LEO responds with his prediction:

QuoteHey ian. Just listened to the show about the parking ticket. Wanted to give you some 411.

What a municipality can do to someone if they do not respond to a parking ticket is issue them a 'must appear' summons to district court. Then, if you do not show up in court or show up and are found guilty and refuse to pay the fine, the dmv can suspend your license if you do not show up or the court can order it suspended if you fail to pay. The law that allows this is 263:56.

Now..... Even though you do not have a NH license, you're driving 'privilege' in this state will be suspended. Get caught three times driving after suspension you become a habitual offender. Get caught driving once after that, do up to 7 years in state prison (it is mandatory that you do at least one year).

I agree it is harsh.

I actually figured they issued a warrent for not showing up in court. 
But since he refused to pay the fine, they prolly just suspended his licence. 

Only somewhat related--my brother was pulled over while his passenger wasn't wearing a seatbelt.  My brother, as the driver, was issued a ticket, which he didn't pay.  He isn't given state or federal funds to enfoce the seatbelt law therefore he has no obligation to force his passengers to wear their seatbelts.  Because he chose not to pay the ticket, a bench warrant was issued and he was arrested.

Interesting... "enforce our laws on your loved ones, or bear the consequences".  Big Brother, anyone??!

Was this in New Hampshire?

Quote from: srqrebel on March 03, 2008, 01:35 PM NHFT
Interesting... "enforce our laws on your loved ones, or bear the consequences".  Big Brother, anyone??!

Was this in New Hampshire?

Nope, it was in Missoula, MT, which is actually one of the freer states.

Quote from: pinkiemarie on March 03, 2008, 02:27 PM NHFT
Nope, it was in Missoula, MT, which is actually one of the freer states.

Nah... that couldn't be. Not Missoula, Montana, from whence I moved!

sometimes those college towns are police states :(

It is hard to imagine someone getting jail time for that. Wow

Quote from: srqrebel on March 01, 2008, 05:33 PM NHFT
Just curious... if you did not consent to their terms, which I am sure you were fully aware of, then why did you park in one of their parking spaces?  There are other, non-metered options available in downtown Keene.

It isn't theirs, but, it isn't his either.  The problem here is that it doesn't belong to anyone.

Quote from: Lloyd  Danforth on March 05, 2008, 07:00 AM NHFT

Quote from: srqrebel on March 01, 2008, 05:33 PM NHFT
Just curious... if you did not consent to their terms, which I am sure you were fully aware of, then why did you park in one of their parking spaces?  There are other, non-metered options available in downtown Keene.

It isn't theirs, but, it isn't his either.  The problem here is that it doesn't belong to anyone.

I would have to agree with J'raxis:

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 01, 2008, 07:24 PM NHFT
Anyone who paid taxes or fees to had their money stolen by the city.

But I see your point, Lloyd.  It is quite impossible to determine actual ownership at this point, so for all intents and purposes it doesn't belong to anyone.

I had been parking regularly at the cheaper parking spaces off the main drag, and feeding the meter.  At one point I even paid a batch of unpaid parking tickets I had accumulated.  My reasoning was that the metered spaces were convenient, and if they were privately owned, I would have no issue with dropping some change for the service.  Since I know the policy when I park there, and choose to park there anyway, I am implicitly consenting to their policy -- so I considered it my duty to pay the penalty for not keeping my end of the agreement by keeping the meter fed.

I had never given much thought to the validity of the city's claim to ownership, before Ian's refusal to pay.  After giving thought to the issue of ownership, I am no longer comfortable parking in "their" parking spaces, much less paying them for the "service".

Quote from: srqrebel on March 05, 2008, 09:16 AM NHFTSince I know the policy when I park there, and choose to park there anyway, I am implicitly consenting to their policy -- so I considered it my duty to pay the penalty for not keeping my end of the agreement by keeping the meter fed.

are you mad man? ;)
if the king says that all of the roads are owned by him and you have to pay tolls .... do you not have the ability to walk anywhere?
if I say that all the ground surrounding your truck is mine when you wake up .... do you have to ask my permission or pay if I set up a meter if you want to move it a few feet?

do you only give in to the claims of those who use violence to enforce their "rights"?

Russell is right. 
The root of everything the gov't does is with force.  Even when the 'honestly' buy land instead of use eminent domain, it is with money taken after threat of fines, forfeiture of property, and threat of jail is made. 

Quote from: David on March 05, 2008, 10:23 AM NHFT
Russell is right. 
The root of everything the gov't does is with force.

Yep, along with the presumption that the gang of thugs is legitimate, that presumption fostered by generations raised by the government.

They are using your virtue against you, srqrebel.

Russell and Lauren, did you even read my entire post?

They are not using my virtue against me anymore.

probably not

Quote from: srqrebel on March 05, 2008, 09:16 AM NHFT
I had never given much thought to the validity of the city's claim to ownership, before Ian's refusal to pay.  After giving thought to the issue of ownership, I am no longer comfortable parking in "their" parking spaces, much less paying them for the "service".

This is the confusing part.  Does that mean you will not park in any metered spaces anymore?

or more importantly ... why is it wrong for Ian to park there and not pay?
does he have any less claim to it than others?

Quote from: FTL_Ian on March 05, 2008, 11:25 AM NHFT
This is the confusing part.  Does that mean you will not park in any metered spaces anymore?

Not unless I have to... which is highly unlikely.

I'll walk a decent distance to avoid doing so.

I'd rather avoid the meters altogether if I can.  When you don't feed the meter, and you don't pay the ticket, they eventually tow your vehicle and keep it until you pay up.  I would rather just avoid the metered parking spaces altogether, than to later face the choice between paying their $25 late ticket or donating my truck to them.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 05, 2008, 11:28 AM NHFT
or more importantly ... why is it wrong for Ian to park there and not pay?
does he have any less claim to it than others?

Did someone claim it was wrong for Ian to park there and not pay?

I know I didn't, so I will let you answer your own question, Russell.

I fully support him in his decision, and hope he does not eventually face forfeiture of his vehicle or else have to back down.

(I bolded and underlined the "not" for the benefit of those who like to respond without paying close attention to what was said in the first place.)

cool

Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 05, 2008, 11:28 AM NHFT
or more importantly ... why is it wrong for Ian to park there and not pay?
does he have any less claim to it than others?

I think he should go back, park there, squat and declare it Ianland

Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 05, 2008, 10:13 AM NHFT

Quote from: srqrebel on March 05, 2008, 09:16 AM NHFTSince I know the policy when I park there, and choose to park there anyway, I am implicitly consenting to their policy -- so I considered it my duty to pay the penalty for not keeping my end of the agreement by keeping the meter fed.

are you mad man? ;)
if the king says that all of the roads are owned by him and you have to pay tolls .... do you not have the ability to walk anywhere?
if I say that all the ground surrounding your truck is mine when you wake up .... do you have to ask my permission or pay if I set up a meter if you want to move it a few feet?

do you only give in to the claims of those who use violence to enforce their "rights"?

Question: If I go park in your yard... how will you make me leave without force?
I realize I initiated the aggression by parking on land I did not have claim to... but it would still take force to repel the aggression.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 06, 2008, 09:11 AM NHFT
Question: If I go park in your yard... how will you make me leave without force?
I realize I initiated the aggression by parking on land I did not have claim to... but it would still take force to repel the aggression.

I'm sure Russell could find a creative way to persuade you to move your car, without using any force against you in return.

He might park other vehicles around yours. He might dig a deep moat, or pile big rocks, around your car, making it impossible to move. He might give you a courtesy warning that he's going to be felling trees for the Hobbit Hole, and while he would never intentionally damage your car, he's not all that confident of his chainsaw skills...

Quote<Question: If I go park in your yard... how will you make me leave without force?
I realize I initiated the aggression by parking on land I did not have claim to... but it would still take force to repel the aggression.>
I'm not a pacifist, so it is pretty easy for me to answer.  But the issue is the gov't frequently arbitrarily declares other persons property as theirs, THEN uses force to enforce their so-called property rights.  When they don't steal peoples land in this way, they force you to pay money, then buy the land with stolen money.  The foundation of gov't is that of theft.  A fundamental violation of any religious tenet I have ever heard of. 
I do not know the specifics of how the gov't got around to claiming a big chunk of downtown as theirs, but I do know the foundation of gov't is theft, so I don't really care. 

It may have been donated. Belmont Fire Department was completely donations. Currently eight private roads are on warrant as the owner wishes to donate them to the town, but the residents must accept them. The town can even abandon a road/property, with abutting landowners having first denial if its is a road or small property.

Not sure we'll ever get to a private voluntary system, if means of payment for services is not direct.
The focus on indirect taxation for services will just further secure the present system.

Quote from: David on March 07, 2008, 09:10 AM NHFT
The foundation of gov't is that of theft.  A fundamental violation of any religious tenet I have ever heard of. 

Not really. The priests of the Old Testament were pretty grabby about other people's property, as were the established Christian denominations of old Europe—they called it a "tithe," but a tax by any other name is still a tax. I've always liked Thomas Paine's take (http://dtylercade.eprci.com/ballad) on the revolt against Moses and Aaron in Numbers 16.

Quote from: srqrebel on March 05, 2008, 09:16 AM NHFT
I had been parking regularly at the cheaper parking spaces off the main drag, and feeding the meter.  At one point I even paid a batch of unpaid parking tickets I had accumulated.  My reasoning was that the metered spaces were convenient, and if they were privately owned, I would have no issue with dropping some change for the service.  Since I know the policy when I park there, and choose to park there anyway, I am implicitly consenting to their policy -- so I considered it my duty to pay the penalty for not keeping my end of the agreement by keeping the meter fed.

It's a good rationale that a lot of people use; I've done this myself. Even knowing that the "voluntary" fees the government charges are still predicated upon theft, at their base, it's still pretty easy to slip back into this line of thought in order to justify complying.

Another thing I plan to try to avoid is the highway tolls. If you need to map a trip out, Google's avoid highways checkbox comes in handy: For example, here's how to go from Manchester to Concord (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=Manchester,+NH&daddr=Concord,+NH&sll=43.100045,-71.500005&sspn=0.317361,0.587769&dirflg=h&ie=UTF8&ll=43.098977,-71.49765&spn=0.317367,0.587769&t=h&z=11) and avoid the I-93 toll.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 07, 2008, 11:42 PM NHFT

Quote from: David on March 07, 2008, 09:10 AM NHFT
The foundation of gov't is that of theft.  A fundamental violation of any religious tenet I have ever heard of. 

Not really. The priests of the Old Testament were pretty grabby about other people's property, as were the established Christian denominations of old Europe—they called it a "tithe," but a tax by any other name is still a tax. I've always liked Thomas Paine's take (http://dtylercade.eprci.com/ballad) on the revolt against Moses and Aaron in Numbers 16.

Wrong. Because it lacked enforcement, and compliance with the tithe was voluntary.
Also, bear in mind that Israel apportioned land by tribe, but that the tribe of Levi received no land inheritance. The tithe was his inheritance for being excluded from land ownership.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 07, 2008, 11:42 PM NHFT
The priests of the Old Testament were pretty grabby about other people's property, as were the established Christian denominations of old Europe—they called it a "tithe," but a tax by any other name is still a tax.

I don't know about "old Europe", but in modern Europe, the churches are still grabby.

I was stationed in Germany from '86-'89. I always lived off post ("on the economy"), and spent most of my off-duty time with Germans, not Americans. From some friends discussing bills they'd received in the mail, I learned that if they declared a church membership but failed to tithe, the church would send the bill to the local government, which would then enforce payment.

This was a function of "registration", where every resident had to "register" with local government, declaring address, family ties, job, church affiliation (if any), etc. Gee, I was shocked to read that Euros declaring church membership had plummeted.  ::)

Quote from: Caleb on March 08, 2008, 12:50 AM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 07, 2008, 11:42 PM NHFT

Quote from: David on March 07, 2008, 09:10 AM NHFT
The foundation of gov't is that of theft.  A fundamental violation of any religious tenet I have ever heard of. 

Not really. The priests of the Old Testament were pretty grabby about other people's property, as were the established Christian denominations of old Europe—they called it a "tithe," but a tax by any other name is still a tax. I've always liked Thomas Paine's take (http://dtylercade.eprci.com/ballad) on the revolt against Moses and Aaron in Numbers 16.

Wrong. Because it lacked enforcement, and compliance with the tithe was voluntary.

Wrong. My source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe#In_the_time_of_Moses_and_Under_Mosaic_Law). Yours?

Quote from: Caleb on March 08, 2008, 12:50 AM NHFT
Also, bear in mind that Israel apportioned land by tribe, but that the tribe of Levi received no land inheritance. The tithe was his inheritance for being excluded from land ownership.

I could go off on what right they had to "apportion" that land in the first place, too, but we're threadjacking so I won't. :)

Quote from: KBCraig on March 08, 2008, 01:33 AM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 07, 2008, 11:42 PM NHFT
The priests of the Old Testament were pretty grabby about other people's property, as were the established Christian denominations of old Europe—they called it a "tithe," but a tax by any other name is still a tax.

I don't know about "old Europe", but in modern Europe, the churches are still grabby.

I was stationed in Germany from '86-'89. I always lived off post ("on the economy"), and spent most of my off-duty time with Germans, not Americans. From some friends discussing bills they'd received in the mail, I learned that if they declared a church membership but failed to tithe, the church would send the bill to the local government, which would then enforce payment.

This was a function of "registration", where every resident had to "register" with local government, declaring address, family ties, job, church affiliation (if any), etc. Gee, I was shocked to read that Euros declaring church membership had plummeted.  ::)

The tithing in modern Europe is voluntary—it's collected by the government on behalf of the Church, and if you don't pay it, the Church simply denies services and expels you as a member. In mediæval times and up until Church membership became voluntary (what I was referring to as old Europe), the tithing wasn't voluntary either.

From the Wikipedia article I linked in the previous post, it looks like they extracted tithes in some cases by attaching the obligation to property titles. So I can see someone making an argument for them being "voluntary," but only if one similarly believes modern property taxes, environmental restrictions, &c., on property, is "voluntary."

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 08, 2008, 01:35 AM NHFT
Wrong. My source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe#In_the_time_of_Moses_and_Under_Mosaic_Law). Yours?

Well, how can I compete with a wikipedia entry?

The great thing about Jewish law is that it is codified in a book with the largest circulation in the history of the world. At the risk of sounding like Ed Brown:  Show me the law!  Show me the enforcement provision of the tithe. The tithe was often not payed, and if you read prophets like Malachi, the people were told things like "If you pay the tithe, God will bless you with more than you can ever want". Israel didn't have prisons, for chrissakes. Other than the routine stoning for sexual "sins", it was a libertarian paradise.

Quote from: Caleb on March 08, 2008, 10:32 AM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 08, 2008, 01:35 AM NHFT
Wrong. My source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe#In_the_time_of_Moses_and_Under_Mosaic_Law). Yours?

Well, how can I compete with a wikipedia entry?

The great thing about Jewish law is that it is codified in a book with the largest circulation in the history of the world. At the risk of sounding like Ed Brown:  Show me the law!  Show me the enforcement provision of the tithe. The tithe was often not payed, and if you read prophets like Malachi, the people were told things like "If you pay the tithe, God will bless you with more than you can ever want". Israel didn't have prisons, for chrissakes. Other than the routine stoning for sexual "sins", it was a libertarian paradise.

The Wikipedia entry linked to the actual sources in the Old Testament, for example, Numbers 18:21–28 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28King_James%29/Numbers#18:21). Note all the uses of shall in the various verses mentioning the tithe—shall indicates something is mandatory.

Your request for evidence of enforcement clauses is beyond what should be required to prove the mandatory nature of the tithe—our secular laws are considered mandatory due to their use of shall, and usually contain no enforcement clauses. The enforcement is usually in an entirely separate chapter defining police forces and their purposes, &c.. So, if you need to see specific enforcement clauses, I'd only have to locate one of the many clauses in the book describing what God does to people who disobey his law, in general.

That it was often not paid says nothing about its being mandated. People break the law and get away with it all the time.

That Israel had no prisons says nothing, either—punishments back then usually involved death, corporal punishment, fines, or ostracism.

Well, I think we're parsing words here. The fact of the matter is that, in Israel, tithes were "mandatory" in the sense that God said to pay them, and it was generally agreed that people should do what God said. It wasn't mandatory in the sense that, if people didn't pay them, nothing happened to them. Which is ultimately what I care about.

I also differ with you because I think it was unjust *not* to pay the tithe. If you exclude a whole group of people from land ownership, what obligations does that put on you for those people's welfare? It's not like the levites were the wealthy class. Nor were they particularly influential. Most of the time, they were not carrying out priestly duties, as they would go to Jerusalem for their prescribed time of service, and then leave when it was over. Where were they supposed to live? There was a land tithe, and levite cities, but nothing approaching the land apportionment of the other tribes. In an agricultural society, what were these people supposed to do? And keep in mind that the levite cities were the cities of refuge, so they also had the burden to care for refugees.

You can make a good case that the Levites should have been given a land apportionment. But given that they weren't, I don't think that the tithe (which was in all practical terms optional) was a "greedy" or "grabby" provision.

Well, that gets to the underlying thing about priests, in most any religion—instead of working for a living, they get to live off of the backs of others, while providing "services" that they themselves claim that you need. The parallels with modern bureaucrats really are amazing.

I should have known not to use a biblical example on a forum with so many Christian Anarchists. If I'd made my point about priests and taxes by picking on the Romans or Egyptians or somesuch, no one would've argued and I probably wouldn't have caused this threadjack.

:BangHead:

but you didn't have to pay ... you could be a visitor or just noncooperator ... and you were not jailed or stoned. It was a contract ... a group you joined or left. In early american history they punished people for not paying church taxes or tithes ... I don't think we should follow that example.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 08, 2008, 02:31 PM NHFT
Well, that gets to the underlying thing about priests, in most any religion—instead of working for a living, they get to live off of the backs of others, while providing "services" that they themselves claim that you need. The parallels with modern bureaucrats really are amazing.

The parallels are only amazing if you don't consider spiritual services to be anything of value. I believe that a good pastor renders an amazingly undervalued service to the community, and ought to be compensated just as a good doctor or a good carpenter would be, by those who find value in his service.

and if not ... he will have to do something else

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 08, 2008, 12:39 AM NHFT
Another thing I plan to try to avoid is the highway tolls. If you need to map a trip out, Google's avoid highways checkbox comes in handy: For example, here's how to go from Manchester to Concord (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=Manchester,+NH&daddr=Concord,+NH&sll=43.100045,-71.500005&sspn=0.317361,0.587769&dirflg=h&ie=UTF8&ll=43.098977,-71.49765&spn=0.317367,0.587769&t=h&z=11) and avoid the I-93 toll.

With a estimated time difference of 13 minutes (23 highway versus 36 minutes), and yet no real mileage difference: the nontoll roads are slower to drive on.  If you value your time as worth slightly less than $5 an hour, that's the breakeven point. If your time is worth more than $5 an hour, the toll at $1 is still worth paying. (We'll ignore the EZpass discount, since nobody should be using EZPass anyway, evil system that it is...)

Gas Mileage might be an issue as well, though I'm not sure in which direction (slower roads or faster roads, which uses more gas?)

I've done this route many times in the last few years, as well as taking Route 3 through Hooksett and Pembroke, when I feel like avoiding the toll, and driving more 'locally' but honestly, it probably cost me money in the long run.

Cost isn't the reason I plan on avoiding them. :)

I don't mind using the toll road at all .... but back to Ian and his not paying parking tickets .... :)

Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 09, 2008, 07:10 AM NHFT
I don't mind using the toll road at all .... but back to Ian and his not paying parking tickets .... :)

Actually, I think it relates quite well:

Nothing is FORCING you to park at a metered spot, aka a spot with a toll.  If you choose to do so, you are agreeing to the terms of service. Your options are to park in a 'free' spot elsewhere and walk closer, or park at a meter, and you pay for the time saving convenience.

Really, the big argument is "What gives local government the right to set up meters on public parking spots?"
I think Ian would agree a privately owned metered parking spot would be fine with him... it's the governmental control that he objects to...

absolutely ... it would make more sense if the companies on main street owned the spots ... they might not even charge ..... there is a reason why walmart is taking over the world

Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 09, 2008, 10:24 AM NHFT
absolutely ... it would make more sense if the companies on main street owned the spots ... they might not even charge ..... there is a reason why walmart is taking over the world

Totally

I only agree to terms of service if they are from private people or businesses.  I don't agree to them when it's the gangsters.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 09, 2008, 07:10 AM NHFT
I don't mind using the toll road at all ....

:o Did Russell just say he doesn't mind feeding the beast?

Such sacrilege!

:D

Quote from: FTL_Ian on March 09, 2008, 11:09 AM NHFT
I only agree to terms of service if they are from private people or businesses.  I don't agree to them when it's the gangsters.

That is the part that I failed to consider, until I saw you taking this stand against it :)

Quote from: FTL_Ian on March 09, 2008, 11:09 AM NHFT
I only agree to terms of service if they are from private people or businesses.  I don't agree to them when it's the gangsters.

they make offers .... "you can't refuse" :(

Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 09, 2008, 11:39 AM NHFT
they make offers .... "you can't refuse" :(

Huh?

Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 09, 2008, 11:39 AM NHFT

Quote from: FTL_Ian on March 09, 2008, 11:09 AM NHFT
I only agree to terms of service if they are from private people or businesses.  I don't agree to them when it's the gangsters.

they make offers .... "you can't refuse" :(

Neither parking spaces nor tolls fall under that category.

sure they do ... they act like the own the entire town .... and will let you use it only if you do what they say .... under threat of punishment

Quote from: srqrebel on March 09, 2008, 11:50 AM NHFT

Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 09, 2008, 11:39 AM NHFT
they make offers .... "you can't refuse" :(

Huh?

"The Godfather" reference
since they are gangsters ... they don't make normal agreements ... they use threats of violence

Ah, makes sense.

You gotta excuse this "entertainmentally challenged" ex-Amish dude ;D

The local stores could reacquire the space... most likely by simply asking. But they would be responsible for maintenance.
Currently either the municipal tax payer or the user must pick up this cost.

They could even buy a piece of property and make a parking lot for their shoppers... like Russ said 'WalMart does it', and lets RVs park overnight for free.

so .... about The Shire parking tickets for the meter maid

Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 10, 2008, 05:49 AM NHFT
so .... about The Shire parking tickets for the meter maid

I'd like an update too, but he may not have one yet.

Update:
http://freekeene.com/2008/04/04/parking-tickets-and-the-consent-of-the-governed-part-2/

You may recall that about a month ago I sent a letter to the BUREAU OF PARKING asking them to provide me with evidence of the agreement that I signed consenting to be subject to their parking fines. They were given 10 business days to reply, and did not. So, I have decided to give them one last chance to provide me with proof of obligation to pay their fines. This time, I am sending the following letter via certified mail to the head of the BUREAU OF PARKING, Ginger Reyes:

Quote
    April 03, 2008
    GINGER REYES
    KEENE POLICE DEPARTMENT
    BUREAU OF PARKING
    400 Marlboro Street
    Keene, NH 03431-4336

    Ms. Reyes,
    On February 28th, 2008, I hand delivered a letter to your department acknowledging the receipt of a "CITY OF KEENE PARKING TICKET" # 60220797.

    I made it clear that it is not my intention now, nor has it ever been my intention to defraud anyone. If in fact, I owe such an amount to your agency, I will pay it.

    I then requested that someone from your agency provide me with evidence of the valid, original contract with my signature binding me to said obligation. Your agency was given 10 business days to respond, and it appears that your BUREAU OF PARKING representatives have chosen not to provide me with proof of obligation.

    In fact, it has been much longer than 10 days. As I understand it, the lack of response puts your agency in dishonor, meaning that my claim is valid:

    There is no contractual authority for your agency to demand such a "fine" and that I am not obligated to pay any "fine", with no legal repercussions for any perceived "failure" to do so.

    It is certainly possible that one of your agents discarded my earlier message, so I wanted to bring this directly to your attention. As it is my intention to live in peace and harmony with others, I would like to give you another two weeks to respond with the proof of obligation that I requested in my last letter. If I do not receive the requested proof from you or one of your agents by the end of April 18th, 2008, I will know that my claim is valid. Send your reply via registered mail to the address below, or fax it to XXX-XXX-XXXX.

    Please note that any correspondence is subject to being posted on the blog at FreeKeene.com

    Sincerely,
    Ian Bernard
    (my address)

Now that I have addressed one of the bureaucrats personally, will she respond? Is this a government by the consent of the governed or is it just a gang of thugs? Time will tell.

 8)

Quite a magnanimous gesture.

A good attorney would advise their client not to respond. Since the original contract is implied... a response could invalidate it.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 05, 2008, 04:03 AM NHFT
A good attorney would advise their client not to respond. Since the original contract is implied... a response could invalidate it.

isn't this a redress of grievances? by not responding are they (the government) not required to abide to their own laws and constitution?

Good job, Ian!

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 05, 2008, 04:03 AM NHFT
A good attorney would advise their client not to respond. Since the original contract is implied... a response could invalidate it.

How so? You state that there is an "implied original contract".  What has Ian done that would imply such a thing? Since it's so vague, it would seem that the government's case could only be strengthened by demonstrating it.

That is, unless there is no contract, implied or otherwise ... then, yeah, they are morally up shit creek without a paddle, and they are merely resting their authority on the principle of "might makes right", not on the principle of "consent of the governed."

He parked where there was a meter. Implying knowledge that the space was not free, but had a rental cost.
No, government agencies are told to make no comments... if, and when, it goes to court... then they answer.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 05, 2008, 01:35 PM NHFT
He parked where there was a meter. Implying knowledge that the space was not free, but had a rental cost.
No, government agencies are told to make no comments... if, and when, it goes to court... then they answer.

If the meter & space were actually owned by a private individual or business, I would agree and would have paid.

In this case, the property in question is unowned.  If I am wrong, perhaps you could identify the owner?

Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 05, 2008, 02:16 PM NHFT
perhaps you could identify the owner?

City of Keene, New Hampshire, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, of 3 Washington Street, Keene, Cheshire County, New Hampshire



This is like watching a chess game between someone with a 2300 rating, and an 8-year old who thinks he's slick because he just learned about en passant.

Criminal gangs aren't legitimate owners as everything they possess has been stolen.

Quote from: d_goddard on April 05, 2008, 04:09 PM NHFT
This is like watching a chess game between someone with a 2300 rating, and an 8-year old who thinks he's slick because he just learned about en passant.

Is Ian the 8 year old?

Checkmate.   ::)

Ian is the guy with a boot against his neck and a firearm pointed at his temple, trying to 'enforce' his position.
He has no clue as to whether the land was 'stolen' or transferred to the parking authority without the use of force... and thus will need to make his case.

In Ian's case, the 'facts' are unknown. How did the City of Keene attain the land beneath the space? Would the meter apply to all user groups? Is it a tax or a user fee derived from direct benefit?

In Dave's non-registration case, his argument is pristine. If registration is a property tax used to offset the expense of a road... wouldn't all non-colonial common law users be required to pay such tax? If not is that tax fair and just under the NH Constitution?

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 06, 2008, 08:54 AM NHFT
Ian is the guy with a boot against his neck and a firearm pointed at his temple, trying to 'enforce' his position.
He has no clue as to whether the land was 'stolen' or transferred to the parking authority without the use of force... and thus will need to make his case.

In Ian's case, the 'facts' are unknown. How did the City of Keene attain the land beneath the space?...

This is a valid point. Has anyone actually reseached how the land came into the possession of this fictitious entity? What if it was voluntarily bequeathed to the city by a private landowner with valid rights to the use of the land?

It seems this issue is being framed incorrectly. It is not about the existence of an implied contract -- there obviously exists an implied contract when one chooses to park in a space not owned by oneself, that is equipped with a clearly visible parking meter with no posted exceptions.

The real question is, do the people who collect the fees actually own the use of the land, or did they obtain the use of the land through coercion? If the latter is true, then they are not in a position to enter into a valid contract permitting another to use the space, nor do they have the right to collect a fee for its use.

No one owns the "City of Keene", therefore no one owns "public" land.  It matters not if someone bequeathed their land to the "city".  Someone doing that simply turned their land over to the state of nature.  In this case, men with guns calling themselves "government" now have active possession over it, but not ownership.

Quote from: srqrebel on April 06, 2008, 10:38 AM NHFT

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 06, 2008, 08:54 AM NHFT
Ian is the guy with a boot against his neck and a firearm pointed at his temple, trying to 'enforce' his position.
He has no clue as to whether the land was 'stolen' or transferred to the parking authority without the use of force... and thus will need to make his case.

In Ian's case, the 'facts' are unknown. How did the City of Keene attain the land beneath the space?...

This is a valid point. Has anyone actually reseached how the land came into the possession of this fictitious entity? What if it was voluntarily bequeathed to the city by a private landowner with valid rights to the use of the land?

It seems this issue is being framed incorrectly. It is not about the existence of an implied contract -- there obviously exists an implied contract when one chooses to park in a space not owned by oneself, that is equipped with a clearly visible parking meter with no posted exceptions.

The real question is, do the people who collect the fees actually own the use of the land, or did they obtain the use of the land through coercion? If the latter is true, then they are not in a position to enter into a valid contract permitting another to use the space, nor do they have the right to collect a fee for its use.

This is where a valid philosophy on the nature of land ownership would be helpful.  :)  It would eliminate these meaningless quibbles over whether the State had acquired land properly or not.

The weird situation here is that most of the people here inherently "get" on an intutive level that Ian is right. But someone presents some point, and it causes your mind to contradict your heart on some level, to second guess yourself. Your hunch will tend to be correct. If there is a dichotomy between what you "feel" and what you "think", check your premises. In this case, the faulty premise is tied to the notion of land ownership.

Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 06, 2008, 11:13 AM NHFT
No one owns the "City of Keene", therefore no one owns "public" land.

It's managed, first of all, by whatever structure the residing citizens have put into place (ie selectman, council, mayor, town admin, etc...), so the question of 'ownership', in a legal sense, isn't the issue here - they do 'own' it for all intents and purposes, and secondly, the state of NH is NOT a "home rule" state, meaning that in fact, the State 'owns' all of the land within its' borders, which is why they can grant (or deny) authority to local officials.  Other states which have 'home rule' are another matter, but NH isn't one of them.

Quote
It matters not if someone bequeathed their land to the "city".  Someone doing that simply turned their land over to the state of nature.  In this case, men with guns calling themselves "government" now have active possession over it, but not ownership.

Are you really making the argument that someone bequeathing private property to the 'city' (or other legal group/entity) in fact disowned their property, making it a commons you have a right to use?  Let's see how you wiggle your way out of that, Ian... because the consequences of that train of logic are that someone doesn't have the right to do with their own property as they wish, unless it meets with "Ian approved" requirements as to what they do with it.  If 'little old lady' gives her fortune, including her real estate, to the local library, which is owned by the same 'city', what happens to it, in your view?

Quote from: SethCohn on April 06, 2008, 11:37 AM NHFT
Are you really making the argument that someone bequeathing private property to the 'city' (or other legal group/entity) in fact disowned their property, making it a commons you have a right to use?  Let's see how you wiggle your way out of that, Ian...

I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting I need to wiggle out of.  Srqrebel said this:

QuoteWhat if it was voluntarily bequeathed to the city by a private landowner with valid rights to the use of the land?

If it was bequeathed to the "city" then that is akin to it being surrendered to the state of nature, and becomes unclaimed property.  As individuals, the people calling themselves government that occupy these properties are doing business by the threat of violence.  As such, their attempts to homestead or claim the properties should in no way be seen as valid.  If they would choose to stop using coercion to make a living, they could easily homestead those unclaimed lands for themselves.

Quotebecause the consequences of that train of logic are that someone doesn't have the right to do with their own property as they wish, unless it meets with "Ian approved" requirements as to what they do with it.

What are you talking about?  The scenario involves someone giving up ownership of their property to the state of nature.  Have you ever thrown something out?    ::)

QuoteIf 'little old lady' gives her fortune, including her real estate, to the local library, which is owned by the same 'city', what happens to it, in your view?

It comes under the control of bureaucrats.  As soon as they stop doing business by coercion, they would have a legitimate claim on that bequeathed fortune.

Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 06, 2008, 12:45 PM NHFT
I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting I need to wiggle out of.

QuoteIf 'little old lady' gives her fortune, including her real estate, to the local library, which is owned by the same 'city', what happens to it, in your view?

It comes under the control of bureaucrats.  As soon as they stop doing business by coercion, they would have a legitimate claim on that bequeathed fortune.

But hypothetical 'little old lady' legitimately _gave_ her land to the "city", regardless of _your_ concern about 'coercion', SHE did with her property as she wished - she gave it to the library.  Are you saying that she cannot do that?  What is the status of said property in your world view?  Is it the city's do with as they wish, as 'heir'?  For the record to avoid splitting hairs (heirs), said 'old lady' was not coerced into her bequest, she enjoyed the library, it's services and staff and mission, and wanted to reward it with her property of her own free will.

Quote from: SethCohn on April 06, 2008, 12:53 PM NHFT
But hypothetical 'little old lady' legitimately _gave_ her land to the "city", regardless of _your_ concern about 'coercion', SHE did with her property as she wished - she gave it to the library.  Are you saying that she cannot do that? 

No.  What would make you think I said she couldn't do that?

All I'm saying is, she cannot give her property to a building.  She could give it to an individual or several individuals.  Presumably, as soon as they start operating on a voluntary basis, the individuals representing "the library" would come under legitimate control of that particular property.

QuoteWhat is the status of said property in your world view?  Is it the city's do with as they wish, as 'heir'?

The city cannot wish to do anything, because it does not exist.

QuoteFor the record to avoid splitting hairs (heirs), said 'old lady' was not coerced into her bequest, she enjoyed the library, it's services and staff and mission, and wanted to reward it with her property of her own free will.

Yep!  Good for her.   ::)

A business may act as a separate entity, but in reality it is a mechanism for natural entities with legitimate ownership to delegate the privileges associated with their ownership, for their own valid purposes. A business derives genuine legitimacy from the consent of its owner(s).

Does the same apply to the fictitious entity called the city of Keene? Who owns this particular fictitious entity? Are there actual, specific, rightful owners? If the answer is "no", then it indeed follows that anything bequeathed to this fictitious entity with no legitimate owner leaves the realm of ownership, and is simply disowned property. It would be no different from a rightful owner bequeathing his property to Santa Claus, and it being thereafter controlled by individuals claiming to be Santa's agents.

Except what do you do when she bequeathes her property to Santa Claus, you infringe on it, and he pulls you over and his reindeer stomp on your head?  ;D

Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 06, 2008, 01:04 PM NHFT

Quote from: SethCohn on April 06, 2008, 12:53 PM NHFT
But hypothetical 'little old lady' legitimately _gave_ her land to the "city", regardless of _your_ concern about 'coercion', SHE did with her property as she wished - she gave it to the library.  Are you saying that she cannot do that? 

No.  What would make you think I said she couldn't do that?

All I'm saying is, she cannot give her property to a building.  She could give it to an individual or several individuals.  Presumably, as soon as they start operating on a voluntary basis, the individuals representing "the library" would come under legitimate control of that particular property.

Ian, Ian, Ian: she is giving it to a organization known legally as the "City Library" (or whatever).
Again, she isn't giving to a 'building', nor to an individual, but to a legal entity.  Are you seriously claiming that she cannot do this?

Quote

QuoteWhat is the status of said property in your world view?  Is it the city's do with as they wish, as 'heir'?

The city cannot wish to do anything, because it does not exist.

Sure it does, in a legal sense.  You might not recognize the legitimacy of it, but SHE did... thus her bequest, or (again) are you saying that your views can trump hers?  Again, what is the legal status of the property, in your view?  Are you really going to claim that she didn't give it away to a group/entity and instead it is now public domain?

Quote from: Caleb on April 06, 2008, 01:09 PM NHFT
Except what do you do when she bequeathes her property to Santa Claus, you infringe on it, and he pulls you over and his reindeer stomp on your head?  ;D

...check myself into a rehab center :icon_pirat:

Quote from: SethCohn on April 06, 2008, 01:11 PM NHFT
Ian, Ian, Ian: she is giving it to a organization known legally as the "City Library" (or whatever).
Again, she isn't giving to a 'building', nor to an individual, but to a legal entity.  Are you seriously claiming that she cannot do this?

I tire of clarifying this, so this'll be the last time.  You either understand this, or you don't:

There is no such thing as legal entities.  There are individuals, and there is property.  The old lady in question, gave up her property.

QuoteSure it does, in a legal sense.

That sentence is nonsense.  Legal land is a fantasy.

QuoteYou might not recognize the legitimacy of it, but SHE did... thus her bequest, or (again) are you saying that your views can trump hers?

My views here are not a factor.  Just because the woman suffers from the delusion that fictitious entities exist, does not change the situation that she bequeathed her property to the state of nature.

QuoteAgain, what is the legal status of the property, in your view?

I don't claim to know anything about the details of this legal-land fantasy you appear to be suffering under.

QuoteAre you really going to claim that she didn't give it away to a group/entity and instead it is now public domain?

I don't know what "public domain" means, but it seems pretty clear to me that if she did not give it to individuals, then she surrendered it as unclaimed property.

Quote from: srqrebel on April 06, 2008, 01:13 PM NHFT

Quote from: Caleb on April 06, 2008, 01:09 PM NHFT
Except what do you do when she bequeathes her property to Santa Claus, you infringe on it, and he pulls you over and his reindeer stomp on your head?  ;D

...check myself into a rehab center :icon_pirat:

He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake!

Santa Claus, now he's in charge of Homeland Security!



(http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/gfo/lowres/gfon133l.jpg)

Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 06, 2008, 01:23 PM NHFT
There is no such thing as legal entities.  There are individuals, and there is property.  The old lady in question, gave up her property.

So Ian is saying that he doesn't believe in contracts, nor contract law, since he's perfectly willing to say that a old lady's legitimate will, a contract she had drawn up to express her desired use of her property, which gives her property to a known identifiable collection of other individuals (aka the 'city library' and those who run it) she expressly wished it to go toward, is invalid in his eyes, and thus he isn't willing to abide by it.

Anyone want to deal with an anarchist who doesn't believe in the legitimacy and primacy of freely drawnup contracts between consenting adults?  Me neither.

Seth, for chrissake! ::)

If I claim to be Santa's authorized agent, does that make him real?

If not, would I have the ability to conduct valid business, and draw up valid contracts, on "his" behalf? Can a contract be valid, when the claimed authority is derived from an entity that does not even exist?

To illustrate, if I establish a fictitious entity and call it "Santa's Workshop", it is a valid mechanism, and can conduct valid business, because all actions undertaken in its name are derived from the authority and ownership of a genuine entity: Myself. Since I, as a genuine volitional entity, delegate my authority to others through a business that I own, any contracts established in the name of the business owe their validity to my inherent authority to contract with other volitional entities.

If I claim to conduct business on behalf of Santa Claus, however, I am basing my actions on the nonexistent authority of a nonexistent being. If I purport to establish a contract on the behalf of Santa Claus, then that is fraud. It is not a valid contract because the mutually agreed upon authorizing entity does not exist, no matter what I have led my victim to believe.

The same applies to the "city of Keene": It is not an actual volitional entity, but entirely a fictional mechanism created out of thin air. As far as I can tell, there is no actual volitional entity or entities who claim ownership of this mechanism, only agents who claim to act on "its" behalf: That is the key difference between the "city of Keene", and a legitimate business which acts on the actual authority of an actual entity or entities with actual property rights.

Ian,will you throw up your hands when the bureaucrats who are not friendly to our ideas, ask the same questions that Seth is asking you?

Quote from: srqrebel on April 06, 2008, 02:03 PM NHFT
The same applies to the "city of Keene": It is not an actual volitional entity, but entirely a fictional mechanism created out of thin air. As far as I can tell, there is no actual volitional entity or entities who claim ownership of this mechanism, only agents who claim to act on "its" behalf: That is the key difference between the "city of Keene", and a legitimate business which acts on the actual authority of an actual entity or entities with actual property rights.

You've entirely missed my point: you (and Ian) deny the legitimate existence of the "City of Keene" (and it's library, etc).  Said 'old lady' did not agree with you, and legitimately 'believed in' the existence of the library as a valid entity.  By Ian's logic, she was 'wrong' and so her property is no longer hers, it's now nobodys (and thus, by that logic, can be used freely and openly by anyone), DESPITE her express desires otherwise.

That is NOT respect for property rights nor contracts.

You continue to argue that "City of Keene" doesn't exist, QED you can ignore it... Good luck with that... it's a bogus argument at the heart of it - and it won't win you any victories nor friends outside of the small circled wagon collection of anarchoidealists you have now.

Quote from: SethCohn on April 06, 2008, 02:15 PM NHFT
You've entirely missed my point: you (and Ian) deny the legitimate existence of the "City of Keene" (and it's library, etc).  Said 'old lady' did not agree with you, and legitimately 'believed in' the existence of the library as a valid entity.  By Ian's logic, she was 'wrong' and so her property is no longer hers, it's now nobodys (and thus, by that logic, can be used freely and openly by anyone), DESPITE her express desires otherwise...

Believing in it does not make it a real volitional entity with the capacity to own property.

I would not say that the property is no longer hers, if she wishes to reclaim it. As long as she is leaving it to a nonexistent entity, she is essentially abandoning the property as a byproduct of her own delusions.

When the ancient Egyptians left food and treasures for the spirits of their dead, did the spirit become the new owner? Even if there is no such thing as a spirit? Or did the Egyptians abandon that property as a byproduct of their own delusions? Does the valid answer hinge on the original owner's express desire for the gifts to be owned by a spirit? Or does it hinge on whether or not spirits are real?

Quote from: srqrebel on April 06, 2008, 04:01 PM NHFT
I would not say that the property is no longer hers, if she wishes to reclaim it.

She's dead, Jim.  Let's be clear on that.

QuoteAs long as she is leaving it to a nonexistent entity, she is essentially abandoning the property as a byproduct of her own delusions.

Well, somebody here is under some delusions, and I'm less and less sure it's the old lady.

Quote
When the ancient Egyptians left food and treasures for the spirits of their dead, did the spirit become the new owner? Even if there is no such thing as a spirit? Or did the Egyptians abandon that property as a byproduct of their own delusions? Does the valid answer hinge on the original owner's express desire for the gifts to be owned by a spirit? Or does it hinge on whether or not spirits are real?

So, graverobbers were merely gathering up 'unowned abandoned property'.  Way to defend graverobbing, dude!

Keene Anarchists: they defend graverobbers, don't respect contracts or wills unless they agree with them, and old ladies' property isn't safe around them.  Film at 11.

Perhaps ya'll could take the discussion over to the NHLA forum...  :D

Quote from: d_goddard on April 06, 2008, 02:07 PM NHFT
Ian,will you throw up your hands when the bureaucrats who are not friendly to our ideas, ask the same questions that Seth is asking you?

They won't bother asking questions.  They will likely ignore us or get violent.

Time for you to answer a question, Seth:

How does one enter into a legitimate contract with an entity that does not actually exist?

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 06, 2008, 08:21 PM NHFT
Perhaps ya'll could take the discussion over to the NHLA forum...  :D

(Almost) Nobody on the NHLA forum would bother arguing the nonsense that Ian is spouting regarding the illegitimacy of the existence 'city of Keene'.

Quote from: SethCohn on April 06, 2008, 08:33 PM NHFT

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 06, 2008, 08:21 PM NHFT
Perhaps ya'll could take the discussion over to the NHLA forum...  :D

(Almost) Nobody on the NHLA forum would bother arguing the nonsense that Ian is spouting regarding the illegitimacy of the existence 'city of Keene'.

Seth, you are so wrong:




we don't allow discussions about graverobbers



:P

This entire discussion reminds me of so many tax-protester arguments. People can come up with the most wonderfully complex, and perhaps in some cases even correct, interpretations of tax law, without even considering that the venue in which they plan to present the argument is run by the State and the person whom they wish to convince of their correctness is an agent of the State.

Ian, no matter how good your argument is, do you expect to get anywhere presenting it to a parking bureaucrat, a police officer, or a judge, all of whom ultimately get their paycheque from the State? If not, then what is the point of the back-and-forth between you and the agents of the State? Why not simply ignore their threats and demands, based upon your argument, and be done with it?

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 06, 2008, 08:49 PM NHFT
Ian, no matter how good your argument is, do you expect to get anywhere presenting it to a parking bureaucrat, a police officer, or a judge, all of whom ultimately get their paycheque from the State? If not, then what is the point of the back-and-forth between you and the agents of the State? Why not simply ignore their threats and demands, based upon your argument, and be done with it?

I am testing to see if this truly is a government by the consent of the governed, or just a band of thugs.  By speaking out and publicizing it, I'm letting it be known that I do not consent.

If they do not respond to my reasonable requests for proof of obligation, others may be encouraged to live free.

J., you should listen to Free Talk Live more :)

Actually -- no. DON'T!! You could get addicted. "Lord, I know, I'm one."

Anyway, that's the tactic -- ask existential questions until the 'crats Just Go Away.
http://thinkfree.ca/

Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 06, 2008, 08:32 PM NHFT
Time for you to answer a question, Seth:

How does one enter into a legitimate contract with an entity that does not actually exist?

Who ya gonna call?  Ghostlawyers!
When there's some strange, and it don't look legal, who ya gonna call?   Ghostlawyers!

If you're seeing anarchy running through your head, who ya gonna call?   Ghostlawyers!

An invisible man violating your property rights, Who ya gonna call? Ghostlawyers!

I ain't afraid of no politics...
I ain't afraid of no politics...

Lemme tell ya something
Lawyers makes me feel unclean!

Humor aside, I'll wager that dozens of legitimate contracts exist with one party being the "City of Keene", of which you benefit (or at least are affected by, let's not argue benefits/detriments/costs/etc at this point..)

While you may choose to not to recognize the legitimacy of said contracts, the rest of the world does, and this being the dominant paradigm of 'life in Keene', ie they are 'legal' (from which the word legitimate is derived) contracts.

Hence, your insistence in its' non-existence makes no difference

If you went around claiming that aliens exist, that doesn't mean they do (nor that they do not...)
If you went around claming that 9/11 was a conspiracy, that doesn't mean it was (nor that it wasn't).
I pick those examples, because you've taken clear stands on the other side of the fence on both... so perhaps you can imagine yourself for a moment, in this example: Your claim that the City of Keene has no legal, legitimate stance as a valid entity with which to contract is in the same realm as that of aliens or 9/11 - in other words, unless you can produces FACTS, the dominant view will continue to rule the roost here. 

Your dislike of the actions of the City, or it's representatives or employees, doesn't make the entity invalid.  It's use of force is neither here nor there, and while it can be claimed that the use of force _should_ invalidate contracts, here in the real world, that's not always true.

Quote from: SethCohn on April 06, 2008, 09:48 PM NHFT
If you went around claiming that aliens exist, that doesn't mean they do (nor that they do not...)
If you went around claming that 9/11 was a conspiracy, that doesn't mean it was (nor that it wasn't).
I pick those examples, because you've taken clear stands on the other side of the fence on both... so perhaps you can imagine yourself for a moment, in this example: Your claim that the City of Keene has no legal, legitimate stance as a valid entity with which to contract is in the same realm as that of aliens or 9/11 - in other words, unless you can produces FACTS, the dominant view will continue to rule the roost here. 

All of your points are predicated around the belief in the "city of Keene".  Like Santa Claus, if you claim something exists, the burden of proof is on you:

Factually, what is the "city of Keene"?

QuoteYour dislike of the actions of the City, or it's representatives or employees, doesn't make the entity invalid.  It's use of force is neither here nor there, and while it can be claimed that the use of force _should_ invalidate contracts, here in the real world, that's not always true.

Also, all of us are living in the "real world"... you just believe in fictions.  It's okay, Seth.  We've all been there.

Ian, you (and others trying to work the same argument) are like toddlers who believe a thing does not exist if they cannot see and touch it.

The "City of Keene" is a corporation. It has no physical form, though its presence is recorded on various pieces of paper and in computer files.

Does "Free Talk Live" exist?
I don't think it does. I mean, there is a bunch of recording equipment and a studio and some computers and two guys, but there's no "Free Talk Live!"

Quote from: d_goddard on April 07, 2008, 08:16 AM NHFT
Ian, you (and others trying to work the same argument) are like toddlers who believe a thing does not exist if they cannot see and touch it.

The "City of Keene" is a corporation. It has no physical form, though its presence is recorded on various pieces of paper and in computer files.

I think it's funny that you're suggesting we are the childlike ones for not believing in the fantasy.

QuoteDoes "Free Talk Live" exist?
I don't think it does. I mean, there is a bunch of recording equipment and a studio and some computers and two guys, but there's no "Free Talk Live!"

You are correct.  Free Talk Live does not exist.  You cannot bequeath your fortune to Free Talk Live.  You could to me.

Quote from: d_goddard on April 07, 2008, 08:16 AM NHFT
Ian, you (and others trying to work the same argument) are like toddlers who believe a thing does not exist if they cannot see and touch it.

The "City of Keene" is a corporation. It has no physical form, though its presence is recorded on various pieces of paper and in computer files.

Does "Free Talk Live" exist?
I don't think it does. I mean, there is a bunch of recording equipment and a studio and some computers and two guys, but there's no "Free Talk Live!"

These things all exist as concepts. So does Santa Claus. Neither the city of Keene, Santa Claus, or Free Talk Live are volitional beings.

Only volitional beings have inherent authority to enter into a contract. Volitional beings can authorize other volitional beings to act as their agents, and engage in contracts under their inherent authority. They can also establish conceptual, i.e. fictitious, entities to facilitate this. But the authority to enter into a contract must ultimately be derived from a volition being, or beings, other than the agents themselves -- otherwise it is fraud.

Free Talk Live, and all tangible and intangible property attributed to it, is ultimately owned by a volitional being. Any contracts "it" enters into via "its" agents are indeed valid, because those agents are ultimately acting upon the authority of an actual volitional being.

Fictitious entities do not have inherent authority, cannot own property by themselves, enter into contracts on their own volition, or even exist on their own. All of these require an actual, volitional being, or beings, who have inherent authority.

Please tell me, who are the volitional beings who own the fictitious entity called the city of Keene, from which it derives its authorization to enter into contracts?

Perhaps a 'picture' would help:

volitional entity (owner)> fictitious entity (Free Talk Live)> authorized agent>> valid contract <<volitional entity or its authorized agent

vs.

fictitious entity (City of Keene)> con-artists posing as agents>> fraudulent contract <<volitional entity or its authorized agent

Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 07, 2008, 09:01 AM NHFT

Quote from: d_goddard on April 07, 2008, 08:16 AM NHFT
Ian, you (and others trying to work the same argument) are like toddlers who believe a thing does not exist if they cannot see and touch it.

The "City of Keene" is a corporation. It has no physical form, though its presence is recorded on various pieces of paper and in computer files.

I think it's funny that you're suggesting we are the childlike ones for not believing in the fantasy.

QuoteDoes "Free Talk Live" exist?
I don't think it does. I mean, there is a bunch of recording equipment and a studio and some computers and two guys, but there's no "Free Talk Live!"

You are correct.  Free Talk Live does not exist.  You cannot bequeath your fortune to Free Talk Live.  You could to me.

A little bit of a crazy argument, since, if I'm not mistaken, Denis does bequeath an allotted sum to FTL each month.

I think maybe what you mean is that FTL's existence is dependent upon your existence. It is a construct that, when all the masks are removed, is essentially you.

Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2008, 01:01 PM NHFT
A little bit of a crazy argument, since, if I'm not mistaken, Denis does bequeath an allotted sum to FTL each month.

I think maybe what you mean is that FTL's existence is dependent upon your existence. It is a construct that, when all the masks are removed, is essentially you.

My understanding is that the FTL construct can continue to exist beyond Ian's existence -- as long as Ian, as the rightful owner, makes provisions for the tranfer of ownership.

...and its good to see that I am not the only one here who is aware that "bequeath" has more than one definition! :icon_pirat: 8)

Quote from: srqrebel on April 07, 2008, 09:17 AM NHFT

Quote from: d_goddard on April 07, 2008, 08:16 AM NHFT
Ian, you (and others trying to work the same argument) are like toddlers who believe a thing does not exist if they cannot see and touch it.

The "City of Keene" is a corporation. It has no physical form, though its presence is recorded on various pieces of paper and in computer files.

Does "Free Talk Live" exist?
I don't think it does. I mean, there is a bunch of recording equipment and a studio and some computers and two guys, but there's no "Free Talk Live!"

These things all exist as concepts. So does Santa Claus. Neither the city of Keene, Santa Claus, or Free Talk Live are volitional beings.

Only volitional beings have inherent authority to enter into a contract. Volitional beings can authorize other volitional beings to act as their agents, and engage in contracts under their inherent authority. They can also establish conceptual, i.e. fictitious, entities to facilitate this. But the authority to enter into a contract must ultimately be derived from a volition being, or beings, other than the agents themselves -- otherwise it is fraud.

Free Talk Live, and all tangible and intangible property attributed to it, is ultimately owned by a volitional being. Any contracts "it" enters into via "its" agents are indeed valid, because those agents are ultimately acting upon the authority of an actual volitional being.

Fictitious entities do not have inherent authority, cannot own property by themselves, enter into contracts on their own volition, or even exist on their own. All of these require an actual, volitional being, or beings, who have inherent authority.

Please tell me, who are the volitional beings who own the fictitious entity called the city of Keene, from which it derives its authorization to enter into contracts?

Per Charter... the residents of the City of Keene.
But the argument being futile.

To overcome force with debate... is to come to terms with that force. For Ian to state he does not believe in the existance of such an entity... means the entity can not direct force towards him. i.e. Boogey Man.

I think some of this stuff is beside the point. 
Kiss, keep it simple.  The gov't steals.  The foundation of gov't is taxes, licenses, fees, and fines, none of which is done without some form of threat.  Gov't run parking is based on the foundation of gov't theft.  Oppose the gov't theft. 

<<<< proud AMPer

You see my name at the bottom, just above Caleb's :)

Quote from: d_goddard on April 07, 2008, 01:58 PM NHFT
<<<< proud AMPer

You see my name at the bottom, just above Caleb's :)

Denis is also among the few Free Keene Contributors (http://contribute.freekeene.com).   8)

Quote from: SethCohn on April 06, 2008, 09:48 PM NHFT
Humor aside, I'll wager that dozens of legitimate contracts exist with one party being the "City of Keene", of which you benefit (or at least are affected by, let's not argue benefits/detriments/costs/etc at this point..)

While you may choose to not to recognize the legitimacy of said contracts, the rest of the world does, and this being the dominant paradigm of 'life in Keene', ie they are 'legal' (from which the word legitimate is derived) contracts.

Hence, your insistence in its' non-existence makes no difference

If you went around . . .
. . . .
. . . .  in other words, unless you can produces FACTS, the dominant view will continue to rule the roost here. 

Your dislike of the actions of the City, or it's representatives or employees, doesn't make the entity invalid.  It's use of force is neither here nor there, and while it can be claimed that the use of force _should_ invalidate contracts, here in the real world, that's not always true.

Seth,

Great News! This weekend, I got together with 500 friends and we voted on a few things. Congratulations, you are now part of the New Commonwealth of America. Trust me, the votes have been carefully counted by my friends 2 times now, and results are clearly valid. Unfortunately we can't tell you who voted because we need to protect the voters, since they are harming others through their actions; We wouldn't want them facing backlash would we?

There are a few rules, for your protection of course. The best part is, you get to send us $100/month to pay for the wonderful services that benefit you and your neighbors. Why just this week, we signed a $320,000 contract to study asphalt. Don't worry, it was a great deal, one of my friends owns the company, it was his idea, and he gave us a great price. We know the roads are a big concern to our citizens like you in the New Commonwealth of America, and that's why we're using your money to do great things that benefit everyone. This is a perfectly valid contract between us and the Asphalt company, so make sure you send you money in right away, so we don't have to take your house, leaving you out on the street.

That would be a shame, since we don't allow loitering in the New Commonwealth, we would have to relocate you, but you can look forward to a nice new career making lawn furniture for $80/month in pay including room and board! Again, we have perfectly valid contracts between the New Commonwealth and the companies we do business with, so rest assured, this is perfectly legitimate. You have 10 business days to contact me regarding payment.

Thanks again for joining the New Commonwealth of America, we look forward to serving you soon!

I think y'all are missing a subtle but fundamental point.
Seth and I agree with you that the State is immoral and that rule by simple democracy is unjust.

What we (or I, at least) are pointing out is that Ian's doing an amateurish, poor job of working this particular tactic.

Quote from: SamIam on April 07, 2008, 02:37 PM NHFT
Great News! This weekend, I got together with 500 friends and we voted on a few things.

If the things you voted were things you have some level of control over, you and 500 friends could do a lot of things.  Run a town, company, or even a virtual corporation with no 'real world' assets (Think Second Life, for an example.)

QuoteCongratulations, you are now part of the New Commonwealth of America.

This is where your "argument" breaks down:  500 people could in fact run a town meeting.  You couldn't form a "New Commonwealth of America", but you could vote to raise taxes, and other warrant articles at a town meeting with similar costs.

Quote
Trust me, the votes have been carefully counted by my friends 2 times now, and results are clearly valid. Unfortunately we can't tell you who voted because we need to protect the voters, since they are harming others through their actions; We wouldn't want them facing backlash would we?

Town meetings don't have roll call votes, so it's entirely plausible that while I'd know who attended (voter checklist), I wouldn't know who voted for or against any given article.

Quote
There are a few rules, for your protection of course. The best part is, you get to send us $100/month to pay for the wonderful services that benefit you and your neighbors.

Yup, About $5200 a year... sounds like property taxes to me.

Quote
Why just this week, we signed a $320,000 contract to study asphalt. Don't worry, it was a great deal, one of my friends owns the company, it was his idea, and he gave us a great price. We know the roads are a big concern to our citizens like you in the New Commonwealth of America, and that's why we're using your money to do great things that benefit everyone. This is a perfectly valid contract between us and the Asphalt company, so make sure you send you money in right away, so we don't have to take your house, leaving you out on the street.

Well, bidding requirements aside, since the road agent is certainly authorized to spend the budgeted money, which I'll assume was in the budget you and your 500 passed, hopefully you're getting a great price...

Quote
That would be a shame, since we don't allow loitering in the New Commonwealth, we would have to relocate you, but you can look forward to a nice new career making lawn furniture for $80/month in pay including room and board! Again, we have perfectly valid contracts between the New Commonwealth and the companies we do business with, so rest assured, this is perfectly legitimate. You have 10 business days to contact me regarding payment.

Since you aren't going to be arrested for failure to pay property taxes, let's assume the above is for failure to 'relocate' once the property taxes go deliquent long enough that the town has to file a lien... and eventually sell the property.  How many years would that be?  Quite a few...

10 days?  That's the FIRST piece that wasn't realistic..... could happen, but unlikely.

Quote
Thanks again for joining the New Commonwealth of America,
living in any town in New Hampshire,
we look forward to serving you soon!

FTFY.

You might not like the reality of this, but all you did was describe the current state of affairs.
If you'd like to _change_ it, fine, but denial of the reality that exists now isn't the way to do so.

Quote from: d_goddard on April 07, 2008, 04:47 PM NHFT
I think y'all are missing a subtle but fundamental point.
Seth and I agree with you that the State is immoral and that rule by simple democracy is unjust.

What we (or I, at least) are pointing out is that Ian's doing an amateurish, poor job of working this particular tactic.

Actually, what I'm saying is even more than the above:  Denial of the current reality not only isn't going to change it, but it makes it all the harder for those of us who DO accept the reality of it and wish to work to change it, because you poison the well for the rest of us.  "Oh those folks are just crazy folks who don't accept any laws, want legal child porn/drugs/no taxes/blah blah (whichever memes about libertarians/anarchists/etc they want to spread to discredit valid points)  Why, did you hear that wacko who denied that the City of Keene existed so he didn't need to pay a parking ticket?"

If you are going to make arguments, don't make ones that are so absurd that even your friends won't take seriously, let alone the people you are trying to reason with... (and if you don't believe in reason, stop poisoning the well for the rest of us...)

Have you read `A Critique of Pure Reason'?

Smart guy.  Good book.  ;D

Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2008, 06:53 PM NHFT
Have you read `A Critique of Pure Reason'?

yes.

Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2008, 06:53 PM NHFT
Smart guy.  Good book.  ;D

Smart, yes. Wrong on a lot of things, yes -- just like a lot of smart people.
Like the idea that "good will" has primacy over actual results, because (somehow) True Good Will always results in good results. Bzzzt. Sorry, big K, thanks for playing.
Then there's the whole "duty" thing... christ, Kant is all duty, duty, duty. If an act is not done out of "duty", then it has no value. I call bullshit.
And I appreciate that I've only read Kant in translation, but it seems to me he's a windbag bombast. Maybe it's just being German -- you know how they are with language -- but christ, he thought that if he said it in twice the space with 5 new words he made up himself, that made it better. Somehow.

Sorry, what were you saying?

It was a joke, Denis.  :-\

Quote from: SamIam on April 07, 2008, 02:37 PM NHFT
There are a few rules, for your protection of course. The best part is, you get to send us $100/month to pay for the wonderful services that benefit you and your neighbors.

To which I replied...

Quote
Yup, About $5200 a year... sounds like property taxes to me.

For those who didn't fail math, that would be $100 a week.  Or 4x what SamIam and his 500 friends imposed.  Heck, if $100 a month, or a mere $1200, is all I'd have to pay in property taxes, all the better.

Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2008, 06:53 PM NHFT
Have you read `A Critique of Pure Reason'?

Joke aside, I never said pure reason.  Lord knows, dealing with politicians, reason is not enough... you need color charts with simple words, respect, public outcry, and lots of other things.  But reason is a factor, for sure.  Be reasonable and you get someplace.  Be unreasonable and you don't.  Be a wacko and you're just trying to teach a pig to dance.

Sometimes the color charts make you look like a wacko. (eg Ross Perot).

I actually agree with the politicos on this, though Ian. (gasp). I tried to make this point before. Although I understand where you are coming from and agree with you that the state is philosophically nonexistent, I don't think that's the best way to approach it, because it does make you look like you're living in fantasy land, and it's a morally neutral approach, so you don't even look like a lovable, friendly little kook. You just end up looking to people like you are in a fantasy land, and they don't care if the state stomps you.

Quote from: SethCohn on April 07, 2008, 06:50 PM NHFT
If you are going to make arguments, don't make ones that are so absurd that even your friends won't take seriously, let alone the people you are trying to reason with... (and if you don't believe in reason, stop poisoning the well for the rest of us...)

My friends don't accuse me of "ruining it".   :P

Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2008, 07:17 PM NHFT
I actually agree with the politicos on this, though Ian. (gasp). I tried to make this point before. Although I understand where you are coming from and agree with you that the state is philosophically nonexistent, I don't think that's the best way to approach it, because it does make you look like you're living in fantasy land, and it's a morally neutral approach, so you don't even look like a lovable, friendly little kook. You just end up looking to people like you are in a fantasy land, and they don't care if the state stomps you.

So when someone claims the "city of Keene" exists or owns something, we who know better should just capitulate and agree?  What are you suggesting?

First, I'm not suggesting that you are poisoning the well.

Just that focusing on the moral reasons for your stance is a much more effective path.

Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 07, 2008, 08:17 PM NHFT
So when someone claims the "city of Keene" exists or owns something, we who know better should just capitulate and agree?  What are you suggesting?

You can always argue about Capital Letters, and the corporate state, like Dick Marple and others.

Seriously, you can always correct them by saying "You mean, the mob/gang/etc known as the "City of Keene", right?"  You aren't denying they exist, but you aren't saying they are legit in your view.

Claiming the City of Keene loses money on parking tickets and everyone would be better off without them: very reasonable.

Claiming the City of Keene is trying to run a scam known as parking ticket payments: sounds reasonable, to many.

Claiming the City of Keene doesn't exist, so can't send you a valid bill when you parked in a openly metered spot and ignored the visible signs: unreasonable.

Was it your intent to make that last post sound like a VISA commercial?

Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2008, 08:29 PM NHFT
Was it your intent to make that last post sound like a VISA commercial?

When I go out, I never know if I'll be arrested that day, and end up in jail.
But thanks to REAL ID, I refuse to carry anything with an RFID, a social security number, or a driver license.  And I certainly don't let them fingerprint me or give them any info about me.
That's why, I don't leave home without the Shire Express card...  Within minutes, an alert goes on nhfree.com and porc411 and signs and banners are readied.

Shire Express card -

(everyone getting a Shire Express card will either get one that says Russell Kanning or Lauren Canario.
No credit check will be run, and no minimum monthly payment is required.)

The only reason I went in this direction is because the conversation on this thread drilled down that far.  If you read my posts on Free Keene, the issue is clearly "Consent of the Governed", not the imaginary state.

Fair enough.

I'm boycotting Free Keene ever since I was dismissed as a blogger.  ;D

Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 07, 2008, 08:46 PM NHFT
The only reason I went in this direction is because the conversation on this thread drilled down that far.  If you read my posts on Free Keene, the issue is clearly "Consent of the Governed", not the imaginary state.

I've read your posts on Free Keene, and like it or not, you are far closer to the 'you don't exist, I never agreed to any rules you posted, cover my ears and say blah blah blah' than anything else.

You openly admit in the first post that you don't believe "Consent of the Governed" to be true, and intend to prove it's not true by refusing to consent and waiting for the armed reaction which eventually come.

Except you're setting the entire situation up to 'prove your point', with a predetermined ending given the scope of the issue you've started with.  See http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=13617.0 for one example of the force used for unpaid parking tickets.  You aren't going to get an answer, eventually your car will be stopped for some other reason, they'll flag it for unpaid tickets, and it'll be towed, and most likely you (and your dog, if you have one with you) will be arrested.

Actually, they are likely to ignore him until he accumulates more than 3 such tickets. Or maybe its 5. I asked the Keene Police once what they would do if someone didn't pay a ticket, and they don't do anything until you reach a certain number of them.

NH Constitution:

QuoteArticle 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent

You politicos should at least agree my position is constitutional.

I DO NOT CONSENT.

If you don't like it because you're worried about what people might think, too damn bad.  I think most people hate these petty rules, so maybe more people will refuse consent if they see our successes.

Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2008, 09:01 PM NHFT
Actually, they are likely to ignore him until he accumulates more than 3 such tickets. Or maybe its 5. I asked the Keene Police once what they would do if someone didn't pay a ticket, and they don't do anything until you reach a certain number of them.

Right, I did say "tickets."

Were you similarly upset at David for "poisoning the well" when he refused to comply with their car registration rules and fine?

Ian, you get special treatment from us because -- like it or not, and though you make every effort to properly disclaim that you are not an official representative of the Free State Project -- you are a highly visible member of the community, making every effort to get your name and opinions in as much media as you can.

It would be unrealistic to suggest that your actions, good or bad, do not also paint other FSP members.
If you spent 2 hours a week at the food bank, all FSPers would -- unjustly -- be thought of as Good Considerate People who help out at soup kitchens.
If you raped and murdered a teenager, all FSPers would -- unjustly -- be thought of as "people who might kill your kid"

Not logic, just human nature.

That is why, when your arguments seem way into la-la land, some people will say you are hurting the rest of our efforts.

By the way and for the record, I did not make that assertion. Please do not put me in the same group as Seth, who did make the "poisoning the well" statement. I am an individual, not a group, and I do not appreciate being lumped in with others who do things that I do not condone :)

Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 07, 2008, 09:05 PM NHFT
NH Constitution:

QuoteArticle 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent

You politicos should at least agree my position is constitutional.

Refusal to Consent doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to do.  That's not a constitutional position.

Quote
I DO NOT CONSENT.

Then you should have clearly refused to do so.  You drive a car with a Florida License plate, under rules that offer equal swap for one state to other to allow easier travel.  Take OFF your license plate and drive without one.  Same goes for registration/etc.  Turn in your Florida Drivers License for the same reason, and drive without one.  Lauren is "Not Consenting", you are just pretending to get by without being stopped.

Next, don't park at the metered spots, which have openly posted rules to their use, but only at the spots that have no such restrictions of which there are plenty.  You'll have to walk a bit more, since you don't want to pay for the increased usefulness of the metered spots, but that's WHY they are metered - market driven for one thing.  (And a reason why downtowns with meters are losing to malls with free parking, they are ignoring the market driving forces)

Quote
If you don't like it because you're worried about what people might think, too damn bad.  I think most people hate these petty rules, so maybe more people will refuse consent if they see our successes.

I think most people will hear only half of your argument if any of it, and instead think all Libertarian Anarchist Free Staters are wacko nutjobs who just pretend government doesn't exist despite the clear evidence it does to all of us (tm), and the rest of us will spend our precious time digging out of the poor reputation holes you've dug us, rather then being able to focus on actual progress in reducing the size of government to where the 'maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property'

How many times has the claim been made that someone is "ruining it" for you?

Too many.

If you want to help Ian be more effective, do so. Give him advice. But don't insinuate that he's hurting your cause. That's just not true.

Denis, my responses without quotes have mostly been to Seth, so if it seemed I was grouping you with him, I apologize. 

Quote from: SethCohn on April 07, 2008, 09:18 PM NHFT
Refusal to Consent doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to do.  That's not a constitutional position.

I will do no harm, respect private property, and I do not consent to be governed.  Yes, I can do what I want.  Always have, always will.

::)

Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 07, 2008, 09:14 PM NHFT
Were you similarly upset at David for "poisoning the well" when he refused to comply with their car registration rules and fine?

David's not saying the same thing at all:
http://www.newhampshirefreepress.com/NHFreePress/?q=node/59

Trimmed for the bits needed to make my case:

Quote
Virtually everything the government has is based on a foundation of theft. They tax you with the threat of penalties if you fail to pay or even make a mistake.

The government then builds the road. The government, or another government unit zones all land, dividing some into business, retail, others factory, and other land into residential. This forces people to use the roads to get from point A to point B. The government then demands that you pay to license and register your vehicle, or else you are forbidden from using the vehicle on the government roads. Keep in mind that the road is already paid for by stealing your money from you in the first place.

I am a member of a loose group of people working to make the collection of revenue difficult for government. I call this process the Peaceful Pushback against the Police, or Pushback for short. Why the police? Because the police are the chief front line enForcers for the government. No politician enForces his/her own law. They require the police to do that for them. The process is essentially civil disobedience.

In November of 2007, I began my simple act of civil disobedience. I received a ticket for failure to register my vehicle. I was eventually given a 'speedy' court date of March 17 2008, as I have contested the ticket. I am of course guilty of failing to register my vehicle, but I refuse to be nickel and dimed by a revenue hungry government. I do not exist for the purpose of acting as a never-ending piggy bank for a greedy and spendthrift government. Further, by challenging the ticket, I have increased the cost of enforcing the government law, in this case registering of my vehicle, and the fee that goes with it.

I am likely to be found guilty. I will then refuse to pay the initial fine and any court fees that may be assessed. I am ready to go to jail, again to increase the cost of enforcement. I am uncertain where this process will eventually end up but the means are more important than the end.

I don't think most people can argue with most of the above, as statements of fact.... nothing crazy there at all.

Quote from: d_goddard on April 07, 2008, 09:15 PM NHFT
Ian, you get special treatment from us because -- like it or not, and though you make every effort to properly disclaim that you are not an official representative of the Free State Project -- you are a highly visible member of the community, making every effort to get your name and opinions in as much media as you can.

It would be unrealistic to suggest that your actions, good or bad, do not also paint other FSP members.
If you spent 2 hours a week at the food bank, all FSPers would -- unjustly -- be thought of as Good Considerate People who help out at soup kitchens.
If you raped and murdered a teenager, all FSPers would -- unjustly -- be thought of as "people who might kill your kid"

Not logic, just human nature.

That is why, when your arguments seem way into la-la land, some people will say you are hurting the rest of our efforts.

By the way and for the record, I did not make that assertion. Please do not put me in the same group as Seth, who did make the "poisoning the well" statement. I am an individual, not a group, and I do not appreciate being lumped in with others who do things that I do not condone :)

What he said.  Except I did make the Poisoning the Well statement, and meant it.  Your media exposure/savvy puts you well beyond David, and others, and even beyond Ridley, Lauren or Russell.  If you come off as 'wacko', it _does_ hurt the rest of us far more.

Quote from: SethCohn on April 07, 2008, 09:18 PM NHFT
Then you should have clearly refused to do so.  You drive a car with a Florida License plate, under rules that offer equal swap for one state to other to allow easier travel.  Take OFF your license plate and drive without one.  Same goes for registration/etc.  Turn in your Florida Drivers License for the same reason, and drive without one.

I've actually been considering this, and we've been talking about getting Shire license plates.  I appreciate that you want me to jump in all at once, and I'm sorry I'm testing the water first.  Of course it's easy for you to sit and armchair quarterback me...

Quote from: SethCohn on April 07, 2008, 09:29 PM NHFT
What he said.  Except I did make the Poisoning the Well statement, and meant it.  Your media exposure/savvy puts you well beyond David, and others, and even beyond Ridley, Lauren or Russell.  If you come off as 'wacko', it _does_ hurt the rest of us far more.

Boo-hoo.

We have our own media specifically so we can explain stuff like this so people understand.  I can't please everyone, and won't try.

Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2008, 09:21 PM NHFT
How many times has the claim been made that someone is "ruining it" for you?

Too many.

Actually, these days, I make it far less often, but that's more about who is doing what now... we have more political activism, and less CD... we have newspapers published, bills passed, etc...  The worst 'ruining it' example no longer lives in NH, and he was a flake no matter which side of the fence (political or non) he was on...  Oh, and you aren't here either, Caleb. (big huge grin)

Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 07, 2008, 09:30 PM NHFT
I've actually been considering this, and we've been talking about getting Shire license plates.  I appreciate that you want me to jump in all at once, and I'm sorry I'm testing the water first.  Of course it's easy for you to sit and armchair quarterback me...

No, I'm not armchairing... I'm pointing out that claiming "I refuse to consent" in bold caps, and yet using items that clearly ARE part of the system, are mutually exclusive.

I don't care what you do, plates or not, but don't claim you aren't consenting, but are driving around with plates.  Lauren drove with an Area51 plate, not a real state plate.

And as for my own actions, I pick fights I can win, not fight windmills.  That's Russell's method, not mine.
I've set my sights quite low in the last two years, because of the political winds and for personal reasons.

Quote from: d_goddard on April 07, 2008, 04:47 PM NHFT
I think y'all are missing a subtle but fundamental point.
Seth and I agree with you that the State is immoral and that rule by simple democracy is unjust.

What we (or I, at least) are pointing out is that Ian's doing an amateurish, poor job of working this particular tactic.

This is what I was trying to point out, too. The moral argument against the State is sound, and pretty much irrefutable. Trying to wrap it in a legal argument just gives them an easy target to poke holes in (they're the law experts—remember, they invented it), especially one that's probably already been tried before.

Denis is gone?

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 07, 2008, 11:55 PM NHFT
This is what I was trying to point out, too. The moral argument against the State is sound, and pretty much irrefutable. Trying to wrap it in a legal argument just gives them an easy target to poke holes in (they're the law experts—remember, they invented it), especially one that's probably already been tried before.

My viewpoint is 100% moral, 0% legal.

Quote from: KBCraig on April 08, 2008, 10:25 AM NHFT
Denis is gone?

:'(
Passion in a persons beliefs are important for the sanity of ones soul.  Unfortunately it also can be frustrating, and can split friendships.  He will be missed. 

Ians' expiriment is interesting.  Most people believe in the consent of the governed fantasy.  If he can effectively and publicly prove that it is not, then he can more easily knock down the 'consent of the governed' straw man that the statists use.  I'm uncertain that it is very effective beyond that. 
This quote bears repeating.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 06, 2008, 08:49 PM NHFT
This entire discussion reminds me of so many tax-protester arguments. People can come up with the most wonderfully complex, and perhaps in some cases even correct, interpretations of tax law, without even considering that the venue in which they plan to present the argument is run by the State and the person whom they wish to convince of their correctness is an agent of the State.

Ian, no matter how good your argument is, do you expect to get anywhere presenting it to a parking bureaucrat, a police officer, or a judge, all of whom ultimately get their paycheque from the State? If not, then what is the point of the back-and-forth between you and the agents of the State? Why not simply ignore their threats and demands, based upon your argument, and be done with it?

I think the back in forth communication is important between a resister and the gov't folks.  They cannot even consider possibly modifying their behavior if they don't know what you want them to do. 
After Lauren's licence arrest and the publicity surrounding it, I became painfully aware that I would not likely have the public support for my civ dis.  So I focused my efforts on the enforcement.  Ian is right, that most people hate being nickle and dimed by the gov't at the most inconvienient times.  This could have broad appeal in a way that my effort would not.  Maybe.  It requires a clear and simple to follow approach.  One that makes sence to the average person.  Of course we will never have the support of those afraid of the state and envious that we 'got away with it'. 

Quote from: KBCraig on April 08, 2008, 10:25 AM NHFT
Denis is gone?

See this thread:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=13545.0


I like Denis and hope he comes back.

Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 08, 2008, 01:25 PM NHFT
I like Denis and hope he comes back.

2nded. Will someone convey that to him? I doubt he's going to see it first-hand.

You can see him here. (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=13561.0)

Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 08, 2008, 01:25 PM NHFT

Quote from: KBCraig on April 08, 2008, 10:25 AM NHFT
Denis is gone?

See this thread:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=13545.0


I like Denis and hope he comes back.

I saw the thread where he left after I finished this one (I was behind, and catching up).

I will seen Denis regularly over on nhliberty.org; he'll be missed here, but we all have to cut back now and then.

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on April 08, 2008, 05:37 PM NHFT
You can see him here. (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=13561.0)

I don't wanna see that. That's political.  :D

I just wanna see Denis at social stuph like Taproom Tuesday and Porcfest.  :)

RUSH fan... MassCann Rally... PorcFest... his knowledge and take of things cultural... all very  8)

Lots o' hard work, it's spring time... time to make families and selves happy and stuph.

The revolution continues, even when we aren't looking.

Quote from: SethCohn on April 07, 2008, 09:39 PM NHFT
And as for my own actions, I pick fights I can win, not fight windmills.

Then Seth, you playing to loose. If everyone was like you and only took on challenges they were sure they could "win", what ever that means, what sort of world would it be? How many would never realized their dreams if they played it safe and went with something familiar to them?

Quote from: d_goddard on April 07, 2008, 08:16 AM NHFT
Ian, you (and others trying to work the same argument) are like toddlers who believe a thing does not exist if they cannot see and touch it.

The "City of Keene" is a corporation. It has no physical form, though its presence is recorded on various pieces of paper and in computer files.

Does "Free Talk Live" exist?
I don't think it does. I mean, there is a bunch of recording equipment and a studio and some computers and two guys, but there's no "Free Talk Live!"

Does God exist?

A factoid to consider.  Fron BusinessNH, a magazine with an obvious focus. 
I forget the dates, but I assume it is for the year in 2007, Keene has 1686 parking spots, with revenue of 925,000 dollars.  I'd love to know how much the revenue is off the parking tickets.  I bet it alone pays for the meter maid. 

Quote from: David on April 07, 2008, 01:54 PM NHFT
I think some of this stuff is beside the point. 
Kiss, keep it simple.  The gov't steals.  The foundation of gov't is taxes, licenses, fees, and fines, none of which is done without some form of threat.  Gov't run parking is based on the foundation of gov't theft.  Oppose the gov't theft. 

Sorry to come back so late...
This would be an absurd argument. It would suggest that Ian knew, or highly suspected, the property for which he had made an implied contract to 'rent'... was stolen. No morality argument can be made on these grounds. In fact, Ian would then be making a statetment to the court of criminal action.

Parking tickets have a long history in NH. There were cases argued that the landlord, not having posted a sign to notify the renter of the fine for contractual violation, was entitled to only the cost of the rental and recovery charges... hence parking tickets being such small sums.

The legal question would be... is the space being rented?
If I park a bicycle there without feeding the meter, would I be ticketed? If not, then the implied contract is flawed. As its implication is not common.