A Grafton "libertarian activist" gets top story in the Valley New: http://www.vnews.com/05262010/05262010.htm (http://www.vnews.com/05262010/05262010.htm)
More to follow.
Here's a scan. In Grafton, Burn Pile Become Protest for Libertarian Activist
This is what Russell almost got arrested for on Monday. Now perhaps it'll wind up with a Barskey arrest?
(Sorry for the bad scan)
Wait... they put out the fire?
Isn't that destruction of evidence? :D
Joe
LOL. :D
Since he didn't talk to the paper, has Babiarz talked privately about this?
Not to us since then, but then, we don't really talk to him. Wait until you see the video. I told him it'd make a great Libertarian for Governor campaign vid, since he's running again.
Here is the video:
Government Aggresses Against A Campfire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3FgzRULJPo#)
Make sure all your politico libertarian buddies see it.
I think someone needs a refresher course in the non-aggression principle.
Babiarz is obviously an excellent, principled libertarian.
::)
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 26, 2010, 09:19 PM NHFTI think someone needs a refresher course in the non-aggression principle.
Hey, actually engaging in negligence that constitutes a credible threat to others is an aggressive act.
And we all know that lighting a fire in a well-constructed fire ring,
without a permit is extremely dangerous to others. See, it's a well-known fact that fires obey burn permits, and will stay within the designated fire ring if you have one. But if you don't have a permit, they know you're an easy mark, so they get all uppity and jump out.
By the way, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas I'd like to sell, if anyone's interested.
Joe
Good show, John. ::)
If the fire had been actually dangerous then why would the little man (who created the problem) from Enfield (with the big title) threaten to call the STATE POLICE rather call the fire department?
Maybe because it wasn't actually dangerous and the little man from Enfeild knew it.
I'd say (and by the way I was there) that the jerky little man (the state deputy fire bla-bla-bla) was simply on a huge power trip and he wanted desperately to introduce GUNS (the Guns of the Blue Light Gang) into the situation!
So while they put out that 'dangerous' fire, they blocked off a lane of highway 4 with their stupid fire engine, forcing cars to pass on a blind turn. Really safe. ::)
Well, now you have the official word: no accidental fires are allowed to break out in Grafton during business hours. That means no cooking, no smoking, no grilling, no blacksmithing, no baling hay, no welding, no manufacturing black powder (oops, sorry, that was Colebrook).
So, please, for the convenience of the VFD, schedule your kitchen grease fire sometime after 6 p.m.
At all other times, please have a permit, because pieces of paper called "burn permits" stop forest fires exactly like pieces of paper called "restraining orders" stop bullets.
Wow. Just wow. My response to all those government people that were involved would have to be, "Really?"
They spent all that time, money, and resources on THAT? I mean, its one thing to be petty, but that was really insane.
Get ready for jail -- now that the intent to fine has been published, they will certainly send the bills and the fine. What a damn waste.
Mike was more reasonable than any of the authoritays. Russell didn't even get out of his chair, I'm happy to see irrationality greeted calmly. That's how psychiatrists get people to see their own insanity, just ask questions in a normal voice :)
Please take this as constructive criticism.
I find this video to be very disappointing. While the solidly anarchist crowd can plainly see the violence inherent in the system, those who aren't there yet will most likely see this as some radicals being unreasonable. Mike's tone of voice is antagonistic, as seems to be his attitude. The regulations, like no burning between 9 and 5, are seen by most "normal" people as reasonable.
I'd bet that if the fire danger level was one that allowed open fires, Babiarz would have just said "call first next time", and handed out a permit.
In Deerfield, I would just call the fire chief (instead of driving the mile to check the sign) and he would say "go ahead and burn" or "the fire danger is too high today". Getting a seasonal burn permit just required calling him and meeting him somewhere - the second year he didn't even come on the property to look at the fire pit.
Basically, I wouldn't show this video to anyone who is not already solidly an anarchist. I wouldn't even bother showing it to a minarchist as they would probably find more reason to "need" government to protect themselves from the "unreasonable jerks" challenging the "reasonable" restraints on liberty.
If you are going to use civil disobedience to generate propaganda, it is very important to make your position very clearly the correct and reasonable one.
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on May 27, 2010, 08:41 AM NHFT
Mike was more reasonable than any of the authoritays. Russell didn't even get out of his chair, I'm happy to see irrationality greeted calmly. That's how psychiatrists get people to see their own insanity, just ask questions in a normal voice :)
I sat down partly because we knew they were coming back and partly because it was 10 til noon and time to eat.
We sped up the weenie roast once we found out they were going to put out our fire. I bet chefs in NYC don't have to plan their dinners around the FD putting out their cooking fires. :)
Quote from: Ron Helwig on May 27, 2010, 09:00 AM NHFT
If you are going to use civil disobedience to generate propaganda, it is very important to make your position very clearly the correct and reasonable one.
I guess you didn't get what happened.
We started a fire to burn extra wood and roast hot dogs. A state fire deputy, a cop, and some members of a fire department .... put it out.
The video shows one guy talking to a cop about a small fire. I wasn't incredibly informative, but he didn't plan the event.
The newspaper article is mostly correct, which is good for a paper.
I don't understand how their is anything to criticise.
I have to conditionally agree with Ron.
I don't think Barskey acted inappropriately. I would not have even been that polite.
However, the video needs explanation if it's going to reach a wider audience. Sit down in a chair, have someone operate the camera, and do it like a news report. Explain what's happening, cut to video, cut back to explanation. Do it up like a typical TV news segment, because that's how a lot of folks are used to seeing news presented. The text-scrolls are quick and easy to do, but they aren't as likely to reach folks.
For example, when he says that it's a "class two fire danger day" (or whatever it was - I'm not going to re-watch it to get an exact quote), cut to someone explaining what that means. Is "class two" high, low, or what? I don't know. Your audience doesn't know.
It's like you have a raw steak there. Some of us are "hardcore" enough to just chow down. But the majority of folks want it cooked and served up on a plate with some sides and garnish. You have the ingredients, and I think you guys did an excellent job getting them; just present them in a way that's more palatable to the audience, and it will get a much better reception.
Joe
Joe, Perhaps you can point folks to one of your videos as an example of how to do it correctly? Oh, and please also let us know how long it took to produce.
Joe,
Are you offering to editorialize Mike's video?
Class 2: The fire danger is Moderate and the probability of ignition exists in light flashy fuels. However, the fire does not spread very fast and the fire intensity is usually low.
http://www.fremont.nh.gov/documents/fnhgFDfireclassday.pdf (http://www.fremont.nh.gov/documents/fnhgFDfireclassday.pdf)
Quote from: John on May 27, 2010, 10:42 AM NHFT
Joe, Perhaps you can point folks to one of your videos as an example of how to do it correctly? Oh, and please also let us know how long it took to produce.
This is probably a little more than is needed, but the channel is pretty good.
ICN 5/9/2010 Bank Bailout Protest, PA Big Brother, Hutaree Militia, IMF (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNRrzLyRJLs#)
I agree with both sides! ;D
I think this is an example of the violence inherent in the system, especially since they called the cop before the fireman. What I think looked bad for the video was the scene with the cop and the car. While Barskey was right in that the cop didn't have permission, to many people I could easily imagine it coming off as being antagonistic.
Thanks for the video. I do think the burn pit was too close to the structure for my comfort. However, from the video I could see that the fire was not in anyway out of control or dangerous.
I have had a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach
since I saw this video.
I am too mad and too dejected to comment right now.
Though I will say that Barbiarz, with his little foam
trick, looked just like Barney Fife finally getting to use
his one bullet.
Thats his new name:
Barbiarz Fife
ha ha
Quote from: MaineShark on May 27, 2010, 10:16 AM NHFT
For example, when he says that it's a "class two fire danger day" (or whatever it was - I'm not going to re-watch it to get an exact quote), cut to someone explaining what that means. Is "class two" high, low, or what? I don't know. Your audience doesn't know.
maybe the fire department should make a video explaining their technical terms .... why should we explain our terms and theirs?
Quote from: Ron Helwig on May 27, 2010, 11:47 AM NHFT
This is probably a little more than is needed, but the channel is pretty good.
ICN 5/9/2010 Bank Bailout Protest, PA Big Brother, Hutaree Militia, IMF (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNRrzLyRJLs#)
actually this level of quality is the very least this subject should enjoy
someone needs to make an even better video right now
... and get a really really good looking infobabe to make up for merle's screen time
Quote from: EthanLeeVita on May 27, 2010, 12:21 PM NHFTWhile Barskey was right in that the cop didn't have permission, to many people I could easily imagine it coming off as being antagonistic.
minus too points for the misuse of the word two
but you are right ... many people would find the cops actions as antagonistic
if I would have had any idea that he was endangering my latest buff and wax job done on my vintage 94 subaru .... I would have had to open up a can of cardinal canning on him and given him a thorough toungelashing.
hopefully the cops and robbers will decide not to fine anyone
i heard that the owner will not bill the fire department if he receives no bill from them :)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 27, 2010, 07:38 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanLeeVita on May 27, 2010, 12:21 PM NHFTWhile Barskey was right in that the cop didn't have permission, to many people I could easily imagine it coming off as being antagonistic.
minus too points for the misuse of the word two
I wrote to correctly. I didn't mean to write too to refer to an excessive amount of people.
aha
A POLICEMAN'S PRAYER
COPYRIGHT F 2010 by Sam A. Robrin or whoever the hell it is who writes these things. Go ahead and use it, but if you make a little money on it, I want some!
LORD, when I don the badge and blue,
Make strong my heart to keep
My goal to ever be like You--
In charge of all the sheep.
With Thy tough oversight, ensure,
When I confront the mob,
What matters most is kept secure:
My ego and my job.
Guide my imagination
So citizens will not
See through some regulation
I've made up on the spot.
If I should take a life, O Lord,
Grant full exoneration.
Add to my life the rich reward
Of two weeks' paid vacation.
When I'm in court, Lord, keep the eyes
Of judge and jurors closed,
So even my most bald-faced lies
Will never be exposed.
Guide, too, the men who make the laws
Each time they meet in session,
That there will always be just cause
For my acts of aggression.
Keep the populace so dumb
That they'll always agree
They must have my protection from
A greater threat than me.
Exact upon them, from above,
Thy judgment most severe.
I don't need their respect or love,
But please ensure their fear.
Quote from: John on May 27, 2010, 10:42 AM NHFTJoe, Perhaps you can point folks to one of your videos as an example of how to do it correctly? Oh, and please also let us know how long it took to produce.
I don't have much interest in media work. However, I believe there are a number of folks around who do. Doesn't have to be fancy. Something along the lines of what Ridley does would probably work just fine.
Quote from: thinkliberty on May 27, 2010, 10:59 AM NHFTAre you offering to editorialize Mike's video?
I'd be happy to help out, if there were some way I could.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 27, 2010, 07:31 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on May 27, 2010, 10:16 AM NHFTFor example, when he says that it's a "class two fire danger day" (or whatever it was - I'm not going to re-watch it to get an exact quote), cut to someone explaining what that means. Is "class two" high, low, or what? I don't know. Your audience doesn't know.
maybe the fire department should make a video explaining their technical terms .... why should we explain our terms and theirs?
Because you want to reach people? Unless the goal is preaching to the choir. You know they were being unreasonable. I know they were being unreasonable. A good portion of the folks on this forum know they were being unreasonable. But how about some random neighbor of yours, who doesn't "get it," yet? Babiarz says, "class two" in an ominous voice, so random neighbor guy, who's known Babiarz for years, thinks to himself, "class two must mean that it's extremely dangerous."
Now, imagine that, just after he said that, the video cut to someone explaining that "according to the State, class two is the second-lowest danger level. It means that only very dry material will burn, and fires are very unlikely to spread, so he basically just told us that our fire is safe, not dangerous."
To someone on the borderline between liberty and tyranny, that might be enough to tip him over to our side. Without that, all he knows is that someone he's known for years says that it's dangerous, so it must be. Add in a little explanation, and now he knows that the guy said it's dangerous, then admitted that it really wasn't.
That's how the mainstream media operates. Except they do it by offering explanations that are lies. We can do the same thing, but offer up the truth.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on May 28, 2010, 07:55 AM NHFT
Because you want to reach people? Unless the goal is preaching to the choir. You know they were being unreasonable. I know they were being unreasonable. A good portion of the folks on this forum know they were being unreasonable. But how about some random neighbor of yours, who doesn't "get it," yet? Babiarz says, "class two" in an ominous voice, so random neighbor guy, who's known Babiarz for years, thinks to himself, "class two must mean that it's extremely dangerous."
Now, imagine that, just after he said that, the video cut to someone explaining that "according to the State, class two is the second-lowest danger level. It means that only very dry material will burn, and fires are very unlikely to spread, so he basically just told us that our fire is safe, not dangerous."
To someone on the borderline between liberty and tyranny, that might be enough to tip him over to our side. Without that, all he knows is that someone he's known for years says that it's dangerous, so it must be. Add in a little explanation, and now he knows that the guy said it's dangerous, then admitted that it really wasn't.
I'm thinking that you don't know our neighbors like I know our neighbors! ;D
BTW, One of them stopped by today and mentioned that he had heard about this story on the rock station. 8)
exactly
Quote from: John on May 28, 2010, 11:23 PM NHFTI'm thinking that you don't know our neighbors like I know our neighbors! ;D
BTW, One of them stopped by today and mentioned that he had heard about this story on the rock station. 8)
Well...
A) I've lived around here longer than most of y'all. And around there, given that we have a place right in Danbury, so I probably
do know your neighbors.
B) I was speaking in the general sense. Lots of folks know Babiarz, all around NH. And lots more folks who don't know him will assume he's in the right because he's the fire chief. Demonstrating what he did, to them, won't convince all of them that Statism is wrong. But it will help some of them on the way. Presumably, that's the reason to actually go to the trouble of posting a video of the event?
Joe
I appreciate that Ron's and MaineShark's intentions are to help get the word of liberty to new people. At least, that's what it looks like their intentions are. But I don't think they realize what has happened here.
My friends and I were on my property, building my house, clearing brush, and preparing to cook hot dogs. We were minding our own business, hurting and threatening no one, and we were not being unsafe. We were not preparing any activism or civil disobedience, or trying to make a point, or trying to ruffle feathers, or trying to educate people about liberty. Suddenly, thugs started appearing and threatening us. We calmly told each thug that we were harming no one and would continue to live peacefully. We happened to have cameras because we are activists, and so we video recorded. I edited ~12 minutes of video down to ~7 and added some comments, because that is the amount and caliber of information I wanted to save and share about the incident and the people involved.
If Ron and MaineShark do understand the situation, they why are you preaching to the choir? I know that education is important, and that this video is ugly and the audio is not great and some speaking people are not onscreen at the time they're speaking and this video shows only my point of view and not theirs. It's not only all I did, it's all I could do at the time, and it's all I wanted to do. Why are you telling [/i]me[/i] how to be a better activist, when you could do the things you're suggesting. I don't believe in intellectual property, but just so everything is explicit and open: you have my permission to edit my video in any way you want and to share it via any means with any person. That means that you can edit out the part of the cop leaning on someone's personal property, you can edit out my talking and bad attitude, you can add definitions of "Class 2 Fire Day," you can pay for software to stabilize my shaky cinematography, you can sit at a desk and record yourself reporting this as news, etc.
And why are you spending time and energy telling me how to be even better activist, when you could be using that same time and energy to be telling "fellow libertarians" that you disagree with their use of force? You could be calling Babiarz and Merle and telling them you disapprove of their actions for reasons X and Y. Educating them would be a good idea, too, don't you think? Surely, MaineShark, since you've lived here longer than me and do know my neighbors, you have Babiarz's and Merle's phone numbers.
I notice that they kept moving the goal post so to speak in regard to reasons you can't have a fire.
Approved fire ring is now too close to a building... which is goofy considering you were there tending the fire.
If you had requested a permit, the class 2 thing wouldn't have been a problem?
Basically it comes down to the fact that many people are terrified that others will do unsafe things regarding fires so we have to regulate everyone... Then even losing sight that the reason is safety... Mike is right that it is about control... or more importantly their feeling of loss of control.
Things I've witnessed...
Babiarz wants to assert control... driving around with his clipboard scowling at people for no apparent reason... Going on needlessly fretting about the "danger" a bonfire poses when everything was soaking wet and we had trouble keeping the fire burning.
The foam thing just makes him look like an idiot... Russell just sitting there trying to roast weinies was hilarious. ;D
Quote from: Mike Barskey on May 29, 2010, 08:23 AM NHFTI appreciate that Ron's and MaineShark's intentions are to help get the word of liberty to new people. At least, that's what it looks like their intentions are. But I don't think they realize what has happened here.
My friends and I were on my property, building my house, clearing brush, and preparing to cook hot dogs. We were minding our own business, hurting and threatening no one, and we were not being unsafe. We were not preparing any activism or civil disobedience, or trying to make a point, or trying to ruffle feathers, or trying to educate people about liberty. Suddenly, thugs started appearing and threatening us. We calmly told each thug that we were harming no one and would continue to live peacefully. We happened to have cameras because we are activists, and so we video recorded. I edited ~12 minutes of video down to ~7 and added some comments, because that is the amount and caliber of information I wanted to save and share about the incident and the people involved.
Oh, I understand. This was clearly not planned activism. I just think it could be used more effectively.
Quote from: Mike Barskey on May 29, 2010, 08:23 AM NHFTIf Ron and MaineShark do understand the situation, they why are you preaching to the choir? I know that education is important, and that this video is ugly and the audio is not great and some speaking people are not onscreen at the time they're speaking and this video shows only my point of view and not theirs. It's not only all I did, it's all I could do at the time, and it's all I wanted to do. Why are you telling [/i]me[/i] how to be a better activist, when you could do the things you're suggesting. I don't believe in intellectual property, but just so everything is explicit and open: you have my permission to edit my video in any way you want and to share it via any means with any person. That means that you can edit out the part of the cop leaning on someone's personal property, you can edit out my talking and bad attitude, you can add definitions of "Class 2 Fire Day," you can pay for software to stabilize my shaky cinematography, you can sit at a desk and record yourself reporting this as news, etc.
I don't think you had a bad attitude. Like I said, I wouldn't have been that polite to them.
If it was shot on film, I could certainly help edit it. All this new-fangled computerized video editing stuff is beyond my skill set. Maybe we need to find someone who does have that capability, and could help edit activist videos when there's some reason to. I'd certainly be willing to volunteer to help such an endeavor, if possible.
And I don't think the video quality if a problem. This is
raw. It was captured while it was happening. It wasn't a staged event with a professional videographer. It looks like what it is, and that's powerful.
I guess that's why I'd like to see it done up in a way that will reach a wider audience. You caught something important. I'd like to see the message get out to more than just folks who already agree with us.
Quote from: Mike Barskey on May 29, 2010, 08:23 AM NHFTAnd why are you spending time and energy telling me how to be even better activist, when you could be using that same time and energy to be telling "fellow libertarians" that you disagree with their use of force? You could be calling Babiarz and Merle and telling them you disapprove of their actions for reasons X and Y. Educating them would be a good idea, too, don't you think? Surely, MaineShark, since you've lived here longer than me and do know my neighbors, you have Babiarz's and Merle's phone numbers.
I do have Babiarz's. Not Merle's - no real interest in talking to cops, as I typically consider them beyond the point where it's worth my effort to try and "redeem" them.
I'm not sure how much of a "fellow" Babiarz is, though. Many here are libertarians. He's a Libertarian. He's a believer in politics and the State. Kinder, gentler thugs are still thugs. I doubt he can grasp why you didn't want to get a permit, and I'm nigh certain that everything he was complaining about was just window-dressing (as demonstrated by the fact that he's been there before and approved of the same fire pit). He was upset that you didn't ask his permission, and was willing to attack you for daring to live your own life.
Given that, I don't know if he's reachable, but I'll certainly pigeonhole him if I see him around, though. I'd certainly like to express my disappointment, and I'm not much for saying anything important on the phone. I'm better at talking to folks in person, and if there's any chance I can get him to face the truth, that would be how I could do it.
Joe
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on May 29, 2010, 10:38 AM NHFTI notice that they kept moving the goal post so to speak in regard to reasons you can't have a fire.
Approved fire ring is now too close to a building... which is goofy considering you were there tending the fire.
If you had requested a permit, the class 2 thing wouldn't have been a problem?
Basically it comes down to the fact that many people are terrified that others will do unsafe things regarding fires so we have to regulate everyone... Then even losing sight that the reason is safety... Mike is right that it is about control... or more importantly their feeling of loss of control.
Posted while I was typing. But yes, that's the message I think is important here. It's all about wanting you to ask their permission and make them feel important.
Joe
it was kinda funny
NonVerbals in Another Culture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SE1AEd2NqM#)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 27, 2010, 07:38 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanLeeVita on May 27, 2010, 12:21 PM NHFTWhile Barskey was right in that the cop didn't have permission, to many people I could easily imagine it coming off as being antagonistic.
minus too points for the misuse of the word two
but you are right ... many people would find the cops actions as antagonistic
if I would have had any idea that he was endangering my latest buff and wax job done on my vintage 94 subaru .... I would have had to open up a can of cardinal canning on him and given him a thorough toungelashing.
Subarus aren't "vintage" unless they are pre 1988, have a dead mouse in the fan motor and an audible mechanical tick...but you're getting there. ;D The last person that leaned on my car spontaneously combusted, and they didn't even get a permit!
Quote from: Free libertarian on June 01, 2010, 09:11 AM NHFTSubarus aren't "vintage" unless they are pre 1988, have a dead mouse in the fan motor and an audible mechanical tick...but you're getting there. ;D The last person that leaned on my car spontaneously combusted, and they didn't even get a permit!
Who do you go to, if you want to get a permit to spontaneously combust?
Joe
Total over kill. the fire was in an open area with no nearby combustible material and posed no risk of igniting surrounding vegetation. It could have been put out out with a few handful's of of dirt.
First they came for the wienie roasters...
the hot dogs weren't bad either
I looked at the fire danger ratings. It goes from 1 to 5. 5 is most dangerous. Class 2 is the lowest the danger can be when it isn't outright raining.
well that would be accurate :)
actually that day and a couple of others were warm and dry ... and it had not rained for a few days .... but our fire seemed very safe to me
Perfect example of being so right, yet soooo... wrong!
Being jejune and operating out of context allows one to make a "perfect" logical point and to self-righteously take the moral high ground, yet still make the impression of being completely irresponsible in a manner that could destroy the forest and the property of everyone around, and create a huge costly fire-fightinng effort.
The context that is ignored is that great effort, expense and organization have been evolved to prevent damage to property by fire. If the system is imperfect and bureaucratic, as I'm sure it is, why not develop something more capable, proper, efficient and give your neighbors a comforting feeling that you would never take risks with fire that would ever place their property in danger? If the system in place is state-run and statutorily mandated, then why not create something that answers all the concerns about lighting up the woods, rather than just thumb your nose at those involved in protecting property?
The context includes, roughly, that the system of permitting, identifies the location of known fires - fire wardens in the fire towers managed by the state Department of Forests watch all day for plumes of smoke; they spot a plume and report it to the Hanover 911 dispatch center; Hanover looks at the database of permit locations, and if it's not a known fire, call out the fire departments nearby. The volunteers, in this case, have taken on the duty of protection of property in their role as firefighters. They likely have some discretion at the scene, but given that Barskey and Kanning apparently didn't even have a bucket of water nearby for dousing any embers that could be wind-blown into the surrounding area, the actions of firefighters is to be expected.
The more intelligent approach would be to become cognizant of "the system" in place, become superior in your exhibiting precautions regarding spread of fire, and surely, not acting immaturely by expecting no consequences, including the consequence of embroiling libertarians in an internal squabble that dissipates energies that could be directed at real challenges to our freedoms.
JustUS,
If the people of your "system" want to know who is going to have a wienie roast maybe they could pay people for the information they want, instead of sending a guy with a gun with another guy to dump toxic chemicals on the wienie fire.
I think it's immature to run around like chicken little or Barney Fife with guns and chemicals, because someone cooks a hot-dog the old-fashioned way.
Give me your honest opinion. Do you really believe that fire was a threat to anyone? (remember what the fire marshal said, it's level 2. the only safer rating is when it's raining.)
Quote from: thinkliberty on June 02, 2010, 07:59 PM NHFTDo you really believe that fire was a threat to anyone?
It was done without a permit.
Hence, it was a threat to those who demand obedience before all else...
Joe
today the fire danger was HIGH in Tilton and over the river about 300 feet away the fire danger was MODERATE. I can tell you this scientific fact because of the arbitrary signage posted in each town, you know the one, with Smokey the Bear.
funnier, went back later and the signs still haven't changed.
even funnier, signs in both towns are changed by the same department the TNFD.
funnier still, one such sign near the Tanger Outlets has been wishing me "Season's Greetings" for the entire Winter/Spring seasons. Such thoughful guys.
When we had a rainy (not Rainey) season last year, many Smokey signs had "Danger-Low" but still had "Permit Required", showing that it is mostly a control issue.
I have come up with a solution already.
Every time I have a campfire .... I don't burn down the forest. The system is amazing.
The process of completing a new system is now complete.
;D lol
Quote from: thinkliberty on June 02, 2010, 07:59 PM NHFT
JustUS,
If the people of your "system" want to know who is going to have a wienie roast maybe they could pay people for the information they want, instead of sending a guy with a gun with another guy to dump toxic chemicals on the wienie fire.
You may have missed the point of the post, which was, it is "their" system or "the" system (that exists), not mine or yours. The system is geared to protect property, no matter how imperfect it is, so to flaunt it is to risk the impression of being uncaring about others' property. The post asks of you, do you want to give the impression about being uncaring and disrespectful of others' property, or do you want to give the impression that you'd never do anything in a million years to ever put others' property at risk of being lost to a fire you started?
Quote from: thinkliberty on June 02, 2010, 07:59 PM NHFT
I think it's immature to run around like chicken little or Barney Fife with guns and chemicals, because someone cooks a hot-dog the old-fashioned way.
This is a weak attempt at mockery of people with presumably good intentions and is essentially unhelpful.
Quote from: thinkliberty on June 02, 2010, 07:59 PM NHFT
Give me your honest opinion. Do you really believe that fire was a threat to anyone? (remember what the fire marshal said, it's level 2. the only safer rating is when it's raining.)
I'm not in the fire biz and didn't see it, so I have no idea or opinion about the fire. This discussion is about the wiseness of one's actions, given the context (Or at least I'm suggesting that considering the context is a wise choice here).
If you want to argue that "a man owns his land" and that "he has a right to do with it as he sees fit", I'd say you're just being silly - haven't you been paying attention?
This is not a free country... duh! This is about actions and consequences and being a baby about facing the consequences.
PS: Of course, paper permits or restraining orders don't prevent fires or assaults, they are official statements about rules and consequences to expect from "the system" (regardless of whether you or I like it or not).
the system is geared to have some people live off of other people
Quote from: JustUs on June 03, 2010, 09:34 PM NHFT
Quote from: thinkliberty on June 02, 2010, 07:59 PM NHFT
Give me your honest opinion. Do you really believe that fire was a threat to anyone? (remember what the fire marshal said, it's level 2. the only safer rating is when it's raining.)
I'm not in the fire biz and didn't see it, so I have no idea or opinion about the fire. This discussion is about the wiseness of one's actions, given the context (Or at least I'm suggesting that considering the context is a wise choice here).
You don't need to be in the fire business to have an opinion. I think you believe the fire was not dangerous, you just don't want to answer the question.
I witness the actions of chicken little and Barney Fife putting out a wienie fire. You witness someone disobeying "the system" that you believe in.
Re-watch the video so you can see the fire, then give me your option. Do you think that wienie fire is going to burn down Grafton?
Quote from: JustUs on June 03, 2010, 09:34 PM NHFTYou may have missed the point of the post, which was, it is "their" system or "the" system (that exists), not mine or yours. The system is geared to protect property, no matter how imperfect it is, so to flaunt it is to risk the impression of being uncaring about others' property.
Their system is "geared" for nothing other than consolidating power.
Quote from: JustUs on June 03, 2010, 09:34 PM NHFTQuote from: thinkliberty on June 02, 2010, 07:59 PM NHFTI think it's immature to run around like chicken little or Barney Fife with guns and chemicals, because someone cooks a hot-dog the old-fashioned way.
This is a weak attempt at mockery of people with presumably good intentions and is essentially unhelpful.
I don't believe they have good intentions. Folks with good intentions don't run around assaulting and threatening innocent people.
Joe
Quote from: thinkliberty on June 04, 2010, 07:10 AM NHFT
Quote from: JustUs on June 03, 2010, 09:34 PM NHFT
Quote from: thinkliberty on June 02, 2010, 07:59 PM NHFT
Give me your honest opinion. Do you really believe that fire was a threat to anyone? (remember what the fire marshal said, it's level 2. the only safer rating is when it's raining.)
I'm not in the fire biz and didn't see it, so I have no idea or opinion about the fire. This discussion is about the wiseness of one's actions, given the context (Or at least I'm suggesting that considering the context is a wise choice here).
You don't need to be in the fire business to have an opinion. I think you believe the fire was not dangerous, you just don't want to answer the question.
You have missed the point of my post again, and my apologies for perhaps not being clear enough. Without just re-stating the same thing, here's the synopsis: The context: how "the system" works, including the permitting process, the responses (dutiful) of the various people involved, their good intentions to protect property (hint: primo libertarian issue); the consequences: the impression you leave (irresponsible jerk and danger to neighbors), possible fines, forcible entry onto your property, extinguishment of your fire, downgrading of the reputation of your fellows through you being an Ugly Porcupine.
Quote from: thinkliberty on June 04, 2010, 07:10 AM NHFT
I witness the actions of chicken little and Barney Fife putting out a wienie fire. You witness someone disobeying "the system" that you believe in.
You mischaracterize me and missed the point I hinted at, ie, it's "their" system or "the system", not ours. I neither own it, believe in it or approve of it. I watch for context and consequences. You seem to seek to lash out at people, even fellow libertarians, rather than to demonstrate your better system or your better personal superior fire safety methods and practices.
Quote from: thinkliberty on June 04, 2010, 07:10 AM NHFT
Re-watch the video so you can see the fire, then give me your option. Do you think that wienie fire is going to burn down Grafton?
I'm not planning to watch the video, thanks. It's not about that fire.
Quote from: JustUs on June 04, 2010, 12:13 PM NHFT
You mischaracterize me and missed the point I hinted at, ie, it's "their" system or "the system", not ours. I neither own it, believe in it or approve of it. I watch for context and consequences. You seem to seek to lash out at people, even fellow libertarians, rather than to demonstrate your better system or your better personal superior fire safety methods and practices.
If you don't believe in or approve of their system then you must not care if anyone complies with it or follows it, but you seem to care. Why?
You are contradicting yourself when you say:
Quote"the system" works, including the permitting process, the responses (dutiful) of the various people involved, their good intentions to protect property (hint: primo libertarian issue); the consequences: the impression you leave (irresponsible jerk and danger to neighbors), possible fines, forcible entry onto your property, extinguishment of your fire, downgrading of the reputation of your fellows through you being an Ugly Porcupine.
BTW, I didn't "lash out" at anyone. I wasn't the one bring guns and chemicals to ruin another person's wienie roast.
Russell's system seemed like a better system to me:
Quote
I have come up with a solution already.
Every time I have a campfire .... I don't burn down the forest. The system is amazing.
The process of completing a new system is now complete.
He tried to demonstrate that it worked, but chicken little and barney fife "who you claim is a libertarian" aggressed against his system and his wienie roast.
Quote from: JustUs on June 04, 2010, 12:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: thinkliberty on June 04, 2010, 07:10 AM NHFT
Re-watch the video so you can see the fire, then give me your option. Do you think that wienie fire is going to burn down Grafton?
I'm not planning to watch the video, thanks. It's not about that fire.
So it's not about the fire, it must be about control, like others here have pointed out.
If I am wrong, if it's not about the fire or control what is it about?
JustUs, shirley you know where people like ThinkLiberty, Russell, and others including myself are coming from.
it's arbitrary and most definitely not about safety. I would go so far as to say that these rules don't even work very well. I see more young people starting fires in crazy places so that fire departments don't find them. And they don't. Places where it's idiotic and unsafe to start a fire. Why there? Because they need a PERMIT at home.
I was with a fireman last week at his 'bonfire' which took place about 3 feet from wild brush, trees, tons of canopy. THese people are supposed to be the people I trust to protect my property from fire AND make the rules about how I can use fire on my own property???
I know it's cute to be the contrary, but you can't sit there and say this is a safety thing FIRST.
There are fire towers that report all daytime fires (smoke) that they spot, and report them to the fire department who have to respond.
those towers must do a lot of good at night.
I think bats roost in them.
that is helpful too :)
Quote from: JustUs on June 02, 2010, 09:45 AM NHFT
They likely have some discretion at the scene, but given that Barskey and Kanning apparently didn't even have a bucket of water nearby for dousing any embers that could be wind-blown into the surrounding area, the actions of firefighters is to be expected.
We did have two separate sources of water within 10 feet of that fire. I'd guess there was a total of about 10 gallons. Plus we had a mound of wet sand about 15 feet in the opposite direction with shovels ready to go.
Quote from: JustUs on June 03, 2010, 09:34 PM NHFT
The system is geared to protect property, no matter how imperfect it is, so to flaunt it is to risk the impression of being uncaring about others' property.
No, the system is geared to instill fear and garner control under the
guise of doing something that people want (in this case, protecting from fire hazards).
Quote from: AntonLee on June 04, 2010, 08:10 PM NHFT
those towers must do a lot of good at night.
At night, when they see a fire in an area where they have not been informed about a burning permit, they notify the fire department. They can pin the area of the fire or smoke quite closely.
Out of the 4.5 million acres that the New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands "oversee".
Quote
Year To Date:
4 Fires
13 Acres
0 Injuries Reported
Structures Impacted: 0
Largest Fire: 10 acres
http://www.nhdfl.org/fire-control-and-law-enforcement/fire-statistics.aspx (http://www.nhdfl.org/fire-control-and-law-enforcement/fire-statistics.aspx)
The fear of risk of wildfire, like many risks, is greatly overstated. This isn't the dry west.
Lightning, fireworks, cigarettes, electric lines are significant sources of risk that are accepted as part of living our lives.
I live in the woods, in a wooden house... I take the threat of wildfire seriously, although the fact of the matter is it is a pretty damn low chance of it happening.
Unlike some folks, I don't want a nice government official I can call to ask permission to have a campfire beside my patio... Just because some people might not do the right thing, doesn't mean I lose my rights. If that was the case guns should be much more closely regulated... sex too.
"Mission creep" is a real threat any time we allow government and quasi-government organizations to hold power over us. The volunteer fire department is an example of this.
If enough people could begin notifying the fire department every time they lit a cigarette or struck a match to ignite the burner on a stove, perhaps some awareness might sink through . . .
if we would have known how popular this particular weenie roast was going to be .... we would have worn better outfits and roasted a whole animal and done it up right
:campfire: is illegal in Grafton? Camp cooking individuals treated badly by fireguy and cop in name of "safety". This action is not appearing as reasonable or considerate under the conditions demonstrated. Volunteer status very much appreciated but not in this case. Individuals peaceful activity wrecked I guess to preserve "authority and authority relationships with outside fire guy and Merle :violent5:. Liberty and justice for all requires that fire cops to apologize, and not allow their usual liberty oriented position to be so easily vanquished :grommit:. Then lets move on :kermit:.
it doesn't appear to be illegal ... just an activity that might bring harassment
I've been collecting (but not posting) feedback from "random neighbors."
I'm happy to report that --- well, I was right earlier. ;D
The Mises Institute had a great post on fire regulation today. Worth the read
http://mises.org/daily/4453 (http://mises.org/daily/4453)
Power corrupts, the greater the power, the more it corrupts. We need to be 'self policing'. It is a shame what has happened.
I didn't know when, or how, but I expected stuff like this to happen. libertarian powerholders should be disobeyed just as gop or dem powerholders. Gandhi used, (to great effect) Satyagraha against his own followers when they strayed. He called it the "all edged sword".
Quote from: David on June 15, 2010, 12:22 PM NHFT
Gandhi used Satyagraha against his own followers when they strayed. He called it the "all edged sword".
Oh, who wants to listen to some
sword-polisher . . . ?
It's too late for some, but if anyone is out there thinking of moving to Grafton because they also are under the illusion that it is some kind of libertarian utopia, try to grasp some reality.
Wonder what these guys think?
http://www.utopia-vanderpool-esd.org/ (http://www.utopia-vanderpool-esd.org/)
i guess i saw the fire statists up close in California
i am not about to bow down to the fire marshals in a place where the ground is always wet :)
Supportive LTE in the Suncook Valley Sun, this week (June 16th edition).
QuoteIn response to the Valley News article in the June 7th Concord Monitor. "Liberty Under Fire? Maybe Not."
Yes, our liberty is under fire. These men were cooking hot dogs over a fire, and did not have the required fire permit.
I think fire permits are a waste of time and energy and an infringement of a most basic right.
I have been round and round with the Fire Chief, Gary Johnson.
I am responsible for any damage for any fire I kindle, with or without a permit.
He says he has to enforce the law. I say I will not surrender my basic right to kindle a fire as needed in my work or to cook hot dogs.
Our Fire Chief warned me the last time, he might have to charge me with arson.
If you end up in jail, Mike, over cooking hot dogs, maybe you had better save me a cell.
Dan Schroth Piermarocchi
Joe
very cool
Awesome! Thanks for sharing it!
A Big Deal over a Small Fire
http://newhampshirefreepress.com/node/634 (http://newhampshirefreepress.com/node/634)
By Kat Kanning
Mike Barskey and his work crew relaxed over a small cooking fire one day. They'd planned on making some hotdogs for their lunch. The fire pit was about 3 x 5 ft, 2 feet deep, rock lined, with 4 people attending the fire. The location of the fire pit had been approved by the fire chief himself, the year before. Barskey and his whole crew did not consider the fire a danger to neighbors. If fact, they considered it none of anybody's business but their own.
A NH deputy fire marshal from Enfield happened to drive by and seeing the fire, stopped to ask if they had a permit. Apparently, the possession of such piece of paper would magically make the fire safe, according to the government. When Barskey and crew refused to produce such a document, and refused to put the fire out, the fire marshal threatened them with arrest and contacted the police. He did not contact the fire department to put out the raging campfire – he called the police, clearly demonstrating that it was an issue of control and not safety.
The local police showed up and demanded that the fire be put out. The local constabulary was much stymied by members of the work crew completely ignoring him and continuing to throw sticks on the fire. The fire department was contacted by the local police. They brought a fire truck and put the fire out, as the crew was roasting weenies. In the meantime, the fire truck was parked blocking Highway 4, causing people to pass on a blind curve and creating an actual danger to people.
Had Barskey actually requested a fire permit, he most likely would not have been given one. A similar request by other freestaters in the area was refused because the fire chief 'did not have the right piece of paper to give out the permit'. As if by magic, the paper was available the very next day after this incident, and the freestaters were given a permit.
So Barskey and crew had their work / lunch destroyed, all for doing nothing that harmed anyone else. The crew had various people on Barskey's property, despite repeated requests for firemen/police to leave. In short, Barskey was violated by people who claimed to be there only for protection.
Since the story has been out for some time, neighbors have come out of the woodwork, complaining of the tyranny of the small town fire department. One man spoke of cronyism in who was allowed to have fires in the area. In a state covered in trees, it is important to be able to burn one's brush.
So why was this a big deal? Several reasons. One, the fire 'protection' is yet another means by which Big Government can butt into your private life. One neighbor told us how the Grafton fire chief demanded entry into his home to inspect the wood stove.
What's sad about this is it shows clearly how well it works to get libertarians into positions of power. The Grafton fire chief is also the Libertarian Party candidate for governor of New Hampshire. He is also the liaison for FEMA in this area. He has shown that elected libertarians will, in a pinch, act just like every other bureaucrat in order to keep their positions of power. "Just doin' my job, ma'am." And when FEMA comes to NH and demands gun confiscation as they did in New Orleans, what will happen then?
Great article Kat... I especially liked the part where you point out that the "Libertarian" put on the same pair of jackboots that the rest of the Statists wear!
:clapping: :thanks:
Grafton is not the big money capitol of New Hampshire, either. Bribes are not falling on these officials like a waterfall. They probably are offered bribes totaling $10 over a lifetime. Unresponsiveness and disrespect even happen to the smallest authority. Please don't elect anyone to office, you will lose them to the corruption of the state.
So... they should be pretty cheap to bribe? ;)
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on June 28, 2010, 01:28 PM NHFT
So... they should be pretty cheap to bribe? ;)
At least as far as the fire and ambulance departments are concerned since they are 100% volunteer nobody is in it for the money. As someone who has been on both the Grafton Fire Department and Ambulance Department for more than a few years I have not seen, heard or suspected any bribery going on.
I can't speak for any of the other town government departments but I suspect there isn't any bribery, favoritism maybe, but I doubt there is any bribery. (Granted, favoritism is worse than bribery in my opinion.)
Yeah, so if they're not getting bribe offers regularly, a couple hundred bucks ought to go far! If they were getting bribed all the time, the price would be higher.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on June 29, 2010, 01:11 PM NHFT
Yeah, so if they're not getting bribe offers regularly, a couple hundred bucks ought to go far! If they were getting bribed all the time, the price would be higher.
Fire permits are free, why would you bribe someone to get one (or not get one)?
If you don't want one then don't get one but there is a chance someone with a badge will confront you about it as happened in this case.
I'm not arguing for or against fire permits, just trying to provide facts.
QuoteFire permits are free
But you and agraftonite know well, as do I, that the issuance of those permits depends on the willingness or ability of a bureaucrat to actually issue one. It took me over a MONTH to get one, even being free and even with a so-called Libertarian issuing them.
This is during the period where Mike had his fire. Even if he had WANTED one, and I understand fully why he doesn't, he likely couldn't have gotten one then.
Quote from: Kevin Dean on July 11, 2010, 05:38 PM NHFT
QuoteFire permits are free
But you and agraftonite know well, as do I, that the issuance of those permits depends on the willingness or ability of a bureaucrat to actually issue one. It took me over a MONTH to get one, even being free and even with a so-called Libertarian issuing them.
This is during the period where Mike had his fire. Even if he had WANTED one, and I understand fully why he doesn't, he likely couldn't have gotten one then.
John didn't have the permits to issue at the time so he could not issue them. I presume there are bureaucratic hoops (forms to fill out, etc) that he had to jump through to get a 2010 permit issuing booklet. While a fire chief can issue fire permits, it's mostly the job of the fire warden. See: http://www.nhdfl.org/fire-control-and-law-enforcement/permits.aspx (http://www.nhdfl.org/fire-control-and-law-enforcement/permits.aspx)
Also, Merle can issue fire permits. He's on full time, so if you want to get a permit, there is no reason not to be able to get a hold of him. I believe he issues the majority of the fire permits in Grafton since he's almost always available.
man it would be a real bummer to get all set to have some hot dogs and realize you didn't have the proper paperwork. While your tummy is growling you can seek out the popo or get turned away from a bureaucrat without the necessary papers.
Maybe you should just start the fire and eat.
Quote from: AntonLee on July 12, 2010, 10:29 AM NHFT
Maybe you should just start the fire and eat.
Wow... novel concept... I'm sure the bureaucrats would never approve!
Hibachi
Flatlander ;D
I've been called that a bunch of times. I don't have a hibachi. I like open fires instead.
Practically speaking the only thing the permit does is prevent the folks up in the watch tower (on Cardigan in our case) from calling the fire department to your house if they see smoke. If you have a permit they assume you're having your permitted burn if you do not have a permit then they assume your house is on fire and send a fire department.
I suppose it's possible that if you have a permit for brush fire and your house catches on fire the folks up in the tower may delay calling the fire department thinking that you're just burning brush... Of course when a house is on fire the smoke color and pattern is different, etc. So, it's circumstantial.
I can't speak for every fire fighter but in general it benefits us if people get fire permits because then we don't get called out to false alarms, especially when cooking your hot dog over a giant fire pit and the watch tower thinks your house is on fire.
I wonder if the smoke patterns are different between a "giant" (you said it not me) firepit and the entire state of NH burning down.
does Hoyt Farm have a fire permit? I was hoping to bring marshmellows. Everyone knows that if you get a fire permit there's no way the fire could leave the pit and burn anything else down. Physically impossible.
but if you don't get one, you might get your property rights violated by lots of busybodies who know more about fire than you.
like a fireman I spent the weekend with, nice guy, totally against volunteer fire departments. He started a fire about 20 feet wide about 2 feet from the woods. Nice canopy above, lots of leaves and pineneedles. Few logs were leaning up against standing trees and also in the pit at the same time. No hose in sight. I guess the fact that the entire state didn't burn down is due to his superior training and his magical permit. (or maybe it was because some moron named Anton connected two hoses to the other side of the house and began spraying down the forest when it started smouldering)
FireTower to Command, I see a large part of Belknap county on fire. . . . "must be a false alarm, he has a permit"
For some reason, Mr. Fire Chief didn't hand us a permit this year. /shrug
Quote from: AntonLee on July 12, 2010, 02:40 PM NHFT
I wonder if the smoke patterns are different between a "giant" (you said it not me) firepit and the entire state of NH burning down.
I'm admittedly not very knowledgeable about the smoke patterns of entire states burning down, I would think though, given that most of the state is trees that it would be a forest fire pattern dictated by the type of foliage burning, wind, humidity, temperature, etc.
The smoke pattern/color from your fire pit will depend on the design of your pit and what you're burning.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 12, 2010, 08:25 AM NHFT
Also, Merle can issue fire permits. He's on full time, so if you want to get a permit, there is no reason not to be able to get a hold of him. I believe he issues the majority of the fire permits in Grafton since he's almost always available.
When Merle was harassing me the 2nd time about this issue, he asked if I wanted him to send Babiarz around to issue me a permit (I told him no; Babiarz came anyway, and I told him to get off my property). Why didn't Merle just issue me one then? Or make an appointment to come back himself? Or tell me that he has the authority to issue permits? Or tell me that he issues the majority of the fire permits in Grafton?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 12, 2010, 02:11 PM NHFT
Practically speaking the only thing the permit does is prevent the folks up in the watch tower (on Cardigan in our case) from calling the fire department to your house if they see smoke. If you have a permit they assume you're having your permitted burn if you do not have a permit then they assume your house is on fire and send a fire department.
...
I can't speak for every fire fighter but in general it benefits us if people get fire permits because then we don't get called out to false alarms, especially when cooking your hot dog over a giant fire pit and the watch tower thinks your house is on fire.
I don't understand how this works. Can you explain to me how the watchtower on Cardigan can tell which address to send the cops to - ahem, i mean the fire department to - when they see smoke? They can see the general area, and perhaps can even see a fairly specific area, but they can't see which property has a campfire. There are no dotted lines on the hills to let them know which property it is. And if they send the fire department/cops to that general area and they look around and hopefully see a fire and ask if the burner has a permit, then how does getting a permit prevent false alarms (e.g., the tower doesn't know if Property A or Property B has a permit and the fire is indeterminably between those properties)?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 12, 2010, 02:11 PM NHFT
I can't speak for every fire fighter but in general it benefits us if people get fire permits...
Is my freedom of lesser importance than your benefit or convenience?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 12, 2010, 02:11 PM NHFT
I can't speak for every fire fighter but in general it benefits us if people get fire permits...
I can't speak for every person, but in general it would benefit me to not have people come onto my property and spray foam in an entirely harmless cooking fire pit and then spray more foam around my property, and then threaten me with citations and fines and bills.
It would benefit me more to have the things I'm threatened with (citations, fire permits, etc.) cease to exist, so this problem doesn't occur in the future. I'm fairly certain that people living together peacefully can find ways to have fires safely, and when something goes wrong I'm certain they can find ways to work together (or alone!) to put out the fires. They can even plan ahead and practice and call themselves volunteer fire departments. But there's no need to force people to get a piece of paper for their convenience.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 12, 2010, 02:11 PM NHFTPractically speaking the only thing the permit does is prevent the folks up in the watch tower (on Cardigan in our case) from calling the fire department to your house if they see smoke. If you have a permit they assume you're having your permitted burn if you do not have a permit then they assume your house is on fire and send a fire department.
Barskey already pointed out how ridiculous that notion is, but I'll add another detail:
NH issues seasonal permits. So they don't know that you're supposed to have a burn on a particular day. With a seasonal permit, you can have a burn at any time.
The
sole reason for the fire permits is to have you come in and bow down before the State. Not one thing else.
Joe
Ah yes, one more ridiculous aspect: the tower stops functioning at 5:00p. At 5:15p is it suddenly safe to burn without a permit? Does dispatch stop receiving "false alarms" after 5:00p, or do you ignore them?
everyone knows fire can't light except in a firepit after 5pm. It's magic!
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 12, 2010, 02:11 PM NHFTI suppose it's possible that if you have a permit for brush fire and your house catches on fire the folks up in the tower may delay calling the fire department thinking that you're just burning brush...
Ding! Ding! Ding!
WE HAVE A WINNER!
So go and print out your own "permit" if for nothing else than to jam up the works a bit and hasten the downfall of the state.
You are welcome to use the one I just drew up if you like and make any changes to it to suit your needs. If nothing else, it will get them thinking. Best case scenario, they will cut bait and leave you alone, possibly for good.
---
Non-Governmental Issue Permit For Open Fire
Permit Number __________
This document shall serve as a permit issued by a non-governmental entity to allow an open flame in the area of ______________ in the lands known to the people as New Hampshire. There is no fee to be collected and there is no expiration date on this permit.
It is vital to the perpetuity of a free land and to the human inhabitants that live therein in securing and keeping that same freedom, that they be unhindered in their actions if the acts of their daily living harms none. The act of starting a well controlled and maintained fire in a pit, grill, fireplace or other venue designed to contain an open flame and/or combustible materials is one that requires no overseer to grant exclusive license.
Humankind has proven throughout history that permits are not required to make a fire "safe". Permits issued by government decree would not be combustible otherwise. What has also been proven is that issuance of fire permits is merely a poorly veiled attempt at revenue enhancement for the sole benefit of the state.
It is also vital that permit holder not leave unattended firearms or other weaponry within the camp site area to prevent their unlawful removal (theft) by law enforcement that may be sorely lacking as to the nature of freedom or the laws of New Hampshire, that encourage ownership of such by the people.
With this in mind, we have issued a permit to the following individual who has shown themselves to be responsible both in deed and knowledge of basic fire safety.
_________________ __________
Signed Date
Disclaimer:
This permit was obviously not issued by any governmental entity. It is not expected to be recognized or even partially understood by any agent nor agency that currently enjoys an exclusive ability to choose to enable or instead stifle the liberty to freely contract for any presumed "service" provided to the public at large.
What it does represent is a viable and lasting alternative to the ineffective, violence backed, wasteful, and obviously stupid monopoly permit/licensing system currently in place and sadly controlled solely by government at this period in time.
Once government has (and it will) dissolve into non-existence by it's own sheer weight, any notice such as this one referring to the person or group named above, should in effect, replace that outdated and coercive miasma of issuance. We have proposed a better way.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 12, 2010, 02:11 PM NHFT
I can't speak for every fire fighter but in general it benefits us if people get fire permits because then we don't get called out to false alarms, especially when cooking your hot dog over a giant fire pit and the watch tower thinks your house is on fire.
Maybe the firefighters that want people to get permits can offer people some kind of incentive to get a permit. (threats of violence are not an incentive)
If you want someone to do something you could pay them to fill out your forms or ask for a permit. You could enter them in a drawing where they have a chance of winning something, which might make them go out of their way to do something you want.
You might work on making it easy for an individual to tell the fire towers that they are going to have a weenie roast. Maybe you could have an internet page where you ask people to fill out a web form and then you can give them some kind of reward for doing something that you want.
If you decide to keep trying to using coercion to get what you want from people, you'll eventually accept the fact that people aren't going to comply with that.
Quote from: Mike Barskey on July 12, 2010, 06:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 12, 2010, 08:25 AM NHFT
Also, Merle can issue fire permits. He's on full time, so if you want to get a permit, there is no reason not to be able to get a hold of him. I believe he issues the majority of the fire permits in Grafton since he's almost always available.
When Merle was harassing me the 2nd time about this issue, he asked if I wanted him to send Babiarz around to issue me a permit (I told him no; Babiarz came anyway, and I told him to get off my property). Why didn't Merle just issue me one then? Or make an appointment to come back himself? Or tell me that he has the authority to issue permits? Or tell me that he issues the majority of the fire permits in Grafton?
There must've been some miscommunication there, I will check on this for you next time I see John or Merle.
Quote from: Mike Barskey on July 12, 2010, 06:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 12, 2010, 02:11 PM NHFT
Practically speaking the only thing the permit does is prevent the folks up in the watch tower (on Cardigan in our case) from calling the fire department to your house if they see smoke. If you have a permit they assume you're having your permitted burn if you do not have a permit then they assume your house is on fire and send a fire department.
...
I can't speak for every fire fighter but in general it benefits us if people get fire permits because then we don't get called out to false alarms, especially when cooking your hot dog over a giant fire pit and the watch tower thinks your house is on fire.
I don't understand how this works. Can you explain to me how the watchtower on Cardigan can tell which address to send the cops to - ahem, i mean the fire department to - when they see smoke? They can see the general area, and perhaps can even see a fairly specific area, but they can't see which property has a campfire. There are no dotted lines on the hills to let them know which property it is. And if they send the fire department/cops to that general area and they look around and hopefully see a fire and ask if the burner has a permit, then how does getting a permit prevent false alarms (e.g., the tower doesn't know if Property A or Property B has a permit and the fire is indeterminably between those properties)?
If you go with Kat and the others on that hike to Mt Cardigan next week, you could just go up to the tower and ask the guy sitting up there. My understanding is that they are surprisingly accurate. They may have some fancy equipment to be able to pinpoint a GPS location through the binoculars maybe? I don't know. Maybe they are just really good with trigonometry and maps.
Quote from: Mike Barskey on July 12, 2010, 06:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 12, 2010, 02:11 PM NHFT
I can't speak for every fire fighter but in general it benefits us if people get fire permits...
Is my freedom of lesser importance than your benefit or convenience?
Just saying that some of us don't like being there unnecessarily. I didn't respond to the call to your place but I saw Bob in the video and he didn't look too happy to be there. I don't want you to think that all fire fighters like going to peoples houses and putting out their cooking coals ;)
And of course your freedom is more important than someone's convenience. To suggest otherwise would be ludicrous.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 08:56 AM NHFT
If you go with Kat and the others on that hike to Mt Cardigan next week, you could just go up to the tower and ask the guy sitting up there. My understanding is that they are surprisingly accurate. They may have some fancy equipment to be able to pinpoint a GPS location through the binoculars maybe? I don't know. Maybe they are just really good with trigonometry and maps.
I've been up to the fire tower on Mt Kearsarge before. There is a topo map up there under glass. Over that is a sight mounted on a ring with bearings marked around the edge. If a fire is sighted, they will find the bearing to the fire, and then radio it over to the other towers in the area. The towers are set up so that any area can be seen by more than one tower. With two or more bearings from a known location you can get a fairly accurate position. This is similar to finding your own position with a compass.
I was just up to the one in Pawtuckaway yesterday, and found it wasn't even manned though.
(http://41magnum.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Pawtuckaway-2010-07-12/DSC0240/933004564_wGZ3a-S.jpg) (http://41magnum.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Pawtuckaway-2010-07-12/12913321_wUecy#933004564_wGZ3a-A-LB)
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 13, 2010, 07:24 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 12, 2010, 02:11 PM NHFT
I can't speak for every fire fighter but in general it benefits us if people get fire permits because then we don't get called out to false alarms, especially when cooking your hot dog over a giant fire pit and the watch tower thinks your house is on fire.
Maybe the firefighters that want people to get permits can offer people some kind of incentive to get a permit. (threats of violence are not an incentive)
If you want someone to do something you could pay them to fill out your forms or ask for a permit. You could enter them in a drawing where they have a chance of winning something, which might make them go out of their way to do something you want.
You might work on making it easy for an individual to tell the fire towers that they are going to have a weenie roast. Maybe you could have an internet page where you ask people to fill out a web form and then you can give them some kind of reward for doing something that you want.
If you decide to keep trying to using coercion to get what you want from people, you'll eventually accept the fact that people aren't going to comply with that.
The tone that goes out usually says "Unpermitted Burn", I'm not really sure how they can claim that that's what they see, but it is what it is. For example, just a few weeks ago I got toned to my neighbors house, they have a permit, so I stopped at their place on the way to the station and told them that we had just gotten toned to their house. They called Hanover dispatch and told them that they have a permit and Hanover re-checked their database and canceled the tone before anyone even got to the fire station.
So, one could chose not to respond to such calls, the problem is that what if it is a house on fire... it's not uncommon for the message in the tone that goes off to be misleading or incorrect such as the location and/or nature of the call.
Generally speaking, Hanover dispatch and the fire department operate on the philosophy that it's always better to respond and then go home when there is nothing going on than to ignore something and find out that there really was a problem. For a structure fire every minute counts and the longer you delay not only is the fire going to destroy more of the structure but it becomes a larger hazard for fire fighters due to flashovers and backdrafts and spread of fire or collapse of building.
To answer your original question. I don't think there is that much of a problem of people not getting fire permits to require fire fighters to provide incentives. I suppose if we got a "Unpermitted Burn" tone every other day we'd be more likely to try and do something. We've probably had 5 or so unpermitted tones this whole year and in half of those cases the residents did have a permits, so it was a false alarm.
I'm sorry to say, but the only incentive I can think of is to avoid initiation of force. Not having the police and/or fire department drop in on your party is the main incentive.
Quote from: Dan Steward on July 13, 2010, 12:20 AM NHFT
So go and print out your own "permit" if for nothing else than to jam up the works a bit and hasten the downfall of the state.
You are welcome to use the one I just drew up if you like and make any changes to it to suit your needs. If nothing else, it will get them thinking. Best case scenario, they will cut bait and leave you alone, possibly for good.
Part of the permit process is that the person issuing you the permit must submit a copy of it to Hanover dispatch so that they can enter it into their system. The piece of paper on its own is useless in preventing the police and/or fire from showing up at your place.
A few of the calls that we've gotten for unpermitted burns where the person did have a permit is because the person issuing the permit didn't have a chance to submit the permit to Hanover dispatch yet. What often happens is that someone would get a permit and then that same evening decide to do a burn, because Hanover hasn't gotten a copy of the permit yet they think you're doing an unpermitted burn and tones the fire department.
Trying to clog up the system in Grafton isn't very practical because the town just isn't big enough. Like I said earlier, we've only had about 5 unpermitted burn tones this whole year. If a couple (or even all) of those have their own personal burn permits it's not going to clog up anything.
If you aren't going to get a permit from the town on principle than I'd encourage you to spend your free time doing other things than inventing personal ones and if someone shows up demanding one tell them the truth. Unless you expect that your like minded neighbors will want to see your personal one before they come over to your house for a fire.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 09:24 AM NHFT
I'm sorry to say, but the only incentive I can think of is to avoid initiation of force. Not having the police and/or fire department drop in on your party is the main incentive.
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, I guess.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 09:24 AM NHFT
I'm sorry to say, but the only incentive I can think of is to avoid initiation of force. Not having the police and/or fire department drop in on your party is the main incentive.
....
A few of the calls that we've gotten for unpermitted burns where the person did have a permit is because the person issuing the permit didn't have a chance to submit the permit to Hanover dispatch yet.
It sounds like there is a good chance that the police and/or fire department will drop in on your party, even when you have a permit, so what's the point?
Quote from: Mike Barskey on July 12, 2010, 07:03 PM NHFT
Ah yes, one more ridiculous aspect: the tower stops functioning at 5:00p. At 5:15p is it suddenly safe to burn without a permit? Does dispatch stop receiving "false alarms" after 5:00p, or do you ignore them?
I don't know for a fact their reason.
But my hunch is that the main reason is because at 5pm is when most people get off from work and are on their way home so there are plenty of eyes out in the field, assuming that someone driving down the road seeing a house up in flames would call 911 or dispatch or the fire department. And if you're at home and your house catches on fire you'll likely know it before the guy in the tower anyways ;-) And if your neighbors house is on fire you may also see it and/or smell it before the guy in the tower depending on wind conditions and atmospheric pressures. So, to some extent the guy in the tower becomes redundant after 5pm.
It may also be as simple as them not having enough money to pay someone to sit there past 5pm.
There probably have been cases where having a guy up there past 5pm may have prevented a house from burning down but do you want the government to tax you even more so that they can afford to have someone sit up there after 5pm?
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 13, 2010, 10:17 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 09:24 AM NHFT
I'm sorry to say, but the only incentive I can think of is to avoid initiation of force. Not having the police and/or fire department drop in on your party is the main incentive.
....
A few of the calls that we've gotten for unpermitted burns where the person did have a permit is because the person issuing the permit didn't have a chance to submit the permit to Hanover dispatch yet.
It sounds like there is a good chance that the police and/or fire department will drop in on your party, even when you have a permit, so what's the point?
The chance is reduced significantly but not eliminated.
You could ask the person issuing you the permit when they will submit it to Hanover dispatch. You could probably even call dispatch and find out if your permit has been entered into their system, just don't call them when they are busy (a lot of calls going on at the same time) and make sure to let them know that it is not an emergency first thing when they pick up, they may put you on hold for a minute. I don't know for a fact if they can help you though, but may be worth a try.
The problem is likely to happen if you get a permit issued at 7pm and then you have a huge bon fire at 9pm. The chance that the person who issued your permit has had a chance to send it to dispatch and that dispatch has gotten your permit entered into the system is very small.
I never asked for a firetower to begin with. If others want this service I'm sure someone could do the job a lot better than government. The first selling point could be
"Choose XYZ FireWatch, we sit on the mountain and watch for fires even after 5pm! Protect your property, protect your children, even after 5pm."
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 09:24 AM NHFT
I'm sorry to say, but the only incentive I can think of is to avoid initiation of force. Not having the police and/or fire department drop in on your party is the main incentive.
Not only has Lex expressed a lot of reasons and excuses in favor of using force against peaceful people, he explicitly says that he thinks it is good "incentive" (i.e., that by threatening force, people will be incentivized to follow orders in orders to avoid that force). I'm done with this conversation.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 08:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: Mike Barskey on July 12, 2010, 06:28 PM NHFT
Is my freedom of lesser importance than your benefit or convenience?
Just saying that some of us don't like being there unnecessarily. I didn't respond to the call to your place but I saw Bob in the video and he didn't look too happy to be there.
Of course he was unhappy, because he was
there unnecessarily. And he knew it. He didn't get toned out by the eagle eyes in the fire tower; his evening was interrupted because the fire warden and Merle and Babiarz had a collective hard-on over a piece of paper, and couldn't open their eyes and see that there was no fire danger there that would be solved by a piece of magical fookin' paper.
Bob should have been unhappy with those three, not with Mike and Russell.
Quote from: AntonLee on July 13, 2010, 10:41 AM NHFT
I never asked for a firetower to begin with. If others want this service I'm sure someone could do the job a lot better than government. The first selling point could be
"Choose XYZ FireWatch, we sit on the mountain and watch for fires even after 5pm! Protect your property, protect your children, even after 5pm."
Nobody has stepped up to offer the service.
I guess it's not very glamorous job to sit and watch the woods all day and would require a lot of work getting insurance companies on board or getting town residents to subscribe. Even then it probably wouldn't pay much. Someone industrious enough to organize this sort of business would probably find other much more profitable and exciting business opportunities.
Quote from: Mike Barskey on July 13, 2010, 10:49 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 09:24 AM NHFT
I'm sorry to say, but the only incentive I can think of is to avoid initiation of force. Not having the police and/or fire department drop in on your party is the main incentive.
Not only has Lex expressed a lot of reasons and excuses in favor of using force against peaceful people, he explicitly says that he thinks it is good "incentive" (i.e., that by threatening force, people will be incentivized to follow orders in orders to avoid that force). I'm done with this conversation.
If you were going to twist what I say and make things up why did you bother continue to converse?
I did not favor or condone force against peaceful people. I said that if you do not get a permit that this is what will likely happen. As is the case for just about anything that has to do with government, if you don't do what they want there is a chance force will be initiated. I'm stating a fact, not supporting it or saying that it's acceptable.
I think you are lying Mike.
Quote from: KBCraig on July 13, 2010, 10:51 AM NHFT
Of course he was unhappy, because he was there unnecessarily. And he knew it. He didn't get toned out by the eagle eyes in the fire tower; his evening was interrupted because the fire warden and Merle and Babiarz had a collective hard-on over a piece of paper, and couldn't open their eyes and see that there was no fire danger there that would be solved by a piece of magical fookin' paper.
Bob should have been unhappy with those three, not with Mike and Russell.
Did Bob tell you he was unhappy with Mike and Russell?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 09:24 AM NHFT
I'm sorry to say, but the only incentive I can think of is to avoid initiation of force. Not having the police and/or fire department drop in on your party is the main incentive.
Quote from: Mike Barskey on July 13, 2010, 10:49 AM NHFT
Not only has Lex expressed a lot of reasons and excuses in favor of using force against peaceful people, he explicitly says that he thinks it is good "incentive" (i.e., that by threatening force, people will be incentivized to follow orders in orders to avoid that force). I'm done with this conversation.
You are very good at twisting peoples words.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 10:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: AntonLee on July 13, 2010, 10:41 AM NHFT
I never asked for a firetower to begin with. If others want this service I'm sure someone could do the job a lot better than government. The first selling point could be
"Choose XYZ FireWatch, we sit on the mountain and watch for fires even after 5pm! Protect your property, protect your children, even after 5pm."
Nobody has stepped up to offer the service.
I guess it's not very glamorous job to sit and watch the woods all day and would require a lot of work getting insurance companies on board or getting town residents to subscribe. Even then it probably wouldn't pay much. Someone industrious enough to organize this sort of business would probably find other much more profitable and exciting business opportunities.
...
I did not favor or condone force against peaceful people. I said that if you do not get a permit that this is what will likely happen.
No one volunteering to offer you a service that you want, is not an excuse for anyone to provide it with a barrel of a gun.
I guess that means you are agreeing that your government's fire watch system is unsustainable and something no one is willing to pay for without a gun being put to their head.
That means your fire watch system needs to come to an end. If you or anyone else wants a fire watch, you'll need to figure out a way to do it without using violence to get what you want.
I think one way of ending the current illegitimate fire watch is to not ask for permits. The police will continue to show up, until we no longer live in a police state.
I have never asked anyone for their fire permit nor have I ever insisted someone get one. The only time I would suggest a fire permit is if someone explicitly does not want to get hassled. I would make the same suggestion to a business owner that is being hassled by a gang for payment and no longer wants to be hassled.
Mike and thinkliberty, do you guys have drivers licenses and pay property taxes? If you do, is it because you support drivers licenses and think that people should pay their property taxes? If a vehicle with Christmas lights is pursuing you will you pull over? If so, why? Is it because you support being pulled over by vehicles with Christmas lights? Did you end up getting a fire permit for you fire at the Club 1000? If so, why? Is it because you support fire permits and the initiation of force involved?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 10:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: AntonLee on July 13, 2010, 10:41 AM NHFT
I never asked for a firetower to begin with. If others want this service I'm sure someone could do the job a lot better than government. The first selling point could be
"Choose XYZ FireWatch, we sit on the mountain and watch for fires even after 5pm! Protect your property, protect your children, even after 5pm."
Nobody has stepped up to offer the service.
I guess it's not very glamorous job to sit and watch the woods all day and would require a lot of work getting insurance companies on board or getting town residents to subscribe. Even then it probably wouldn't pay much. Someone industrious enough to organize this sort of business would probably find other much more profitable and exciting business opportunities.
I agree with you. I would think that this service might be grouped into a basic fire and property protection service. It might be someting the company would do to make their fire fighting more efficient. I would say that permits would be too. People who disagree with company policy might just stop paying.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 11:28 AM NHFT
I have never asked anyone for their fire permit nor have I ever insisted someone get one. The only time I would suggest a fire permit is if someone explicitly does not want to get hassled.
Getting a fire permit does not explicitly mean that you won't be hassled (getting the permit is a hassle) You've said that people will get hassled anyway. Even after they beg for permission to have a fire.
QuoteA few of the calls that we've gotten for unpermitted burns where the person did have a permit is because the person issuing the permit didn't have a chance to submit the permit to Hanover dispatch yet.
So you'll be hassled 2 times if you get a permit and 1 time if you don't get a permit.
As an added bonus of not getting a permit you can show the world that the NH libertarian gubernatorial candidate is a authoritarian control freak that believes the government needs to be bigger, if Mike wants to be free to have a weenie fire and that politicos, even the libertarians are corrupted with a little power.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 10:57 AM NHFT
I did not favor or condone force against peaceful people.
So you have never or would never forcefully put someone's camp fire out like Babiarz?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 10:57 AM NHFT
Quote from: Mike Barskey on July 13, 2010, 10:49 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 09:24 AM NHFT
I'm sorry to say, but the only incentive I can think of is to avoid initiation of force. Not having the police and/or fire department drop in on your party is the main incentive.
Not only has Lex expressed a lot of reasons and excuses in favor of using force against peaceful people, he explicitly says that he thinks it is good "incentive" (i.e., that by threatening force, people will be incentivized to follow orders in orders to avoid that force). I'm done with this conversation.
If you were going to twist what I say and make things up why did you bother continue to converse?
I did not favor or condone force against peaceful people. I said that if you do not get a permit that this is what will likely happen. As is the case for just about anything that has to do with government, if you don't do what they want there is a chance force will be initiated. I'm stating a fact, not supporting it or saying that it's acceptable.
I think you are lying Mike.
What do you think I'm lying about? I understand the 2 sentences of yours that I quotes to mean that the only incentive you can think of for people to get a fire permit is to avoid having police/fire aggress against me. Please use other words to explain what you mean, if that's not it.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 11:14 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 09:24 AM NHFT
I'm sorry to say, but the only incentive I can think of is to avoid initiation of force. Not having the police and/or fire department drop in on your party is the main incentive.
Quote from: Mike Barskey on July 13, 2010, 10:49 AM NHFT
Not only has Lex expressed a lot of reasons and excuses in favor of using force against peaceful people, he explicitly says that he thinks it is good "incentive" (i.e., that by threatening force, people will be incentivized to follow orders in orders to avoid that force). I'm done with this conversation.
You are very good at twisting peoples words.
Again, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. But you used simple language and I thought I got the meaning correct. What did you mean?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 10:36 AM NHFT
do you want the government to tax you even more so that they can afford to have someone sit up there after 5pm?
How many houses in the visual radius of the tower? Our neighborhood watch doesn't have a problem finding people to idle around the neighborhood a couple of nights a week.
Quote from: AntonLee on July 13, 2010, 12:07 PM NHFT
I agree with you. I would think that this service might be grouped into a basic fire and property protection service. It might be someting the company would do to make their fire fighting more efficient. I would say that permits would be too. People who disagree with company policy might just stop paying.
In bigger cities it's a lot easier to have private ambulances and fire departments. In fact, there are a lot of private ambulance services all throughout the country, I think there is even one in Hanover. There are probably private fire departments out there as well. In fact, when I took my Fire Fighter I course, we had a chapter on history of the fire service and it talked about how initially it was all private fire departments but it didn't work too well, some of the reasons they gave didn't seem reasonable to me though. If someone is interested, I can find the relevant section of the book and type up the paragraph.
The problem in Grafton is that there just isn't enough volume to make it as a business. The only way you would be able to do it is through subscription if you got enough people to subscribe but trying to sustain yourself on getting payout from insurance companies is not practical. In fact, we are trying to do this right now with the Ambulance department and there just aren't enough calls.
The problem with these services is that they have a large operating cost. You need a place to store the fire engines and to maintain them and to buy a new one when the old one needs to be replaced. You have to put gas into them, you have electric and heating bills, the engines have thousands of gallons of water in them if they stay outside in the winter time the water will freeze and you can't fight fire with a frozen water tank. And then of course if you go private you'd have to pay people. The current station operates on roughly $20,000 a year without paying anyone, also that figure doesn't include the separate warrant article to put money into a new vehicle fund so that in 10 years we could replace the oldest engine. We're also sharing a building with the Ambulance department so that saves some of the electric/heating costs.
The only way out of this that I can think of is if someone comes up with alternative technologies for fighting fires that have a much lower overhead but are just as effective as the current system in the eyes of prospective customers. The Grafton Fire Department has been looking into such technologies and recently purchased several of these gadgets that you can throw into a burning room and it will devour the fire: DSPA-5 - DSPA Chokes the Life Out of Fire! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ta61yuXalI#ws) But this technology will not work if the fire has spread beyond the room and has started to engulf the entire house (you could still use it but you will have to follow up with traditional methods of using water to finish it off). It's a move in the right direction though.
Someone could start a private first responder fire service and be the first responder with these fire suppressing devices, there are several companies that make them. Of course there is the issue of also knowing what you're doing and having the proper safety equipment and training. You don't want to be opening the door on a burning building/room wearing your shorts and t-shirt to throw one of these things into a room... Anyways, I'm tangenting now.
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 13, 2010, 12:22 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 11:28 AM NHFT
I have never asked anyone for their fire permit nor have I ever insisted someone get one. The only time I would suggest a fire permit is if someone explicitly does not want to get hassled.
Getting a fire permit does not explicitly mean that you won't be hassled (getting the permit is a hassle) You've said that people will get hassled anyway. Even after they beg for permission to have a fire.
QuoteA few of the calls that we've gotten for unpermitted burns where the person did have a permit is because the person issuing the permit didn't have a chance to submit the permit to Hanover dispatch yet.
So you'll be hassled 2 times if you get a permit and 1 time if you don't get a permit.
As an added bonus of not getting a permit you can show the world that the NH libertarian gubernatorial candidate is a authoritarian control freak that believes the government needs to be bigger, if Mike wants to be free to have a weenie fire and that politicos, even the libertarians are corrupted with a little power.
You can always try it both ways (do it one way one year and another way the next year) and see which works best for you! ;)
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 12:54 PM NHFT
In bigger cities it's a lot easier to have private ambulances and fire departments....
The problem in Grafton is that there just isn't enough volume to make it as a business. The only way you would be able to do it is through subscription if you got enough people to subscribe but trying to sustain yourself on getting payout from insurance companies is not practical. In fact, we are trying to do this right now with the Ambulance department and there just aren't enough calls.
The problem with these services is that they have a large operating cost...
The problem with these services is the violence that is currently being used to provide them.
If you want fire and ambulatory services like the big cities have then you'll have to move to a big city, where these service make economic sense and can be provided without violence.
Quote from: BJ on July 13, 2010, 12:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 10:57 AM NHFT
I did not favor or condone force against peaceful people.
So you have never or would never forcefully put someone's camp fire out like Babiarz?
In my 3 years on the department I have never forcefully put out someones camp fire. I have put out "camp fires" where the fire spread beyond the pit but in all of those cases the land owners were eager to have it put out and were usually the ones to call it in.
There are cases where I would put out a fire forcefully but only if it's pretty obvious that the fire is out of control. By "out of control" I mean that there is no way that a garden hose plus fire extinguisher would be able to put it out AND the fire is starting to spread or has a very high chance of spreading. It doesn't make sense to me to sit and wait until the fire gets to the nearby properties before doing anything because by then it may be out of the fire fighters control as well. I don't think this is unreasonable but maybe someone could enlighten me.
I guess my analogy would be if your neighbor wasn't really sure what he/she was doing and decided to build an atomic bomb, I would be a worried. I would try to convince them that they should learn how to do it properly (them gaining control of the situation) or I will try and forcefully stop them out of self preservation.
According to the video that I saw of the incident at Mikes I don't think there was even a fire there, it looked like just coals when it was put out.
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 13, 2010, 01:05 PM NHFT
The problem with these services is the violence that is currently being used to provide them.
It is not just a problem with these services, it is a problem with ALL government services. This is an important distinction because I see "anarchists" constantly picking services which they like the least (or just don't care about) and only concentrating on those but ignoring ones that they use.
There are all of these threads about people having problems on government roads, getting pulled over by vehicles with christmas lights, etc. Yet I haven't seen too many comments like "why don't you stop using the public roads". Public roads are maintained by government services. I haven't seen any protests at a town road department asking those guys how they can live knowing they are being paid stolen money.
I'm not encouraging people to do this by the way, just pointing out the hypocrisy of quietly using some services and loudly berating others. The problem is the FORCE not the SERVICE (at least philosophically speaking, there could of course be problems in practice with how a particular service is implemented, but that's a different discussion).
A fire and ambulance department is useful just as roads are. Even if you directly did not use the fire services it's likely that without the service a neighbors fire several houses down from yours may have traveled all the way to your house without proper equipment and man power to deal with it.
Instead of personally attacking the fire department and fire department members it makes more sense to work on eliminating the parts of the system that are dependent on force. Because once the force part is eliminated the fire department will still be there, the people will still be there and the equipment will still be there. I think it's simple minded to just blindly say that the fire department as a whole is the initiation of force and thus must be eliminated. The only "force" part is the financing and a few laws that pertain to permits. There is nothing inherent in the fire department that makes it bad, get rid of taxes and fund it via subscription and the fire department will be the same building, the same equipment and probably the same people still doing the same job, namely putting out fires and rescuing people and property in a variety of harmful situations. We respond to vehicle accidents and are trained and have equipment to cut people out of mangled cars, we do road traffic when there are downed powerlines until the power company gets there, etc.
It's easy to twist what I say to make it look like I condone violence and to find ways to discredit John and make him look on par with Mulholland but what do any of these things achieve? You can go on these witch hunts until only the so called "pure" anarchists are left, then what?
Don't forget that this whole incident was initiated by a cop outside Grafton.
He initiated the force by barging onto Mikes property and demanding that the fire be put out. The point is that if we eliminate the fire department in Grafton we are still not free, the same cop will just call in the state troopers and another out of town fire department. If that out of town cop never drove by Mikes property this incident would have never happened.
I'm not sure anyone has a problem with people who choose to fight fires as a profession, much like most don't have a problem who choose to open a garden nursery.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 03:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 13, 2010, 01:05 PM NHFT
The problem with these services is the violence that is currently being used to provide them.
It is not just a problem with these services, it is a problem with ALL government services. ... I haven't seen any protests at a town road department asking those guys how they can live knowing they are being paid stolen money.
I'm not encouraging people to do this by the way, just pointing out the hypocrisy of quietly using some services and loudly berating others.
Some people who are being paid with stolen money are more aggressive than others. Which is why you hear more about one than the others.
It's impossible to list all the people who receive stolen money, so we start with the most violent.
QuoteInstead of personally attacking the fire department and fire department members it makes more sense to work on eliminating the parts of the system that are dependent on force.
I agree that it makes sense to work on eliminating your part of the system.
If you are working with equipment that's been purchased with stolen money, then you are part of the system that is dependent on force that we all need to work to eliminate.
I don't have a favorite, I think we need to end *all* services and systems that are dependent on force.
QuoteDon't forget that this whole incident was initiated by a cop outside Grafton.
Lets not forget who polluted Mike's property with chemicals. It was a NH libertarian, gubernatorial candidate , fire marshal over-reacting because an illegitimate authoritarian in a costume -- from outside of Grafton -- said he should aggress against Mike.
QuoteThe point is that if we eliminate the fire department in Grafton we are still not free, the same cop will just call in the state troopers and another out of town fire department.
The point is that if we have to eliminate *every* coercive department, if we are to be free.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 11:03 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on July 13, 2010, 10:51 AM NHFT
Of course he was unhappy, because he was there unnecessarily. And he knew it. He didn't get toned out by the eagle eyes in the fire tower; his evening was interrupted because the fire warden and Merle and Babiarz had a collective hard-on over a piece of paper, and couldn't open their eyes and see that there was no fire danger there that would be solved by a piece of magical fookin' paper.
Bob should have been unhappy with those three, not with Mike and Russell.
Did Bob tell you he was unhappy with Mike and Russell?
I don't know Bob. You were the one who said he was unhappy to be there. I'm clarifying who he should be unhappy with.
Quote from: KBCraig on July 13, 2010, 05:58 PM NHFT
I don't know Bob. You were the one who said he was unhappy to be there. I'm clarifying who he should be unhappy with.
I did not say he was unhappy to be there. What is it with you guys and twisting words around. Here is my exact quote:
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 08:56 AM NHFT
Just saying that some of us don't like being there unnecessarily. I didn't respond to the call to your place but I saw Bob in the video and he didn't look too happy to be there. I don't want you to think that all fire fighters like going to peoples houses and putting out their cooking coals ;)
To suggest that I or anyone else know how Bob is feeling without asking him would be irrational since we cannot get inside his head and measure his feelings. That is why I specifically said
looked instead of
was. I did not even attempt to suggest why or with whom or what he looked unhappy with, I cannot know that since I have not spoken to him on this subject. All I know is that he was in the video and he did not look particularly excited about being there.
My comment was merely based on my observation and it is up to interpretation. I think you took my comment too far by suggesting whom he was unhappy with or even suggesting whom he should or shouldn't be unhappy with. Suggesting to people the right or wrong way to feel I think is a bit ridiculous.
I did not realize some of you were in the business of telling people how to feel. But if you do this chronically, I highly recommend this book:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51JUOFOhtDL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/Controlling-People-Recognize-Understand-Control/dp/158062569X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279067753&sr=8-1)
It is more geared towards victims of this kind of behavior but still useful for those trying to stop practicing controlling behavior.
Suggesting to someone what feelings are appropriate for them to have is classic controlling behavior.
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 13, 2010, 05:15 PM NHFT
The point is that if we have to eliminate *every* coercive department, if we are to be free.
You need to convince the general public that eliminating government force is a good idea. Doing it by attacking the fire department is not going to win the hearts and minds of your neighbors.
The fire department is all volunteer, John does not get paid, I do not get paid and Bob does not get paid, and none of the other fire fighters get paid either and neither does anyone on the Ambulance department. We don't get any kind of reimbursement for gas or expenses incurred in responding to calls. It costs us money to volunteer. We do it so that taxes stay low. The same reason that Bob bid on the mowing job even though his time is more valuable doing other things.
The result of this is immediate gains when it comes to property taxes and if one day property taxes are eliminated completely all of the departments are already operating at the lowest level of expenditures we could come up with so switching to ulterior funding sources will be easier than if we all quit and let someone with a more liberal mindset run the department and double the budget every year.
As I said a while ago in another thread, the problem with the strategy of getting people to quit is that there is always someone worse to take their place.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 14, 2007, 09:46 PM NHFT
Also, some people would argue that Gandhi replaced evil rule with even more evil rule and in the end created much more human suffering.
That is the problem with a completely bottom up approach. As soon as the local thugs got into power Gandhi became irrelevent. The same will happen here once you guilt trip all of the liberty minded bureaucrats out of office.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 08:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 13, 2010, 05:15 PM NHFT
The point is that if we have to eliminate *every* coercive department, if we are to be free.
You need to convince the general public that eliminating government force is a good idea.
....
As I said a while ago in another thread, the problem with the strategy of getting people to quit is that there is always someone worse to take their place.
Classic statist response. You feel like you need to rob people, because other people will rob me if YOU don't.
I guess I should just start stealing my neighbors things to pay for the things that I want, if I don't do it someone else who is worst than I am will steal those things.
Or I could protect my neighbors from everyone that might try to steal from them. Even people like you in your fire department, who want fire engines so they can put out other people's weenie roasts with them.
We all saw the video where your fire engine was used by your volunteer fire department to aggress against another person. I haven't seen an apology from your fire department. Is one coming?
How many people were extorted to pay for that fire engine?
How many homes would your fire department have stolen from people? (if they didn't give into extortion for that fire engine.)
Eliminating government force *is* a good idea. isn't it?
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 13, 2010, 09:05 PM NHFT
Eliminating government force *is* a good idea. isn't it?
Yes it is. And how you propose to do it?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 07:42 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on July 13, 2010, 05:58 PM NHFT
I don't know Bob. You were the one who said he was unhappy to be there. I'm clarifying who he should be unhappy with.
I did not say he was unhappy to be there. What is it with you guys and twisting words around. Here is my exact quote:
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 08:56 AM NHFT
Just saying that some of us don't like being there unnecessarily. I didn't respond to the call to your place but I saw Bob in the video and he didn't look too happy to be there.
You're right, that's completely different.
Quote from: tony on July 13, 2010, 09:57 PM NHFT
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 13, 2010, 09:05 PM NHFT
Eliminating government force *is* a good idea. isn't it?
Yes it is. And how you propose to do it?
There are hundreds of thousands of ways to do it, pick the one(s) that work the best and are the easiest for you to do.
Reach out to people who have been abused by the government. Support and protect your neighbors and there is a good chance they will support and protect you.
If you haven't moved to NH you could do that. The Free State Project is about eliminating government force by having 20,000 people who oppose government force move to the same geographic location. If you know anyone that opposes government force and does not live in NH you could ask them to move...
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 12:54 PM NHFTIn fact, when I took my Fire Fighter I course, we had a chapter on history of the fire service and it talked about how initially it was all private fire departments but it didn't work too well, some of the reasons they gave didn't seem reasonable to me though. If someone is interested, I can find the relevant section of the book and type up the paragraph.
Sounds exactly like the indoctrination nonsense about the Constitution being "needed" because the Articles of Confederation "didn't work well."
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 12:54 PM NHFTThe problem in Grafton is that there just isn't enough volume to make it as a business. The only way you would be able to do it is through subscription if you got enough people to subscribe but trying to sustain yourself on getting payout from insurance companies is not practical. In fact, we are trying to do this right now with the Ambulance department and there just aren't enough calls.
The problem with these services is that they have a large operating cost. You need a place to store the fire engines and to maintain them and to buy a new one when the old one needs to be replaced. You have to put gas into them, you have electric and heating bills, the engines have thousands of gallons of water in them if they stay outside in the winter time the water will freeze and you can't fight fire with a frozen water tank. And then of course if you go private you'd have to pay people. The current station operates on roughly $20,000 a year without paying anyone, also that figure doesn't include the separate warrant article to put money into a new vehicle fund so that in 10 years we could replace the oldest engine. We're also sharing a building with the Ambulance department so that saves some of the electric/heating costs.
The only way out of this that I can think of is if someone comes up with alternative technologies for fighting fires that have a much lower overhead but are just as effective as the current system in the eyes of prospective customers.
The "prospective customers" are almost exclusively going to be insurance companies.
If I have fire insurance, my insurance company wants to make sure that any fire damage is as minimal as possible.
First of all, they'll probably give me a substantial incentive to install sprinklers and other fire-prevention devices. That's going to cause a huge reduction in fires, and the resulting costs.
The funds they save by incentivizing pro-active safety measures (and, therefore, not having to pay out on damage claims) can be spent on keeping equipment maintained locations, to further reduce their liability.
To address some of your other points:There are anti-freeze compounds that can be used to keep water from freezing, even in NH winters, without storing the whole truck in a heated building. Some are non-toxic. Others are marginally-toxic, but substantially less-toxic than house fire debris.
There are also diesel-fueled block heaters; it would be trivially-easy to set up a system so, when the call went out, the truck heater was started, so the engine would be ready to fire up by the time the firefighters showed up.
So there's zero need for a heated garage.I expect you'd still find volunteers, even if it were private. I also expect that you'd find local businesses chipping in to help support fire protection, because it's an excellent marketing tool. And, of course, insurance companies could give customers who are also firefighters a discount on their rates.
So there's no reason wages would drive costs up in any substantial way.Which brings us to the cost of the trucks and other capital equipment. The immediate note is that, since the companies who build these are marketing to the government, the costs are higher than they would be if the customers were not tax-funded. So the prices would drop, just based upon that.
Then you have the incentive to develop less-expensive technologies, which currently is very limited. Just shooting from the hip, but maybe it might make sense to have a trailer-mounted water tank and pump that can be towed around, rather than having a dedicated engine and drivetrain sitting there all the time? Store it at a shipping company, and they can just hitch it to a spare truck. Probably much lower cost than owning and maintaining a complete truck, just for the few times a year it's needed.
In rural areas, it might make sense to have a central site and a heavy-lift helicopter, to deliver the equipment within a much wider radius, so the same equipment serves more customers.
That's just a few minutes' brainstorming. I'm sure that folks who were paid to come up with solutions, would be able to come up with many more.
So, no, there's no reason that the free market couldn't provide these services.
Joe
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 13, 2010, 09:05 PM NHFT
Classic statist response. You feel like you need to rob people, because other people will rob me if YOU don't.
I'm not robbing people, the tax collector is and to a large extent the police when the tax collector tells them you haven't paid. I don't care if you don't pay your taxes thinkliberty. Do you even own any property in Grafton?
I don't handle the budget for the fire department and I don't deal with the town budget committee. If the Grafton fire department went from being funded by the town (money collected through threat of violence) and to a subscription based model, my purpose and activities on the department wouldn't change. My pager would still go off when there is a fire or vehicle accident and I would still respond to the station and go to the scene.
If you don't like the fact that the town is hiring the fire department then you can start a subscription company, collect money voluntarily and then hire out the fire department from the town.
I realize that instead of doing anything you'd rather sit at your computer and tell others how to do things. That's the problem with idealists, you are so out of touch with reality and in your perfect anarcho-capitalist vision that you easily brush away the real problems that exist. The biggest one of which is that YOU DO NOT HAVE SUPPORT OF PEOPLE.
Instead of attacking the people performing the services and asking them to quit (and then be replaced by someone more evil), why don't you talk to your neighbors and town residents and convince them that taxes are bad and what the alternatives are.
You don't like how a product is made so instead of changing the production process you attack the product. It doesn't make any sense.
The strategy that you are proposing: mindless destruction of everything that is remotely connected to government is in my opinion foolish and naive. History has taught us that it doesn't work. Gandhi had tunnel vision when he concentrated purely on getting the British out of Inidia and then when the British were gone he realized his mistake too late, he had spent all of his energies teaching people to resist the Brits and didn't spend anytime teaching them what to do after the Brits left and how to have a free society, so naturally as soon as the Brits left local thugs took over and Gandhi became irrelevant. The same happened in America with the Brits, the colonists kicked them out and then what? The only change was that now taxes were staying in the colonies instead of going to Britain.
You can't break stuff without having a plan for replacement. And by replacement I mean anything that makes sense and is practical, it could be a matter of teaching the people that they don't need a replacement, that is an actionable plan, something that could be done today.
Once you get a lot of people to believe that taxes are bad then the tax collector would simply become irrelevant and services would be funded voluntarily.
To give you some numbers for perspective:
Fire Department Yearly Budget: $20k
Fire Department Vehicle Fund: $20k
-----------------------------------------------
Total Yearly Requirement: $40k
Guess at # of Grafton Land Onwers: 500
Divide the yearly requirement by number of land owners: $40,000 / 500 = $80 per year per land owner
To get an idea of how much it would be per month: $80 / 12 = $6.67 per month per land owner
So, there you have it. If you can get 500 people in Grafton to voluntarily subscribe for $6.67 a month you could run the Grafton fire department without funding it with taxes.
The problem is getting people to see your viewpoint.
I'm going to stick to my day job so that I can afford to volunteer at the fire department and as a result keep the costs low. Someone else, who is more ideological and has better people skills and more time on their hands than I do can start a subscription company and hire out the department so that it is not funded with tax dollars.
Because of this thread I thought I'd ask how things are handled in other places. I talked with someone in the North Central Massachusetts area that is a volunteer firefighter and he told me that the fire tower on the mountain keeps watch without regard to knowing about a permit or lack thereof. They watch for smoke and (somehow) can tell from the smoke and the way it is what is burning. Houses and rubbish that people shouldn't burn give off different smoke than wood, trees, brush, charcoal, etc. According to this person, when they spot "wood"-type smoke (his term) in an area that is heavily wooded, they keep an eye on it to see if it 1) moves and 2) grows. Based on that they'll send someone to investigate. Obviously an uncontrolled or wild fire will do one or both of those things pretty quickly, so if the smoke stays the same size/way and doesn't move from a specific spot, they determine that it's a controlled "personal" fire. He did tell me that certain times of the year, specifically when it is extremely dry and there is a high fire danger, that they will send someone "to make sure and if it's a person burning to let them know there's a high fire danger". But, the fire burn alert status (safe, low, med, high) is posted at a number of locations around the area, especially at forests, ranger stations, and sometimes town commons.
Years ago I used to go through the whole thing of getting a burn permit (they're free). But most folks around us have basically stopped doing that because it doesn't really matter to the tower or the volunteer fire departments in the area. They're more concerned with safe burning than with whether you've bowed down to some town official for a piece of paper.
I was burning a LOT of brush about 10 years ago and the fire got REALLY big. The burn was happening in a clearing and we were feeding the fire with new brush using a backhoe and an excavator... That was the only time I've ever gotten a call... It wasn't a visit, it was a call that evening (after we had put things out and stopped for the night). The person said they didn't mind me burning, but could we keep it down because the tower got a little upset seeing flames above the tree-tops! :blush: Truth be told, we had put too much at once on. The rest of the week burning we "moderated" our flow of material into the fire and never heard another word. ;D
So, my point is that claims that a burn permit are needed for fire personnel don't seem to be "universal".
Here is a suggestion: Someone could put in a warrant article to get rid of burn permits.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 08:55 AM NHFTIf you don't like the fact that the town is hiring the fire department then you can start a subscription company, collect money voluntarily and then hire out the fire department from the town.
Really? And would the town then reduce the taxes of the subscribers?
Or would they just end up paying twice, like those of us who don't send our children to their indoctrination centers?
You're offering a non-workable solution, and complaining because those who realize it isn't workable, don't use it.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 09:42 AM NHFT
Really? And would the town then reduce the taxes of the subscribers?
I cannot predict the future and since I will not be the one implementing this I cannot say how it will work. It is between the town and whoever decides to take the time to make this work.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 08:55 AM NHFT
Or would they just end up paying twice, like those of us who don't send our children to their indoctrination centers?
You're offering a non-workable solution, and complaining because those who realize it isn't workable, don't use it.
You've just contradicted yourself. You gave an example where you do pay twice and then said it's unworkable. So, does it work or doesn't it?
I'm not saying it's ideal but it's a path in the right direction. As the case with schools, if enough people took their kids out of public schools there would be more support for not making people pay twice. The same with the fire subscription service. Grafton is a small town, if you can get 500 people to subscribe, that's MORE than the entire voting base (some folks own property here but are residents in other states and thus don't vote). At that point all it would take is a warrant article to remove the fire department expenditure from the budget and it would pass 100% (since every single voter is already subscribed).
As far as I can tell any system that requires someone to do something is unworkable to couch anarchists. The great thing about an idealistic solution where you just say "get rid of it" is that you know it won't happen which means you can just sit on your couch and complain without having to do anything. I wish you luck with your "workable" solution.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 08:55 AM NHFT
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 13, 2010, 09:05 PM NHFT
Classic statist response. You feel like you need to rob people, because other people will rob me if YOU don't.
I'm not robbing people, the tax collector is and to a large extent the police when the tax collector tells them you haven't paid.
You're not robbing people, you just have your tax collector do that for you. Then you use the money that your tax collector extorts from people to buy you the things that you want. You have no problem using that blood money for your fire engine and fire station.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 08:55 AM NHFT
I don't handle the budget for the fire department and I don't deal with the town budget committee.
You do handle the equipment that was purchased with stolen funds. You could refuse to take part in that violence. You could refuse to accept that stolen money. You could refuse to use the equipment that was purchased with that stolen money.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 08:55 AM NHFT
If you don't like the fact that the town is hiring the fire department
I don't like the fact that you are using stolen money. I don't care if the town hires a fire department, if they aren't using stolen money to do it.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 08:55 AM NHFT
I realize that instead of doing anything you'd rather sit at your computer and tell others how to do things.
I'll do something and personally stop you, if you really want me to. (but I don't think you really want that.) How would you like me to stop you from accepting stolen goods?
I'll start by *telling* you to stop accepting blood money. Do you think I should do more than *tell* you that using blood money for your pet projects is wrong?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 08:55 AM NHFT
Instead of attacking the people performing the services and asking them to quit
I am not asking you to quit performing a service that you want to provide. I am asking you to stop accepting blood money. Do you need accept blood money to provide a service? Or is there a way to do it without supporting violence?
I think there are a lot of different ways to provide a service without using violence. Charity, insurance plans,
entrepreneurship Pick one: I don't care how you do it as long as you are not using violence to do it.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 08:55 AM NHFT
The strategy that you are proposing: mindless destruction of everything that is remotely connected to government is in my opinion foolish and naive.
My strategy isn't mindless destruction, that's what the government does. My strategy is to end the mindless violence that the government and the people who work for it support.
Using violence to get what you want is foolish and naive.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 08:55 AM NHFT
You can't break stuff without having a plan for replacement.
You can't use violence to buy stuff and say that I have to come up with a replacement plan for you to stop using violence on peaceful people.
Nothing will be as easy for you or your fire department to do, than accept money from a tax collector that is pointing a gun at people's head and stealing their homes when you don't get 40K for your fire department.
I guess I'll never convince you to be an honest person. You and your tax collector will continue to steal from your neighbors because you like to volunteer for a fire department that's maintained with violence.
It's really sad that you believe the only way for you to provide fire services to Grafton is with violence.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 10:02 AM NHFTQuote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 08:55 AM NHFTOr would they just end up paying twice, like those of us who don't send our children to their indoctrination centers?
You're offering a non-workable solution, and complaining because those who realize it isn't workable, don't use it.
You've just contradicted yourself. You gave an example where you do pay twice and then said it's unworkable. So, does it work or doesn't it?
I'm not saying it's ideal but it's a path in the right direction. As the case with schools, if enough people took their kids out of public schools there would be more support for not making people pay twice. The same with the fire subscription service. Grafton is a small town, if you can get 500 people to subscribe, that's MORE than the entire voting base (some folks own property here but are residents in other states and thus don't vote). At that point all it would take is a warrant article to remove the fire department expenditure from the budget and it would pass 100% (since every single voter is already subscribed).
And, because they would be required to pay twice, only those who can afford to do so, could. Not enough to actually make the change happen, just as in the case of schools. Which is why it is an unworkable solution.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 10:02 AM NHFTAs far as I can tell any system that requires someone to do something is unworkable to couch anarchists. The great thing about an idealistic solution where you just say "get rid of it" is that you know it won't happen which means you can just sit on your couch and complain without having to do anything. I wish you luck with your "workable" solution.
I have workable solutions, and implement many of them.
I'll even give you a workable solution, free of charge: hold some bake sales.
If you
actually disapprove of receiving the proceeds of armed robbery, you'll jump at the chance to do what you can to reduce the funding needed, right? Because
you are the one who is receiving stolen goods, and your argument that others would be worse doesn't hold water, unless you demonstrate that they actually would, by being better.
Joe
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 14, 2010, 10:22 AM NHFT
You do handle the equipment that was purchased with stolen funds. You could refuse to take part in that violence. You could refuse to accept that stolen money. You could refuse to use the equipment that was purchased with that stolen money.
You do use public roads which were built and are currently maintained with stolen funds. You could refuse to take part in that violence. Just stop going on them. You can create a contract with your neighbors to get to where you have to go by going through their property and pay them a small fee for offering you to use their property instead of lazily using public roads as you do right now and supporting the violence.
You should be ashamed of yourself that you use public roads so carelessly without regard for all of the people that had their money stolen to originally build the roads and the continued violence and theft inherent in maintaining those roads.
Oh, wait, you're a hypocrite who wants other people to live up to your ideal but don't actually want to do it yourself.
Quote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 10:36 AM NHFT
And, because they would be required to pay twice, only those who can afford to do so, could. Not enough to actually make the change happen, just as in the case of
schools. Which is why it is an unworkable solution.
It's $7 a month. And it'd only be paying twice for a year or two while the amount is removed from the budget.
Quote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 10:36 AM NHFT
I'll even give you a workable solution, free of charge: hold some bake sales.
If you actually disapprove of receiving the proceeds of armed robbery, you'll jump at the chance to do what you can to reduce the funding needed, right? Because you are the one who is receiving stolen goods, and your argument that others would be worse doesn't hold water, unless you demonstrate that they actually would, by being better.
I don't have time to be a fire fighter, work full time, be a dad and to also figure out how to financially support the fire department. There are plenty of people that would do this better than me who would rather bake cookies than go into a burning building. I volunteer my time to respond to fire and ambulance calls, that's all I have time for. If someone feels strongly enough about the fire department using tax money to operate than they can volunteer to bake cookies and find other ways to raise money.
Why is that I or other fire fighters who already volunteer their time are the ones who should be expected to volunteer EVEN MORE TIME to appease the wet dreams of couch anarchists?
so you don't get paid? That's what I take from the word 'volunteer'
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 11:06 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 10:36 AM NHFTI'll even give you a workable solution, free of charge: hold some bake sales.
If you actually disapprove of receiving the proceeds of armed robbery, you'll jump at the chance to do what you can to reduce the funding needed, right? Because you are the one who is receiving stolen goods, and your argument that others would be worse doesn't hold water, unless you demonstrate that they actually would, by being better.
I don't have time to be a fire fighter, work full time, be a dad and to also figure out how to financially support the fire department. There are plenty of people that would do this better than me who would rather bake cookies than go into a burning building. I volunteer my time to respond to fire and ambulance calls, that's all I have time for. If someone feels strongly enough about the fire department using tax money to operate than they can volunteer to bake cookies and find other ways to raise money.
Why is that I or other fire fighters who already volunteer their time are the ones who should be expected to volunteer EVEN MORE TIME to appease the wet dreams of couch anarchists?
You're the ones playing with stolen money. I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror, let alone hold my head up in front of my children, if I didn't at least
try to make a change.
Joe
Quote from: AntonLee on July 14, 2010, 11:18 AM NHFT
so you don't get paid? That's what I take from the word 'volunteer'
You must've missed this post:
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 13, 2010, 08:09 PM NHFT
The fire department is all volunteer, John does not get paid, I do not get paid and Bob does not get paid, and none of the other fire fighters get paid either and neither does anyone on the Ambulance department. We don't get any kind of reimbursement for gas or expenses incurred in responding to calls. It costs us money to volunteer. We do it so that taxes stay low. The same reason that Bob bid on the mowing job even though his time is more valuable doing other things.
The result of this is immediate gains when it comes to property taxes and if one day property taxes are eliminated completely all of the departments are already operating at the lowest level of expenditures we could come up with so switching to ulterior funding sources will be easier than if we all quit and let someone with a more liberal mindset run the department and double the budget every year.
Quote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 11:23 AM NHFT
You're the ones playing with stolen money. I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror, let alone hold my head up in front of my children, if I didn't at least try to make a change.
But you haven't tried. YOU don't even live in Grafton! ::)
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 09:27 AM NHFT
Here is a suggestion: Someone could put in a warrant article to get rid of burn permits.
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/4f3ba4f3-55d0-44b7-9114-325a3f928bb3.jpg)
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 11:32 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 11:23 AM NHFTYou're the ones playing with stolen money. I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror, let alone hold my head up in front of my children, if I didn't at least try to make a change.
But you haven't tried. YOU don't even live in Grafton! ::)
Yes, and I'm not the one receiving stolen property. If I were, then I would be looking to at least try and reduce my culpability. You, apparently, are just happily playing with your stolen toys, feeling not a qualm in the world about working with the murderers who give them to you.
Quote from: KBCraig on July 14, 2010, 11:36 AM NHFTQuote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 09:27 AM NHFTHere is a suggestion: Someone could put in a warrant article to get rid of burn permits.
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/4f3ba4f3-55d0-44b7-9114-325a3f928bb3.jpg)
Nope, that was covered a number of pages ago. It's a State law, not something town-level, so the town can't eliminate the system.
Joe
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 10:54 AM NHFT
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 14, 2010, 10:22 AM NHFT
You do handle the equipment that was purchased with stolen funds. You could refuse to take part in that violence. You could refuse to accept that stolen money. You could refuse to use the equipment that was purchased with that stolen money.
You do use public roads ...
Oh, wait, you're a hypocrite who wants other people to live up to your ideal but don't actually want to do it yourself.
I'm not telling you to stop using roads to put out fires. I'll tell the people who provide road maintenance service the same thing I'll tell people who provide fire services and medical services.
Don't use stolen goods to provide a service. Don't use blood money to repair the roads, Don't use blood money to put out fires or to stop crime (ha) or to cure disease.
I'm not being a hypocrite when I tell people not to use blood money to provide a service. Because I don't use the proceeds of blood money to provide a service.
I guess I'll never convince you to be an honest person. You'll never convince me that using violence to provide a service to a community is the right thing to do.
I guess we are done with this debate.
Quote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 11:40 AM NHFT
Yes, and I'm not the one receiving stolen property. If I were, then I would be looking to at least try and reduce my culpability. You, apparently, are just happily playing with your stolen toys, feeling not a qualm in the world about working with the murderers who give them to you.
I sleep well at night because a lot of people aren't complaining. So far there is only the half dozen people on this thread. Which to me says that the majority of residents of Grafton are either satisfied or too complacent to say anything. The town next to us spends 5 times a year (maybe more now) on their department and they are only a little bit bigger (as far as equipment is concerned). They buy a new vehicle every 5 years instead of our every 10 years, they pay someone to paint their station and for a lot of other services, they also pay their volunteers for going on calls. Most people recognize and appreciate our frugality and the tens of thousands we save the town by doing everything ourselves including painting the station and not expecting to be paid anything not even reimbursed for expenses incurred in respond to calls.
I'm not going to volunteer more hours to fix something that a very large majority of people don't care about. I'm not an idealist.
This is why I bring up the point that in order to have change and not have it be a failure (Gandhi, American revolution). Is that you have to start with the general public, you have to convince them that the current system has problems and suggest workable long term alternatives. Once people want change then I think there will be a much higher chance of it happening. Just make sure that you present a long term plan and not just get people riled up to destroy things without any clue of what to do after the current system is gone.
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 14, 2010, 11:52 AM NHFT
I'm not being a hypocrite when I tell people not to use blood money to provide a service. Because I don't use the proceeds of blood money to provide a service.
Just as you use services related to public roads to get around, the Grafton fire department uses the town finance department services to get equipment and pay bills.
So, yes, you are a hypocrite. You use services that are offered to you with blood money but you openly chastise others for doing the same thing.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 11:57 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 11:40 AM NHFTYes, and I'm not the one receiving stolen property. If I were, then I would be looking to at least try and reduce my culpability. You, apparently, are just happily playing with your stolen toys, feeling not a qualm in the world about working with the murderers who give them to you.
I sleep well at night because a lot of people aren't complaining. So far there is only the half dozen people on this thread. Which to me says that the majority of residents of Grafton are either satisfied or too complacent to say anything. The town next to us spends 5 times a year (maybe more now) on their department and they are only a little bit bigger (as far as equipment is concerned). They buy a new vehicle every 5 years instead of our every 10 years, they pay someone to paint their station and for a lot of other services, they also pay their volunteers for going on calls. Most people recognize and appreciate our frugality and the tens of thousands we save the town by doing everything ourselves including painting the station and not expecting to be paid anything not even reimbursed for expenses incurred in respond to calls.
So, as long as it's a kinder, gentler form of oppression, it's all good with you?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 11:57 AM NHFTThis is why I bring up the point that in order to have change and not have it be a failure (Gandhi, American revolution). Is that you have to start with the general public, you have to convince them that the current system has problems and suggest workable long term alternatives. Once people want change then I think there will be a much higher chance of it happening. Just make sure that you present a long term plan and not just get people riled up to destroy things without any clue of what to do after the current system is gone.
The American Revolution didn't have popular support. The Revolutionaries prevailed because they were idealists who would say, "give me liberty, or give me death," not "give me liberty, or buy me off with shiny toys."
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 12:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 11:57 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 11:40 AM NHFTYes, and I'm not the one receiving stolen property. If I were, then I would be looking to at least try and reduce my culpability. You, apparently, are just happily playing with your stolen toys, feeling not a qualm in the world about working with the murderers who give them to you.
I sleep well at night because a lot of people aren't complaining. So far there is only the half dozen people on this thread. Which to me says that the majority of residents of Grafton are either satisfied or too complacent to say anything. The town next to us spends 5 times a year (maybe more now) on their department and they are only a little bit bigger (as far as equipment is concerned). They buy a new vehicle every 5 years instead of our every 10 years, they pay someone to paint their station and for a lot of other services, they also pay their volunteers for going on calls. Most people recognize and appreciate our frugality and the tens of thousands we save the town by doing everything ourselves including painting the station and not expecting to be paid anything not even reimbursed for expenses incurred in respond to calls.
So, as long as it's a kinder, gentler form of oppression, it's all good with you?
As a band-aid short term solution,
absolutely!
I'm willing to continue to do what I'm doing while someone with more vision, time and resources can do the difficult work of convincing the masses.
Quote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 12:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 11:57 AM NHFTThis is why I bring up the point that in order to have change and not have it be a failure (Gandhi, American revolution). Is that you have to start with the general public, you have to convince them that the current system has problems and suggest workable long term alternatives. Once people want change then I think there will be a much higher chance of it happening. Just make sure that you present a long term plan and not just get people riled up to destroy things without any clue of what to do after the current system is gone.
The American Revolution didn't have popular support. The Revolutionaries prevailed because they were idealists who would say, "give me liberty, or give me death," not "give me liberty, or buy me off with shiny toys."
That's exactly my point, they did not have popular support. So even though they "prevailed", ultimately they failed. And what you and some of the other people on here are proposing will do the
exact same thing. Unless you get popular support and get people to think in terms of free market solutions, any kind of revolution
will be a failure because people are creatures of habit and after a revolution they will want things to be the way they were before, what they are familiar with.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 12:01 PM NHFT
Just as you use services related to public roads to get around, the Grafton fire department uses the town finance department services to get equipment and pay bills.
So, yes, you are a hypocrite. You use services that are offered to you with blood money but you openly chastise others for doing the same thing.
I think you mis-understood my last post:
I'm not being a hypocrite when I tell people not to use blood money to
provide a service. Because I don't use the proceeds of blood money to
provide a service.
Using a service that I am force to pay for is not the same thing as
providing a service that others are force to pay for.
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 14, 2010, 12:14 PM NHFT
I think you mis-understood my last post:
I'm not being a hypocrite when I tell people not to use blood money to provide a service. Because I don't use the proceeds of blood money to provide a service.
Using a service that I am force to pay for is not the same thing as providing a service that others are force to pay for.
As I've said before, it is not up to me to decide whether the service is provided or not because if I do not provide the service then the next town over will. So, the service will be provided whether I want it or not and if I do not participate by volunteering it will cost even more in taxes to provide the service through other towns.
So, in a sense, I am just as forced to either pay more or volunteer as you are forced to use the roads. Actually, your situation is better because you don't have to pay more in taxes if you stop using roads. I, on the other hand, will have to pay more in property taxes if the volunteer fire fighters stop volunteering and the town hires someone to do the job.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 12:27 PM NHFT
As I've said before, it is not up to me to decide whether the service is provided or not because if I do not provide the service then the next town over.
I guess you don't mind being the lowest common denominator within the human race.
You shouldn't be stealing things from your neighbors, because if you don't, other people who are worse than you are will. You should protect your neighbors from people who want to steal from them.
I guess we've come full circle now. I am done.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 12:27 PM NHFTQuote from: thinkliberty on July 14, 2010, 12:14 PM NHFTI think you mis-understood my last post:
I'm not being a hypocrite when I tell people not to use blood money to provide a service. Because I don't use the proceeds of blood money to provide a service.
Using a service that I am force to pay for is not the same thing as providing a service that others are force to pay for.
As I've said before, it is not up to me to decide whether the service is provided or not because if I do not provide the service then the next town over will. So, the service will be provided whether I want it or not and if I do not participate by volunteering it will cost even more in taxes to provide the service through other towns.
So, in a sense, I am just as forced to either pay more or volunteer as you are forced to use the roads. Actually, your situation is better because you don't have to pay more in taxes if you stop using roads. I, on the other hand, will have to pay more in property taxes if the volunteer fire fighters stop volunteering and the town hires someone to do the job.
"If I don't do it, someone else will," eh?
A lot of folks have tried to justify the commission of atrocities with that line, over the years.
Joe
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 14, 2010, 12:32 PM NHFT
I guess you don't mind being the lowest common denominator within the human race.
You shouldn't stealing things from your neighbors, because if you don't, other people who are worse than you are will. You should protect your neighbors from people who want to steal from them.
You shouldn't tell me that, you should tell that to the general public because most people do not see it as stealing. Once you convince most Grafton residents that paying property taxes is theft and propose alternative solutions
then it won't matter what I think, change will happen regardless.
The problem isn't convincing me, it's convincing the general public.
I have innately understood anarcho-capitalist principles since I was a child and in the last 5 years have studied and understood it in a much more thorough and structured fashion, that is why I decided to participate in the Free State Project and moved to Grafton 4 years ago. I do not need convincing.
I'm not an idealist though and I believe that history has a tendency to repeat itself particularly when it comes to idealistic revolutions being utter failures. To succeed you would need people to understand the reasons and goals of such a change and to have a structure in place to support those that want things to be familiar for them.
When Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union a lot of people just didn't know what to do with themselves, they thought that society was coming to an end. My great grandfather still went to communist party meetings a
decade after the collapse despite what all of my other relatives told him because he did not want to acknowledge the collapse. If you are a young person it's easy to want drastic change but a lot of the working population in America grew up with the current government and for them social security and our system of government is what they are used to and accustomed to, they don't mind paying taxes. That is the challenge that you have in trying to create a free society, because without the general population being on board all you're going to end up with after getting government to go away is a new more dictatorial government as has been the case for thousands of years across hundreds of revolutions.
Those of us that participate in town or state government in NH are doing it to keep things relatively sane so that if/when the public decides to drastically change gears it will be easier. Just think of it this way, which do you think would have a better chance of making it in a free market society? California or New Hampshire? The government in California has gotten so monstrous and the people have gotten so dependent on it that any chance of success is probably a negative number. In New Hampshire the government is small and people are independent, the chance of success is much larger. This is going back to why New Hampshire was chosen for the Free State Project in the first place. Those of us doing things via political means are merely keeping things as they are or even making things better (gentler oppression). So that the non-political ones can change the hearts and minds of the populace to one day eliminate the whole thing altogether by peaceful means, probably by simply making the state irrelevant. The less power it has the easier it will be to make it irrelevant and that's what the politicos are doing. The less expenditures government services are using the easier it will be to find ulterior source of income when the time comes.
Quote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 12:42 PM NHFT
"If I don't do it, someone else will," eh?
A lot of folks have tried to justify the commission of atrocities with that line, over the years.
Yes, lets equate nazi concentration camps with fire departments. Get a grip on reality.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 01:13 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 12:42 PM NHFT"If I don't do it, someone else will," eh?
A lot of folks have tried to justify the commission of atrocities with that line, over the years.
Yes, lets equate nazi concentration camps with fire departments. Get a grip on reality.
Yes, let's. Unless you can demonstrate any fundamental difference between the two.
Oh, and I was actually referring to the Russians who slaughtered a number of my ancestors and forced others to flee the country, not the Nazis.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 01:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 01:13 PM NHFT
Yes, lets equate nazi concentration camps with fire departments. Get a grip on reality.
Yes, let's. Unless you can demonstrate any fundamental difference between the two.
Answering this question does not seem worthwhile to me. Maybe someone else can answer it. I'd recommend starting a separate thread though.
Quote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 01:17 PM NHFT
Oh, and I was actually referring to the Russians who slaughtered a number of my ancestors and forced others to flee the country, not the Nazis.
One of my great grandfathers was a general in the red army and the other spent a decade in a russian concentrate camp for political prisoners to only live a few months after being released and die of pneumonia acquired while imprisoned. So, I have both perspectives.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 01:34 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on July 14, 2010, 01:17 PM NHFTYes, let's. Unless you can demonstrate any fundamental difference between the two.
Answering this question does not seem worthwhile to me. Maybe someone else can answer it. I'd recommend starting a separate thread though.
Yeah, having your hypocrisy shown so blatantly would do that, wouldn't it?
Joe
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 01:10 PM NHFT
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 14, 2010, 12:32 PM NHFT
I guess you don't mind being the lowest common denominator within the human race.
You shouldn't stealing things from your neighbors, because if you don't, other people who are worse than you are will. You should protect your neighbors from people who want to steal from them.
You shouldn't tell me that, you should tell that to the general public
Okay, I will tell the general public that you are the lowest common denominator. I like your idea.
Quote from: Mike Barskey on July 12, 2010, 06:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 12, 2010, 08:25 AM NHFT
Also, Merle can issue fire permits. He's on full time, so if you want to get a permit, there is no reason not to be able to get a hold of him. I believe he issues the majority of the fire permits in Grafton since he's almost always available.
When Merle was harassing me the 2nd time about this issue, he asked if I wanted him to send Babiarz around to issue me a permit (I told him no; Babiarz came anyway, and I told him to get off my property). Why didn't Merle just issue me one then? Or make an appointment to come back himself? Or tell me that he has the authority to issue permits? Or tell me that he issues the majority of the fire permits in Grafton?
I have confirmed with John that Merle does issue permits.
John also confirmed that if someone gave the fire department $40k he would request a budget of $0 for the next fiscal year and obviously there wouldn't be a warrant article to put money into the Fire Apparatus Fund. So, if someone wants to bake a lot of cookies or start a subscription company this is an option. The couch anarchists (that would be thinkliberty and MainShark) have no excuse now.
Alternately, for those interested, there is actually a private volunteer fire department in Grafton located on Liberty Lane, comprising of a forestry truck w/ water and various other vehicles with fire suppression equipment. Please send any donations to support this effort to Bob Hull.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 15, 2010, 07:51 PM NHFTI have confirmed with John that Merle does issue permits.
John also confirmed that if someone gave the fire department $40k he would request a budget of $0 for the next fiscal year and obviously there wouldn't be a warrant article to put money into the Fire Apparatus Fund. So, if someone wants to bake a lot of cookies or start a subscription company this is an option. The couch anarchists (that would be thinkliberty and MainShark) have no excuse now.
And, obviously, the word of a petty little Statist like him is worth... what, exactly?
Your "couch anarchist" nonsense is derangedly stupid. Especially coming from someone who admits to doing nothing for liberty:
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 14, 2010, 11:06 AM NHFTI don't have time to be a fire fighter, work full time, be a dad and to also figure out how to financially support the fire department.
Joe
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 15, 2010, 07:51 PM NHFT
John also confirmed that if someone gave the fire department $40k he would request a budget of $0 for the next fiscal year and obviously there wouldn't be a warrant article to put money into the Fire Apparatus Fund. So, if someone wants to bake a lot of cookies or start a subscription company this is an option. The couch anarchists (that would be thinkliberty and MainShark) have no excuse now.
Did you ask John if he would request a budget $0 for the next fiscal year, because you both know that the 40K that he is requesting is blood money?
Are you really trying to extort the anarchist now, by telling us to give you $40k? Or you will have your political gang steal the homes of people who refuse to give them the money that You are requesting? Sorry I don't like people that use extortion to get what they want. I won't work with those kind of control freaks.
You have no excuse for requesting $40,000 in blood money, unless you are a scumbag.
You should start the Petty Little Couch Anarchist Project, your tagline could be:
The Petty Little Couch Anarchist Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty non-activists to move to Mississippi, where they will exert the least possible effort to do nothing. The success of the Project would likely entail a lot of sitting around on couches, pontificating, philosophizing and complaining. All are welcome, particularly the lazy useless complainers.
You don't even have to sign anything, that would be just too much to ask of you.
MainShark, you could even be president of the Petty Little Couch Anarchists! Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? As president you could sit on a couch and tell other people what to do, I think it would be the perfect job for you. When you get really bored sitting around and pontificating you guys can do a bake sale to raise money for nicer couches. Since no-one will actually bake any cookies you guys will be able to have a lot more things to discuss and point fingers at who should have baked cookies but didn't. It's perfect. Don't you think?
;D
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 15, 2010, 09:39 PM NHFTMainShark, you could even be president of the Petty Little Couch Anarchists! Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? As president you could sit on a couch and tell other people would to do, I think it would be the perfect job for you. When you get really bored sitting around and pontificating you guys can do a bake sale to raise money for nicer couches. Since no-one will actually bake any cookies you guys will be able to have a lot more things to discuss and point fingers at who should have baked cookies but didn't. It's perfect. Don't you think?
Pathetic.
From the sounds of things, and your constant need to lash out at others, I expect that the real case is that I do more for liberty in a day, than you've done in your entire lifetime.
I mean, you already said that you spend essentially no time on it, so it's an easy standard for me to exceed...
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on July 15, 2010, 09:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 15, 2010, 09:39 PM NHFTMainShark, you could even be president of the Petty Little Couch Anarchists! Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? As president you could sit on a couch and tell other people would to do, I think it would be the perfect job for you. When you get really bored sitting around and pontificating you guys can do a bake sale to raise money for nicer couches. Since no-one will actually bake any cookies you guys will be able to have a lot more things to discuss and point fingers at who should have baked cookies but didn't. It's perfect. Don't you think?
Pathetic.
I thought it was funny.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 15, 2010, 09:51 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on July 15, 2010, 09:47 PM NHFTQuote from: Lex Berezhny on July 15, 2010, 09:39 PM NHFTMainShark, you could even be president of the Petty Little Couch Anarchists! Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? As president you could sit on a couch and tell other people would to do, I think it would be the perfect job for you. When you get really bored sitting around and pontificating you guys can do a bake sale to raise money for nicer couches. Since no-one will actually bake any cookies you guys will be able to have a lot more things to discuss and point fingers at who should have baked cookies but didn't. It's perfect. Don't you think?
Pathetic.
I thought it was funny.
Sounds like you think Babiarz's aggression against Barskey was funny, too.
Those who do nothing, or do negative things, complaining about those who are actually doing something... just pathetic.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on July 15, 2010, 09:53 PM NHFT
Sounds like you think Babiarz's aggression against Barskey was funny, too.
My thoughts have sounds? You're start'n to sound a little trippy.
Quote from: MaineShark on July 15, 2010, 09:53 PM NHFT
Those who do nothing, or do negative things, complaining about those who are actually doing something... just pathetic.
I agree on that one. It is pathetic. But very typical of couch anarchists and pontificators.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 15, 2010, 09:39 PM NHFT
You should start the Petty Little Couch Anarchist Project, your tagline could be:
You should stop requesting blood money from a political gang. Your tag line should be:
I don't request that people use violence on my behalf so I can provide fire services.
I will make you a deal.
I'll start the Petty Little Couch Anarchist Project, if you promise to stop requesting that people be extorted for your fire department.
That way we both get something we want from each other.
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 15, 2010, 10:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 15, 2010, 09:39 PM NHFT
You should start the Petty Little Couch Anarchist Project, your tagline could be:
You should stop requesting blood money from a political gang. Your tag line should be:
I don't request that people use violence on my behalf so I can provide fire services.
I will make you a deal.
I'll start the Petty Little Couch Anarchist Project, if you promise to stop requesting that people be extorted for your fire department.
That way we both get something we want from each other.
I don't want a Petty Little Couch Anarchist Project, that was merely a suggestion for you (and MaineShark), not for me, but more just trying to lighten up the thread a little.
I am also not in a position to bargain the financial position of the fire department beyond what I stated earlier: If someone puts in the time and effort in finding explicitly voluntary sources of income than John will put in a $0 budget for next year.
I have also at length explained why I have no moral objection to the many services in Grafton being paid for with tax dollars: Most residents aren't philosophers and would rather pay the taxes and move on with life. I don't have the desire to fix something that isn't a problem, I'd rather spend my time doing other things and leave the cultural revolution to someone more apt than myself. On the other hand, I will continue to do what I can to keep the costs to tax payers down by volunteering.
Yes, theoretically, taxes are theft, I fully understand that. But people who are being stolen from don't and before you can change the system you have to convince the people. Period. When I bump into people I tell them that taxes are theft, but I don't go door to door and maybe that's what's really needed.
I'm probably not going to respond to this thread anymore since everything I have wanted to say I have already said (actually, I've said a lot more than I wanted to say, if I offended anyone, I apologize). If someone asks a question that I haven't answered before than I will try to answer it.
roasting hot dogs over foam is more fun than this
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 15, 2010, 11:08 PM NHFT
roasting hot dogs over foam is more fun than this
Isn't it past your bedtime? ;D
Quote from: MaineShark on July 15, 2010, 09:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 15, 2010, 09:51 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on July 15, 2010, 09:47 PM NHFTQuote from: Lex Berezhny on July 15, 2010, 09:39 PM NHFTMainShark, you could even be president of the Petty Little Couch Anarchists! Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? As president you could sit on a couch and tell other people would to do, I think it would be the perfect job for you. When you get really bored sitting around and pontificating you guys can do a bake sale to raise money for nicer couches. Since no-one will actually bake any cookies you guys will be able to have a lot more things to discuss and point fingers at who should have baked cookies but didn't. It's perfect. Don't you think?
Pathetic.
I thought it was funny.
Sounds like you think Babiarz's aggression against Barskey was funny, too.
Those who do nothing, or do negative things, complaining about those who are actually doing something... just pathetic.
Joe
You mean like the Firearm Safety event at Porcfest, Joe? I'm not impressed by either of you guys's activism.
The one thing that is evident to me about that day is that there were no 'Hero's' present.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 15, 2010, 09:58 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on July 15, 2010, 09:53 PM NHFTThose who do nothing, or do negative things, complaining about those who are actually doing something... just pathetic.
I agree on that one. It is pathetic. But very typical of couch anarchists and pontificators.
I don't think "pathetic" is even strong enough to cover your inability to provide a response, here. I've heard better from toddlers.
Joe
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on July 16, 2010, 04:51 AM NHFTYou mean like the Firearm Safety event at Porcfest, Joe? I'm not impressed by either of you guys's activism.
The event that occurred daily, with a dozen or two participants? It went quite well.
Not that it was activism, really, anyway. Just information. I answered a lot of great questions from the crowd, though, which tells me they were actually engaged and learning.
Joe
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 15, 2010, 11:02 PM NHFT
I have also at length explained why I have no moral objection to the many services in Grafton being paid for with tax dollars...
Yes, theoretically, taxes are theft, I fully understand that. But people who are being stolen from don't and before you can change the system you have to convince the people...
You have no moral objection to theft? really?
Theoretically, taxes are theft just like theoretically, water is wet.
What do you think the people who don't like being stolen from should do to you for stealing from them? Because like you said, you fully understand that taxation is theft.
What should those new people do when they've realized that taxation is theft and you've requested that your political gang steal their homes, if you don't get $40,000?
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 16, 2010, 07:07 AM NHFT
You have no moral objection to theft? really?
The principles of liberty, freedom, anarcho-capitalism are philosophies that require some
belief. As such, it isn't that much different from the statist philosophy that requires people to believe in the existence of country, government and the necessity of taxes. Majority of people don't equate paying taxes to having someone come and steal their car.
Granted, the philosophy of liberty allows the greatest freedom for everyone compared to the alternative but it does attack and require the destruction of force based philosophies. For example, the way you and MainShark are attacking me. The amount of negative words and antagonism that has been used against me is much more than has been used by the local government to get the majority of the Grafton population to pay property taxes. Most Grafton residents just get a bill and they pay it, mostly because they were raised to pay their taxes and it probably didn't occur to them to do anything different.
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 16, 2010, 07:07 AM NHFT
Theoretically, taxes are theft just like theoretically, water is wet.
My neighbors will not disagree with me that water is wet but they will pause at the thought that taxes are theft. Hence the paradigm issue.
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 16, 2010, 07:07 AM NHFT
What do you think the people who don't like being stolen from should do to you for stealing from them? Because like you said, you fully understand that taxation is theft.
I would sincerely hope that they would get a little upset. But expect that not everyone will feel that way, some people will actually resist and cling to the idea of government funded by taxes. "Who will take care of the sick and dying?", etc.
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 16, 2010, 07:07 AM NHFT
What should those new people do when they've realized that taxation is theft and you've requested that your political gang steal their homes, if you don't get $40,000?
If you get the majority of residents to believe that taxes are theft you will have a lot more success in getting rid of property taxes (or at least reducing them to the point where we're only paying the state mandated amount, until we can get out of that too). It will be much easier to start subscription service and get people to voluntarily donate once they believe in the principles of a voluntary society.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 16, 2010, 08:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 16, 2010, 07:07 AM NHFT
What do you think the people who don't like being stolen from should do to you for stealing from them? Because like you said, you fully understand that taxation is theft.
I would sincerely hope that they would get a little upset....
What do you want those people do to you after they get upset for requesting your political gang steal their homes, unless they give you money?
What would you do to me, if I had a gang and I request that they steal your home, unless you pay me money?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 16, 2010, 08:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 16, 2010, 07:07 AM NHFT
What should those new people do when they've realized that taxation is theft and you've requested that your political gang steal their homes, if you don't get $40,000?
If you get the majority of residents to believe that taxes are theft you will have a lot more success in getting rid of property taxes (or at least reducing them to the point where we're only paying the state mandated amount, until we can get out of that too). It will be much easier to start subscription service and get people to voluntarily donate once they believe in the principles of a voluntary society.
You didn't answer my question.
What should those new people do when they've realized that taxation is theft and you've requested that your political gang steal their homes, if you don't get $40,000? Because like you said, you fully understand that taxation is theft.
Should they start stealing from their neighbors, because if they don't you will?
Should they start protecting their neighbors from people who want to steal from them?
If they should protect their neighbors from people who want to steal from them: How should they protect their neighbors from you and your political gang?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 16, 2010, 08:26 AM NHFTMajority of people don't equate paying taxes to having someone come and steal their car.
Yeah, because folks like you are right there, giving them excuses to use in place of reason.
And, of course, it
isn't equivalent to someone stealing their car. It's equivalent to someone robbing them at gunpoint. They don't just sneak up and take money; they send you a letter telling you to pay them, or else. And "or else" involves the recipient being murdered by thugs, unless he complies.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 16, 2010, 08:26 AM NHFTGranted, the philosophy of liberty allows the greatest freedom for everyone compared to the alternative but it does attack and require the destruction of force based philosophies. For example, the way you and MainShark are attacking me. The amount of negative words and antagonism that has been used against me is much more than has been used by the local government to get the majority of the Grafton population to pay property taxes. Most Grafton residents just get a bill and they pay it, mostly because they were raised to pay their taxes and it probably didn't occur to them to do anything different.
You know better. They can claim ignorance. You can't.
Joe
Can't have a free society if people are ignorant.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 16, 2010, 09:50 AM NHFTCan't have a free society if people are ignorant.
Yes, we can.
Knowing
why it's wrong to initiate force is not required to have freedom. Folks merely need to refrain from doing so.
Joe
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 16, 2010, 09:50 AM NHFT
Can't have a free society if people are ignorant.
What should a free society do to people who demand $40,000 dollars or they will have their political gang steal your home, when you don't pay them?
I want you to tell your neighbors how to deal with you fairly, when the majority of people believe that taxes are theft and I have a lot more success.
Don't try the Nuremberg defense, it doesn't work. You are accountable for the things that you do, because you said it yourself "taxes are theft, I fully understand that."
What do you think the penalty for theft should be in a free society? How do you want to deal with thieves?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 16, 2010, 09:50 AM NHFT
Can't have a free society if people are ignorant.
Eliminating government services without educating the public or getting their support will result in the opposite: more laws, higher taxes and more services.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 16, 2010, 11:23 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 16, 2010, 09:50 AM NHFT
Can't have a free society if people are ignorant.
Eliminating government services without educating the public or getting their support will result in the opposite: more laws, higher taxes and more services.
Are you debating yourself? Or are you just repeating yourself because you don't want to tell people how you want to be punished?
It's obvious that you'll continue to steal from people until a free society stops you and your political gang.
What do you think should happen to thieves and their political gangs when I educate the public and get their support?
I'd like to hear your answer, to make sure that your neighbors are fair to you, when I educate them and get their support.
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 16, 2010, 11:53 AM NHFT
I'd like to hear your answer, to make sure that your neighbors are fair to you, when I educate them and get their support.
It would be nice to get reimbursed for expenses incurred when responding to calls. Getting paid for responding to calls would be icing on the cake.
But I'm fine without any of those things. You worry about educating them, once that's done, we can discuss what to do with the fire department.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 16, 2010, 12:11 PM NHFT
Quote from: thinkliberty on July 16, 2010, 11:53 AM NHFT
I'd like to hear your answer, to make sure that your neighbors are fair to you, when I educate them and get their support.
It would be nice to get reimbursed for expenses incurred when responding to calls. Getting paid for responding to calls would be icing on the cake.
But I'm fine without any of those things. You worry about educating them, once that's done, we can discuss what to do with the fire department.
If you want to get reimburse for expenses incurred when responding to calls and to get paid, maybe you should stop requesting that your political gang steal the homes of the people that you want payment from.
If a competing fire department started to steal from you to pay for itself, would you be okay with that?
Would you stop the people stealing from you? Would you punish them?
If you would punish them, what would their punishment be?
If you would stop them, how would you stop them; when they threaten to steal your home and threatened to kill you if you didn't let them?
I need answers to this so I can educate the public. I want to make sure that I don't mis-educate them.
Quote from: Free libertarian on July 15, 2010, 11:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 15, 2010, 11:08 PM NHFT
roasting hot dogs over foam is more fun than this
Isn't it past your bedtime? ;D
yes
this is what happens when I have a chocolate smoothie at 9pm
Hypothetical questions are useful tools if you are trying to teach someone new concepts. I already understand the concepts. Repeating them over and over again and asking me hypothetical questions to try and highlight the inherent violence in government is a waste of your and my time. I already know that government is based on violence.
I'm not interested in ideological, pie in the sky, conjectures. I'm only interested in what can be done practically that would have the most desired outcome. There are other people in this movement that are good at coming up with and implementing radical changes and I will encourage them to do that. And there have been some successes there but from my point of view there has been even more tangible success from those working inside the system to reduce taxes and laws (gentler oppression). I think working towards both gentler oppression and the elimination of the system in parallel is the best strategy for a better life today and for an even better life in the future.
Demanding the fire department stop accepting funds from the town without providing alternative solutions is negligent. Considering you don't even live in Grafton it's pompous of you to pretend to know what is best for this community. Every town will require a different set of people and a different strategy to bring the most possible freedom in the least amount of time with the best prospects for longevity. There is a lot of opposition to reducing property taxes and eliminating laws here. If you look at the voting records in Grafton you will see that most people don't mind paying for things, they even vote to approve warrant articles that increase the yearly budget. Don't forget that Grafton is also home to Catherine Mulholland.
Your confusion in understanding the situation in Grafton is that parts of the government services here are willing to change if people demand it, instead of the usual case where people want change and the government is resisting. You get people to demand change and change will happen (by that I don't mean two anarchists harassing one fire fighter, instead you need to convince most of the land owners in Grafton). Like I said earlier, the Grafton Fire Department and probably the Ambulance Department would be more than happy to submit a budget of $0 if other revenue streams are provided. The Grafton Ambulance department has already implemented soft billing to go in that direction but it will take time. It's important to point out that a lot of people were not happy with what the Ambulance department did with the soft billing, I can only imagine the outcry if the fire department went private! Those people are the ones who need convincing, not the departments.
And Catherine Mulholland needs to be deported, but there is a separate thread for that. :D
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 16, 2010, 01:48 PM NHFT
Hypothetical questions are useful tools if you are trying to teach someone new concepts. I already understand the concepts. Repeating them over and over again and asking me hypothetical questions to try and highlight the inherent violence in government is a waste of your and my time. I already know that government is based on violence.
Your confusion in understanding the situation in Grafton is that parts of the government services here are willing to change if people demand it
I'm not confused in the situation in Grafton. You might not like what happens to you when people hold you and your political gang accountable.
You don't have a preference on how your neighbors stop or punish people for stealing?
Are you are telling me they should they do what ever they feel like doing to stop you and punish you? Anything they
are willing to do will be okay with you?
Do you think your neighbors should deport you, like you want to deport Catherine Mulholland?
Libertarians in political positions are forced to engage in these mental gymnastics because what they're doing is wrong. It's wrong to steal. You can't be in government and not be initiating force. It's wrong to impose your will on others at the point of a gun.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 16, 2010, 05:36 PM NHFTLibertarians in political positions are forced to engage in these mental gymnastics because what they're doing is wrong. It's wrong to steal. You can't be in government and not be initiating force. It's wrong to impose your will on others at the point of a gun.
That there's crazy talk!
The mental gymnastics are amusing, in that "can't look away from a train wreck" sort of way...
Joe
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 16, 2010, 05:36 PM NHFT
Libertarians in political positions are forced to engage in these mental gymnastics because what they're doing is wrong. It's wrong to steal. You can't be in government and not be initiating force. It's wrong to impose your will on others at the point of a gun.
For the most part I agree. However I heard there's a guy on the School budget committe that has voted no every time and hasn't signed the budget 2 years running. ;)
But yeah if it isn't voluntary there are mental gymnastics involved.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 16, 2010, 05:36 PM NHFT
Libertarians in political positions are forced to engage in these mental gymnastics because what they're doing is wrong. It's wrong to steal. You can't be in government and not be initiating force. It's wrong to impose your will on others at the point of a gun.
Mental gymnastics? or pragmatism?
Fifth column during WWII anybody?
Quote from: tony on July 16, 2010, 07:48 PM NHFTQuote from: Kat Kanning on July 16, 2010, 05:36 PM NHFTLibertarians in political positions are forced to engage in these mental gymnastics because what they're doing is wrong. It's wrong to steal. You can't be in government and not be initiating force. It's wrong to impose your will on others at the point of a gun.
Mental gymnastics? or pragmatism?
Fifth column during WWII anybody?
While there are certainly those who are infiltrating the system to do it damage... they generally are not also publicly claiming to be libertarians. If one's purpose is to infiltrate, one fits in.
Joe
I'm having difficulty with some of the arguments on this thread.
Lex isn't stealing the tax money I pay to Grafton, he's doing his part to reduce the amount of money the town spends on fire and ambulance services.
Bob Hull bid the grass mowing job at below cost to do the same thing.
When the folks in town voted to stop paving roads and eliminate the funding of the independence day fireworks in favor of a voluntary fund, they were voting to steal less from the residents.
You guys seem to be complaining that we have not eliminated _all_ government services in Grafton yet, without appreciating the possibility that gradualists and incrementalists can have the same goals as anarchists, just different methods.
Quote from: jerry on July 16, 2010, 10:58 PM NHFT
I'm having difficulty with some of the arguments on this thread.
You guys seem to be complaining that we have not eliminated _all_ government services in Grafton yet, without appreciating the possibility that gradualists and incrementalists can have the same goals as anarchists, just different methods.
I don't think _all_ government services should be eliminated. I am just opposed to the use of violence that the government currently uses to provide those services. You seem to believe that violence is the only way a government can provide services to people, when it's not.
They can offer insurance plans, ask for donations or do something entrepreneurial; Instead of putting a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger when they don't get the money.
Threatening people with death for not paying for a service isn't something I am comfortable supporting.
I want to live in a place where my neighbors protect each other from people who threaten them with violence. It doesn't matter if the violence is done in the name of a god or for politicians.
My method is for people simply to oppose anyone that wants to kill their neighbors, when they don't give them money for things they want and resist being kidnapped and caged.
If you are requesting that someone pull a gun on someone to provide a service. You need to quit. I don't care if they are requesting 10 dollars to provide a service or 100 million.
i don't feel oppressed by Lex doing volunteer medical and fire work .... he didn't put out my weenie roast :)
but in this case as others ..... the means are the ends .... or rather certain means lead to certain ends
it is good to hear that some of you that want to put out fires are accumulating equipment and knowhow to do such :)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392)
John thanks you and asked me to Bump this up
Just now I realized that I haven't read anything posted on this thread since page 10 ... So, I now read a few posts on this last page and I am reminded why I quit reading it ...
Carry on.
BUMP!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392)
I am not going to vote for John Babiarz unless he issues a public apology to Mike for aggressing against him.
Quote from: thinkliberty on September 30, 2010, 09:54 AM NHFTI am not going to vote for John Babiarz unless he issues a public apology to Mike for aggressing against him.
I disagree. He owes Mike whatever restitution Mike requires to make him whole again. It's up to Mike to let us know what it will take to achieve that. Could be a public apology (or even a private one). Could be a thousand ounces of gold. Maybe Mike can let us know what he thinks it will take?
Joe
If it was me, the only worthy "apology" would be him resigning his position so he wouldn't be able to aggress against peaceful people anymore.
I have heard that the video was "propaganda" and that somehow he was justified in killing the weenie roast. I wasn't there, and I've seen the video as evidence of the aggression.
Perhaps the other side might want to stop in and let us who aren't in the know about their side of the story. Until then, I see no reason not to believe that there was no danger of burning down all of New Hampshire's forest system starting with Grafton.
If Babiarz publicly acknowledges
1) that my fire was not unsafe,
2) that a permit would not have made my fire safer,
3) that he had permitted this same fire pit near the same structure for a different person in the past, and
4) that he aggressed against me (by putting my fire out despite my telling him that's not what I wanted) because a cop and/or the rules said so,
then I would accept him on my property again (as a peaceful person, not in the capacity to aggress).
If Babiarz also admits to aggressing against me and apologizes for it, I will consider him a better person, one who is confident enough to admit and/or learn from mistakes, and I would likely want to talk with him again socially - he will have earned some respect from me. But I would have to believe his apology meant that his actions would be different in a similar scenario in the future (i.e., that he *meant* his apology, and it wasn't just empty words); I'm not sure what it would take to convince me of this. Maybe I'd accept his apology but be very leery of him in the future, being cautious of his sincerity until I witness it in action.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392)
still no apology on there.
Probably has never crossed his mind.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392)
very telling.
I hope he's got a permit for his birthday cake candles.
If elected John will work to get rid of Fire Permits and the law that prohibits fires between 9 & 5. They are just a pain in the ass for Fire Chiefs.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392)
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on October 01, 2010, 06:13 AM NHFTIf elected John will work to get rid of Fire Permits and the law that prohibits fires between 9 & 5. They are just a pain in the ass for Fire Chiefs.
If that is true, he should have no problem apologizing. If he did so, he
might even be able to ask Mike to help him with that goal. Mike is, after all, in a position to describe how such things create needless antagonism.
Joe
http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392)
That's the same link every time, Lloyd. Why are you spamming?
I'm campaigning for John. Gotta a problem with that?
http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392)
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on October 01, 2010, 08:21 AM NHFT
I'm campaigning...Gotta a problem with that?
Yup: government isn't the solution to government. However, I respect your right to do whatever you want as long as you don't force others to. Campaigning is not forcing anyone (working for government
is force, though).
Also, posting the same link again and again is mildly annoying. I guess if you won't stop and if it bothers me enough, I could just ignore you on this forum until elections are over.
Actually, you might want to rethink your campaigning tactic of spamming a forum with the same post over and over again. Even people who think government is the answer and who like John, might get annoyed at that barrage of spam. Perhaps a better tactic that saying his name loudly over and over again (which is equivalent to posting his URL over and over again in the middle of unrelated threads) would be to post only when it's relevant and customize each post to make a point. Well, maybe not: politics is a brainless my-team-vs-your-team activity, so maybe just shouting a name louder and louder is the way to go.
:)
(my smiley represents that I'm posting this light heartedly, even though I believe what I posted).
Plus, search engines may point people to this thread, as a result of a link containing his name.
I guess it depends upon whether someone thinks this is good campaign material for him...
Joe
John's chances aren't going to hinge on the opinions or actions of anyone reading this forum.
I agree returning with the same URL is boring. I'm just getting started. I need material!
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on October 01, 2010, 08:46 AM NHFT
John's chances aren't going to hinge on the opinions or actions of anyone reading this forum.
Oh! Good. Then you'll agree there is no purpose to spamming this forum with his name or URL, or even with material once you get some. :)
Even though I have not read about half of this thread, it does seem to be getting kind of funny again so I think I'll jump back in for a while. Because I said "funny" you can then tell that I am sometimes quite easily amused.
This thread seems like a pretty crazy place to campain, but maybe I can help with some info about campaining?
#1 - Don't do this all the time:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392)
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on October 01, 2010, 08:46 AM NHFTJohn's chances aren't going to hinge on the opinions or actions of anyone reading this forum.
Unless someone sees a Babiarz sign, wonders who that is, and searches the Internet for him. The more often his name is linked, the higher in the search results this thread will be.
If I hadn't seen this thread, I would have voted for him. I've even encouraged others to do so, in the past. This incident is literally what turned me from a strong supporter into a strong opponent. If someone who behaves in such a petty manner is elected with the support of "the liberty community," it will be extremely bad PR for the whole movement. That pettiness is pretty much my sole complaint against him. Oh, he's a politician, and there are no doubt many issues on which we disagree, wholly or in part, but the petty behavior, and how it will reflect negatively on others, is what pushes him over the line. We get enough of that from the Demoblicans and the Republicrats; we don't need to
also get it from folks who will reflect negatively on us.
Which, of course, is why I'm pleased to hear that all Mike wants is to receive an apology, which costs nothing except pride. A sincere apology would do wonders to eliminate the complaint I have with Babiarz, since it would show an ability to admit his mistake and own up to it, which is rather on the opposite side of the spectrum from "petty." I would still have reservations, but I have reservations about the other folks running for office, too.
Everyone makes mistakes on occasion. Such is life. What's important is how we deal with those mistakes. There's a manufacturer of heating components, which makes some very nice stuff. In the three years since I started using their stuff, I only had one item fail. That was a year and a half ago, and they still haven't warrantied the part. Other manufacturers might have a slightly higher defect rate, but when you return a failed item within the warranty period, they send you a replacement, and usually pick up the shipping (which most warranties don't require them to do). Guess who
doesn't get my business...
What he did is a small fraction of the issue, from where I sit. His behavior, after the fact, is far more critical.
Joe
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on October 01, 2010, 06:13 AM NHFTThey are just a pain in the ass for Fire Chiefs.
#3 - Say that It's not all about fire chiefs but that fire chiefs care about how things effect
their citizens, (I've actually heard a N.H. fire chief refer to people as his citizens - No wait, maybe it was the state fire marshal who actually said that.)
their victims, others, normal people.
If John Babiarz is given power he will abuse it. His aggression against Barskey's at a weenie roast is proof of this.
He says one thing in his political campaigns, but when is in a position of authority, he hypocritically does another thing.
He is a typical politician that can't be trusted. People voting for him are no different than people who voted for Obama, because he would "change" things, even though his previous actions in the senate proved that he wouldn't change anything.
John Babiarz is to liberty as Barack Obama is to change.
Both feel no remorse when they abuse power, neither one has apologized for their actions.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on October 01, 2010, 08:46 AM NHFT
John's chances aren't going to hinge on the opinions or actions of anyone reading this forum.
#4 - Say John B. wants as many votes as he can get and that he hopes to have the support of as many people as possible.
That's all I have for now. ;D
John Babiarz for Governor (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=20792)
Quote from: John on October 01, 2010, 09:47 AM NHFT
Even though I have not read about half of this thread, it does seem to be getting kind of funny again so I think I'll jump back in for a while. Because I said "funny" you can then tell that I am sometimes quite easily amused.
This thread seems like a pretty crazy place to campain, but maybe I can help with some info about campaining?
#1 - Don't do this all the time:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Babiarz-for-NH-Governor-2010/143642412328392)
I'm trying to cut back ;D
Quote from: Mike Barskey on October 01, 2010, 08:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on October 01, 2010, 08:46 AM NHFT
John's chances aren't going to hinge on the opinions or actions of anyone reading this forum.
Oh! Good. Then you'll agree there is no purpose to spamming this forum with his name or URL, or even with material once you get some. :)
I'll probably just go ahead and do what I want when something occurs to me.
sweet idea, just as long as you don't aggress against someone. .. .not many would have a problem with it ;D.
Quote from: thinkliberty on September 30, 2010, 09:54 AM NHFT
I am not going to vote for John Babiarz unless he issues a public apology to Mike for aggressing against him.
were you planning on voting for him before
or is there someone else you were going to vote for?
or do you even vote for nh governor?
Quote from: AntonLee on September 30, 2010, 02:35 PM NHFT
I have heard that the video was "propaganda" and that somehow he was justified in killing the weenie roast. I wasn't there, and I've seen the video as evidence of the aggression.
Perhaps the other side might want to stop in and let us who aren't in the know about their side of the story. Until then, I see no reason not to believe that there was no danger of burning down all of New Hampshire's forest system starting with Grafton.
I guess since we are the only ones willing to talk about the incident .... we get the advantage
Quote from: AntonLee on September 30, 2010, 05:45 PM NHFT
still no apology on there.
i don't think that is part of his campaign
Quote from: John on October 01, 2010, 09:47 AM NHFT
Even though I have not read about half of this thread, it does seem to be getting kind of funny again so I think I'll jump back in for a while. Because I said "funny" you can then tell that I am sometimes quite easily amused.
This thread seems like a pretty crazy place to campain, but maybe I can help with some info about campaining?
i am totally with ya
Quote from: thinkliberty on October 01, 2010, 10:08 AM NHFT
If John Babiarz is given power he will abuse it. His aggression against Barskey's at a weenie roast is proof of this.
He says one thing in his political campaigns, but when is in a position of authority, he hypocritically does another thing.
I haven't heard anything about his campaign. The only info I have is this incident and his signs.
Firefighting in Obion County (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/firefighting-obion-county)
— By Kevin Drum
| Mon Oct. 4, 2010 6:26 PM PDT
Everybody is chattering today about the South Fulton Fire Department. Why? Because they provide fire protection for the city of South Fulton, Tennessee. If you live outside the city, you have to rely on the County of Obion to provide fire services.
All perfectly reasonable. Except that the County of Obion doesn't provide any fire services. So if you live in the nearby vicinity and want fire protection, you have to pay South Fulton $75 per year. Gene Cranick didn't pay the fee, so a few days ago, after he started a fire in a couple of barrels in his backyard and the fire got out of control, the South Fulton Fire Department didn't respond when he called. "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," he explained succinctly. (http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html)
This has spawned a lot of outrage. How could the South Fulton Fire Department just sit around and not respond? Both the fire chief and the mayor are getting a lot of heat. But I have a different question: why is the County of Obion apparently not generating any outrage of its own? This is not a new problem, after all. The county has declined to provide fire services for a long time, it's been a lively issue for a long time, and they know perfectly well that local cities won't always respond to their fires. Courtesy of the world wide web, for example, here's "A Presentation Regarding The Establishment And Implementation of a County-Wide Fire Department," (http://troy.troytn.com/Obion%20County%20Fire%20Department%20Presentation%20Presented%20to%20the%20County%20Commission.pdf) dated March 18, 2008, describing exactly how fire services work in the County of Obion. Also included in this document: a plan to create an Obion County Fire Department by merging the services of the various municipal fire departments in the county along with a plan to raise about half a million dollars to fund it. Revenue would come from either a 0.13 cent property tax increase, a fee on electric meters, or a flat subscription fee.
The county commissioners of Obion County apparently decided against this plan. Didn't want to increase taxes, I suppose. As a result, Gene Cranick's house burned down.
His isn't the first one, either. The county knew this was a longstanding problem, they knew it might happen again, and two years before Cranick's house burned down they had a proposal in front of them to address it. But they didn't. If anyone should be getting grief over this, shouldn't it be them?
I have a little bit of a different take on this one...
I am part owner of a house in a county area in rural NC. There is NO county fire department, but various local towns that are "within distance" offer their services on a similar subscription basis. Since there are three different town fire departments about the same distance from the rural house, any of them can be used... as long as you agree to pay for their services. Two towns offer the basic same type of subscription service (and it is more than $75/yr... BTW). The third town offers a choice of either the basic subscription service OR a "pay as needed" service. (The third town's subscription service is less than the other two BTW...) We have a choice who we decide to use no matter what, BUT if we didn't pay for one of the subscription services (which we do), then there would only be two options left to us. 1) In case of fire, let the place burn down (I don't think so) or 2) In case of fire without having paid one of the subscription service fees, call up town #3 and pay them UP FRONT to the tune of a few grand to come out and put out the fire! Yep... a few grand or a couple of hundred (average)... your choice. Don't pay, no fire department. (Although, the county DOES have a sheriff who is not part of subscription plan, gets paid by other county "fees" and will come harass people if called. The sheriff's dept can also write traffic citations and is responsible for a number of other harassment... ummm... "policing" actions. ::) :o ) As someone who believes that such services should all be voluntary, I don't have a problem with the fire departments' subscription fees. (I'd like to "opt out" of the sheriff if they'd let me, but alas... The only good thing I can say about that is the -current- local sheriff down there has taken the "Sheriff Mack" position of actually serving the people. Who knows what will happen after elections... sheriff is an elected position there too. There are plenty of evil politicians and judges who don't like the current sheriff because of his positions in such matters.)
Anyway, I've watched the guy and listened to what he had to say. He very obviously knew he was on a subscription plan and voluntarily did NOT buy in. His choice... His loss... No body's problem but his own (and his family, but they can look at him for a place to put the blame...) Just my NSHO... YMMV...
Maybe a 3rd option is to put out the fire oneself?
From the latest information that I've heard, the fire dept was on-hand and the man begged them to turn on the water... going so far as to tell them that he'd pay whatever they wanted. They still refused to do so and subsequently the family's cat and 3 dogs perished in the house. According to a number of current reports, he was willing to pay WHATEVER they demanded so they would turn on the hoses and they still refused.
NOW, I think there should be some sanctions against the fire fighters, fire department and town for not acting because it is obvious that their reasons for inaction became more than the costs. I'm against the entire "free ride" attitude, but I this is starting to look vindictive on the part of the "officials" who were there and could have done something. People in the U.S. have traditionally helped out each other in times of need and having the family begging for help and turning a callous eye/ear is despicable... IMNSHO...
A highjacking of this thread has ended peacefully. :D
Now, maybe, we can get back to the original topic. ;D
the strange things we do in the rain
btw the rain is crazy in the greenhouse especially when it is hail
Got to have a look at what the heavy wind and rain did at the church. I didn't see the hail.
A "few" "small" problems.
Some of the potential problem areas were already under evaluation, and this was/is another good opportunity to see what is currently happening.
One new problem is discovered and has a temporary measure in place. One old problem is solved.
Hail falls on the just and the unjust.
the snow falls only on patk
Hail to the ...
Never mind.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 16, 2010, 06:53 AM NHFT
the snow falls only on patk
I am giving 500 to 1 odds against this.
Quote from: Pat K on October 17, 2010, 12:06 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 16, 2010, 06:53 AM NHFT
the snow falls only on patk
I am giving 500 to 1 odds against this.
Snow falls in New York. I know. I've been there.
Now, what is this thread about again? :icon_pirat:
:campfire:
Hail to the chef. ;D
As oposed to, hail to the ...
Quote from: thinkliberty on May 26, 2010, 08:03 PM NHFT
Here is the video:
Government Aggresses Against A Campfire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3FgzRULJPo#)
Make sure all your politico libertarian buddies see it.
They don't care. As long as you're running under the "big L", you can probably rape babies and they'd still vote for you.