New Hampshire Underground

Hello, This question is open to anybody but I'm hoping Lauren Canario in particular will answer it as well.

I'm currently in CA but am planning to move to NH as soon as possible. My driver's license becomes expired later this year, and in an act of civil disobedience I am strongly considering not renewing it.

I would like to know whether or not I can still be an insured driver without a license, if my car is likely to be towed at the scene, and what is likely the length of time in jail to be spent over refusing to pay fines.

I don't expect anybody to be able to answer this question for CA per se, just in general. Also, any advice on how I should handle myself once I get pulled over. I may be eager for civil dis, but I'm also very thorough and orderly as well. Also, if I no longer have a driver's license I assume the only other ID I can get is a passport, which I have, or another state issued ID through DMV that's NOT a driver's license. Does anybody know of any other way to prove one's identity to banks, etc. without a state issued ID? Thank you.

Seth

i know that without a driver's license, you cannot register your vehicle with the state of NH. So you might also be running around without a goverment plate.
I would doubt you can get insurance ... since they are all tied up with the state ... but maybe.

The what do do when pulled over idea ..... is endless. it depends on what you want to do. I have even figured i would pull over slowly if a cop put on lights behind me .... but keep going if he meant to pull me over. But I have never been alone in that situation and have asked my passengers what they want to do. Last time Kat wanted me to just stop in the middle of the road, since there was no room on the side anyways. :) I have always wanted to recreate slow speed chases (LA style) calling activists and dragging it out and getting it on film, but haven't gotten a  chance.

If arrested and dragged into court, you could get anything from not guilty, to convicted with no fines, to life behind bars for crimes against the state.

 This one time, I forgot my wallet at home, my license was in it.  I noticed that I could barely see the road, could hardly operate the car and my safety judgement was all askew.  My car didn't seem to run right either.   When I returned home and got my wallet, everything was better.  See it must be "the license" that makes us safer.   ;D

Askew? What did they Askew?

Quote from: Pat K on March 02, 2010, 07:43 AM NHFT
Askew? What did they Askew?

I'd been drinking...so I plead the fifth.

You can register a vehicle without a license.

You can get insurance. However the insurance company will require a primary driver on the policy, who must be licensed.

Quote from: Free libertarian on March 02, 2010, 07:38 AM NHFT
This one time, I forgot my wallet at home, my license was in it.  I noticed that I could barely see the road, could hardly operate the car and my safety judgement was all askew.  My car didn't seem to run right either.   When I returned home and got my wallet, everything was better.  See it must be "the license" that makes us safer.   ;D

Don't you mean your "certificate of licensure"?  ;)

And auto insurance is not mandatory in NH.  Unless they've recently changed that.

Quote from: Scott Roth on March 02, 2010, 03:44 PM NHFT
And auto insurance is not mandatory in NH.  Unless they've recently changed that.

It is still not mandatory in NH.  Neither is a DL.  In NH, you can drive off of someone else's DL if they are over 25, in the passenger seat, and teaching you how to drive.  So if you want to drive in NH, just never get a DL and always drive with one other person in the car and have the person be over 25 and have a DL.

If you are concerned about your insurance rates, credit rating, criminal record, gaps in your resume, or maintaining your car's resale value, I would recommend driving with a license.  If you are concerned about making things easier for unserialized people now and in the future when the police state really cracks down, I would recommend driving without a license.

I guess the reason I am interested in the insurance question is because I would hate to get into an accident and hurt someone else and have that person get screwed. Do I have an ethical obligation to that person? What if I was at fault in the accident?

i try not to crash into people .... if i did, then i would help them
people have lived happily before there was insurance

if you want to have insurance from some company, then maybe you should ask them what you should do :)

Quote from: elkingrey on March 03, 2010, 03:12 AM NHFT
I guess the reason I am interested in the insurance question is because I would hate to get into an accident and hurt someone else and have that person get screwed. Do I have an ethical obligation to that person? What if I was at fault in the accident?

Yes.  Even in NH where you don't have to have insurance, you still have to pay to resolve an accident if you are at fault.

Of course, what Russell said is more important than the law.

The other concern I have is the likelihood of having my car impounded. Paying the state to get my car back would suck and seems counterproductive. Any thoughts?

http://www.aolnews.com/story/pilot-with-fake-license-arrested-in/933323 (http://www.aolnews.com/story/pilot-with-fake-license-arrested-in/933323)

Quote from: elkingrey on March 03, 2010, 10:12 PM NHFT
The other concern I have is the likelihood of having my car impounded. Paying the state to get my car back would suck and seems counterproductive. Any thoughts?

they will take your car
they are thieves
if you are worried about things like this .... i don't think you are ready to say "no" to their system

There is something to be said for driving $500 winter beaters.

Dave Ridley just answered all of my questions in his newest report. He gives a link to the Embassy of Heaven. In it, there is a book online which I read discussing all of the ins and outs of going to jail, specifically for driving without permission.

if you move here and start driving without the government's permission, some of us will try to help you, but there will be pain and theft involved

I'd like to think that I'm well suited to take the pain and theft, but I still need a strategy for my conduct. The book I read didn't discuss the position I am thinking of taking completely, but I'd like to think I can fill in the blanks. I'm starting to think the best way to conduct myself once arrested would be to simply go limp and stay in that position until I'm released. This means no eating, no talking and no signing, no undressing or dressing, no bail, and no violent resistance. It also means I would be urinating and defecating in my pants.

Any thoughts?

Diapers.

Interesting tactic.  Why no bathroom breaks?

If you're the one who has to clean up the guy who shit and pissed himself, would you hope he got out of jail as soon as possible?

wow ... that is hardcore
maybe they will drag you into a special room for you to die  and just hose down where you have been

Quote from: elkingrey on March 05, 2010, 06:43 PM NHFT
If you're the one who has to clean up the guy who shit and pissed himself, would you hope he got out of jail as soon as possible?

The jailers won't be the ones cleaning that up.  They'll let you stew in your own juices for a few hours and the diaper rash will make you clean it up.

Or what Russell said... they will be harder on you than you can be on them.

And even if you get passed that, crapping and peeing yourself is a ticket to a nuthouse.

I would like to think laying in my own excrement for several days still pails in comparison to what millions of other people have experienced throughout the history of the world.

Yeah, but people have also experienced pleasure and pride throughout the history of the world.  And they've experienced having their intestines pulled out too.  Why put importance on the infant stage?

Laying there soiling yourself without speaking sounds like a fast track to a psychiatric hold.

Quote from: KBCraig on March 05, 2010, 11:32 PM NHFT
Laying there soiling yourself without speaking sounds like a fast track to a psychiatric hold.

Or a US senate seat.

I'm surprised more people on this forum don't find this tactic perfectly rational. It seems to me to be the logical conclusion of complete non-cooperation. In fact, I thought it was a free stater who did this sort of thing that gave me the idea. Perhaps it was someone else.

That being said, if one refuses to do absolutely anything once arrested, it shows the captors that the state no longer has coercive power to achieve obedience, for that individual is prepared to die and cannot be bribed into compliance. It is only our fear of the state that ever gets us to comply with any of their mandates.

I am slowly coming to the conclusion that if one is not prepared to die for freedom then surely one is not prepared to live for freedom either.

Each individual must answer to themselves how far they are prepared to take it. I look at myself and cannot help but to think about how wonderful of a life I've already lived and the fact that I look forward to the day I meet my maker. Plus I think about the millions of people who have died fighting for freedom. Often times we libertarians exclaim "liberty or death!" But what many of them are guilty of, myself included, is that we are really exclaiming "liberty or death, but dear God don't put me in jail!"

I see people fed up with the system today flying planes into buildings and shooting random police officers. Yet these people have never considered civil disobedience as a viable option. I think we owe it to ourselves to at least attempt to live free and take some jail time over indiscriminate killing.

I'm knew to the concept/tactic of civil disobedience. This is largely the reason why I am attracted to New Hampshire. I see a lot of people not afraid to go to the slammer and the fact that the movement capitalizes on each person who does, getting the most bang for their buck. Here in California, if I get arrested tomorrow, it won't make a wave unless I take a large ad out in the newspaper, which I am considering doing.

There was even a civil dis class offered recently I think in New Hampshire. I would like to have attended that. I like the idea of more people getting together and spending time learning how to be effective at civil dis instead of how to appeal to the state legislature.

Clearly I am a noob at non-violent non-cooperation. I am sure I will learn through trial and error. I'm currently reading Gandhi's book on Satyagraha(non-violent resistance). It seems he made plenty of errors along the way too. Still, it seems like many of us in the liberty movement are having to reinvent the wheel. I like to be as systematic as possible. I view this whole battle for freedom like the greatest game I've ever played. It's like playing Chess, Axis & Allies, Stratego, and Poker all in one.

others call it "Life"

maybe for your first time in jail you could go all Thoreau on them
then later graduate to the full elkingrey treatment :)

 Sometimes I enjoy a little self defecating humor, butt this is just too much!  :P

One of the effects of CD is that it plays on the conscience of your captors...

Russell, Lauren, Kat etc.  carried themselves with a quiet dignity that exposed the jailers as tormentors...

I think it is a mistake to try to "overpower" your captors... that is the game they are best prepared to deal with.

I think it was Firecracker Joe that told us of the Valley Street Jail tying "unruly" prisoners into a restraint chair and leaving them to soil themselves and suffer the physical and emotional effects.

I'm all for total non-cooperation, but personally I don't think peeing on yourself will bother the captors one little bit. Instead, it might provide them with some entertainment value more than anything.

I just think being totally non-cooperative -- no speaking, no moving where and when they tell you, and no eating -- would be more effective. And heck, once you stop eating, you won't have much of a need to soil yourself.

What I'm most curious about (and may find out one day) is to what point they will allow you to do so. For example, if you stop drinking water, you're not going to last long in the jail. After a few days, if you can resist the water, you will pass out. I guess at that point, they'll either ignore you and let you die (facing a dreaded "verbal reprimand" if they do), or they'll take you to a doctor who will use force to put water and nutrients in you.

i would guess they would use the restraint thingie on you to get you dressed in their clothes ... they have threatened that with me
the jailers would feel pretty good about treating you badly if you did certain things
in the cheshire county jail some other guys in east block where throwing poop (and not in a comic way like Dale's character) out into the hall .... i told the guys that it mostly punished us, since the cops only smelled it for a bit, while we had to put up with it all day long.
i have not done as much non-cooperating as some of my friends .... if you just followed their example, you will effect the entire jail
i have even taken to walking where they want me to ... it seems to help the communication. But I could see only doing things that you want, like only walking towards the exits and such. :)

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on March 06, 2010, 08:35 AM NHFT
Russell, Lauren, Kat etc.  carried themselves with a quiet dignity that exposed the jailers as tormentors...

You didn't see my first arrest  :o

 ;D

I must have showed up right after ya'll were hauled off... me walking around... gee, where is everybody.

In your case I was more thinking about you standing in the Fed Court pointing around the room and telling them the awful things their gang does... That was a very powerful moment... they knew you were right... I wish I had the transcript.  8)

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on March 07, 2010, 11:29 AM NHFT
;D

I must have showed up right after ya'll were hauled off... me walking around... gee, where is everybody.

In your case I was more thinking about you standing in the Fed Court pointing around the room and telling them the awful things their gang does... That was a very powerful moment... they knew you were right... I wish I had the transcript.  8)

Yes, that was a great stained glass window moment, the "Shaming of the Court".   :)

Quote from: elkingrey on March 06, 2010, 02:22 AM NHFT
I'm surprised more people on this forum don't find this tactic perfectly rational. It seems to me to be the logical conclusion of complete non-cooperation. In fact, I thought it was a free stater who did this sort of thing that gave me the idea. Perhaps it was someone else.

It is logical, just difficult. 
link=topic=20251.msg319382#msg319382 date=1267863777]
That being said, if one refuses to do absolutely anything once arrested, it shows the captors that the state no longer has coercive power to achieve obedience, for that individual is prepared to die and cannot be bribed into compliance. It is only our fear of the state that ever gets us to comply with any of their mandates.

I am slowly coming to the conclusion that if one is not prepared to die for freedom then surely one is not prepared to live for freedom either.
[/quote]
I disagree.  Freedom is nothing but an intellectual concept/arguement if you are dead.  It does help those that are still alive, but I guess I am a smidge selfish, I want freedom while I am still alive.  I will not be martyring myself.  However, all movements, including the big ones in the past, are the mountain peaks that rely on a huge base of individual actions.  That is both good and bad movements.  Individuals must be willing to not cooperate, before any progress will be made on a substantial level.  I don't get to philosophical about my opposition to politics, but rather my opposition to it is that as long as we ask permission, we will always have to ask permission.  I want to strike at the root, and refuse.  I don't have to threaten anyone, yell, scream, or even get angry, (the last one is hard to do), I just have to not cooperate.  They will try to 'sanction' me, by hurting me, imprisoning me, or just try to cause pain, unfortunately that cannot be avoided. 
[/quote]
link=topic=20251.msg319382#msg319382 date=1267863777]
Each individual must answer to themselves how far they are prepared to take it. I look at myself and cannot help but to think about how wonderful of a life I've already lived and the fact that I look forward to the day I meet my maker. Plus I think about the millions of people who have died fighting for freedom. Often times we libertarians exclaim "liberty or death!" But what many of them are guilty of, myself included, is that we are really exclaiming "liberty or death, but dear God don't put me in jail!"

I see people fed up with the system today flying planes into buildings and shooting random police officers. Yet these people have never considered civil disobedience as a viable option. I think we owe it to ourselves to at least attempt to live free and take some jail time over indiscriminate killing.
[/quote]

Yup.  People console their anxieties by telling themselves that death is painless.  Successful civ dis requires one to control your anger, or like a poison the anger eats you up inside.  It destroys you, and makes you an ugly person.  For example, Ed Brown threatened the families of fed marshals.  The spouse and children of a cop or fed cop, is not in anyway harming you, and should never be the target of aggression, no matter how you read the Non Aggression Principle. 
[/quote]

link=topic=20251.msg319382#msg319382 date=1267863777]
I'm knew to the concept/tactic of civil disobedience. This is largely the reason why I am attracted to New Hampshire. I see a lot of people not afraid to go to the slammer and the fact that the movement capitalizes on each person who does, getting the most bang for their buck. Here in California, if I get arrested tomorrow, it won't make a wave unless I take a large ad out in the newspaper, which I am considering doing.

There was even a civil dis class offered recently I think in New Hampshire. I would like to have attended that. I like the idea of more people getting together and spending time learning how to be effective at civil dis instead of how to appeal to the state legislature.

Clearly I am a noob at non-violent non-cooperation. I am sure I will learn through trial and error. I'm currently reading Gandhi's book on Satyagraha(non-violent resistance). It seems he made plenty of errors along the way too. Still, it seems like many of us in the liberty movement are having to reinvent the wheel. I like to be as systematic as possible. I view this whole battle for freedom like the greatest game I've ever played. It's like playing Chess, Axis & Allies, Stratego, and Poker all in one.
[/quote]

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on March 02, 2010, 05:45 PM NHFT
If you are concerned about your insurance rates, credit rating, criminal record, gaps in your resume, or maintaining your car's resale value, I would recommend driving with a license.  If you are concerned about making things easier for unserialized people now and in the future when the police state really cracks down, I would recommend driving without a license.

I knew this, but sometimes lose sight of it.  Keeping it sweet, simple.  KISS  Good answer.   :)

I would discourage the 'tactic' of not going to the bathroom.   :o 
Noncompiance combined with a clear moral stance, is the simplest for both the activist, and the law enforcers. 
I do this in the courtroom, and when I was in jail for refusing to pay a 300 dollar fine. 

Strategically somethings are more effective than others.  While it is common for many to strategise to the point that no actual activism gets done, it is wise in my opinion, to have a focus.  It should not be some grand master plan.  Just something near and dear to your heart and values.  The gun cleaners talk, (and talk, and talk, and sometimes mix in a few threats, just so everyone knows just how serious they are) about their "line in the sand". 
To many outsiders looking in, the activism here looks very disorganized, because it is a bunch of individuals challenging the enforcers when the enforcers cross their personal line in the sand.  So one activist will do one thing here, and another activist will do one thing there.  The focus of the rest of the activists is primarily support, both physical and moral, but also, the focus is on the general idea of non aggression.  By focusing on the ideas, rather than the individuals, we remain leaderless, but stronger because they can try to arrest or intimidate with threats of arrest perceived leaders, but it is not very effective. 

Gandhi observes that all revolutions in history are born out of suffering and that there is no reason to believe that Indian independence should be an exception. I believe ours too, will be no exception.

On a personal note, I think being too afraid to die that it hampers activity is silly. Death is nothing more than the great unknown. I can understand how those who have no faith in God would not be able to take consolation in death for any cause. Perhaps that is why our country was able to achieve both a revolution and freedom, because our founders were devote in their faith.

I'm not religious. But I do have faith in God. And I do have faith in freedom. People that lose their fear of death can achieve great things. I suspect more people will lose their fear of death when they realize the alternative is a life in bondage.

i agree

Old thread revival time!

It's been a long time since I've visited this forum. Since I first created this topic my license has, in fact, expired. I've been driving without permission for over three years now. I've also been living in New Hampshire for 2.5 years.

I've yet to be pulled over, thank God. I obey all of the speed limits, usually driving 5 MPH below the speed limit. I come to complete stops. I always use my blinkers, etc.

I've thought a lot about how I would react if I ever get pulled over. I guess the answer though is that you never really know until/unless it happens. I think my most likely reaction would be to sign the piece of paper for a court date, have a friend come and get the car so that it doesn't get towed if possible. Then I'd show up to the court date, plead not guilty, go back for another court date, lose the case, not pay the fine, instead opting for community service or jail time.

The idea for me behind not getting the license has mostly to do with not funding the state, so paying fines would defeat the purpose. I would have to take solace knowing that the court + possible jail time is costing the state more than what they'd be getting from me.

Also, I think that yes, if in jail I would eat and use the restroom etc. The soiling myself and not eating idea was intriguing, but not something I'm sure would do any real good. Better to choose my battles wisely.

If you don't eat, the soiling yourself thing will eventually have diminishing returns.  Just saying.   ;D

Quote from: elkingrey on February 15, 2014, 09:44 PM NHFTThe idea for me behind not getting the license has mostly to do with not funding the state, so paying fines would defeat the purpose. I would have to take solace knowing that the court + possible jail time is costing the state more than what they'd be getting from me.

...

Better to choose my battles wisely.

Unless you brew your own fuel, they get plenty from you in fuel taxes.

I would say that the extra $10/year they get for a license doesn't really have much impact, compared to that, so in my mind that falls under choosing battles wisely.

As you noted, you...

Quote from: elkingrey on February 15, 2014, 09:44 PM NHFT...obey all of the speed limits, usually driving 5 MPH below the speed limit. I come to complete stops.

In my mind, the cost of doing all that (how many hours of my life would I waste, blindly obeying every sign some government decided to post?) is a far greater cost than the $10/year that a driver's license imposes.  Add in the inconvenience you cause for every driver who is stuck behind you when you may be driving 15 mph below what they wish to drive, and it's a large imposition on the world around you.  Given that the government does exist, and will violate our rights, the best we can do right now is to minimize that, while working to end it.  I'll opt for a small violation ($10/year, and a few minutes spent in a line) versus an violation that compounds every mile that I drive, eventually reaching tremendous proportions.  I'd far rather be able to drive in a safe, sane, and reasonable manner which does not require constant over-obedience to every traffic law, than be able to keep $10 extra each year.

Your choices may, of course, vary.  But given the limited list of options, I find that the least-offensive option.  The time and energy I save can be put to good use working to bring about the day where all of this is just a bad patch in the history books.

I don't pay anything in fuel taxes. If I'm not personally handing a check over to the state, then I'm not paying it. In other words, the gas station is paying it. Now yes, I understand that all taxes eventually end up hurting the consumer, but the point I'm trying to make is that the gas station owner charges me X for gas. I don't have a choice in that matter. If the gas station owner then wants to give a portion of what I pay him over to the state, that's his prerogative. I don't have control over what other people do. If an agorist gas station owner charged me less for gas and didn't hand over any money to the state, I would frequent his station instead.

Also, I kind of like the fact that people are stuck behind me in traffic. Maybe it will encourage them to reevaluate government traffic laws. Also, I've found that driving is much more pleasant obeying all of the laws. I'm much less concerned about always being in a hurry. Plus I'm less stressed about getting pulled over. Also, it's actually saved me a couple of times, because there were some near misses that likely would have been crashes had I been exceeding the speed limit. Also, I don't know what you're political persuasion is, but I'm an anarchist. I'd love to see everybody stop asking for permission to drive.

I like all your ideas. In some places you can go for years without interference.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 17, 2014, 02:25 PM NHFTI don't pay anything in fuel taxes. If I'm not personally handing a check over to the state, then I'm not paying it. In other words, the gas station is paying it. Now yes, I understand that all taxes eventually end up hurting the consumer, but the point I'm trying to make is that the gas station owner charges me X for gas. I don't have a choice in that matter. If the gas station owner then wants to give a portion of what I pay him over to the state, that's his prerogative. I don't have control over what other people do.

So, using the same logic, you have no problem with IRS agents who ask an employer to garnish someone's wages, right?  They don't actually take people's money... it's the employer doing it.

Sorry, but if you contract with someone to do some specific thing (and the sign at the pump clearly states that taxes are included in the price), then you are responsible for that choice.

You could get a biodiesel machine and make your own fuel, buy a diesel vehicle of appropriate vintage, and pay no road taxes.  You choose to buy gas at the pump because it's convenient, and saves you time that you would otherwise have to expend on making fuel.  I pay $10/year for a license for the same reasons.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 17, 2014, 02:25 PM NHFTAlso, I kind of like the fact that people are stuck behind me in traffic. Maybe it will encourage them to reevaluate government traffic laws.

No, it just makes us think, "what a jackass!"  I never assume someone is driving slow because of the law; I assume he's driving slow because he doesn't care about others around him.  You're free to pull over and let other drivers get by.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 17, 2014, 02:25 PM NHFTAlso, I've found that driving is much more pleasant obeying all of the laws. I'm much less concerned about always being in a hurry. Plus I'm less stressed about getting pulled over.

Sometimes, it's important to hurry.  For example, my daugther cut her head a few weeks ago, and I had to take her to the hospital.  I suppose I could have called 911 and involved the government, but it was not necessary.  Getting there in a reasonable manner, was.  If someone had been impeding traffic, I would have (justifiably) been quite annoyed.  And I would have been annoyed with that individual, not the signs on the side of the road.

I never stress about getting pulled over.  It happens once every year or three, I neither argue nor give an inch, and they go away.  Meanwhile, I save many hours of my valuable time, each year.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 17, 2014, 02:25 PM NHFTAlso, it's actually saved me a couple of times, because there were some near misses that likely would have been crashes had I been exceeding the speed limit.

No, driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions at that particular place and time saved you.  It would have saved you if the speed limit were 20mph lower, or 20mph higher.  You seem awfully concerned with the numbers on signs.  As an anarchist, I don't give a hoot what number is on a sign; I drive at a safe and appropriate speed, regardless of what number some thug has posted.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 17, 2014, 02:25 PM NHFTAlso, I don't know what you're political persuasion is, but I'm an anarchist. I'd love to see everybody stop asking for permission to drive.

I'm most definitively an anarchist.  But living in the real world, we have to deal with the fact that the government does exist.  $10 per year is a smaller infringement upon my rights than constantly obeying every arbitrary traffic sign.  I can earn $10 in minutes, and be set for the rest of the year.

I definitely have a problem with the IRS threatening business owners. But I'm threatened too, and I don't pay. So why can't they man up as well?

I don't care what the money goes to after I pay the gas station. Hell, his prices might be higher than the next because he gives 10% tithe to the Catholic Church. The point is, I have no control over what he does with the money after I give it to him. He says the price is X and I choose to pay it or not. The only difference is that he's TELLING you he's giving some of it to the state.

I'm not always free to pull over and let others drive by. Often times there is no shoulder. But the person who wants to speed almost ALWAYS has the ability to cross a double yellow and go around. Why isn't that in your playbook? You want me to speed but you're not willing to go around? Come on!!

And yes, I'm all about driving at safe speeds. I've been doing 20 MPH LESS than the speed limit over the last few weeks because the roads have been super icy. The only time I've ever felt it was dangerous to actually drive less than the speed limit is when everybody is doing 20 MPH over the speed limit in the fast lane in California. But even then, if you want to do the speed limit you simply drive in the slow lane, not the fast lane.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 17, 2014, 03:26 PM NHFT
I don't care what the money goes to after I pay the gas station.

Of course you do, just as you care that the landlord, if you rent, pays property taxes out of your rent. If he didn't, you'd soon be out of a place to live. Or, out of a place to buy gasoline.

I say I don't care because I try not to care too much about the things I have no control over. I have no control over what people do with the money I give them. I am fully aware, though, that if there were no property taxes that my rent would be about $500 less every month. So, if an agorist/disobedient landlord were willing to house me for less every month on the money he'd be saving by not paying taxes, I'd go for that.

People need to get creative in their thinking.

Imagine two landlords. One landlord pays $500 per month in property taxes. He charges $1500 a month in rent. So, he pockets $1000 a month net.

Now imagine a second landlord. He doesn't pay $500 a month in rent, even though, officially, he's supposed to. Maybe instead he's paid somebody off in the government (corruption). Let's say he pays off $250 to the "right guy" instead of the $500 he's "supposed" to. So, instead of collecting $1500 from me every month, he's only charging me $1400. $250 goes to the official he pays off and he gets to net $1150 every month. I'm happy because I'm only paying $1400 a month in rent. The landlord is happy because he's making $1150 every month instead of $1000. And the government official is happy because he's getting an extra $250 a month. Who's the loser? Whoever would have benefited from the $500 in taxes, say, the police, the teachers, etc.

This is how business is done with mafia groups. You see, the mafia doesn't buy into the whole patriotic BS about paying taxes for the "common good" and crap. Also, this is how things are done in third world nations. This is what's likely to happen here, too, at least more than it already does.

Now, let me ask you. You're a potential tenant renting a home. Would you rather rent from the guy who's charging you $1400 a month or $1500 a month? I know who I'd rather choose.

Taxes are the least of the problem with the "Drivers License"... just like filing fed taxes, the money pales compared to the big brother privacy killing features.

;D The republican position, "Think of the tax dollars wasted!" So if it was a privately funded tyranny you'd be OK with it?

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on February 17, 2014, 06:30 PM NHFT
Taxes are the least of the problem with the "Drivers License"... just like filing fed taxes, the money pales compared to the big brother privacy killing features.

Agreed.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 17, 2014, 03:26 PM NHFTI don't care what the money goes to after I pay the gas station. Hell, his prices might be higher than the next because he gives 10% tithe to the Catholic Church. The point is, I have no control over what he does with the money after I give it to him. He says the price is X and I choose to pay it or not. The only difference is that he's TELLING you he's giving some of it to the state.

So, what's your point?  You have "no control" over what the clerk at the DMV does with $50 after you hand it to him/her.  Maybe the clerk will pocket it.  Maybe the clerk will put it in the drawer and it will fund the State.  You don't have direct control over that, so according to your theory, there's no moral implication if you pay that $50 at the DMV.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 17, 2014, 03:26 PM NHFTI'm not always free to pull over and let others drive by. Often times there is no shoulder. But the person who wants to speed almost ALWAYS has the ability to cross a double yellow and go around. Why isn't that in your playbook? You want me to speed but you're not willing to go around? Come on!!

Because it's almost always unsafe to do so.  Not 100% of the time, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, the double-yellow is there because it's unsafe to pass in that location.

Speed limits, on the other hand, have almost nothing to do with the safe speed, and almost everything to do with revenue generation.  Additionally, even when set "properly," they're set based upon the skillset of a 98th-percentile driver (ie, only 2% of drivers actually have to drive slower than that to be safe, whereas 98% of drivers can drive that speed or faster in safety).  So, the odds are very good that, even if a particular speed zone was set using scientific criteria, it is ridiculously restrictive for the overwhelming majority of drivers.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 17, 2014, 03:26 PM NHFTAnd yes, I'm all about driving at safe speeds. I've been doing 20 MPH LESS than the speed limit over the last few weeks because the roads have been super icy.

That has more to do with your skill as a driver, than any sort of absolute standard of safety.  Other than during and active ice storm or somesuch, I've rarely found that conditions even require driving as slow as the speed limit, let alone slower.  But, again, I drive based upon the conditions in that place and time, not the number on a sign, whereas you've indicated that you are modifying your driving based upon some legal standard.  Doesn't seem very anarchic, to me.

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on February 17, 2014, 06:30 PM NHFTTaxes are the least of the problem with the "Drivers License"... just like filing fed taxes, the money pales compared to the big brother privacy killing features.

Could you detail some of those privacy issues?  I haven't noticed that there are many, but maybe I'm missing something?  The form is pretty basic, and doesn't really seem to require any information that the government does not already have: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/dmv/forms/documents/dsmv450.pdf

So, given that this is all stuff they have, anyway, how does it impact my privacy?  I don't elect to have my physical address displayed, so there's no real privacy risk if it's stolen by a third party, either.

 ;D They don't know where to come and kill my dog.

And by the way all the states are on board with the Real-ID in spite of our efforts to the contrary.

I've made my case. I'm not really interested in beating to death this debate. I don't really care if you have a license or not. It's your life. Plenty of anarchists have licenses. To me, asking the state for permission to drive and giving them money isn't the way to freedom. I guess it comes down to being the change I want to see in the world. I don't want to see people give money and ask permission to the state to drive, so I don't do it myself.

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on February 17, 2014, 08:38 PM NHFT;D They don't know where to come and kill my dog.

Pretty sure they already know.

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on February 17, 2014, 08:38 PM NHFTAnd by the way all the states are on board with the Real-ID in spite of our efforts to the contrary.

Hasn't happened here, yet.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 17, 2014, 08:42 PM NHFTI've made my case.

I really don't think that you have.  You've said you don't have a license because you don't want money to go to the State, but you buy gas at the pump, which funnels far more money to the State.  It would be inconvenient, but nowhere near impossible, to avoid doing that.  So, why is one thing acceptable, and the other unacceptable?

Quote from: elkingrey on February 17, 2014, 08:42 PM NHFTI don't really care if you have a license or not. It's your life. Plenty of anarchists have licenses. To me, asking the state for permission to drive and giving them money isn't the way to freedom.

Could you please point out where I've ever asked the State's permission for anything?  I fill out a one-page form and pay $50 every five years to avoid being assaulted by sociopathic scumbags with tin badges.  Can't see where "permission" comes into it...

And, as already noted, you give them money every time you fill up your tank.  You don't have to do so, but you choose to, because it's easier.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 17, 2014, 08:42 PM NHFTI guess it comes down to being the change I want to see in the world. I don't want to see people give money and ask permission to the state to drive, so I don't do it myself.

By the way, does your car have license plates?  Do you pay registration fees to keep them current?  Do you get it inspected?  If you do any of those, why that, and not a license?

This all seems rather arbitrary.  You could readily avoid paying fuel taxes (heck, you don't even need to brew your own - you can just get a diesel vehicle and fill up at the "off road" pump, and avoid the fuel tax), but you do not.  I'm guessing you have a license plate on your car, or I imagine you'd be pulled over frequently.  So, you comply with certain things, but then there's this one thing, which costs less than those, and you refuse to comply with that one particular thing?

I mean, it's your life; I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from on this, because I'd like to understand it.

I think you and I are on totally different wavelengths.

But to answer a couple of your questions, I don't actually own a car. My wife does. It's in her name and she chooses to register it. So, in that regard I am somewhat flying under the radar since the vehicle is "legal."

The purity argument is tedious... we all choose a path, some participate more than others.

The one aspect that I have found surprising in my involvement with Free Staters is the reaction (by many) to my non-participation in big brother's programs. Somehow I figured that at least people would understand, even if they chose a different (less difficult) path.

Inch by inch the powers that be have accustomed people to giving in. School, work, using a car, getting a credit card, etc... the web that has been created is unescapable, or so they want you to believe... resistance is futile... just go along, even your own family will marginalize you, push you out. Like everyone else, just accept that you are owned.

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on February 17, 2014, 11:30 PM NHFTThe purity argument is tedious... we all choose a path, some participate more than others.

The one aspect that I have found surprising in my involvement with Free Staters is the reaction (by many) to my non-participation in big brother's programs. Somehow I figured that at least people would understand, even if they chose a different (less difficult) path.

Many things, I can understand.  As you noted, there is no "pure" path (other than going off and living in the woods, I suppose), because the system is set up to prevent that.  So, we each make choices.

Someone choosing not to answer the Census, for example, makes a lot of sense on a cost/benefit analysis.  It's not a major "win" on the benefits side, but the cost (potential penalty, and odds of even facing that penalty) is very, very low.

Lots of things can make sense.  I just can't see avoiding a driver's license as one of them.  The cost is very, very high - if you get caught, the penalties are substantial, and the odds of getting caught are high.  You can reduce the odds by modifying your entire driving technique, thereby incurring substantial cost for yourself, and also causing those around you to incur substantial cost.  And the benefits don't seem to be substantial - the economic benefit is tiny, and I can't see that there's any substantial privacy benefit, since the government already has all of that information.

Someone worried about the privacy aspect could put in a maildrop for an address, for example.  Ilegal, or course, but the odds of getting caught are very small, so the cost is not substantial.

I also can't see that it offers any benefit as activism.  Someone who goes around telling everyone he knows that he drives without a license is going to get reported, so that's not really practical (preaching to the choir doesn't count - I'm talking about using it to "convert" those who aren't already on the side of liberty).  And, if he does get caught and uses his trial to attempt to bring light to this form of oppression, the typical member of the population is not going to be swayed; almost everyone accepts that licensing of drivers is needed for "safety," and will oppose anyone going without a license.  Going after some of the ridiculous professional licensing would be more likely to win converts - it's far easier to convince someone that a barber really doesn't need a license in order to give you a good haircut, or somesuch.  The cost would still be there, but the benefits would be substantial enough that it would make sense to deal with that cost.

As I said, I'm trying to understand this, but I can't seem to see a rational basis for that decision; it seems like it's entirely emotional.  If someone had already cut out every other more-substantial sort of interaction with the State, and this was just the next step in the line, it would make sense.  But if someone is driving a registered car, paying hundred of dollars in fuel taxes each year, etc., then this doesn't seem like it's anywhere close to being the next step.  If I fill my tank once, I've been forced to pay the State about the same as the yearly cost of a driver's license.  The whole thing just does not seem to mesh - it offers little benefit, requires susbtantial cost, and most or all of those doing it are still participating in more-substantial ways.

Wear a coat in the winter, or freeze. 

Hint: Government is the winter.

Quote from: MaineShark on February 18, 2014, 07:13 AM NHFT

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on February 17, 2014, 11:30 PM NHFTThe purity argument is tedious... we all choose a path, some participate more than others.

The one aspect that I have found surprising in my involvement with Free Staters is the reaction (by many) to my non-participation in big brother's programs. Somehow I figured that at least people would understand, even if they chose a different (less difficult) path.

Many things, I can understand.  As you noted, there is no "pure" path (other than going off and living in the woods, I suppose), because the system is set up to prevent that.  So, we each make choices.

Someone choosing not to answer the Census, for example, makes a lot of sense on a cost/benefit analysis.  It's not a major "win" on the benefits side, but the cost (potential penalty, and odds of even facing that penalty) is very, very low.

Lots of things can make sense.  I just can't see avoiding a driver's license as one of them.  The cost is very, very high - if you get caught, the penalties are substantial, and the odds of getting caught are high.  You can reduce the odds by modifying your entire driving technique, thereby incurring substantial cost for yourself, and also causing those around you to incur substantial cost.  And the benefits don't seem to be substantial - the economic benefit is tiny, and I can't see that there's any substantial privacy benefit, since the government already has all of that information.

Someone worried about the privacy aspect could put in a maildrop for an address, for example.  Ilegal, or course, but the odds of getting caught are very small, so the cost is not substantial.

I also can't see that it offers any benefit as activism.  Someone who goes around telling everyone he knows that he drives without a license is going to get reported, so that's not really practical (preaching to the choir doesn't count - I'm talking about using it to "convert" those who aren't already on the side of liberty).  And, if he does get caught and uses his trial to attempt to bring light to this form of oppression, the typical member of the population is not going to be swayed; almost everyone accepts that licensing of drivers is needed for "safety," and will oppose anyone going without a license.  Going after some of the ridiculous professional licensing would be more likely to win converts - it's far easier to convince someone that a barber really doesn't need a license in order to give you a good haircut, or somesuch.  The cost would still be there, but the benefits would be substantial enough that it would make sense to deal with that cost.

As I said, I'm trying to understand this, but I can't seem to see a rational basis for that decision; it seems like it's entirely emotional.  If someone had already cut out every other more-substantial sort of interaction with the State, and this was just the next step in the line, it would make sense.  But if someone is driving a registered car, paying hundred of dollars in fuel taxes each year, etc., then this doesn't seem like it's anywhere close to being the next step.  If I fill my tank once, I've been forced to pay the State about the same as the yearly cost of a driver's license.  The whole thing just does not seem to mesh - it offers little benefit, requires susbtantial cost, and most or all of those doing it are still participating in more-substantial ways.

FYI, when my license expired 3.5 years ago in California I wrote a letter to the editor in my local newspaper (and it was published) that I would be driving w/o a license anyways, and my reasons for doing so. Cops never targeted me. So that throws out your theory that I'd "get reported." I've been telling lots of people, including strangers that I drive without permission. Hasn't bitten me yet, thank God.

And also, I recently read an article that 10% of Minnesota drivers don't have licenses. I don't know what the numbers were like in California, but with all of the illegals there, I guaranty you the numbers of people driving without licenses was high. So, that also shoots to hell your theory that 'almost everyone accepts that licensing of drivers is needed for "safety,"'

I disobey lots of government laws. My attitude is that if you can't be bothered to drive without a license, you're not ready to disobey the big boy stuff.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 18, 2014, 01:39 PM NHFTFYI, when my license expired 3.5 years ago in California I wrote a letter to the editor in my local newspaper (and it was published) that I would be driving w/o a license anyways, and my reasons for doing so. Cops never targeted me. So that throws out your theory that I'd "get reported." I've been telling lots of people, including strangers that I drive without permission. Hasn't bitten me yet, thank God.

And also, I recently read an article that 10% of Minnesota drivers don't have licenses. I don't know what the numbers were like in California, but with all of the illegals there, I guaranty you the numbers of people driving without licenses was high. So, that also shoots to hell your theory that 'almost everyone accepts that licensing of drivers is needed for "safety,"'

We're not talking about California or Minnesota.  We're talking about New Hampshire.  And no, telling strangers won't get you reported, since strangers don't know who you are, in order to report you.  It also won't convince them of anything, because folks are typically convinced by those they know, not some stranger they just met.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 18, 2014, 01:39 PM NHFTI disobey lots of government laws. My attitude is that if you can't be bothered to drive without a license, you're not ready to disobey the big boy stuff.

That makes little sense, since you proactively go out of your way to obey the traffic laws, except for that one particular law.  You not only obey them, but you've stated that you typically drive less than the speed limit, in order to make sure that you don't get pulled over.  So, you're not only obey, but over-obeying.  When you're 99.9% obedient and 0.1% disobedient, you're not in a position to put yourself forward as some bastion of disobedience.  You're disobeying something very minor, and talking like you're doing some big, important thing.

The difference is that I actually WANT to obey the traffic laws. I don't go out and break laws just for the sake of breaking laws. I don't smoke pot because I don't want to, not because it's illegal. I obey the traffic laws because I want to, not because it's illegal. I was driving under the speed limit, and using my blinkers, well before my license ever expired.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 18, 2014, 03:15 PM NHFTThe difference is that I actually WANT to obey the traffic laws. I don't go out and break laws just for the sake of breaking laws. I don't smoke pot because I don't want to, not because it's illegal. I obey the traffic laws because I want to, not because it's illegal. I was driving under the speed limit, and using my blinkers, well before my license ever expired.

You don't see the issue with wanting to obey laws?  Why would any anarchist want to obey laws?

I want to (and do) drive safely.  Sometimes that means I'm obeying the law (eg, I always use turn signals).  Other times, that means I am not obeying the law.  My goal is safe driving, not obedience; whether I am or am not in compliance with the law at any given time results from whether that particular law is or is not reasonable for that place&time, because I'm going to drive in a reasonable and safe manner, regardless.  Your goal is, by your own statement, to obey.

It's not about being disobedient for the sake of being disobedient.  It's about whether one even gives a hoot.  Going out of one's way to either obey or to disobey still acknowledges the law.  I'll drive in a safe and reasonable manner, regardless of the law.  If a speed limit in some area happens to be reasonable, you'll see me driving that speed.  If it's unreasonably-low, I'll be driving faster.  If it's unreasonably-high, I'll be driving slower.  My actions will be unrelated to the number on the sign, because signs don't magically control my life.

You talk about "being the change," but I certainly don't want to see a world in which folks want to be obedient, so that does not seem like the sort of "change" I should "be."

It's not about wanting to be obedient. I think you're really stretching things.

I actually think the speed limits are fairly reasonable, by and large. For example, when a 50 turns into a 30 when you come into town the roads may be perfectly safe to continue to do 50. Sure, there's nobody around. But what about the noise your car causes? Those houses on the street have to listen to cars drive by all day and there's a big difference in the noise factor between 30 and 50.

Look, in an ideal world the roads would all be completely privately owned. There would be no licenses, but there would surely be traffic rules, such as speed, right of way, etc.

I really can't believe you're defending licenses so bad. Are they something you never want to get rid of? If you want to get rid of them, are you waiting until the government no longer issues licenses? Do you vote? I don't vote. I just live life.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 18, 2014, 03:42 PM NHFTIt's not about wanting to be obedient. I think you're really stretching things.

I don't.  Since you've flat-out said that you want to be obedient.  Those are your words.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 18, 2014, 03:42 PM NHFTI actually think the speed limits are fairly reasonable, by and large.

Science disagrees.  Speed limits, if they are set "properly," are based upon 98th-percentile drivers.  So they are excessively restrictive for 98% of the population.  And, in many (probably most) cases, they are then further reduced in order to generate ticket revenue.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 18, 2014, 03:42 PM NHFTFor example, when a 50 turns into a 30 when you come into town the roads may be perfectly safe to continue to do 50. Sure, there's nobody around. But what about the noise your car causes? Those houses on the street have to listen to cars drive by all day and there's a big difference in the noise factor between 30 and 50.

Interesting.  Previously, you said that it pleased you to cause gross inconvenience to other drivers.  Now, you're stating that drivers should be considerate of others.  Which is it?

Quote from: elkingrey on February 18, 2014, 03:42 PM NHFTLook, in an ideal world the roads would all be completely privately owned. There would be no licenses, but there would surely be traffic rules, such as speed, right of way, etc.

I doubt there would be numerical speed limits.  "Reasonable and prudent" is a good rule.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 18, 2014, 03:42 PM NHFTI really can't believe you're defending licenses so bad. Are they something you never want to get rid of? If you want to get rid of them, are you waiting until the government no longer issues licenses?

Engage in logical fallacies, much?  False dichotomy, strawman, ad hominem... I could go on.  You have a whole plethora of them, just in a couple sentences.

I've specifically said that it's wrong for the government to require licenses.  I've also said that it's a poor choice of activism.  Folks do it because it's easy, not because it is in any way effective.  And the same folks will pay all manner of taxes on fuel, food, and the like, because avoiding those (even though they constitute a far greater issue) is somewhat inconvenient.

Quote from: elkingrey on February 18, 2014, 03:42 PM NHFTDo you vote? I don't vote. I just live life.

Yup, I vote.  I go in and write "none of the above" under each office, and "no" on each spending item, and to repeal any ordinance which is offered for repeal.  It's effective activism, as it helps to reduce the apparent percentage of consent (to those still in the system, whom we are trying to reach, both "yes" votes and staying home are viewed as consent), and often helps to directly reduce the amount of violence perpetrated against innocents.

You're right. I'm wrong. You win. Have a nice day.

Quote from: Jim Johnson on February 18, 2014, 09:28 AM NHFT
Wear a coat in the winter, or freeze. 

Hint: Government is the winter.

I thought Edgar was the Winter.   Dude is white as snow.

Quote from: Free libertarian on February 18, 2014, 04:14 PM NHFT

Quote from: Jim Johnson on February 18, 2014, 09:28 AM NHFT
Wear a coat in the winter, or freeze. 

Hint: Government is the winter.

I thought Edgar was the Winter.   Dude is white as snow.

But, Johnny was cooler!

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on February 18, 2014, 05:23 PM NHFT

Quote from: Free libertarian on February 18, 2014, 04:14 PM NHFT

Quote from: Jim Johnson on February 18, 2014, 09:28 AM NHFT
Wear a coat in the winter, or freeze. 

Hint: Government is the winter.

I thought Edgar was the Winter.   Dude is white as snow.

But, Johnny was cooler!

I can't believe how you guys just go off track... squirrel!

I like the way you think egrey.
we all do things a little differently ... but I can get along great with the ones that don't try to hurt me or others and are trying to go against the system a little bit at a time ... or a lot at once.
I don't like debaters, those that hurt us, and those that tell us we are doing it the wrong way.
So egrey is my buddy :)

oh btw Tom Sawyer, under torture I told the feds that your dog, was a nsa agent.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on February 20, 2014, 10:26 PM NHFTI don't like debaters, those that hurt us, and those that tell us we are doing it the wrong way.
So egrey is my buddy :)

Except that's exactly what he's doing:

Quote from: elkingrey on February 18, 2014, 01:39 PM NHFTI disobey lots of government laws. My attitude is that if you can't be bothered to drive without a license, you're not ready to disobey the big boy stuff.

I'm assuming that you have a CDL, at this point, right?  According to him, you must not be ready for "big boy stuff," then...

Sorry, but I'm not tolerant of the One-True-Way types.

I personally know of two people who couldn't satisfy NH ID requirements for a Drivers License... both have had licenses for 30+ years, Passports, military security clearances, etc.

The shots are being called by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (http://www.aamva.org/Default.aspx)... no need to deal with all those pesky state legislatures, just get this one organization to push the big brother plans through. Just like virtually all police departments now follow the same policies and procedures...

Joe, you're mischaracterizing the interaction.

elkingrey revived a thread to express his noncooperation to a hopefully receptive audience of fellow travelers. You enjoy the debating, and are pretty good at it... elkingrey's mistake was being baited and allowing you to establish the focus. It's not about the gasoline tax or the license fee etc. Hell if I could pay these assholes to leave me alone I would.

I am up for big boy stuph. I just can't beat kids in street races. :(
It is amazing how much federal and state road taxes I pay. I curse the state when I hit potholes after all the money I pay.
On one of the trucking radio shows recently they said that Amtrak wants to start tapping into the federal highway money we all pay.

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on February 20, 2014, 11:12 PM NHFTJoe, you're mischaracterizing the interaction.

elkingrey revived a thread to express his noncooperation to a hopefully receptive audience of fellow travelers. You enjoy the debating, and are pretty good at it... elkingrey's mistake was being baited and allowing you to establish the focus. It's not about the gasoline tax or the license fee etc. Hell if I could pay these assholes to leave me alone I would.

According to him that's very much what it's about:

Quote from: elkingrey on February 15, 2014, 09:44 PM NHFTThe idea for me behind not getting the license has mostly to do with not funding the state...

The selection of focus was his, and his alone.

I like taking sides in a debate

Quote from: MaineShark on February 17, 2014, 08:57 PM NHFT

Quote from: elkingrey on February 17, 2014, 08:42 PM NHFTI don't really care if you have a license or not. It's your life. Plenty of anarchists have licenses. To me, asking the state for permission to drive and giving them money isn't the way to freedom.

Could you please point out where I've ever asked the State's permission for anything?  I fill out a one-page form and pay $50 every five years to avoid being assaulted by sociopathic scumbags with tin badges.  Can't see where "permission" comes into it

Any time you apply for a license or permit you are asking for permission.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/License

The verb license or grant license means to give permission. The noun license (American English) or licence (British English,[1] Indian English,[2] Canadian English,[3] Australian English,[4] New Zealand English,[5] South African English[6]) refers to that permission as well as to the document recording that permission.

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on February 20, 2014, 11:12 PM NHFT
Joe, you're mischaracterizing the interaction.

elkingrey revived a thread to express his noncooperation to a hopefully receptive audience of fellow travelers. You enjoy the debating, and are pretty good at it... elkingrey's mistake was being baited and allowing you to establish the focus. It's not about the gasoline tax or the license fee etc. Hell if I could pay these assholes to leave me alone I would.

Nice summary.  Yet you still haven't explained to us about your dog.  Hmmm.   

Quote from: blackie on February 21, 2014, 02:18 AM NHFT

Quote from: MaineShark on February 17, 2014, 08:57 PM NHFTCould you please point out where I've ever asked the State's permission for anything?  I fill out a one-page form and pay $50 every five years to avoid being assaulted by sociopathic scumbags with tin badges.  Can't see where "permission" comes into it

Any time you apply for a license or permit you are asking for permission.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/License

The verb license or grant license means to give permission. The noun license (American English) or licence (British English,[1] Indian English,[2] Canadian English,[3] Australian English,[4] New Zealand English,[5] South African English[6]) refers to that permission as well as to the document recording that permission.

You just quoted an article on licensing of copyrights, patents, and such.

However, even despite that, the article is helpful, as it states that:

QuoteA shorthand definition of license is "a promise by the licensor not to sue the licensee."

In the case of driver licensing, replace "sue" with "attack and cage."

It certainly involves granting permission, but that does not mean that the licensee has actually asked for permission.  There are many cases in which permission is granted without a request on the part of the individual receiving permission.  In some cases, an individual may even act contrary to permission, and then be granted permission after that fact (eg, if someone crashes a party to which he was not invited, but the host then notices him and says, "everyone seems to be enjoying your company, so I guess you can stay).

It is permission, it's a permit.

I completely understand that it's under duress, and I don't fault people for choosing not to take it on... much as I pay property taxes to avoid them stealing my home. To attempt to take a pure liberty position leads to death. At the same time giving in to everything because... well... everyone is doing it, ya can't fight city hall, etc is not a moral, proper or acceptable liberty position... in the end I can't stomach much of what everyone else does out of fear or ignorance. So, much of what I do is because I'm unable to handle the anger and frustration of being bent over the barrel.

Kanning's claims of NSA employment of my dog are "...his, and his alone."  ;D

I still stand by Johnny being cooler than Edgar, even though the Junior Hign version of me sure rocked out to Frankenstein (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIldF-pGUCU) the album, long version of course!

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on February 21, 2014, 09:59 AM NHFTIt is permission, it's a permit.

It is permission on their end.  That does not mean that permission was "asked for" by the licensee.

A while back, a cop pulled me over because I did not stop for a stop sign.  I did not stop because the configuration of the road in that location would make a yielding, rather than stopping, the appropriate way that a sensible person would behave.  The stop sign is improper, so I ignored it.

So, this cop comes to the window and asks for my license and registration.  I tell him that I do not have the registration handy, so he asks if the registration has my name on it, and goes back to his cruiser.

He comes back and asks if I'm new to the area, and I tell him that no, I've lived here for years.  He asks if I saw the stop sign.  I tell him that I did.

His only response was, "please at least slow down for it, next time," and then he left.

So, without any request on my part, he not only accepted my previous action, but unilaterally granted me permission to do similar in the future.  Without me asking anything at all.

The granting of permission does not automatically imply a request for permission.  There may be no request, or there may be a seperate request.  Some homeless individual might ask me for money, but I might invite him to join me for lunch as my guest - his request was one thing, by my permission (to join me for lunch) was separate.

I lie under torture.
BTW the fed dot has reminded us that even if a state legalizes mj we as dot slaves are not allowed to recreate.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on February 21, 2014, 12:06 PM NHFT
I lie under torture.
BTW the fed dot has reminded us that even if a state legalizes mj we as dot slaves are not allowed to recreate.

Look, I know most of us will respond to torture, but you didn't tell them the secret password or show them the secret hand shake did you?  Please tell me you didn't, doggone it.

would telling them where graffy lives, be a lie?

Graffy is my homeboy.

well .... let's see
I guess a cop has not asked to see my license for a couple of months now. The TSA has a bunch of shippers checking for licenses, so I have had to show mine like 3 times this month. It makes you feel all warm and nazi inside when they demand it.

When the shippers check for licenses do they get to wear a badge and get all "milgrammy" cuz the man in the white coat said they had to?

Quote from: Free libertarian on February 24, 2014, 06:57 AM NHFTWhen the shippers check for licenses do they get to wear a badge and get all "milgrammy" cuz the man in the white coat said they had to?

Can we give him a prize for that one?  I think that's one of the best new words I've seen in a while... (or, well, worst in that we need such a word, but best in terms of being able to describe such behavior)

mostly matter of fact
what is funny is that only a fraction of them do it .... so it must hold no penalties ... they do it more the closer you get to mexico

I've always had a license, but for years I had a habit of really pushing the limits when it came to renewing car tags or safety inspections.

I finally decided that being so cautious to avoid any police attention made me more of a slave than just paying the damn money. Not to mention the stress it caused every time I drove.

that is kinda funny .... because car tags seem cheap and not very invasive to me .... but asking for a license to drive is rotten. It might also depend how long the lines are to get them. :)

Quote from: Russell Kanning on February 26, 2014, 08:20 PM NHFTthat is kinda funny .... because car tags seem cheap and not very invasive to me ....

Eh?  Registration is more invasive, because it gives the government a list of what you have, not just telling them that you may, at some point, drive some vehicle of some sort, which may or may not be one that you actually own, or you may do none of those things at all.  Other than, "this guy may decide to drive," the license gives them almost nothing.  Registration details the exact vehicles that you have.

And registration costs far more than a license.  A license costs $50 for five years in NH.  Most folks are paying a lot more than that per year for registration on each vehicle, and a lot of folks may have more than one vehicle - which becomes even more ridiculous when you have to pay full registration on a vehicle that you may only drive a handful of times each year.

I've often wanted to have a second vehicle that was more fuel-efficient than my truck, just because I dislike wasting things, including fuel.  But from an economic standpoint, even if someone gave me a vehicle, the registration costs exceed what I could save in fuel by using it for the small number of long trips that I take each year.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on February 26, 2014, 08:20 PM NHFTbut asking for a license to drive is rotten. It might also depend how long the lines are to get them. :)

Never had a line in NH, and even if I did, it would only be twice per decade.  On the other hand, registration is at the whim of the Town Clerk, and some of them can be real jerks, causing far more difficulty than one would have to endure, even if there were a long line at the DMV.  And it's yearly, so the hassle multiplies.

can you realize that I was joking with KB about our different perceptions?
I was not telling him he was wrong.
For me the car paperwork is kinda impersonal. Whereas the drivers license is the method the government uses to ID each of us.
I guess you see it the other way around. That doesn't bother me at all. In fact it is interesting. :)

Quote from: Russell Kanning on February 27, 2014, 12:08 AM NHFTcan you realize that I was joking with KB about our different perceptions?
I was not telling him he was wrong.

Didn't say you were.  Just giving a comparison.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on February 27, 2014, 12:08 AM NHFTFor me the car paperwork is kinda impersonal. Whereas the drivers license is the method the government uses to ID each of us.
I guess you see it the other way around. That doesn't bother me at all. In fact it is interesting. :)

If it were the case that few folks had licenses, I'd agree.  But the reality is that the overwhelming majority get them, so they don't offer much information to the government.

And, given how readily someone without a license could drive a car, anyway (versus with no plates, where they'd be pulled over in fairly short order), it doesn't even really tell the government whether or not you may drive a car.  It gives them virtually nothing, in terms of information about you.

Registration tells them a lot of detail about not just the fact that you exist (which they know, anyway), but what sort of choices you make in life.  Many states require your yearly mileage (and with the push to go for mileage-based taxation, that may even come to NH), so they even know something about how much traveling you do.  Because they have your VIN, they know exactly what option packages your vehicle has, which can help them if they want to spy on you.  Registration gives them a lot of information that they otherwise would not have.

Plus, it's a lot more expensive than a license, so it puts a lot more money into their hands.

I sometimes just hand the feds money by standing too close to a fuel pump

Hi all.
I wanted to put a good word in.
I used to drive w/o permission from the state. I have greatly reduced my driving not having a car. It broke down and I sold it. Sometimes out of necessity I will get behind the wheel and when I do I follow all the rules to the letter to avoid imprisonment. I want to note it is not having a car that is the critical factor here, not the lack of permission.

The reason for the lack of permission is the state took the drivers license. Apparently it wasn't mine if some entity can take it from me, and if that action is not theft by law, the dl obviously wasn't mine in the first place. If permission from the state somehow granted me immunity from natural law (crashing and dying) then maybe it would be worth it to bow down. But it doesn't.

I have empathy for people that go down this path of civdis especially out of conscious choice as elkingrey has chosen as opposed to how I stumbled on my path to freedom.

I know people comply with the state largely out of fear or because that is what their peers and family expect from them. This understanding doesn't go much further because the external pressure leads folks to become an enforcer of the state. That is the opposite of liberty imo.

exactly

Quote from: Mark D. Jacobsen on March 10, 2014, 09:26 AM NHFTSometimes out of necessity I will get behind the wheel and when I do I follow all the rules to the letter to avoid imprisonment.

That, is the opposite of liberty.

Quote from: MaineShark on March 10, 2014, 04:47 PM NHFT

Quote from: Mark D. Jacobsen on March 10, 2014, 09:26 AM NHFTSometimes out of necessity I will get behind the wheel and when I do I follow all the rules to the letter to avoid imprisonment.

That, is the opposite of liberty.

Amazing, it's also the opposite of stupid; as in "Fuck you cop!"  eerrrrrrr, brooooom, "I'm Free, woo hoo!"

Quote from: Jim Johnson on March 10, 2014, 05:08 PM NHFT

Quote from: MaineShark on March 10, 2014, 04:47 PM NHFT

Quote from: Mark D. Jacobsen on March 10, 2014, 09:26 AM NHFTSometimes out of necessity I will get behind the wheel and when I do I follow all the rules to the letter to avoid imprisonment.

That, is the opposite of liberty.

Amazing, it's also the opposite of stupid; as in "Fuck you cop!"  eerrrrrrr, brooooom, "I'm Free, woo hoo!"

One does not have to obey all the rules, to avoid that scenario.  In fact, it's possible to ignore most of the rules, most of the time, and still avoid jail.

Unless you're breaking one of the "instant gotcha" rules (like driving without a license), in which case the least little violation (even accidental) can result in a jail trip.

Welcome to the forum Mark.  :) Some folks here will debate your choices, most will accept them.

In NH no license is (last I checked) a 75 dollar fine and they might tow the car. The tow, inconvenience and stress of the encounter is the worst of it.

Not having a license is not the same as a revoked license.

Getting caught without a license or even a suspended one .... In my case.....will often mean nothing in a  CA .     I guess that is where the freedom is.
In NH it always was trouble.
Now I have about a hundred ways to lose my license.... And if caught... They throw me in the darkest DOT pit.

^^^ Kin folk said move away from there...Californy is the place you otta be!  So they loaded up the truck up and moved to Grafton?

(okay I'm mixing messages here)

It gets confusing

I got nailed for driving in Virginia on a "suspended license".  I had previously received a whoop-de-do ticket for failing to obey a sign in Virginia a few years ago, and I had neglected to pay it, so they created a Virginia license for me and then suspended it.  I was already familiar with that trick, as I may have even posted on it here previously, since a decade ago, Vermont had created a Vermont driver's license for me and suspended it when they discovered I had a 22 year old, outstanding speeding fine.  The inconvenience it created for me was that when my New Hampshire license came up for its 5 year renewal, they would not renew it until I got my Vermont suspension lifted.  Incredibly, Vermont didn't charge me any interest on the 22 year old fine, and the administrative penalty was only about $35.

But Virginia has decided to make some serious money on this, so I had to pay something like $700 in penalties and fines and fees to lift that suspension.  I also got an interesting lesson from the prosecutor.  He asked me what the facts were and I told him, and then he said , "Oh, then you WEREN'T driving on a suspended license.  You were driving without a license".  I thought I had made the facts clear, but it seemed like I hadn't, so I spelled it out again.  He listened patiently.  Then he made a few irrelevant comments, and then he said, "So you see, you weren't driving on a suspended license".  He seemed awfully thick, so I took it real slow, like, "What.....does.... a.....yellow.....light.....mean?"  This time, he took a different tack.  He said it was a good thing that I didn't have a license, because driving on a suspended license was a serious crime but driving without a license was not, and he said he had a lot more discretion in prosecuting for driving wthout a license than he did with driving on a suspended one.  Oh!  He wasn't thick.  I was thick.  As long as we pretended I was simply driving without a license, he could get the charge amended and let me off easy.

In retrospect, I do see that driving on a suspended license is more serious because a judge had explicitly ordered me not to drive and I was violating his order, whereas if I simply didn't have a license, it might just be that I had neglected to process the renewal in a timely manner.

Virginia and Texas share that "administrative surcharge" scheme. I know someone who had never had a Texas license, whose license from another state had expired (not suspended, just lapsed and never renewed).

When stopped for an issue of having the right sticker on the windshield and discovered to be unlicensed ($150 fine), Texas created a license and then suspended it, and added an $1,100 surcharge to be paid in equal installments over three years.

They won't even allow a lump payment: nope, they want you on the hook for equal payments, on time, or they'll suspend that created license again.

A Driver's License is a contract... so now one party can create and enforce a contract on another, the hapless victim.  :P

Yep crazy one sided non contract.

It seemed nh jus suspended my driving privilege, instead of inventing a license for me.

If licenses didn't exist, States would have had to invent them.

I got a speeding ticket in Alabama and did not pay it. The state of Maine suspended my license within 6 months. They treat it as if the violation happened in the home state.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact

Georgia, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Tennessee are not members.[2] American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators:[3] Nevada repealed the authorizing legislation in 2007,[4] although it still generally conforms to the agreement through regulations.[2]

QuoteIt is not supposed to include non-moving violations like parking tickets...

Had a friend that got pulled over in Florida, they thought he had unpaid parking tickets in D.C. He spent the weekend in jail, they left his sweet vintage BMW on the side of the road, it got all shot up. Turned out he didn't have unpaid tickets. Oh well, have a nice day!

DMVs are self-motivated to work together in collecting fines and I'm sure most governments are fine with the extra money as well as the 'kill'm all and let God sort'm out' attitude.

I remember when New York state was ready to go to war with New Hampshire over its lack of cooperation in enforcing New York issued fines.  That was when Mel Thompson wanted our National Guard to get nuclear weapons.

It turned out that there were a whole slew of erroneous tickets issued in New York because back then, dots and hyphens were not considered as significant characters in New York and several other states but were simply placed in the middle of plate numbers to enhance reading and memorization, whereas in New Hampshire, they were significant characters, so New York police often omitted them when recording license plates, thus resulting in misidentification of vehicles.

That was, at least, innocent confusion.  I also remember that just before Massachusetts governor Ed King left office, he had the Massachusetts MVA issue license plates to his friends that included characters that were not found on the standard teletype keyboards of that era, so they couldn't conveniently be reported.  It didn't take long for Dukakis 1.2 to recall and replace them.

endless craziness
I like to see all the stories

I just reread this thread after some years. I am not sure I agree with what I wrote before but I do agree with the why.

To people that are 'licensed', are those licenses similar to ss cards that express the cards are property of some other entity?

Thanks for welcoming me to the forums Tom Sawyer.

  I am considering the colander on the head for the next drivers license photo.  I know it's not original, but I'm sure I could customize it somehow, being that I'm not a spaghetti believer and have a greater affinity for elbow macaroni.   

It's a little known fact that the moment your "license" expires you lose the ability to drive.

I haven't had their paper for a long time now... no harm to the public has occurred during that time frame.

Talk about your necro-thread....

I don't know what the OP finally decided, but I do know him. I see his parents regularly.

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 23, 2016, 09:05 AM NHFT
It's a little known fact that the moment your "license" expires you lose the ability to drive.

I haven't had their paper for a long time now... no harm to the public has occurred during that time frame.

You got something against colanders? 


You see, under the interstate commerce clause, your not buying a colander to wear on your head HAS effected the potential commerce, therefore government has an interest. 

Quote from: KBCraig on April 23, 2016, 11:38 PM NHFT
Talk about your necro-thread....

I don't know what the OP finally decided, but I do know him. I see his parents regularly.

Wait a minute...this thread is dead?   So, put the colander back in the cabinet?

my license from Texas doesn't say anything about who owns it or anything in small print

My basic argument now is if you have no recourse if someone takes something from you it wasn't yours to begin with.

hmmm
I guess I disagree. I could own something .... have it stolen by the government thugs ... and have no recourse.

"....if someone takes something from you it wasn't yours to begin with." means you don't own your life.

Perhaps it's a matter of you only "own" what you are able to defend.

.....what you claim and are able to defend?

Becky said, "So we don't own our house?"

I said, "Of course we don't, we just rent it from the gooberment. Try not paying the property tax, and you'll find out." Try defending when they come to take it.

It sucks, because we are talking about what should be and what is.

quoting myself
"My basic argument now is if you have no recourse if someone takes something from you it wasn't yours to begin with."
i would like to change that to if 'the guv' takes something that 'the guv' is the reason you get their certification, the card or privilege wasn't yours to begin with. I refuse to believe that travel is something granted to me.
When did drivers licenses become mandatory?
I was told a story about a young girl driving her drunk dad home and being pulled over by the fuzz. She was unlicensed and she was barely a teenager. This lady was 70 in approx 1990. I don't think there were dl's in 1930, at least in WA state. So if there were no licenses was this gal a criminal?

 The state is a criminal organization. 

This can be evidenced by the means they use, which if the same means were used by mere mortals would be universally seen as bad, but magically becomes "not bad" when applied by the state.   



   

   

Wear your coat when it's cold until you build a house.
Wear your shoes in the stones until you make a path.
To ignore what is harmful will always end in your pain.

Quote from: Jim Johnson on May 02, 2016, 10:13 AM NHFT
Wear your coat when it's cold until you build a house.
Wear your shoes in the stones until you make a path.
To ignore what is harmful will always end in your pain.

Interesting.  What is the origin of this wisdom Mr. Johnson?

Quote from: Free libertarian on May 02, 2016, 10:40 AM NHFT

Quote from: Jim Johnson on May 02, 2016, 10:13 AM NHFT
Wear your coat when it's cold until you build a house.
Wear your shoes in the stones until you make a path.
To ignore what is harmful will always end in your pain.

Interesting.  What is the origin of this wisdom Mr. Johnson?

Once I was stupid.....

(what you intended (I assume) for folks to see)
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/13138821_1783920035163119_7135652557631553853_n.jpg?oh=af2964080e30f40b79c6e889e0de4cd8&oe=57A80588)

Quote from: Jim Johnson on May 02, 2016, 03:38 PM NHFT

Quote from: Free libertarian on May 02, 2016, 10:40 AM NHFT

Quote from: Jim Johnson on May 02, 2016, 10:13 AM NHFT
Wear your coat when it's cold until you build a house.
Wear your shoes in the stones until you make a path.
To ignore what is harmful will always end in your pain.

Interesting.  What is the origin of this wisdom Mr. Johnson?

Once I was stupid.....

Dang... I've been stupid more than once, today!

It is very difficult to live in today's society without current papers.

The hard part is deciding what can be tolerated. Purity is not an option, because, well, they we kill you for it. But, going along to get along can lead to some pretty ugly situations.

Everyone has to decide for themselves where they stand on these things. I won't condemn others for giving in to survive, but by the same token I hope they won't condemn me for being stubborn, foolish, prideful or maybe brave.

I keep thinking about the fences and gates I've watched being built during my lifetime. Then I've watched as they close and lock the gates. I predict before my days are done I will be turned on by friends that are trapped within the fences.

it is easy to find websites about the history of driver's licenses in the US .... I think it started in MO in the 40s or 50s.
we have a short little "right to travel" thread that would contain the info ;)

Freedom to Travel Event, Part 1  (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=23940.msg13446#msg13446)

Is the thread that got me involved here. Russell's going to the airport.

For some reason the number of views is way off, probably to do with the thread being split or some such.

It's difficult to search the forum because so many threads have been created... sometimes 3 threads for one event.

Quote from: Tom Sawyer on May 02, 2016, 03:52 PM NHFT
(what you intended (I assume) for folks to see)
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/13138821_1783920035163119_7135652557631553853_n.jpg?oh=af2964080e30f40b79c6e889e0de4cd8&oe=57A80588)

Thank you for the translation of the mystical Mr. Johnson quote.   

Jim, thanks for the info.  I was thinking the quote was too long for a fortune cookie.

Quote from: Jim Johnson on May 02, 2016, 03:38 PM NHFT
Once I was stupid.....

But for those of us who are stubborn and like to experience, no sage advice will do any good. Even though we feel compelled to issue some ourselves after we have learned...

Empathy is the reason I do stupid things like surrender unsolicited advice.
I do so to ease my own pain.
Once I have given... I'm am absolved.

I am beyond redemption.  ;D