New Hampshire Underground

I don't currently read any online newspapers (except for some liberty-related ones like Free* that I get with Google Reader).  Occasionally I'll read an article in the Union Leader or some traditional news service if it is linked.  One form of activism could be to actually read these newspapers online and add topical, polite, pro-liberty comments.  For example, someone on a homeschool list I am on sent a link to a Nashua Telegraph editorial on how "they should get strict with truants" or similar nonsense.

I feel mixed about whether to bother reading and commenting on such articles. 

Elaboration on the poll:

Option 1: You think commenting is highly worthwile and valuable activism and like the idea of someone reading articles just for the purpose of adding pro-liberty comments.
Option 2: You think commenting is somewhat worthwhile and valuable activism but don't think it is so valuable that anyone should read articles just for the purpose of commenting.   
Option 3: You think commenting as activism has no value (because very few people read comments or very few people would be influenced by comments).  However, you don't see any harm in it either.
Option 4: You think liberty activism is better supported by pulling readership and participation altogether from the traditional media sources.

When the internet came up in a discussion, Pat Buchanan said that after years of writing columns it is quite a surprise to read comments about his article showing up within minutes of it's appearing online.

I think it is especially useful when you are trying to give people more details about something from the article.  Like if the article mentions that NH leads the nation in something but doesn't mention the FSP and vote with your feet.  A new comment adding the two points would be very helpful.

Here's a comment I posted on the (very) local newspaper:

http://mason.villagegrapevine.com/2010/11/letter-zoning-and-selectmen/ (http://mason.villagegrapevine.com/2010/11/letter-zoning-and-selectmen/)

QuoteHi Charles,

I disagree with your premise: "That is, whether or not one agrees with the law one is bound by it, no matter who they are or think they are."

I think we can all think of laws, current or past, that so conflict with our moral sense that we would support those who break them; even in some cases consider them heroes!

I believe one is bound not by the laws of the government but by one's conscience and the moral law written in one's heart. Of course there is great personal risk in not following the government's laws, and as a result we often subject ourselves to it for practical reasons.

Yes, perhaps these statements are a bit grandiose when we are considering the petty zoning ordinances of a small town. I suspect the motivation for the letters had more to do with the manner in which the ordinances were enforced.

I agree that one person's actions have effects on neighbors, and in community we should seek to resolve disputes caused by those actions. But I stand by my words from an earlier comment: it is in community that we resolve differences through communication and compassion, not through police and lawyers.

The zoning laws are not the will of the people. They are the will of some of the people, who have selected particular means to enforce them that I object to.

Sincerely,
Jacob