Russell and I set up this forum as a place to plan activism and get out info about NH activities to freestaters. I don't feel any obligation to provide a platforum for endless debate, especially concerning violent revolution. Violence against the government/violent revolution is antithetical to what we're (Russell and I are) trying to accomplish. Just as planning more government programs/higher taxes wouldn't be appropriate here, since it goes completely contrary to what we're trying to do, so violence against the government goes against what we're trying to do and discussions of it here are not appropriate. We tolerate (barely) the political discussion because it doesn't directly interfere with what we're doing. So if you want to discuss violent revolution, Unintended Consequences, shooting cops or other government officials, "Is it time to shoot the bastards yet?" we're asking you to take your discussion elsewhere.
I heard there's a kickin' discussion of violent revolution over at http://tomalciere.com/ (http://tomalciere.com/)
Personally I think violent revolution is only going to get you another government, with more of the same. Sure, it might be smaller, and a little more free, but it will still be based on violence, and still just as morally reprehensible, as the one it replaces.
But not everyone understands this yet. That's why I think it's important to examine the issue, as distasteful as it might be. Unfortunately, a couple of people have taken the issue to what is probably too extreme in order to make their points.
And, just talking about it invites unwanted attention from officious bureaucrats who have no problem with using violence against ordinary people, because they have pieces of magic metal and paper which they believe give them the moral authority to use violence.
So it's a tough issue. It's of course your forum, and you can prohibit whatever you want. But I'd like to be able to, at least, help someone realize the virtues of the nonviolent revolution. :)
You are so right and I am respectfully sorry -- I am sometimes lured into the trap of arguing with the "pro-violence against the government" posters. I always find the statements so contradictory that I feel compelled to point out that contradiction... I am hence silenced and will no longer preach non-violence, and in turn feeding their fire, to the members with aggressive tendencies on this board. I am wasting my breath and your forum space. I will just be happy with my own understanding as I continue to work to learn to never feed the trolls.
Error said what I would say, only he said it with more eloquence.
I am guilty of joining the debate, but only because I want those who stumble onto this forum to know that "Shoot 'em all on sight!" is not the norm for this community.
Kevin
I'm not a violent individual. I own no guns. I have a small collection of swords but they are no where near the quality needed to be actively used. I believe that killing people is wrong unless you are defending yourself. I believe threatening people with violence is wrong, however you need to tell people that you have the right to defend yourself and warn them before they attack you, how can you do that without it sounding like a threat?
I disagree with the nonviolent revolution because its inherently flawed logic of, "if we do no harm, others will do no harm." But that is my opinion.
It is your property, you control it, you make the rules. To silence those who's opinion you disagree with to me is personally repugnant, especially when, it would seem to me that this board was designed to be a base of operations for all those who live in New Hampshire(or want to live in New Hampshire) for the purposes of being freer, regardless of ideology.
Had I known when I joined a few months ago that you believed in censorship, I perhaps would have decided instead not to join. Had I known that if I didn't think the way you think that I should be quiet, perhaps I wouldn't have met all these great people, even the ones that I disagree with.
We talk about liberty, we talk about freedom, and we talk about equality. It would appear that in your domain that liberty, freedom, and equality do not exist for those who disagree with you. Its sad really, to trade one type of censorship for another.
I don't like hearing people that talk about killing people. I don't like hearing people threatening other people with violence. I generally ignore these people who spout this ideology because I don't believe it helps anyone's cause. However I do on occasion speak up when I hear someone attacking another who is basically of good character, and come to their defense.
I try to attack the idea, not the person, but I am only human, run by the same logic and emotions as any other person and some times I fail. If I offend, I ask that you ask for an apology.
Kat, I don't know you. I would like to know you better. I support your cause. I support you. I don't mean to insult you, or cause any harm towards you. I will not, however, apologize for my beliefs, like some others may.
If I continue to post here, I will do so under your rules. I will not speak another word of violence toward anyone.
Quote from: cyberdoo78 on May 24, 2007, 10:11 PM NHFT... it would seem to me that this board was designed to be a base of operations for all those who live in New Hampshire(or want to live in New Hampshire) for the purposes of being freer, regardless of ideology.
Had I known when I joined a few months ago that you believed in censorship, I perhaps would have decided instead not to join. ... It would appear that in your domain that liberty, freedom, and equality do not exist for those who disagree with you. Its sad really, to trade one type of censorship for another.
We did not invent this forum to try to include everyone who wants to be more free in NH. We really didn't put up this site for those that want to criticize and even oppose our efforts.
We do believe in some forms of censorship ... I guess. We can't do everything.
I think there is, and will be even more in the future, room for multiple communities inside the NH freedom movement. This forum is mostly to plan and promote the Nonviolent Revolution here in The Shire. Thanks for respecting our space. I understand that we cannot accommodate every ideology and there will be many other websites to choose from soon. :)
General Discussion
Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.
Should this be changed? It doesn't seem to be true anymore.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 25, 2007, 12:42 AM NHFT
I think there is, and will be even more in the future, room for multiple communities inside the NH freedom movement.
That is one of the goals, isn't it? :)
The Underground has done a great job as the clearinghouse where multiple approaches can be discussed, but with some hard limits that aren't tolerated (racism and initiating violence come to mind).
Freedom activists of many different stripes post here, knowing they can find support. No matter what other venues arise for specific methods and theories, I hope this forum is always seen as the first place to come find others who support your particular brand of activism.
Kevin
:clap:
As an example of the rules of conduct on a forum, here is what Claire Wolfe says...
The Claire Files rules for their forum.
http://tcftalk.com/clairefiles/index.php?topic=1815.msg152652#msg152652
Some folks think that they have anonymity... or that their words don't affect other's safety on the forum.
It is easy to be bold when it is not your friends and loved ones that are made vulnerable. Many of us here actually know each other and spend time taking care of each other. We have seen each other in action and have developed trust and confidence.
Anyone that possesses sense and decency would come into the group and take the time to understand the goals and tone of the group before running around half-cocked.
As an example of behavior harming others...
Even though folks here think the drug war is a terrible injustice, it would be incredibly foolish for us to allow someone to deal drugs via the forum.
Another reason to protect the tone of the forum...
Someone considering uprooting their family and moving to the Shire, could easily be driven off by the threat of losing everything.
I've seen folks leave because of this kind of thing.
;D ;D ;D
Holy crap, I see I got the 1000 karma points Dreepa promised me.
Now I'm embarrassed, it has already bothered me that I had some more than folks that spent time in jail for the cause.
Using Photoshop doesn't quite match that. ;D
I understand Karma points cannot be recinded. I guess you owe some jail time
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 23, 2007, 08:02 PM NHFT
Violence ... is antithetical to what we're trying to accomplish.
It's not a matter of mercy
It's not a matter of laws
Plenty of people will kill you
For some fanatical cause
...
We don't want to be victims
On that we all agree
So we lock up the killer instinct
And throw away the key
Rush (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=7942.0), Lock and Key (http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/lockandkey.html)
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on May 25, 2007, 08:29 AM NHFT
I understand Karma points cannot be recinded. I guess you owe some jail time
OK... I guess I have no choice. :o
Quote from: KBCraig on May 25, 2007, 01:55 AM NHFTThe Underground has done a great job as the clearinghouse where multiple approaches can be discussed, but with some hard limits that aren't tolerated (racism and initiating violence come to mind).
You must be mixing us up with the FSP. We are not as organized and our "rules" are arbitrary and can change on a whim. :)
People don't seem to understand that this is our little part of the world. We are not a clearinghouse or have aspirations of being a big tent. I am trying to kick people out of our camp for multiple reasons and they just won't go.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 25, 2007, 03:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on May 25, 2007, 01:55 AM NHFTThe Underground has done a great job as the clearinghouse where multiple approaches can be discussed, but with some hard limits that aren't tolerated (racism and initiating violence come to mind).
You must be mixing us up with the FSP. We are not as organized and our "rules" are arbitrary and can change on a whim. :)
Nope, wasn't mixing up anything. What you said is exactly what I meant. :)
QuotePeople don't seem to understand that this is our little part of the world. We are not a clearinghouse or have aspirations of being a big tent. I am trying to kick people out of our camp for multiple reasons and they just won't go.
I understand that. And whether by design or not, this is the place people come to float their ideas for activism. Or to just announce what they want to do, and see who will join them. That's what I meant by "clearinghouse".
Regardless, thanks to you and Kat for letting us hang out here, and to all the freedom lovers here who inspire so many.
Kevin
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 25, 2007, 03:12 PM NHFT
You must be mixing us up with the FSP. We are not as organized
... I'm not sure that's even
possible
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 25, 2007, 03:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on May 25, 2007, 01:55 AM NHFTThe Underground has done a great job as the clearinghouse where multiple approaches can be discussed, but with some hard limits that aren't tolerated (racism and initiating violence come to mind).
You must be mixing us up with the FSP. We are not as organized and our "rules" are arbitrary and can change on a whim. :)
People don't seem to understand that this is our little part of the world. We are not a clearinghouse or have aspirations of being a big tent. I am trying to kick people out of our camp for multiple reasons and they just won't go.
This is "your" website...
But...
This is "our" forum...
"Your" website...wouldn't be the same without..."Our" forum...
People come to your website and our forum because there is diversity and important subjects are being discussed here...
We've come to expect a wide range of topics and discussions...
Sometimes some folks aren't comfortable with the topics and discussions...
But that's life...
Of course, everything changes over time...
And if you decide to do something different with your website...
It's probable that we'll do something different with our forum...
Surely everyone can see that...
Quote from: powerchuter on May 26, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFT
Of course, everything changes over time...
And if you decide to do something different with your website...
It's probable that we'll do something different with our forum...
Surely everyone can see that...
I think that's sort of the point, powerchuter...Certain discussions need to go someplace else. The vast majority of people here in NH that I have met are committed to completely nonviolent means of resistance. There's no support for any sort of armed rebellion here, and threatening it can only have negative consequences for others.
Caleb
Funny, that. I was in Riley's today and two of the staff were openly discussing the issue of armed rebellion. Maybe the discussion could be taken there? :)
You know, this isn't the first time Kat and Russell have reiterated the point of their website and forum. They have every right to do what they want with the forum, y'know, being the owners and all. They're being incredibly gracious (far more than they could be) in making the request that those who advocate violence (both physically and politically--and it's amazing how many of you so-called "freedom lovers" are blind to the latter) to rein it in.
Quote from: Caleb on May 26, 2007, 09:40 PM NHFTThe vast majority of people here in NH that I have met are committed to completely nonviolent means of resistance. There's no support for any sort of armed rebellion here, and threatening it can only have negative consequences for others.
Yeah, I'm with error on this one. I doubt there's a state where armed rebellion is considered
more acceptable than in NH. We have the right to armed revolution written right into the state's constitution, and very many of the people who live here take that very seriously. Of those in NH who desire revolution, the "armed" camp overwhelmingly outnumbers the "nonviolent" camp. That's just the way it is.
If you were imagining that NH was some sort of mecca for nonviolent revolutionaries, you may need to reconsider your choice in where to live. I truly hope you won't, as we need all the revolutionaries we can get, but if you cannot stomach the notion that there are armed revolutionaries around, this simply may not be the place for you.
NH engage in armed rebellion against Britain (and won) before the other colonies even bothered to declare their independence. That is our history and our legacy.
I do hope we can coordinate our efforts, as we are stronger standing together than we can be standing separately. And I do hope that Kat and Russell will continue to allow us to discuss the issues that matter to us, here, so that we can do so. I imagine that there are many people out there reading this and other threads with glee, hoping against hope that a rift forms in the freedom community, allowing them to once again put the anti-freedom train on the fast track. It would be a shame to focus on our differences and let those things divide us, rather than focussing on our similarities and letting those things unite us.
Joe
I think I'm going to start another forum. PM me your domain name suggestions. :)
guncleaners.com
constitutionalscholars.edu
:)
Some of us have different goals. It would be nice if you took your discussions elsewhere. :)
Quote from: MaineShark on May 26, 2007, 10:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on May 26, 2007, 09:40 PM NHFTThe vast majority of people here in NH that I have met are committed to completely nonviolent means of resistance. There's no support for any sort of armed rebellion here, and threatening it can only have negative consequences for others.
Yeah, I'm with error on this one. I doubt there's a state where armed rebellion is considered more acceptable than in NH. We have the right to armed revolution written right into the state's constitution, and very many of the people who live here take that very seriously. Of those in NH who desire revolution, the "armed" camp overwhelmingly outnumbers the "nonviolent" camp. That's just the way it is.
If you were imagining that NH was some sort of mecca for nonviolent revolutionaries, you may need to reconsider your choice in where to live. I truly hope you won't, as we need all the revolutionaries we can get, but if you cannot stomach the notion that there are armed revolutionaries around, this simply may not be the place for you.
NH engage in armed rebellion against Britain (and won) before the other colonies even bothered to declare their independence. That is our history and our legacy.
I do hope we can coordinate our efforts, as we are stronger standing together than we can be standing separately. And I do hope that Kat and Russell will continue to allow us to discuss the issues that matter to us, here, so that we can do so. I imagine that there are many people out there reading this and other threads with glee, hoping against hope that a rift forms in the freedom community, allowing them to once again put the anti-freedom train on the fast track. It would be a shame to focus on our differences and let those things divide us, rather than focussing on our similarities and letting those things unite us.
Joe
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 27, 2007, 01:51 AM NHFT
guncleaners.com
constitutionalscholars.edu
:)
Some of us have different goals. It would be nice if you took your discussions elsewhere. :)
My goal is to live each and every day in peace and to be left alone unless I voluntarily agree to do otherwise...
What's YOUR goal??
His, immediate goal is to get people on his property to behave as he asks or go away
Quote from: wholetthedogin? on May 27, 2007, 06:26 AM NHFT
pleasedontkissexpectmetokissyourasswhileyouraretreadingonme.com
westartedsomethinggoodanddontlikethewayyouthinksogoplaysomewhereelseandwedontgiverefundsforanyfundingyouhavecontributedinthepastweignorepeoplesidealongenoughuntilwecanfigureoutifwecanmake theprofitourselvesfromtheideasofotherblindfollowerthatthinkwearecoolwewilljustkeepthinkingofwaystomakemoremoneyrollinginfromtheguiltyfolkthatcantgettonewhampshiretojoinourwedontgiveaphuckaboutanyonesrightsbutourownpartyItwouldbeveryeasytostoppostingeveryonewhodisagreeswithmanagementslimitedphilosphyaboutfirstammendmentrightsshouldjust takealongbreakfrompostingmostcouldandshouldstopgodaddyhasatwentyfivepercentoffspecialonnewdomainordersoverseventyfivebuckssoitsourpartyandwemaketherulesandifyoudontlikeourruleswewillaskyoutoleaveandpatourselvesonthebacksandgetmoreaccoladesfromthefollowerswejusthavetoremembernottoeverservekoolaideortattoo666onourbodieslikethatsecondcomingcultdownsouthsomewhereandthatsaboutallfornowsotoexpectanyonetokissyouassesforbuildingasimpleforumisabsolutelycertifiable
Yeah!
Quote from: Caleb on May 26, 2007, 09:40 PM NHFT
Quote from: powerchuter on May 26, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFT
Of course, everything changes over time...
And if you decide to do something different with your website...
It's probable that we'll do something different with our forum...
Surely everyone can see that...
I think that's sort of the point, powerchuter...Certain discussions need to go someplace else. The vast majority of people here in NH that I have met are committed to completely nonviolent means of resistance. There's no support for any sort of armed rebellion here, and threatening it can only have negative consequences for others.
Caleb
Where in the hell do you get any damn idea that I(and others) support armed rebellion?
And if someone were to rebel...just who would they be "rebelling" against?
Are you giving some sort of "legitimacy" to the "gooberment"?
I advocate Non-Aggression and the Golden Rule...
I support and use Superior Defensive Force...
Superior DEFENSIVE Force...
DEFENSIVE...
What part of DEFENSIVE don't you understand?
Are you telling me that I could come up to you and slap you smartly across the face ten thousand times and you would do NOTHING??
Obviously we couldn't trust you to "have our backs"...individually or as a group...
Sounds like you'd open the door and let them right in...
Quote from: wholetthedogin? on May 27, 2007, 07:51 AM NHFT
Has anyone registered this intellectual property with a government trademark?
Dawg not meanin' to personally attack anyone but this ownership piece has ruined this site.
Dawg is right...
A few bad apples encouraging the roots to split/disable/damage the tree...
Nothing personal Roger...
Rob
Quote from: wholetthedogin? on May 27, 2007, 07:51 AM NHFTHas anyone registered this intellectual property with a government trademark?
Dawg not meanin' to personally attack anyone but this ownership piece has ruined this site.
Okay, that's silly. Why would Kat or Russell register for a government trademark? That would be as silly as me patenting something. Anarchists don't rely on government thuggery to make a living.
In any case, intellectual property is a myth. There's no such thing.
This forum, on the other hand, is physical property on a server. And it belongs to Kat and Russell. They may do with it as they wish. I hope they will fully analyze the potential results of whatever actions they take, and choose the action that will best enhance freedom here and elsewhere. I humbly hope that my words above will help them in that endeavor, as I have great respect for them both and wish to offer them what help I realistically can. But they are free to do with their property as they wish, from nothing up to destroying it, and anything in between.
Joe
Quote from: powerchuter on May 27, 2007, 08:02 AM NHFT
Where in the hell do you get any damn idea that I(and others) support armed rebellion?
And if someone were to rebel...just who would they be "rebelling" against?
Are you giving some sort of "legitimacy" to the "gooberment"?
Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension--this is not
just about "armed rebellion," whatever that would mean. It is about (if I'm understanding correctly)
any and all violence against government officials. That would most decidedly include your constant bragging about "Superior DEFENSIVE Force" and your scattered references to "have our backs" as if you are anticipating being bunkered in somewhere.
What part of VIOLENT do you not understand?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 23, 2007, 08:02 PM NHFT
Russell and I set up this forum as a place to plan activism and get out info about NH activities to freestaters. I don't feel any obligation to provide a platforum for endless debate, especially concerning violent revolution. Violence against the government/violent revolution is antithetical to what we're (Russell and I are) trying to accomplish. Just as planning more government programs/higher taxes wouldn't be appropriate here, since it goes completely contrary to what we're trying to do, so violence against the government goes against what we're trying to do and discussions of it here are not appropriate. We tolerate (barely) the political discussion because it doesn't directly interfere with what we're doing. So if you want to discuss violent revolution, Unintended Consequences, shooting cops or other government officials, "Is it time to shoot the bastards yet?" we're asking you to take your discussion elsewhere.
Not only that, but you've somehow managed to assume part-ownership of the forum somehow. When did that happen? "Our" forum? No, sorry, it's still the Kannings'. (And they can tell me to shut up at any time... because it doesn't look like I'm helping much anyway. :-\)
Quote from: MaineShark on May 27, 2007, 08:23 AM NHFT
Quote from: wholetthedogin? on May 27, 2007, 07:51 AM NHFTHas anyone registered this intellectual property with a government trademark?
Dawg not meanin' to personally attack anyone but this ownership piece has ruined this site.
Okay, that's silly. Why would Kat or Russell register for a government trademark? That would be as silly as me patenting something. Anarchists don't rely on government thuggery to make a living.
In any case, intellectual property is a myth. There's no such thing.
This forum, on the other hand, is physical property on a server. And it belongs to Kat and Russell. They may do with it as they wish. I hope they will fully analyze the potential results of whatever actions they take, and choose the action that will best enhance freedom here and elsewhere. I humbly hope that my words above will help them in that endeavor, as I have great respect for them both and wish to offer them what help I realistically can. But they are free to do with their property as they wish, from nothing up to destroying it, and anything in between.
Joe
Hi Joe,
I'd agree to all of the above except that...as I stated earlier...
This website(URL) is "theirs"...
But this forum is "ours"...
"Ours" being each and every one of us who personally make our forum what it is...or isn't...
The "website" or "URL" is a grain of sand on the beach...
We are the millions of visitors to the beach...
The beach would be desolate without us...
The ocean washes a grain of sand away easily...
And no one even notices...
Quote from: wholetthedogin? on May 27, 2007, 07:51 AM NHFT
Dawg not meanin' to personally attack anyone but this ownership piece has ruined this site.
This whole mess started with a post telling a relative newcomer to the forum to kill town office people because they wanted a SSN to transfer land.
Quote from: powerchuter on April 01, 2007, 06:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: wolf on April 01, 2007, 11:56 AM NHFT
The Latest PA outrage
I have a rental property that the tenant has agreed to buy. Real estate transactions are handled by abstractors in PA. I sent the deed and the buyer's name to the abstractor and about a day later I get a call and the first thing the abstractor asks is ?what is your Social Security Number Socialist Slave Number. I said politely that I don't give out that information and thought that was the end of it. A couple of days later I get a letter about the sale with ?please provide this office with your SSN and DOB? highlighted. The letter was followed up by another phone call demanding the same information- this time I spoke the the girl in an angry tone of voice explaining that ?this info is none of your FU****G business and you are pissing me off big time by demanding it. The girl went on to explain that she is required by PA and federal law to collect this info and do a patriot act and PA domestic relations law search using the SSN and she won't do the closing without it. I replied that she failing in her duty to represent me in this transaction and in reality acting as an agent of the control freak shit heads in Washington and Harrisburg. This bull shit has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with citizen control. This appears to be a no win situation. If I get asked for ID and a physical address at the closing I really may go over the edge.
Anybody have any suggestions
Shoot the Bastards...
All of them...
When asked repeatedly to stop the behavior he increased the behavior and over a period of time made veiled threats towards other members of the forum. In a post addressed to me he was so clever as to use "red rum". This post appears to have been removed, by whom I'm not sure.
The final straw was out of nowhere he posted a tasteless description of Kira being raped (which wasn't the first time). Kat has enough to deal with right now without this kind of nonsense.
This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of others. We decided not to remove the member from the forum.
The issue at hand is whether we can control the behavior of individuals posting on the forum.
Some more examples
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=8187.msg145175#msg145175
IT'S TIME TO SHOOT THE BASTARDS RIGHT FRICKING NOW!!!
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=8192.msg145208#msg145208
I think the "random acts of cleansing" that John Ross and Matthew Bracken wrote about would be much more effective...
etc.
How would the general population of NH take to someone from out of state shouting?
"SHOOT THE BASTARDS LIVE FREE OR DIE"
This forum was created when those of us who ran the FSP forum decided that it was not the right place for in New Hampshire activism planning. If Kat and Russell wish to set the terms of their forum, they have every right to do so. Let the seeds of a new forum be sown if you so wish to do so.
Quote from: powerchuter on May 27, 2007, 08:31 AM NHFTThis website(URL) is "theirs"...
But this forum is "ours"...
"Ours" being each and every one of us who personally make our forum what it is...or isn't...
The "website" or "URL" is a grain of sand on the beach...
We are the millions of visitors to the beach...
The beach would be desolate without us...
I understand what you're saying, and I expect Kat and Russell do, as well. This is a private beach, and they may want to restrict access, which is certainly their right. It would certainly change the tone of the beach. And signs should probably be posted before people enter, if that is their desire. I know that there was nothing in the "terms of service" when I signed up that prohibited certain types of discussion. If that will now be the case, people who sign up should be made aware of the expectations before they expend the time and energy to join, only to find that they are unwelcome.
Joe
Quote from: James A. Pyrich on May 27, 2007, 08:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: powerchuter on May 27, 2007, 08:02 AM NHFT
Where in the hell do you get any damn idea that I(and others) support armed rebellion?
And if someone were to rebel...just who would they be "rebelling" against?
Are you giving some sort of "legitimacy" to the "gooberment"?
Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension--this is not just about "armed rebellion," whatever that would mean. It is about (if I'm understanding correctly) any and all violence against government officials. That would most decidedly include your constant bragging about "Superior DEFENSIVE Force" and your scattered references to "have our backs" as if you are anticipating being bunkered in somewhere.
What part of VIOLENT do you not understand?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 23, 2007, 08:02 PM NHFT
Russell and I set up this forum as a place to plan activism and get out info about NH activities to freestaters. I don't feel any obligation to provide a platforum for endless debate, especially concerning violent revolution. Violence against the government/violent revolution is antithetical to what we're (Russell and I are) trying to accomplish. Just as planning more government programs/higher taxes wouldn't be appropriate here, since it goes completely contrary to what we're trying to do, so violence against the government goes against what we're trying to do and discussions of it here are not appropriate. We tolerate (barely) the political discussion because it doesn't directly interfere with what we're doing. So if you want to discuss violent revolution, Unintended Consequences, shooting cops or other government officials, "Is it time to shoot the bastards yet?" we're asking you to take your discussion elsewhere.
Not only that, but you've somehow managed to assume part-ownership of the forum somehow. When did that happen? "Our" forum? No, sorry, it's still the Kannings'. (And they can tell me to shut up at any time... because it doesn't look like I'm helping much anyway. :-\)
There are no such "entities" as "government officials" by Russell and Kat's own admissions...
So...logically...there can be no "violence" against a fiction...
Those willing to use Superior Defensive Force...and stating so...are not bragging...but you can have any opinion you wish...even ones that others find offensive or incorrect...
And...as far as discussing violence against others...
Correct me if I am wrong...but...the "owners" of this "website" / "URL" START threads about violence and/or the potential for violence...
Example...
Violence against Brian Severance....
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=7933.0
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=7692.0
Violence against Russell Kanning...
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8110.0
Violence against buildings full of people...
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=1747.0
I would contend that "violence" is when one person commits aggression/force/fraud against another...whether it's in some "government's" name or not...
I would NOT contend that the concept of "violence" is harmonious with self defense...
Quote from: powerchuter on May 27, 2007, 07:29 AM NHFT
Quote from: MaineShark on May 26, 2007, 10:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on May 26, 2007, 09:40 PM NHFTThe vast majority of people here in NH that I have met are committed to completely nonviolent means of resistance. There's no support for any sort of armed rebellion here, and threatening it can only have negative consequences for others.
Yeah, I'm with error on this one. I doubt there's a state where armed rebellion is considered more acceptable than in NH. We have the right to armed revolution written right into the state's constitution, and very many of the people who live here take that very seriously. Of those in NH who desire revolution, the "armed" camp overwhelmingly outnumbers the "nonviolent" camp. That's just the way it is.
If you were imagining that NH was some sort of mecca for nonviolent revolutionaries, you may need to reconsider your choice in where to live. I truly hope you won't, as we need all the revolutionaries we can get, but if you cannot stomach the notion that there are armed revolutionaries around, this simply may not be the place for you.
NH engage in armed rebellion against Britain (and won) before the other colonies even bothered to declare their independence. That is our history and our legacy.
I do hope we can coordinate our efforts, as we are stronger standing together than we can be standing separately. And I do hope that Kat and Russell will continue to allow us to discuss the issues that matter to us, here, so that we can do so. I imagine that there are many people out there reading this and other threads with glee, hoping against hope that a rift forms in the freedom community, allowing them to once again put the anti-freedom train on the fast track. It would be a shame to focus on our differences and let those things divide us, rather than focussing on our similarities and letting those things unite us.
Joe
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
And!?!?!?!
It is without dispute that the one thread that has contributed more "hits" and "views" and "comments" to this website/forum/movement...
Has been this one...
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.0
Ed and Elaine Brown have repeatedly stated that they will use Superior Defensive Force against anyone attempting to assume control over them...
Many of the forum contributers have visited the Browns...
Including those who are "advocating" no discussions involving "violence"...whatever they might think that is...
Are we to assume that the non-violence crowd from Keene and other areas sometimes travel hours to visit with "violent" people?
If we don't want "violence" spoken of or talked about on the forum...why are these same people actually traveling to where this is happening?
I'm not sure I understand the logic there...
Here's a thought, and while it may not be perfect, it may work...
We all know that Kat and Russell may do as they like with this fourm.
I hope we all know that they are not unreasonable people, and will not make rules like "you must agree with us on every issue, all the time, or you're banned."
I hope we all know that they are not trying to be heavy-handed, but rather to ensure that this forum moves in a productive direction.
They have four political forums here, and all pacifists are anarchists and cannot vote, so it's clear that they are at very least tolerant of non-pacifists. And as Rob points out, there is plenty of support for Ed and Elaine Brown. It is clear that they are not insisting that only pacifists may post here, and only pacifism may be discussed.
So, in the spirit of helping them in this endeavor, I'd like to propose that we all relax for the next week, think about the issues, and then those who can attend volunteer have an informal meeting after the next MVP meeting so that we can get together with Kat and Russell and figure out the direction this forum will take. We certainly don't get to dictate to them how this forum is run, but I expect they would welcome a collaborative effort to clarify the expectations. Right now, I can't say for certain what the exact rules are, so let's meet in the spirit of collaboration and help them work this out. A concise list of expectations could be presented to all existing members, and added to the signup for new members, so we would all know what the expectations are. If we help Kat and Russell with this, we can reduce the risk that someone will read the rules and then say "what about this?" because we will have taken the time to address the potential "what if?" questions with them.
It may be that a separate forum is necessary, but the only way we will know whether or not that is the case is if we know accurately what the expectations are, here. Maybe that will be for the best. Maybe not. I don't like the idea of splitting things up, but if that's what it will require in order to allow those of us who are not pacifists to stay on good terms with those who are, it might just be worth it.
So let's all chill out for a week, think over what we each want from this forum, and then discuss our individual and group desires for this forum, and see which of them Kat and Russell feel they can meet, and which they cannot. If we can formalize that into a description of expected conduct, so much the better, as it will help to ensure that existing and new members will know what Kat and Russell expect from them when they are visiting this forum.
I'll be at the MVP meeting, regardless, but I hope some others will speak up and volunteer to help out in this endeavor. We have similar ultimate goals for a free society, so let's see what we can do to best meet those goals.
Joe
ok
It might be easier to just kick Rob off than make a bunch of rules.
[begin sidebar]
Just a little clarification to the language and the law, but not germane to the existence/continuance of this forum/these discussions on this URL/system, but important for New Hampshiremen and wannabes to understand.
Quote from: MaineShark on May 26, 2007, 10:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on May 26, 2007, 09:40 PM NHFT...There's no support for any sort of armed rebellion...
... I doubt there's a state where armed rebellion is considered more acceptable than in NH. We have the right to armed revolution written right into the state's constitution, and very many of the people who live here take that very seriously. Of those in NH who desire revolution, the "armed" camp overwhelmingly outnumbers the "nonviolent" camp. That's just the way it is.
If you were imagining that NH was some sort of mecca for nonviolent revolutionaries, you may need to reconsider your choice in where to live. I truly hope you won't, as we need all the revolutionaries we can get, but if you cannot stomach the notion that there are armed revolutionaries around, this simply may not be the place for you....
Joe
(emphasis added)
Clarification of definitions:Revolution: "(from Late Latin revolutio which means
"a turn around") is a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time." [Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution]
Rebellion: "is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority. It may therefore be seen as encompassing a range of behaviours from civil disobedience to a violent organized attempt to destroy established authority. It is often used in reference to
armed resistance against an established government, but can also refer to mass nonviolent resistance movements. Those who participate in rebellions are known as 'rebels'." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion]
Clarification of law:New Hampshire Constitution, Bill of Rights, [Article] 10: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html
"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual,
the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." (emphasis added)
What should be noted is that the title,
"Right of Revolution" is a title only, it is not the article, or the law. The fact that it is in brackets emphasizes that. The original can be viewed at the Secretary of State's archives on Fruit Street in Concord (I've seen it there, but I didn't note whether or not the title or the brackets were on there - was looking at something else.) So, the "law" is the body of text and
the title is not the law - it is just something added to describe the law briefly. Note the text states that the people may and ought to "reform the old" or "establish a new government." The purpose of my writing this is to clarify that
Article 10 does not state a [civil] right to armed revolution! One may claim that as a natural right of man, for example, but, as an explicit civil right in our Bill of Rights, that's not what it says - just thought it important to note that to newcomers.
Application of Article 10:Litigants have asserted Art. 10 rights from time to time, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court has opined on cases that have risen to their Court over the years. Some of the cases (I don't have a complete file of them, but it would be an interesting project to compile them all for study of this civil 'Right of Revolution.') revolve around the "and all other means of redress are ineffectual" clause - ie, claims of exercising of the Right of Revolution have been thrown out because the claimant of the right had not exhausted all other "means of redress." A very recent case involved peace/anti-war protesters refusing to leave a US Senator's office because they had attempted to reach him by letter and phone and he had been unresponsive. They asserted an Article 10 right to occupy his office and demand an answer. Not sure the outcome of this case, but New Hampshire Peace Action in Concord would know.
Wikipedia notes (mentions the FSP!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Constitution#Article_10._Right_of_Revolution
Clarification summary re posts in this thread:1.
There is not an article 10 "Right to Armed Revolution", and
2.
Revolution does not necessarily imply "armed rebellion", "armed resistance" or any force of arms issue/violence at all.
Note: Counter-revolution [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_revolution] by states to suppress revolutions by the people have often been violent to achieve the state's aims of repression and control by fear.
[OK, end of sidebar --- resume]
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 27, 2007, 01:58 PM NHFTIt might be easier to just kick Rob off than make a bunch of rules.
Possibly, but the easy way isn't always best.
I mean, I've been here quite a while now, and I don't know where "the line" is. There was nothing when I signed up that indicated even that the forum was exclusively for non-violence. I checked a few days ago and that wasn't in the signup information at that point, either.
And I cannot infer that the entire forum is for pacifism and unwelcome to any sort of violence, either, as the policial forums and subforums exist, and there's the Ed and Elaine Brown issue, as well. Not exactly non-violent sorts, but you've done numerous positive articles on them, because of what they do have in common with you.
This is your property and I intend to respect that, but I need to accurately know what your wishes are, in order to do so.
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 27, 2007, 01:59 PM NHFT2. Revolution does not necessarily imply "armed rebellion", "armed resistance" or any force of arms issue/violence at all.
In the historical context under which the document was written, it certainly does.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on May 27, 2007, 02:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 27, 2007, 01:59 PM NHFT2. Revolution does not necessarily imply "armed rebellion", "armed resistance" or any force of arms issue/violence at all.
In the historical context under which the document was written, it certainly does.
Joe
We differ then. I defer to the Romans, who apparently used the term differently, as the definition states. Usages like the "Scientific Revolution" also come to mind (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution, beginning in 1500's). I will agree that many people still (erroneously, I think) use the term to imply or specifically mean "armed rebellion", when, of course, as the definitions state, it does not. This, I believe, is merely a lack of training, not an issue worth fighting (!) over. I do believe the proper usage in this case leads to better understanding, though.
I don't think anyone here's proposing a scientific revolution.
Quote from: error on May 27, 2007, 03:18 PM NHFTI don't think anyone here's proposing a scientific revolution.
Yeah, and in the actual context under which the NH Constitution was written, the meaning intended by the writers is clear.
Joe
Revolution-- I do not think it means what you think it means.
(Princess Bride... and Ron Paul Revolution video)
Quote from: MaineShark on May 27, 2007, 03:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on May 27, 2007, 03:18 PM NHFTI don't think anyone here's proposing a scientific revolution.
Yeah, and in the actual context under which the NH Constitution was written, the meaning intended by the writers is clear.
Joe
error, how'd you see my post? I thought you were ignoring me!
Courts hear arguments all the time about what the intent of the framers/drafters was and litigants often have to go to great lengths (research) to prove to the court that their interpretation of the intent is correct. In this case, the explicit wording is what the law is, ie, to reform or re-establish
a government (see exact wording again). With explicit wording, such as this is, there usually isn't reason to speculate on what the intent is. Remember, the title, that includes the word "Revolution", could have been tacked on 50 years later (This speculation could be put to rest by looking at the parchment original at the archives - I'm betting the title isn't on there.).
That's why I mention the archives and suggest an organized committee to research this. The chief archivist suggested to me, when I was researching another item, that to find the real intent, one could even read the newspapers of the time (for articles & editorials), which would be housed at either the Historical Society (http://www.nhhistory.org/), 30 Park Street or the State Library (http://www.nh.gov/nhsl/index.html), 20 Park Street in Concord.
I don't think a state would ever write in an article allowing a right to armed rebellion or insurrection (have yet to see that one!), and the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution certainly did not.
Ron Paul RevolLOVEution
dg, you can't spell worth beans!
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 27, 2007, 03:43 PM NHFT
...(This speculation could be put to rest by looking at the parchment original at the archives - I'm betting the title isn't on there.).
That's why I mention the archives and suggest an organized committee to research this. The chief archivist suggested to me, when I was researching another item, that to find the real intent, one could even read the newspapers of the time (for articles & editorials), which would be housed at either the Historical Society (http://www.nhhistory.org/), 30 Park Street or the State Library (http://www.nh.gov/nhsl/index.html), 20 Park Street in Concord.
BTW, as a hospitality service to newcomers, I would be glad to conduct a tour of the Archives and State Library resources (haven't been in the Hist. Soc.), if, in return, they would do some cooperative research on the "Right of Revolution" project (not an existing group yet).
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 27, 2007, 03:43 PM NHFT
error, how'd you see my post? I thought you were ignoring me!
He must've found the "show" button on the right side ...
You probably got ignored for daring to question the government's version of 9/11
But he just can't ignore your posts ... what if you spout some unauthorized nonsense that questions the government's role in 9/11?
The only solution? Put you on ignore ... then read every one of your posts individually. :)
Quote from: wholetthedogin? on May 27, 2007, 11:15 AM NHFT
I think it is healthy for a little discourse on this subject. The ass kissers will continue to be ass kissers. There has been room for all asses here with reasonable decorum for the golden rule, which includes not eating our own.
Too bad I have a show to direct on Sat. -- this is one ass kisser that would have liked to be able to have a discussion in person with you guys about this rather than on the forum -- Now that I think about it -- having a discussion with me about this probably wouldn't be to pleasant for anyone, I am truly a tenacious bitch in an argument, so it's for the better that I work and am not able to go to the MVP meetings.
For the record -- I vehemently support Kat's reasonable request. If that makes me an ass kisser so be it.
Quote from: Rosie the Riveter on May 27, 2007, 07:09 PM NHFT
I am truly a tenacious bitch in an argument,
Note... don't argue with Rosie... haul the shit up the stairs when she tells you to.
Note #2... Haul her cooler up to her site.
Quote from: Dreepa on May 27, 2007, 07:38 PM NHFT
Quote from: Rosie the Riveter on May 27, 2007, 07:09 PM NHFT
I am truly a tenacious bitch in an argument,
Note... don't argue with Rosie... haul the shit up the stairs when she tells you to.
Note #2... Haul her cooler up to her site.
Yup -- sounds about right
Note #3... don't piss her off -- she may look harmless, but really she bites. ;)
Quote from: Rosie the Riveter on May 27, 2007, 07:50 PM NHFT
Yup -- sounds about right
Note #3... don't piss her off -- she may look harmless, but really she bites. ;)
Oh shit!
Just talk about violent revolution on the FTL website. You don't even need to start a new forum.
This place is like a house that Kat and Russell built. It's very reasonable for them to establish some guidelines against behavior that makes them uncomfortable in their own home. I will respect their wishes, which won't be difficult since the same things make me uncomfortable also. When in Rome, and all that. It's just the polite thing to do. That's actually a very Libertarian approach. Don't like it- vote with your feet.
Good point. You can talk about virtually anything on the FTL BBS. (In fact, people do.)
ad nauseum
I can't image what possible benefit there'd be to kissing my ass.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 28, 2007, 07:59 PM NHFT
I can't image what possible benefit there'd be to kissing my ass.
Instant karma.
I have just one thing to add to this discussion:
Quote from: Dreepa on May 27, 2007, 03:29 PM NHFT
Revolution-- I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inconceivable!
We really appreciate all that Kat and Russell have done by allowing all sorts of posts on their forum, even though they didn't want to see posts on certain topics. To show consideration to their ideals, Joe and I are now offering another place to discuss politics, and firearms (although I don't consider self defense to be violent, I understand that some do), etc. So if you want to discuss Article 10 (the right to revolution), or other even other less objectionable subjects, we welcome you to visit our new forum, NHTeaparty.org (http://www.nhteaparty.org), although we hope you still participate here for those discussions which are welcome here.
Kat, does this help? Hopefully, it will allow you to move the discussions that you no longer wish to host to an "Archive" folder, and redirect posters/posts that you don't approve of to our url. *hugs* I really wasn't aware how upset you were over things until Joe brought this thread to my attention a few days ago, and I hope that offering another place for discussion helps you to focus your efforts on those subjects that you are working towards. You've done a great job here, and everyone appreciates the work and effort you and Russell have made on the non-violent revolution front.
:hug45: :clap:
Quote from: wholetthedogin? on June 03, 2007, 05:59 AM NHFT
Took a peek ---nice job! I have simple machines forums on a number of sites---yours looks really sharp.
Little split with a tea party to boot.
Thanks. I used to do this for a living. :)
Quote from: PassionatePantherrr on June 02, 2007, 02:08 PM NHFT
So if you want to discuss Article 10 (the right to revolution), or other even other less objectionable subjects, we welcome you to visit our new forum, NHTeaparty.org (http://www.nhteaparty.org), although we hope you still participate here for those discussions which are welcome here.
That sounds good.
Thank You Kat