What is liberty?

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I'm not exactly sure where I mean to go with this point, so bear with me. Let me also disclaim that this is NOT a politics post, despite that fact that I'm going to toss in three politician's names.

I got an e-mail today from the Ron Paul campaign. I think most people here would accept that if ANY politician is worth supporting, it's Ron Paul, especially with his almost entirely consistant message of liberty. Since dropping out of the presidential race, he's been sending e-mails urging support for various 'Ron Paul Republicans'. He's also since then, tossed his hat in and endorsed Chuck Baldwin. That act really made me nervous since I agree with more of the Democratic Party's platform than the Consistutional Party's.

What really REALLY sealed the deal to me that Ron Paul has lost his marbles was an e-mail I got today urging me to support my encumbent Congressional Representative, Roscoe Bartlett. The guy strongly opposes just about every issue that matters to me, yet he's being supported by a so-called figurehead for liberty.

Additionally, on Free Talk Live, I've noticed that while Ian and Mark both want "more freedom and liberty" they use different things to measure them. To Mark, his freedom is measured by how much tax he pays. He's pro-drug in theory, but if drugs were completely legalized today, he's not personally feel more "free". The fact that he lets a single issue, or a small group of issues, spearhead his definition of liberty actually... I don't want to say BUGS me, but it's beginning to jump out at me with alarming implications.

This isn't so much a "what issues matter to you" because I've already asked that. I suppose the question is more "what issues, left unaddressed would still make you feel "free enough". I'm not sure that I even HAVE those kind of issues. I'm as outraged about the drug war (which threatens to lock my wonderful wife into a cage!) as I am about public schools (even though I don't own land and don't have children) and seriously, BOTH issues grind against me. I'm seeing more and more that this isn't a consistant view, even among the liberty-minded. There are issues that some people are actually content to "let lie" when they don't affect them, or don't affect them as much. What do you guys thing? Do you see the same thing? Are there issues that you'd personally fell comfortable "letting go"? What are those issues?

[dalebert]

We can't pick and choose about liberty. I think proponents of liberty acknowledge that people are all different in terms of preferences and values. The notion of liberty takes that into account and attempts to create an optimum pluralist society where we each tolerate those things in others even though we personally might disagree. If we each just pick the things we care about and fight for those things, then we're no better than anyone else fighting for a one-size-fits-all solution that is imposed on everyone through the political system.

[ColdSoul]

I think of Liberty as in the ablility for everyone to persue there own happiness as long as they harm others. If one is able to pursue there choices that bring them happiness they are more likely to think of themselves as being "Free". Mark most likely is thinking from this perspective in that if he paid less taxes he would be more free to purchase items that he wishes.

The idea of thinking of happiness in material possessions is a normal and welcomed choice in the society that we have today, that is pushed to think this by the mega media companies which then make profits off of. Another example is Mark talks a lot more frequently then some people about wishing to lose weight, or get in shape even before he started endorsing the weight lose product he uses.

I think since Ian is less worried about material possessions (buying them anyways) he is more apt to be open to more liberties as the ablility to choose or not choose to do something seems to be his wanted freedom for happiness.

As more people become infridged in there freedoms more people will see that Liberty for all is the only way for them to be free as well.

[Bill St. Clair]

I think it would go a long way towards liberty to eliminate every gun law, every drug law, every tax law, and every licensing and registration law.

[John Edward Mercier]

Imagine the situation without taxation... or highly restricted revenue.

Would public schools exist? Would they be forced to be so efficient to be almost private tutorial?
Would victimless crime exist? Would the courts and law enforcement have the resources necessary to enforce and prosecute these types of statute? Who would pay for their services in a victimless crime?

I'm sure others could add to the list.

In the current revenue restricted environment, many States are questioning their positon on at least the above two items...
Now imagine if the loss of revenue was to continue for a generation, or two... what would our society look like then?

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Imagine the situation without taxation... or highly restricted revenue.

So that's your rationale for "taxes are the primary indicator of liberty" or more specifically, the issue you think would have the most impact if addressed?

I don't think I'm so optimistic there. From reading and listening to Ron Paul's works, it seems as if the taxes (income, sales, et cetera) are only a small portion of the "income" the state has. The Drug War and asset forfeiture are pretty lucrative, as are road laws (speeding, DUI without incident). Another point Ian is piddling with is the CAFR or more specifically, the fact that the government people actualy have investments generating revenue.

Not only does all of those things make me think taxes aren't that important of an indicator, it even makes me rethink tax resistance as an EFFECTIVE means of civil disobedience. If they depend on taxes to survive, then I say starve the beast through legislation or CD, but the more I look into it, the less I think that taxes are important at all, other than the fact that it's being stolen from me. Just my opinion there, not an attempt to dismiss taxes as a big thing. It's theft on a massive scale and I oppose theft on principle.

I'm waiting. This area (DC suburbs and sub-suburbs) is feeling the pinch. A decade of massivly inflated real estate values (My daily commute is 55 miles each way and my wife's is 45. Even with gas at $4.10 a gallon, it was cheaper than living closer to work) and the influx of movers to the rich economic hub means they were raking in big income and property tax dollars. Now that this is beginning to correct itself, the police departments around here are feeling the pinch. We'll see what it's like in six weeks but I suspect that those remaining officers will be out enforcing the revenue generating schemes more strongly. I'm willing to bet that HOV violations will rise DRAMATICALLY in the next 6 months, being as they carry a hefty fine and are fairly easy to "catch".

Would the courts and law enforcement have the resources necessary to enforce and prosecute these types of statute? Who would pay for their services in a victimless crime?

This only counts if people resist. In this area at least, if you're guilty, your fines cover court costs. Most people plead to avoid trials. If, say, 50% of all drug possession cases went to trial, I'd agree. But the lessening of "revenue" is immaterial. I think 50% refusal to obey at ANY time would do that just as effectively.

Now imagine if the loss of revenue was to continue for a generation, or two... what would our society look like then?

There's one of the things that I suppose I'm talking about... Not that "bugs me" but has alarming implications. I have no kids, and plan on having no kids. I'm not willing to move and change my life, work for and risk for liberty for someone else's lifetime. The FSP's tagline is "Liberty in our lifetime" and I believe that's a realistic goal. I suppose you could mean "generation" to be "pop out kids and stop counting when they have kids" and if so, then cool, symantic disagreement then. If by generation you mean "turnover of all living persons" then nah, not interested.

[John Edward Mercier]

Generation would mean the birth of each new generation... so over my lifetime it might be three or four generations (lots of variables).

Taxation wouldn't be the end... but for many its the most recognized.
So for Mark, it may be going after the broadest audience... while those that more along the way can understand the other issues of parity necessary for consent.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

If they depend on taxes to survive, then I say starve the beast through legislation or CD, but the more I look into it, the less I think that taxes are important at all, other than the fact that it's being stolen from me.

They do depend on taxes to survive, although lately they've been using the 'inflation tax' (aka counterfeiting)  more and more. Look at M1 for the last month... up from ~ 830 billion to over one trillion 

[JosephSHaas]

...I'm ...outraged about ... public schools (even though I don't own land and don't have children)....

Kevin: "Keene or Bust" heh? Where are you now on this goal? What state are you in? ____________

The reason I ask is that if and when you and your wife make it to here in New Hampshire and do buy land and maybe have your own children, you might like to read Article 38 of the N.H. Const. Part First & Bill of Rights about "frugality":

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html for "an exact and constant observance" of "frugality" in the "execution of the laws" to be "administ"ered by the power of the "magistrates", define at page 423 to be the "civil officer"s, from the Latin word: magister, meaning master, (page 434) meaning to either overcome or subdue, and since these public servants work for us, they canNOT overcome us, defined as to conquer, defeat, and so leaving us the subdue word of @ page 689 meaning NOT from 1 of to conquer again, but to the Latin word subducere of "to lead away, withdraw" as in to withdraw $funds from an account if we ever had one with them, but only for legal and lawful purposes!**

* So beware of when a zoning officer says you're "prohibited" from doing this and that, because their powers are to "restrict" up to the maximum #amount allowed. R.S.A. Ch. ____

There being the school portion(s)** of your property tax bill (in addition to the town and county slices of the tax pie; the chart of which used to be in the Annual Reports of some towns, but now on display at the cashier's window only that you have to copy yourself).

** = further broken down into the local and state-wide school taxes, the latter of which funding is currently being extracted unlawfully from the local level, and anybody NOT putting this protest down at the time of paying +/or in any abatement form, pays this doomage, +/or has only up to 3-years by the statute of limitations RSA Ch. 508:4 to sue the town. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm And for a jury trial by Article 20 since it involves property +/or a dispute of over $1,500 in value, but that you can waive.

The word frugal defined as "Avoiding unnecessary expenditure of money; thrifty." (page 288) And the word thrift (page 721) meaning: "Wise economy in the the management of money". "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973, see also The Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. #___ @ page no. ____ for the history of this word from its beginning. _____

Or in other words: a need v.s. a want, or technically a "WILL" as the antonym at page 234 of "The New American Roget's College Thesaurus in Dictionary Form" (c)1958, 1962; because the word will (page 793) is defined as a wish (p.796) leading to the words: desire and want.

So what people want and get are two different things when the frugality word is entered into the equation, as We The People are only required to provide the needs of those less fortunate than ourselves.  Then WHY are we subsidizing the rich!?

See "Free to Choose" the book and T.V. series by Rose and Milton Friedman, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_to_Choose and http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/ respectfully from 1980 = 28 years ago! Chapter 6, at page #__  about Vouchers, but the more important quote therein of to subsidize the poor only, that's at about the 5-10% of the population.  The N.H. Dept. of Education with its annual list of the poverty rates by towns based upon who signs up for the free school lunch program.

Then read what it says over in The Brentwood, N.H. School District Case No. 2 of 1875 in Vol. 55 N.H. Reports page 503 @ 505: of from memory here: "If the poor man, or the poor child behaves himself honestly and uprightly, the state owes him the services of a schoolmaster, and taxes the property of its more favored children in order to pay this debt, that is an exemplification of the law of Christian charity."

Or in other words, as an example: WHY should the multi-millionaire ex-governor Craig Benson of Rye, actually a half a billionaire at $500,000,000 if he sent his children to the public school require that the retired widow on fixed income living in the same town have to pay for this expense!? She doesn't have too, but too many people are like that German saying of: too soon old, too late smart. It's now time to "wise up"!

Good luck, -- Joe Haas

Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone). e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

[John Edward Mercier]

If they depend on taxes to survive, then I say starve the beast through legislation or CD, but the more I look into it, the less I think that taxes are important at all, other than the fact that it's being stolen from me.

They do depend on taxes to survive, although lately they've been using the 'inflation tax' (aka counterfeiting)  more and more. Look at M1 for the last month... up from ~ 830 billion to over one trillion 

St. Louis Fed Charts are showing a dramatic jump in M1 Demand Deposits... but not the the hard currency charts.
Shadowstats Alternate M3 Chart is showing a dramatic decline in leveraging.