Town is requesting to inspect inside my home for assessment. Need help!

[ArcRiley]

I will state very clearly that I find the definition of "left-libertarian" a socialist's attempt to soften what he really is. You can't be both left and libertarian in my view. It's counterintuitive.

Any more or less in how you can be both "right" and libertarian?

You're attempting to define language, it doesn't work that way.  People use whatever terms they need or can latch on to in order to resolve their cognitive dissonance in loyalty to one party or ideal with libertarianism.  If declaring oneself a "christian anarchist" or "left libertarian" or "green for freedom", makes it easier to fit these concepts of freedom, privacy, and non-interference into their view of who they are or want to portray themselves as - let them be.  Ok?

There are many anarchists who define themselves as "social libertarians" as an alternative to using the term "anarchist"; they often mean by this that some form of commune or collective to achieve a non-heirarchy microsociety as their goal, to be achieved through voluntary participation by members and through the collective resources and energy of those people, not through involuntary taxation and creation by the state.

Such people may want to define themselves differently from, say, a libertarian that's very much into a heirarchy based on capitalism.  Both can agree that taxation is theft, that the state has too much power, etc.  They are both libertarians.

[amanuse]

Quote from: ArcRiley Today at 03:31 PM

You're attempting to define language, it doesn't work that way.  People use whatever terms they need or can latch on to in order to resolve their cognitive dissonance in loyalty to one party or ideal with libertarianism.

Language is important and it has meaning. And as a matter of fact, it must be defined. How can any group of people unite behind a concept if that concept is not clearly articulated.

Everyone is not a Libertarian, unfortunately, and the ideas expressed by some of the posters here are diametrically opposed to the type of mainstream libertarianism I adhere to and the very mission - defending the Constitution's limits on government and protection of the people's rights - which I moved to New Hampshire to help execute.

Taxation is necessity, but how that taxation is imposed is debatable. Whether or not I or anyone else agrees with a property tax, as one form of taxation, the idea that an assessor can come into someone's home without probable cause and a warrant that specifies what he is looking for is unconstitutional. I believe this is a black and white issue with no gray area.

Your post can be interpreted as another attempt to bring this thread away from its original purpose.

So you are aware: I requested ideas on how to prevent this intrusion of my Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. When I discovered that such intrusion cannot be avoided without severe penalty, I requested help and ideas to organize a protest and fight a law I feel is unjust. I also requested that folks start another thread to discuss the politics of whether an interior assessment is right or wrong.

As someone who supports the Constitution, I especially support the First Amendment and the people's right to speak freely and express themselves. But part of being a responsible speaker is to follow some decorum and adhere to the rules set up in a particular forum so long as the rules themselves are lawful. This is a libertarian principle. You can't go into a theater and shout fire if there is no fire, because you would cause panic and infringe on the rights of the paying moviegoers from enjoying the property that they purchased (the right to view the movie). Likewise, when someone asks for advice on how to improve a situation he believes is a problem, and suggests another forum for debate on whether that situation is a problem, it is against decorum and common decency to do otherwise.

In this thread, it seems like EthanAllen has consistently debated my principle that the interior assessment is a problem. He seems to be trying to prove that my vision of libertarianism is wrong. If my perception is correct, you are out of line by asking me to let him be. You should be directing your criticism elsewhere.

[Lasse]

Quote from: ArcRiley Today at 03:31 PM

You're attempting to define language, it doesn't work that way.  People use whatever terms they need or can latch on to in order to resolve their cognitive dissonance in loyalty to one party or ideal with libertarianism.

Language is important and it has meaning. And as a matter of fact, it must be defined. How can any group of people unite behind a concept if that concept is not clearly articulated.

Everyone is not a Libertarian, unfortunately, and the ideas expressed by some of the posters here are diametrically opposed to the type of mainstream libertarianism I adhere to and the very mission - defending the Constitution's limits on government and protection of the people's rights - which I moved to New Hampshire to help execute.

Taxation is necessity, but how that taxation is imposed is debatable. Whether or not I or anyone else agrees with a property tax, as one form of taxation, the idea that an assessor can come into someone's home without probable cause and a warrant that specifies what he is looking for is unconstitutional. I believe this is a black and white issue with no gray area.

Your post can be interpreted as another attempt to bring this thread away from its original purpose.

So you are aware: I requested ideas on how to prevent this intrusion of my Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. When I discovered that such intrusion cannot be avoided without severe penalty, I requested help and ideas to organize a protest and fight a law I feel is unjust. I also requested that folks start another thread to discuss the politics of whether an interior assessment is right or wrong.

As someone who supports the Constitution, I especially support the First Amendment and the people's right to speak freely and express themselves. But part of being a responsible speaker is to follow some decorum and adhere to the rules set up in a particular forum so long as the rules themselves are lawful. This is a libertarian principle. You can't go into a theater and shout fire if there is no fire, because you would cause panic and infringe on the rights of the paying moviegoers from enjoying the property that they purchased (the right to view the movie). Likewise, when someone asks for advice on how to improve a situation he believes is a problem, and suggests another forum for debate on whether that situation is a problem, it is against decorum and common decency to do otherwise.

In this thread, it seems like EthanAllen has consistently debated my principle that the interior assessment is a problem. He seems to be trying to prove that my vision of libertarianism is wrong. If my perception is correct, you are out of line by asking me to let him be. You should be directing your criticism elsewhere.

This is what EthanAllen does in any thread he participates in. There are basically three options;

1: Debate him. Buy three spare keyboards because some are due to be broken, consider them anger management collateral damage. Perhaps you could get EA to write a check for those seeing as he's really hung up on that whole third-party initiation of force which seems to branch all the way to Bangladesh.

2: Don't let him take over your thread, simply continue discussing NH property taxes.

3: Push the ignore button for EA, then execute #2.

[EthanAllen]

How can any group of people unite behind a concept if that concept is not clearly articulated.

What is the concept you clearly want to articulate?

That the fundamental tenet of libertarianism is the absolute right of self-ownership and the non-aggressive principle is derived from it?

the ideas expressed by some of the posters here are diametrically opposed to the type of mainstream libertarianism I adhere to and the very mission - defending the Constitution's limits on government and protection of the people's rights - which I moved to New Hampshire to help execute.

Yes, many folks here are anarchists and don't believe there is any implicit consent to living under our constitution and the form of governance we have. Some people even believe that the only rights that we have are those that we can each defend individually with a weapon.

Not me though.

Taxation is necessity, but how that taxation is imposed is debatable. Whether or not I or anyone else agrees with a property tax, as one form of taxation, the idea that an assessor can come into someone's home without probable cause and a warrant that specifies what he is looking for is unconstitutional. I believe this is a black and white issue with no gray area.

I don't believe taxation is necessary because it violates the absolute right of self-ownership of the those paying. But I believe sharing the economic rent with those you exclude is necessary to uphold their absolute right of self-ownership. Making thus a requirement of exclusive use backed by force does not violate the rights of the exclusive user because they, by definition, do not labor to create unimproved land values.

I have already stated that taxation of capital (requiring a visual inspection of the inside of your and my house) is immoral and theft. So you've got no argument with me!

As someone who supports the Constitution, I especially support the First Amendment and the people's right to speak freely and express themselves.

Freedom of speech, assembly, petitioning, travel - all occur on common right of ways. These common rights are individual equal rights. You are free to engage in your common rights so long as while taking action you are not infringing on the equal right to the same as any other individual. Governments act rightfully when they prevent one individual from infringing on the equal rights of another individual. Governments act wrongfully when they conflate common rights for collective rights (joint rights) by requiring permission prior to acting. Libertarians act illogically when they suggest that all lands should be privately owned and therefore destroy the basis of our common rights exercised upon common right of ways - these are natural rights that pre-exist governments and are the reason we narrowly constitute a government in the first place.

In this thread, it seems like EthanAllen has consistently debated my principle that the interior assessment is a problem.

Not true at all. I agree the property tax on buildings and the collection of the data for an assessment on the inside of buildings is immoral and wrong. Taxation on labor and capital is theft.

[amanuse]

EthanAllen:
Please let that be the last of your unwanted debate.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Takes two (or more) to debate

[Dave Ridley]

as always...the thread is turning into 95% talk and 5% action.

all i care about is having a time and place to show up or a list of things we can do to help.  Once you've got a date and time Amaneuse plz put it on the calendar, and I'll be there if i can.   

[Lex]

I don't think it makes any sense to call the government and then tell them when they can come and then when they came prevent them from seeing what they came to see. If you don't want them to see the inside of your house then don't call them. Because if you call them and they come and you have a party and aren't able to do their asessment then they'll just leave and make up their own assessment anyways.

[amanuse]

I will admit that I am torn about how to handle this issue in the same way that this thread suggests a rift.

The way it stands now, I can either allow the assessor into my house under duress, giving up my Fourth Amendment rights, but protest the abuse, or I can give up my due process rights and accept an unjust assessment.

I must make clear that I don't have a problem paying fair taxes. This issue has been from the very beginning solely about how to protect my and by extension everyone's Constitutional rights. I am still grappling with how best to stand up for them. I need to speak with a lawyer, who I am now playing phone tag with.

I have not taken any action as of this point, other than to post to this thread and reach out to some professionals. I will post any action requests on the calendar.

[Tom Sawyer]

The third option is to have the party... we'll shoot video and have a good time with it.

The worst of these things is feeling powerless, people laughing and have a good time returns your feeling of empowerment. Plus we get to meet you and let folks know that they don't stand alone in these matters. 

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Taxation is necessity, but how that taxation is imposed is debatable.

That taxation is necessity is also highly debatable. I for one believe it is not. I wish you luck with this nonsense of having to deal with government.

[lildog]

Taxation is necessity, but how that taxation is imposed is debatable.

That taxation is necessity is also highly debatable. I for one believe it is not. I wish you luck with this nonsense of having to deal with government.

Porcupine_in_MA, I think what is debatable is the form that taxation takes.

For instance, we all agree we need roads in one form or another.  We can also agree it takes money to upkeep and maintain those roads.  Regardless of whether the roads are private, public or whatever the money collected to upkeep those roads is a form of taxation.

Here is the definition of tax:
1 a: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b: a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses2: a heavy demand

Based on that nearly any form of payment for the roads regardless of who "owns" them could be correctly defined as tax.  So using that definition, tax would therefor be necessary since the roads would need to be paid for in SOME method.

The question then becomes who pays for what and how do they go about paying.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Porcupine_in_MA, I think what is debatable is the form that taxation takes.

For instance, we all agree we need roads in one form or another.  We can also agree it takes money to upkeep and maintain those roads.  Regardless of whether the roads are private, public or whatever the money collected to upkeep those roads is a form of taxation.

Here is the definition of tax:
1 a: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b: a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses2: a heavy demand

Based on that nearly any form of payment for the roads regardless of who "owns" them could be correctly defined as tax.  So using that definition, tax would therefor be necessary since the roads would need to be paid for in SOME method.

The question then becomes who pays for what and how do they go about paying.

Lildog, the taxes in discussion now and in almost any discussion is defined in 1a of your posted definition. No one debates that roads somehow need to be paid for in some way. But the validity and morality of taxation itself is debatable.
If roads were private there are a variety of ways to pay for them not through taxes.

[Dave Ridley]

what's the latest on this....

[amanuse]

I apologize for being incognito, my friends. Life does get in the way of political action at times - in particular, when your child is nine months old and needs your time and support while your wife is taking her general exam for a Ph.D. program.

What follows is my response to your request for an update:

First, I am extremely appreciative of your support and willingness to appear at a protest at my house.

Second, I have decided that the idea of allowing the town to violate my Fourth Amendment rights, even under duress with a video taped protest, is wrong. I just cannot allow my Fourth Amendment rights to be violated - period. I feel it sets a precedent that I do not want to set. I believe in the sanctity of my home and I do not want that sanctity violated by government intrusion.

As of today, I have had a conversation with an attorney at the Institute for Justice who presented me with two options: 1) To stage the protested appraisal, post a video of the event, and then take action to change the law. 2) To resist the interior appraisal, but proactively send documentation to Town Hall that provides the same information they would be looking for on the inside, and then take action to change the law.

I have chosen to execute the second option and am in the process of putting the information together. Subsequently, I plan on working with my state representatives to change the law that offends me. The Institute for Justice Attorney said he would work with me to craft the proper edit, which essentially would make what I plan to do proactively the legal alternative to an interior inspection.

At this juncture, I have not sent the letter to Town Hall or reached out to my state rep. When I do, I will update this thread accordingly.

I still need your help, however. Once I send the information to my Town Hall in Derry, I will need you to help support my efforts with the state legislature, especially if you live in my district, but also if you live outside of it. I will likely host a gathering at my home when it comes time to bring these requests to our state legislators.

Again, I am very appreciative of your support and will keep you updated as this progresses.