Lauren kidnapped roadside by thugs Oct. 2nd

[EthanAllen]

Hey, it's going to be much easier to understand each other's thoughts and feelings if we avoid answering questions with questions.

All over the boards, I see you claiming that sidewalks (and such) are "collectively owned."  Then I see that you claim there are various "state, federal" etc. claims upon those areas.

Could you carefully and patiently (as to a child) describe & explain your bases for these claims? 

Then perhaps I'll have no questions to ask.

Thank you very kindly for doing so, in advance of the doing. 

The foundation of property rights (and the freedom that flows from those rights) is the property that each person has in himself and, by extension, in the fruits his labor. So the basis of libertarianism is the absolute right of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle is then derived from this - correct?

This is summarized as a universal ethic in John Locke in his 2nd Treatise on Government:

"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions ..."

If there is only one person alive in this world there is no need for property rights as there can be no human conflict so this human can go anywhere and do whatever they want. When the next person shows up then we have a potential for conflict so we develop the concept of property rights to avoid conflict. But his/her rights to go wherever they want is not abrogated but rather transformed into an individual equal access right (common rights).

From Locke's 2nd Treatise on Goverment

"Sect. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."

Since the basis of property rights is labor, then everything that pre-exists human labor is equally accessible by all as an individual equal right. As part of common law, the trails and paths that allowed people to freely travel were used in common (individual equal right) as no one person's labor created them.

When we actually construct a road surface for cars to travel along or sidewalks we pay people for their labor to do this out of tax money. We could do this more effectively from those who directly benefit by tolls but landowners along a road that don't use the roads will benefit from proximity to access as a positive externality.

Because car travel has such a high risk of bodily and property injury then we subsume the common right  of way contained within and a collective body (via delegated authority to lawmakers) decides on the rules of the road. Travel via foot on sidewalks is much, much less risky so the common right of way is superior so that we can exercise our common right of speech, assembly and petitioning for redress of greivances.

[EthanAllen]

So I would think it could be argued successfully that any law disallowing someone to post a sign (ie free speech) would be unconstitutional.

The courts have upheld time, manner, and place restrictions on individual speech.  My point here is that they leave the signs promoting politicians during campaign season, or Merrimack Fall Festivals, or whatever, alone even when posted on public right of ways, but if there's a message they don't like or that bothers them in some way, they whip out the law and take down the sign.

It's a particularly insidious form of censorship - they need to either routinely and promptly take down all signs, even the "WELCOME HOME PFC. SMITH!" banners and the decorated crosses marking fatal car wreck sites, or they need to leave all signs alone.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/downersgrovesun/news/482924,6_1_NA26_DSPROTEST_S1.article

[EthanAllen]

I may build a road which later is used by others

But I have no common right of way within that road as it is private property.

After all, where my feet go, a path may form.

That is how common right of ways formed as the basis of common law. But it is not your labor solely which would make it private.

I haven't paid any such taxes for 10+ years.

Have you owned any land in proximity? If you have then you are a "free rider"...
Have you used the sidewalks for foot travel?

I will willingly build the pathways I need.

Really? Have you started digging yet?

I am not interested in ownership-through-theft.  That is criminal.

You still haven't answered who the roads were originally stolen from. I already said that tolls and capturing the positive externalities from landowners in proximity are much fairer.

who the heck is 'we'?

The joint owners of the roads.

Seriously!   Only a man, woman or child can think.  Groups cannot.

Collectives (groups) can make joint decisions. My family is one - we use consensus.

[J’raxis 270145]

You guys....how is it even legal that she is still being held? It's been three weeks...that seems, wrong..and more than just in my gut, I feel like that violates the basic laws of this land.

If a person doesn't coöperate, the system sort of gets stuck. A long time ago, trials couldn't even go forward if a person refused to enter a plea, e.g., the famous example of Giles Corey. There are workarounds in place for that nowadays—a judge enters a not-guilty plea "on behalf" of the defendant—but it looks like they still don't know how to handle someone who refuses to be booked or arraigned.

[FTL_Ian]

Big thanks to Mengerfan for are duking it out with the ignoramuses in the comment section on Rogers video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xndEhn8EUdc

The blind worship of police, laws, and the state makes me sad, angry, and disgusted.  The government really has done a bang up job of indoctrinating the American people.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Big thanks to Mengerfan for are duking it out with the ignoramuses in the comment section on Rogers video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xndEhn8EUdc

The blind worship of police, laws, and the state makes me sad, angry, and disgusted.  The government really has done a bang up job of indoctrinating the American people.

Yep, otherwise we wouldn't be living in the police state that we are living in now.

[Michael Fisher]

Sarah, I do not believe I've met you, but I must ask you to please stop the personal attacks against me on various threads. It only detracts from the issue.

My post was very simple to understand:

If some of us want to use violence, and if some of us reject all violence, even in self-defense, then a conflict will eventually erupt within our movement. Excuse the pun, but please do not shoot the messenger, Dave, for merely relaying the message.

[Michael Fisher]

Why despair? There is always hope.

Lauren gives me hope.

[FTL_Ian]

Why despair? There is always hope.

Lauren gives me hope.

Just because I find their comments to be disgusting doesn't mean I despair.  I have plenty of hope and am moving forward.   

[David]

Why despair? There is always hope.

Lauren gives me hope.

She does, doesn't she.   
Her moral compass is a wall. 

Good to hear from you Michael. 

[FTL_Ian]

David,

I just read your signature and want to thank you for creating yet another concept to draw activists here to Keene.  Have you posted a thread here about it yet?

[Jim Johnson]

Welcome back Mike.  You have the Noble position of Lancelot in our struggle. 

There should be no despair in Lauren's struggle.  There should be only joy...that one of us has stepped forward to be the lighting rod for the lazy and contemptible citizenry of The United States of America.  The abused and down trod may now have someone that they can abuse and humiliate.  Someone they can transfer their anger upon, for every hour they have had to stand in a DMV line and every sneer they have had to endure from a DMV employee they can now unload on to Lauren.   
Lauren hangs on the states cross...for saying no...and she will bear the sins of every citizen who could have said no but did not.

[KBCraig]

Kevin, I have a couple of questions for you.

Kevin?

As busy as this forum is, it's not real-time chat.   I actually had obligations today that kept me away from the forum for about 12 hours. Sorry to keep you waiting. Sometimes you have to give me more than 2:20 to reply.

By doing what's always been done (paying the bureaucrats and voting, etc.), do you expect to make change happen?

Also, what is the change you would want to see? 

Thanks.

Not disclaimer needed as far as I'm concerned. Sorry you had to deal with someone misunderstanding you. I have to deal with it too, so sometimes I'm wordier than I'd normally choose to be.

The "traditional way" has gained us some ground in NH. Even when we lost some issues after the last election, our political activists kept it from being far, far worse. Without them serving as a check on the tyrants in charge, can you imagine how much worse it would be?

I respect and admire Lauren and Jim, as well as Russell and Kat, Caleb, and everyone else who has had the courage of their convictions, and has opted out of the system. Living your life as if the government doesn't matter takes bravery. There are also big risks involved. Risks like being in jail for months, for refusing to cooperate in being convicted of charges that would carry, at most, a few hundred dollars in fines and little-to-no jail time. That's a big price to pay for principles, but I will not question whether it's "worth it" to those involved. Obviously it is, or they wouldn't be willing to suffer so.

I want to end the laws that allow them to be harassed and imprisoned for daring to deny that the state has authority over them. I'd like to make it easier for others to follow their path, by reducing the risks and costs for doing so.

I will not trust in the good graces of elected officials to end these laws all on their own. Effecting political change requires political involvement. Gandhi's activism was not apolitical; he was astutely political, and aimed his efforts at his foes' weak spot. He knew he was dealing with a government that was vulnerable to a sense of shame. I fear that 21st Century American government would laugh off such efforts.

Gandhi had the sad advantage of a populace who were desperately poor. They had nothing left to lose, except their lives. Whether they starved to death from an unpayable tax on producing salt, or were gunned down at protests, the difference in lifespan was a matter of days. They had no homes to seize, no cars to impound, no bank accounts to seize. Their earthly possessions were limited to a couple of yards of cloth in the form of a sarong or sari, and a couple of cooking pots and utensils. Survival was a daily struggle. The poorest of the poor in America today are fabulously wealthy compared to Gandhi's masses.

Gandhi's poor masses were also packed together quite densely. Word spread quickly without benefit of telephones, radio, or the Internet. Hundreds of thousands were within walking distance, no matter where the protest took place.

Those teeming millions had no voice in politics. They literally had no other choice. As an educated teacher and lawyer, Gandhi recognized and took brilliant advantage of the situation at hand, and used it to apply social pressure (in England, not India) against the politicos who ruled India. Gandhi's situation was not the same as our situation, and the same methods in different circumstance won't necessarily work.

I support my non-violent, non-cooperative friends. To help end their suffering, I want to shut down the political institutions which harm them. Those institutions are creations of government; ironically, it requires government to change them. Our current government is hugely more powerful than colonial Britain. Changing it requires either participating in the process, or massive popular resistance.

Read the comments in the Union Leader's article about Lauren, and tell me how much popular support you think she enjoys.



I'm angry at those who have locked her up. Me refusing to pay taxes, register my car, or get a driver's license won't set Lauren free, nor stop them from doing it again. Prodding representatives in the General Court to change the law has a far more immediate impact, and on many more people.

Sorry for the length; I hope you understand my position and reasoning.

Kevin

[Ahmed]

Since only operation of motor vehicles is licensed, perhaps people should start using horses.

[Kat Kanning]

If you write to Lauren, she'll know she isn't forgotten.  I do think she's being punished for not bowing to the system.