Something is going on at Error's apartment!

[David]

Option #2.  I'm not in any hurry to get arrested, but it is just a matter of time till it happens. 

[penguinsscareme]

Re:  Bill St. Claire - as far as I know, he's a good guy.  I'll do the same for him as I did for Rob and first ask him to tone down the "let's go shoot the bastards" talk.  Bill, you're welcome to say whatever you want, but not necessarily on my property.  The purpose of this website is not to start violent revolution.  I don't want that to happen.  If you'd like to encourage other people to start violent revolution (since you don't seem to be doing it yourself), please do it elsewhere.  Thanks.

Hey, come on now.  I know Bill St. Clair, and I've read what he's posted here.  I do not see him saying, "let's go shoot the bastards."  I do not see him advocating violent revolution, either.

I'd rather die on my feet, hopefully taking a few of my kidnappers with me. Your mileage obviously varies. I didn't ask you to join me. Only pointed at my lines in the sand.

What he's saying is a long way from what you're hearing, in my estimation.

[EthanAllen]

Option #2.  I'm not in any hurry to get arrested, but it is just a matter of time till it happens. 

The only way #2 will work is with massive n-v, cd. In the mean time Lauren and Russell live "free", at least in their minds (although Lauren currently sits in jail).

The 3rd option is to evaporate from the system.

That is what Lauren & Russell are doing prior to massive n-v, cd. They do not recognize the jurisdiction of federal or state authorities over them and are perfectly willing to suffer the consequences of incarceration for those beliefs when and if they break laws (deliberately, consciously, or otherwise).

[David]

Most of the people in this country still respect the police.  They assume the occasional brutality report is an anomaly or 'liberal' bias in the news, then move on with their lives. 
Unless it is damn clear the cop was wrong , and it usually isn't, you will be viewed as the aggressor by the vast majority of the public if you harm a cop.  This is why violence against the state makes it stronger. If what people believe is good and moral is suddenly under attack, they will give any power necessary to the gov't to suppress the attack. 
Gov't has the moral high ground.  violence will never be the appropriate strategy against gov't until they lose the high ground.  Other nations are at that point, this nation is not.  If you defend yourself, you will be mowed down by the gov't. 
Morally you have the right to defend yourself.  But because the gov't has the high ground, you will be the one the people fear.  This dynamic should be painfully obvious in the whole right to bear arms debate. 
Put in another way: The civil rights movement.  The white majority believed they had the right to forcibly segregate, and they looked the other way on the violence against blacks.  While it is possible for black Americans to defend themselves against the nongov't groups' violence, had they reacted in defence to the official gov't repression the results would have been likely death for many, and prison for everyone else.  The prisons were already full (just as they are today) of young black men. 
Many chose to oppose the injustice by civil disobiediance, and very public marches.  The marches were the only way to act that was very public, (to discourage the white brutality) yet clearly nonviolent.  This neutered the white racists.  It took awhile, but in the end, it succeeded. 
Argue with reality if you want, but nonviolent resistance does work. 

[David]

You're right to the extent that massive nonviolent civil D is more successful.  But we have our own media, and cheap ways to disemminate info.  The civil rights marches were their only method of breaking through the media wall of silence.  They were so big, the mainstream media couldn't ignore them. 
We have a similar problem, but we have ways around it.  The following link has done some amazing civil disobedience that has worked.  http://www.embassyofheaven.com/

[J’raxis 270145]

Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir...

I am one of the few at the very heart of this controversy and am feeling intense amount of stress because if it, yet I am even more concerned with what is occurring right here on this board. 

I feel like there is a lot of fighting occurring right now.  I feel this is EXACTLY what the Feds are looking for.  I feel most of the events since the Brown arrest have not necessarily been because some of us supported them and they are searching for potentially violent Brown supporters.  On the contrary I feel our current harassment is because they know only some of us supported the Browns in their entire stance, they know as a group we do not advocate violence, they know the entire issue is a sensitive one, and they know we have been divided in the past on the same issue (i.e. they know of Rob and others being 'kicked off' this forum for speaking of or advocating for violence). 

I feel they specifically targeted us in order to stir up the hornets nest and divide us now because we are becoming more and more united in this fight towards realizing liberty in our lifetime!  We are gaining a momentum and it is scaring them.  God forbid if Ron Paul get elected - they will be out of jobs.  God forbid we do away with this large federal government - they will be out of jobs!  Hell, I'd imagine if enough information about the work of some of these agencies were made public enough and the tide in this country changed enough, many of these Marshals and other government workers could be tried for treason!!!  Of course they are terrified!

I ask you all... no, I beg of you.  Please stop any fighting or bickering.  I don't think it is necessary to "clarify" on issues such as whether or not the Browns were or were not FSPers at the cost of unity of the group.  I don't think it necessary to 'clarify' on any view at the cost of unity of the group - if people need to know what we stand for it is right there, easily found on the FSP site.

Fortunately, none of us in the Manchester group is really divided over this. All this bickering and masturdebating over the utility of violence seems to be constrained to the forum, and with new users—most of whom aren't even freestaters.

[mvpel]

I'm surprised no one else mentioned this.  In ohio it is legally (I think) kidnapping to take someones child from where they are supposed to be, to somewhere else.  That gov't person did.  I assume someone was watching him, and the fed lady just picked him up and took him inside.  The standard may be malicious intent, which other than to identify you, it doesn't appear malicious.  Btw, did she even bother to ask who was watching him before she picked up your son?

In New Hampshire, this is covered in RSA 633:1, Kidnapping, however there's a catch at the end:

I-a. A person is guilty of kidnapping if the person knowingly takes, entices away, detains, or conceals any child under the age of 18 and unrelated to the person by consanguinity, or causes such child to be taken, enticed away, detained, or concealed, with the intent to detain or conceal such child from a parent, guardian, or other person having lawful physical custody of such child. This paragraph shall not apply to law enforcement personnel or department of health and human services personnel engaged in the conduct of their lawful duties.

So they'll just argue that lifting and carrying him was "engaging in the conduct of her lawful duties."

However, there is "interference with custody" in 633:4-II, without such an out for cops & feds:

II. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person knowingly takes, entices away, detains or conceals any child under the age of 18, or causes any such child to be taken, enticed away, detained or concealed, with the intent to detain or conceal such child from a parent, guardian or other person having lawful parental rights and responsibilities as described in RSA 461-A.

The agent clearly intended to detain such child from an "other person having lawful parental rights and responsibilities," namely the person who was looking after him while Ivy was working, assuming that a delegation of such rights and responsibilities to a temporary caretaker falls under the definition in 461-A, and there's no LEO exception here.

[jsorens]

The only moral position to an immoral act from the state is non-violent, civil disobedience. Too many people here do not understand this position. Those that do became pawns/shields in the Brown case for those that don't. If the Browns had used violent self-defense claiming they were protecting against trespassers against agents lawfully trying to apprehend them, then they would be acting immorally.

Bold added for emphasis. This view breaks down when you take it to an extreme. If the government is committing genocide, the only moral response is non-violent resistance? The American Revolution was immoral? If it's permissible to use force in defense of self against private criminals, why not against public criminals? Here's what I believe:

1. I believe that the feds had no right to arrest the Browns, because collection of unconsented-to taxes is an immoral act of theft.

2. I believe that the Browns had a prima facie right to defend themselves from arrest by force.

3. I believe that not everything you have a right to do is itself necessarily right to do. Drug abuse, adultery, rudeness, getting drunk at weddings, and so on would fit this category of "wrong but you have a right to do it."

4. I believe that the Browns are nutso and did their own cause massive harm - they may have had a right to threaten defensive force, but it was still wrong for them to do so. If the feds were trying to kill them for no reason, say, then it would have been right to use defensive force, because they would have had no option: imprisonment is temporary and still allows one's message to be heard. This is the real reason why the Browns should have used nonviolent civil disobedience, not that violence against the state is always wrong.

5. In my view, the FSP expels anyone who promotes violent revolution because such promotion does our movement irreparable harm & doesn't solve anything - not because violent revolution is under all conceivable circumstances wrong. My view only, I'm not speaking "officially."

6. It is never acceptable to retaliate with force against people who have previously used force immorally. That is not defensive force; that is revenge. Anyone who tries to use pure retaliatory force should be apprehended and punished.

7. Thus, it would be wrong for anyone to retaliate with force against the feds & people responsible for the Browns' imprisonment. Moreover, such people can and should be arrested and charged. I'm not saying anyone will do this, and I hope no one does.

8. Most of the feds are probably not "evil," & it's disturbing to see even pacifists throwing that term around. They're just misguided: they don't understand the correct theory of property rights. Not an uncommon affliction in this country. "Evil" means that a person knows what is right and does what is wrong anyway. The feds think they're right. That's another reason why it would be totally counterproductive to use force against them in this scenario. As Michael Hampton says, we have to use words not guns. The issue is that people believe the wrong things about the content of their moral obligations.

[jsorens]

Hi JSorens,

I think of it very simply. 

(1) The initiation or threat of force or fraud is ethically indefensible.  [No matter who initiates it.]

(2) The use of judicious defensive force against attack on one's life, liberty and/or property is ethically defensible. [No matter who defender or attacker may be.]

Nor is it any of my business what someone else does in immediate defense.  Many people have religious and/or philosophical objections to the use of force in defense, and that is their choice to make.   Others have no compunction about shooting an intruder dead, even though it may only be an unarmed thief.   The choice is UTTERLY up to the individual so attacked, and not my business.

Initiation of such force is just simply always wrong.  Defense is a personal issue.

Hunting down a perceived threat is initiation of force.  That's what the fedsters do every day.   It is ethically absolutely indefensible. 

I wish no one else would imitate them. 

Amen.

[enloopious]

We are not George Bush. We do not use pre-emptive attacks. Only persons of weak moral character attack people who have not engaged them. Even if the Fed did threaten me, you, or others with prison, arrest, or the IRS, we should not shoot or bomb them because then we are just as bad as them. That sounds like something an agent would say or do to stir things up... it's happened before [insert 1 of a thousand links here.]

The problem is that the war has evolved. It is a new battlefield. One or two hundred years ago it would have been a pugilistic confrontation between people of different ideas and you would have had a great affect. Today, the fight is political, mental, and carried out written and verbally. Fighting a psychological battle with guns is not effective in the least. You must learn to adapt to the new struggle. That is the reason for the creation of the FSP (as I understand it) and that is why I support it. They hope to fight it using the same weapons as the oppressors: words, law, and education.

Divide and conquer.

+1 for noticing.

An agitator can post a response to this post very easily and get us more divided, talking, arguing, and espousing negative ideas that divide us because of frustration and the feelings of helplessness and taking action so lets not do that. Those who would use violence or self harm to get a message out need to realize that we need you around. How can you see the world you want to see if you do something stupid? Strength in numbers and unity. Every person in this movement should run for office and vote for other FSPers. Organization and unity is what really scares them.

Ivy is very pretty and smart (I don't know her, just judging from the video) and just the thought of fedgoons manhandling her and her kids has riled up everyone. Her friends feel violated just having to watch her talk to them. I could see this in the first day's posts from 12,310 miles away. So lets take a deep breath and step back and focus on getting the work that needs to be done, done, namely getting everyone into public office, etc.

[Russell Kanning]

Nice comment KB.  Is it just me or does it seem weird that all of the derogatory statements about free staters are posted by people who are unwilling to provide their last name?  hmmm

it is for their own protection ... all of us freestaters are such dangerous people ... they were brave to even speak up

[Russell Kanning]

Chris was searching on some very old threads and mentioned she'd found a thread, way pre-trial, where Kat was going to invite Ed and Elaine to come to a meeting of Concord Porcs.  I don't think that ever happened, nor do I think they were ever at any of the other Porc meetings (Keene?)

Ed Brown doesn't come to you ... you must go to him.
You have to climb the mountain and ask the guru your questions.

Ed Brown is not part of the FSP ... we are all part of the body of edbrown.

I never saw him outside his property... and now the feds have taken him away.

[Russell Kanning]

   Well, I finally got to murphys yeaterday.  I met the bar tender and 2 other patrons, nice people.  I had this English beer 5.2 % that knocked my dick in the dirt and a Bud and sat for an hour or so and shot the shit.  I took off around 4 ish.
  I asked if there were porqs there or if there were any free staters presant and got funny looks.  I left, i didn't want to get people nervous, I'm a new face so I didn't want to push it.

I am sure most people in there would have no idea what you are talking about most any time of the day.

[firecracker joe]

well Russell
you are pretty scarry . speaking just for me  you scare the hell out of me! please don't be offended. And when the whole gang is behind you . Lets just say iwould'nt give my last name either.  Jose

[Russell Kanning]

Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir...

I am one of the few at the very heart of this controversy and am feeling intense amount of stress because if it, yet I am even more concerned with what is occurring right here on this board.

forums attract arguers

There are many people on this forum I have not met and will never meet and they like to tell some of the active members in this nonviolent revolution what to do ... including that we should use force.

On the other hand there are wonderful people on this forum who I have met or will meet who are my comrades in the fight for all of our freedoms. They have stood with each other during dark times. It is fun knowing people are making connections on this forum that I don't even know about and that they are benefiting from the friendships they started because of this movement.