Parking Tickets and the “Consent of the Governed”

[Caleb]

Have you read `A Critique of Pure Reason'?

Smart guy.  Good book. 

[d_goddard]

Have you read `A Critique of Pure Reason'?

yes.

Smart guy.  Good book. 

Smart, yes. Wrong on a lot of things, yes -- just like a lot of smart people.
Like the idea that "good will" has primacy over actual results, because (somehow) True Good Will always results in good results. Bzzzt. Sorry, big K, thanks for playing.
Then there's the whole "duty" thing... christ, Kant is all duty, duty, duty. If an act is not done out of "duty", then it has no value. I call bullshit.
And I appreciate that I've only read Kant in translation, but it seems to me he's a windbag bombast. Maybe it's just being German -- you know how they are with language -- but christ, he thought that if he said it in twice the space with 5 new words he made up himself, that made it better. Somehow.

Sorry, what were you saying?

[Caleb]

It was a joke, Denis. 

[SethCohn]

There are a few rules, for your protection of course. The best part is, you get to send us $100/month to pay for the wonderful services that benefit you and your neighbors.

To which I replied...

Yup, About $5200 a year... sounds like property taxes to me.

For those who didn't fail math, that would be $100 a week.  Or 4x what SamIam and his 500 friends imposed.  Heck, if $100 a month, or a mere $1200, is all I'd have to pay in property taxes, all the better.

[SethCohn]

Have you read `A Critique of Pure Reason'?

Joke aside, I never said pure reason.  Lord knows, dealing with politicians, reason is not enough... you need color charts with simple words, respect, public outcry, and lots of other things.  But reason is a factor, for sure.  Be reasonable and you get someplace.  Be unreasonable and you don't.  Be a wacko and you're just trying to teach a pig to dance.

[Caleb]

Sometimes the color charts make you look like a wacko. (eg Ross Perot).

I actually agree with the politicos on this, though Ian. (gasp). I tried to make this point before. Although I understand where you are coming from and agree with you that the state is philosophically nonexistent, I don't think that's the best way to approach it, because it does make you look like you're living in fantasy land, and it's a morally neutral approach, so you don't even look like a lovable, friendly little kook. You just end up looking to people like you are in a fantasy land, and they don't care if the state stomps you.

[FTL_Ian]

If you are going to make arguments, don't make ones that are so absurd that even your friends won't take seriously, let alone the people you are trying to reason with... (and if you don't believe in reason, stop poisoning the well for the rest of us...)

My friends don't accuse me of "ruining it".   

[FTL_Ian]

I actually agree with the politicos on this, though Ian. (gasp). I tried to make this point before. Although I understand where you are coming from and agree with you that the state is philosophically nonexistent, I don't think that's the best way to approach it, because it does make you look like you're living in fantasy land, and it's a morally neutral approach, so you don't even look like a lovable, friendly little kook. You just end up looking to people like you are in a fantasy land, and they don't care if the state stomps you.

So when someone claims the "city of Keene" exists or owns something, we who know better should just capitulate and agree?  What are you suggesting?

[Caleb]

First, I'm not suggesting that you are poisoning the well.

Just that focusing on the moral reasons for your stance is a much more effective path.

[SethCohn]

So when someone claims the "city of Keene" exists or owns something, we who know better should just capitulate and agree?  What are you suggesting?

You can always argue about Capital Letters, and the corporate state, like Dick Marple and others.

Seriously, you can always correct them by saying "You mean, the mob/gang/etc known as the "City of Keene", right?"  You aren't denying they exist, but you aren't saying they are legit in your view.

Claiming the City of Keene loses money on parking tickets and everyone would be better off without them: very reasonable.

Claiming the City of Keene is trying to run a scam known as parking ticket payments: sounds reasonable, to many.

Claiming the City of Keene doesn't exist, so can't send you a valid bill when you parked in a openly metered spot and ignored the visible signs: unreasonable.

[Caleb]

Was it your intent to make that last post sound like a VISA commercial?

[SethCohn]

Was it your intent to make that last post sound like a VISA commercial?

When I go out, I never know if I'll be arrested that day, and end up in jail.
But thanks to REAL ID, I refuse to carry anything with an RFID, a social security number, or a driver license.  And I certainly don't let them fingerprint me or give them any info about me.
That's why, I don't leave home without the Shire Express card...  Within minutes, an alert goes on nhfree.com and porc411 and signs and banners are readied.

Shire Express card -
R U S S E L L  K A N N I N G
(everyone getting a Shire Express card will either get one that says Russell Kanning or Lauren Canario.
No credit check will be run, and no minimum monthly payment is required.)

[FTL_Ian]

The only reason I went in this direction is because the conversation on this thread drilled down that far.  If you read my posts on Free Keene, the issue is clearly "Consent of the Governed", not the imaginary state.

[Caleb]

Fair enough.

I'm boycotting Free Keene ever since I was dismissed as a blogger. 

[SethCohn]

The only reason I went in this direction is because the conversation on this thread drilled down that far.  If you read my posts on Free Keene, the issue is clearly "Consent of the Governed", not the imaginary state.

I've read your posts on Free Keene, and like it or not, you are far closer to the 'you don't exist, I never agreed to any rules you posted, cover my ears and say blah blah blah' than anything else.

You openly admit in the first post that you don't believe "Consent of the Governed" to be true, and intend to prove it's not true by refusing to consent and waiting for the armed reaction which eventually come.

Except you're setting the entire situation up to 'prove your point', with a predetermined ending given the scope of the issue you've started with.  See http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=13617.0 for one example of the force used for unpaid parking tickets.  You aren't going to get an answer, eventually your car will be stopped for some other reason, they'll flag it for unpaid tickets, and it'll be towed, and most likely you (and your dog, if you have one with you) will be arrested.