Parking Tickets and the “Consent of the Governed”

[SethCohn]

There is no such thing as legal entities.  There are individuals, and there is property.  The old lady in question, gave up her property.

So Ian is saying that he doesn't believe in contracts, nor contract law, since he's perfectly willing to say that a old lady's legitimate will, a contract she had drawn up to express her desired use of her property, which gives her property to a known identifiable collection of other individuals (aka the 'city library' and those who run it) she expressly wished it to go toward, is invalid in his eyes, and thus he isn't willing to abide by it.

Anyone want to deal with an anarchist who doesn't believe in the legitimacy and primacy of freely drawnup contracts between consenting adults?  Me neither.

[srqrebel]

Seth, for chrissake!

If I claim to be Santa's authorized agent, does that make him real?

If not, would I have the ability to conduct valid business, and draw up valid contracts, on "his" behalf? Can a contract be valid, when the claimed authority is derived from an entity that does not even exist?

To illustrate, if I establish a fictitious entity and call it "Santa's Workshop", it is a valid mechanism, and can conduct valid business, because all actions undertaken in its name are derived from the authority and ownership of a genuine entity: Myself. Since I, as a genuine volitional entity, delegate my authority to others through a business that I own, any contracts established in the name of the business owe their validity to my inherent authority to contract with other volitional entities.

If I claim to conduct business on behalf of Santa Claus, however, I am basing my actions on the nonexistent authority of a nonexistent being. If I purport to establish a contract on the behalf of Santa Claus, then that is fraud. It is not a valid contract because the mutually agreed upon authorizing entity does not exist, no matter what I have led my victim to believe.

The same applies to the "city of Keene": It is not an actual volitional entity, but entirely a fictional mechanism created out of thin air. As far as I can tell, there is no actual volitional entity or entities who claim ownership of this mechanism, only agents who claim to act on "its" behalf: That is the key difference between the "city of Keene", and a legitimate business which acts on the actual authority of an actual entity or entities with actual property rights.

[d_goddard]

Ian,will you throw up your hands when the bureaucrats who are not friendly to our ideas, ask the same questions that Seth is asking you?

[SethCohn]

The same applies to the "city of Keene": It is not an actual volitional entity, but entirely a fictional mechanism created out of thin air. As far as I can tell, there is no actual volitional entity or entities who claim ownership of this mechanism, only agents who claim to act on "its" behalf: That is the key difference between the "city of Keene", and a legitimate business which acts on the actual authority of an actual entity or entities with actual property rights.

You've entirely missed my point: you (and Ian) deny the legitimate existence of the "City of Keene" (and it's library, etc).  Said 'old lady' did not agree with you, and legitimately 'believed in' the existence of the library as a valid entity.  By Ian's logic, she was 'wrong' and so her property is no longer hers, it's now nobodys (and thus, by that logic, can be used freely and openly by anyone), DESPITE her express desires otherwise.

That is NOT respect for property rights nor contracts.

You continue to argue that "City of Keene" doesn't exist, QED you can ignore it... Good luck with that... it's a bogus argument at the heart of it - and it won't win you any victories nor friends outside of the small circled wagon collection of anarchoidealists you have now.

[srqrebel]

You've entirely missed my point: you (and Ian) deny the legitimate existence of the "City of Keene" (and it's library, etc).  Said 'old lady' did not agree with you, and legitimately 'believed in' the existence of the library as a valid entity.  By Ian's logic, she was 'wrong' and so her property is no longer hers, it's now nobodys (and thus, by that logic, can be used freely and openly by anyone), DESPITE her express desires otherwise...

Believing in it does not make it a real volitional entity with the capacity to own property.

I would not say that the property is no longer hers, if she wishes to reclaim it. As long as she is leaving it to a nonexistent entity, she is essentially abandoning the property as a byproduct of her own delusions.

When the ancient Egyptians left food and treasures for the spirits of their dead, did the spirit become the new owner? Even if there is no such thing as a spirit? Or did the Egyptians abandon that property as a byproduct of their own delusions? Does the valid answer hinge on the original owner's express desire for the gifts to be owned by a spirit? Or does it hinge on whether or not spirits are real?

[SethCohn]

I would not say that the property is no longer hers, if she wishes to reclaim it.

She's dead, Jim.  Let's be clear on that.

As long as she is leaving it to a nonexistent entity, she is essentially abandoning the property as a byproduct of her own delusions.

Well, somebody here is under some delusions, and I'm less and less sure it's the old lady.

When the ancient Egyptians left food and treasures for the spirits of their dead, did the spirit become the new owner? Even if there is no such thing as a spirit? Or did the Egyptians abandon that property as a byproduct of their own delusions? Does the valid answer hinge on the original owner's express desire for the gifts to be owned by a spirit? Or does it hinge on whether or not spirits are real?

So, graverobbers were merely gathering up 'unowned abandoned property'.  Way to defend graverobbing, dude!

Keene Anarchists: they defend graverobbers, don't respect contracts or wills unless they agree with them, and old ladies' property isn't safe around them.  Film at 11.

[Tom Sawyer]

Perhaps ya'll could take the discussion over to the NHLA forum... 

[FTL_Ian]

Ian,will you throw up your hands when the bureaucrats who are not friendly to our ideas, ask the same questions that Seth is asking you?

They won't bother asking questions.  They will likely ignore us or get violent.

[FTL_Ian]

Time for you to answer a question, Seth:

How does one enter into a legitimate contract with an entity that does not actually exist?

[SethCohn]

Perhaps ya'll could take the discussion over to the NHLA forum... 

(Almost) Nobody on the NHLA forum would bother arguing the nonsense that Ian is spouting regarding the illegitimacy of the existence 'city of Keene'.

[d_goddard]

Perhaps ya'll could take the discussion over to the NHLA forum... 

(Almost) Nobody on the NHLA forum would bother arguing the nonsense that Ian is spouting regarding the illegitimacy of the existence 'city of Keene'.

Seth, you are so wrong:




we don't allow discussions about graverobbers

[J’raxis 270145]

This entire discussion reminds me of so many tax-protester arguments. People can come up with the most wonderfully complex, and perhaps in some cases even correct, interpretations of tax law, without even considering that the venue in which they plan to present the argument is run by the State and the person whom they wish to convince of their correctness is an agent of the State.

Ian, no matter how good your argument is, do you expect to get anywhere presenting it to a parking bureaucrat, a police officer, or a judge, all of whom ultimately get their paycheque from the State? If not, then what is the point of the back-and-forth between you and the agents of the State? Why not simply ignore their threats and demands, based upon your argument, and be done with it?

[FTL_Ian]

Ian, no matter how good your argument is, do you expect to get anywhere presenting it to a parking bureaucrat, a police officer, or a judge, all of whom ultimately get their paycheque from the State? If not, then what is the point of the back-and-forth between you and the agents of the State? Why not simply ignore their threats and demands, based upon your argument, and be done with it?

I am testing to see if this truly is a government by the consent of the governed, or just a band of thugs.  By speaking out and publicizing it, I'm letting it be known that I do not consent.

If they do not respond to my reasonable requests for proof of obligation, others may be encouraged to live free.

[d_goddard]

J., you should listen to Free Talk Live more

Actually -- no. DON'T!! You could get addicted. "Lord, I know, I'm one."

Anyway, that's the tactic -- ask existential questions until the 'crats Just Go Away.
http://thinkfree.ca/

[SethCohn]

Time for you to answer a question, Seth:

How does one enter into a legitimate contract with an entity that does not actually exist?

Who ya gonna call?  Ghostlawyers!
When there's some strange, and it don't look legal, who ya gonna call?   Ghostlawyers!

If you're seeing anarchy running through your head, who ya gonna call?   Ghostlawyers!

An invisible man violating your property rights, Who ya gonna call? Ghostlawyers!

I ain't afraid of no politics...
I ain't afraid of no politics...

Lemme tell ya something
Lawyers makes me feel unclean!

Humor aside, I'll wager that dozens of legitimate contracts exist with one party being the "City of Keene", of which you benefit (or at least are affected by, let's not argue benefits/detriments/costs/etc at this point..)

While you may choose to not to recognize the legitimacy of said contracts, the rest of the world does, and this being the dominant paradigm of 'life in Keene', ie they are 'legal' (from which the word legitimate is derived) contracts.

Hence, your insistence in its' non-existence makes no difference

If you went around claiming that aliens exist, that doesn't mean they do (nor that they do not...)
If you went around claming that 9/11 was a conspiracy, that doesn't mean it was (nor that it wasn't).
I pick those examples, because you've taken clear stands on the other side of the fence on both... so perhaps you can imagine yourself for a moment, in this example: Your claim that the City of Keene has no legal, legitimate stance as a valid entity with which to contract is in the same realm as that of aliens or 9/11 - in other words, unless you can produces FACTS, the dominant view will continue to rule the roost here. 

Your dislike of the actions of the City, or it's representatives or employees, doesn't make the entity invalid.  It's use of force is neither here nor there, and while it can be claimed that the use of force _should_ invalidate contracts, here in the real world, that's not always true.