Russell Arrested 3/17/08

[malcolm]

• 1. Do we know that Russell did in fact apply for and receive a State marriage license and state-issued birth certificates for his children?  If he entered his innocent children into the state-system that they will not be able to extricate themselves from before they were old enough to object, that's a major blow against the legitimacy of any claim he might make that he's "outside the system" and shouldn't be subject to the system's violence.  However, I haven't seen the evidence that he did such things, I've not heard any allegations that he did such things, and I'm not about to assume he did such things until I see some evidence.

It looks that way to me.

• 2. Would the law under which Russell is being held still apply even if there were no state-marriage license and birth certificates?  If the answer to this question is "yes," then it makes it harder to say that he deserves the current violence by reason of his earlier collusion with the government.

No.  Without a marriage license, in most places a marriage isn't a marriage without a license.  (Common-law laws can vary.  Consult your attorney.)
If the kids were adopted, he signed to put his name on their birth certificate.  If the bio-kids weren't his, he could have removed his name after establishing non-paternity.

[mackler]

As for your argument that Russell has consented to be bound by California family law, that is bogus.  .Gov forces us to sign alot of things in life, just to...have kids...

What does government force you to sign in order to have kids?

Well, lets see how many kid related documents that must be signed in the course of a lifetime.  If you adopt, you must sign.  (in the old days, agreeing to take care of someones kid or be godparent sufficed), If you give birth in a hospital, a birth certificate is created, upon which the mother is expected to place her name and the name of the father. (who would deny their own child?)  If you expect to enroll that kid in school (even private schools), you must sign certain documents attesting to your parental status, and that certain regulations concerning the public health must be met.  If you expect your child to inherit without probate, you must name him in a will.  There are many signatures required to bring a child from birth to adulthood. 

Everything you mentioned is voluntary.  You can find an orphan in the street, and adopt it without signing anything.  You can privately adopt from a family without the government forcing you to sign anything.  You don't have to have your baby in a hospital (and in fact there are strong health reasons against doing so).  You don't have to send your kid to a public school (and in fact there are strong educational reasons against doing so).  If a private school makes you sign something, that's not the government making you sign anything.  There are plenty of ways to pass property onto your children outside of probate, and anyway a will isn't a government document.

But even if I'm wrong about all the foregoing, I'm not aware that Russell was forced by the government to sign anything in order to adopt, give birth, send a kid to school, or to devise or bequeath property to his kids.  If he signed anything--and I don't know that he did--he signed it voluntarily.

[Notanumber]

As for your argument that Russell has consented to be bound by California family law, that is bogus.  .Gov forces us to sign alot of things in life, just to...have kids...

What does government force you to sign in order to have kids?

Well, lets see how many kid related documents that must be signed in the course of a lifetime.  If you adopt, you must sign.  (in the old days, agreeing to take care of someones kid or be godparent sufficed), If you give birth in a hospital, a birth certificate is created, upon which the mother is expected to place her name and the name of the father. (who would deny their own child?)  If you expect to enroll that kid in school (even private schools), you must sign certain documents attesting to your parental status, and that certain regulations concerning the public health must be met.  If you expect your child to inherit without probate, you must name him in a will.  There are many signatures required to bring a child from birth to adulthood. 

Everything you mentioned is voluntary.  You can find an orphan in the street, and adopt it without signing anything.  You can privately adopt from a family without the government forcing you to sign anything.  You don't have to have your baby in a hospital (and in fact there are strong health reasons against doing so).  You don't have to send your kid to a public school (and in fact there are strong educational reasons against doing so).  If a private school makes you sign something, that's not the government making you sign anything.  There are plenty of ways to pass property onto your children outside of probate, and anyway a will isn't a government document.

But even if I'm wrong about all the foregoing, I'm not aware that Russell was forced by the government to sign anything in order to adopt, give birth, send a kid to school, or to devise or bequeath property to his kids.  If he signed anything--and I don't know that he did--he signed it voluntarily.

Again, voluntary is when you have a MEANINGFUL choice.  In california, for example, the signatures required to send your kids to private school are not all private.  The state requires certain paperwork.  Heck, even in NH, the state requires parents who HOME SCHOOL to submit paperwork.   Your idea that all of these things are voluntary make the assumption that it is reasonable for the state to expect people to not do these things that require them to sign a document.  This is really no different than 'right to travel' activism concepts.  People should have a 'right to live' without filling out these documents that you say are 'voluntary' yet they are required to live anything resembling a normal life.  Sure, you can forgo marriage, not have any kids, and go live in a cave and survive on mushrooms, but why should you have to?  Are you suggesting that people 'voluntarily' agree to pay the income tax when they sign the w-2  that is required for them to work at all?  Of course they dont HAVE to work, they dont have to breathe, either.  That is voluntary as well. 

[margomaps]

Most marriages that do not lead to divorce are stifling, sexless, oppressive living arrangements that leave a man bankrupt, obese, psychologically taxed and prone to depression.

Evidence, please!  Over the years I recall seeing a number of studies showing that married people actually live longer and are healthier than those who are single.

Of course, the same is said about having cats vs not having cats, and I don't see how that is possible.  I would guess that an appreciable number of elderly cat owners trip over their cats and end up with a broken hip, leading to a premature demise.  

[mackler]

Again, voluntary is when you have a MEANINGFUL choice.  In california, for example, the signatures required to send your kids to private school are not all private.  The state requires certain paperwork.   This is really no different than 'right to travel' activism concepts.  People should have a 'right to live' without filling out these documents that you say are 'voluntary' yet they are required to live anything resembling a normal life.  Sure, you can forgo marriage, not have any kids, and go live in a cave and survive on mushrooms, but why should you have to?  Are you suggesting that people 'voluntarily' agree to pay the income tax when they sign the w-2  that is required for them to work at all?  Of course they dont HAVE to work, they dont have to breathe, either.  That is voluntary as well. 

Wow, you need to free your mind, brother.  You're clearly trapped in the statist paradigm.

Yes, you do volunteer to pay income tax when you sign the w-2.  Not all jobs require you to sign a w-2.

No, you don't have to sign anything to have kids.  It's a biological function.  Kids will come whether or not your papers are in order.  You don't even have to be living in a cave for it to work.  You'll have to trust me on this one.

Yes, you can be married without the state blessing the union.  Why are you so hung up on what the state thinks?  I hope you someday realize you're worshiping a fictitious entity.

You acknowledge that this issue is--in your own words--"no different than 'right to travel' activism concepts."  Good, I'm glad you recognize that.  Now, does Russel have a MEANINGFUL choice whether he needs government papers to drive from point A to point B?  Apparently he does, since he has made that choice.  If Russell has a meaningful choice about whether he needs driving papers, then he has a meaningful choice about whether he needs baby papers.

Your idea that all of these things are voluntary make the assumption that it is reasonable for the state to expect people to not do these things that require them to sign a document.

I'm making no such assumption.  I'm not so mesmerized by the state.

[malcolm]

Most marriages that do not lead to divorce are stifling, sexless, oppressive living arrangements that leave a man bankrupt, obese, psychologically taxed and prone to depression.

Evidence, please!  Over the years I recall seeing a number of studies showing that married people actually live longer and are healthier than those who are single.
Of course, the same is said about having cats vs not having cats, and I don't see how that is possible.  I would guess that an appreciable number of elderly cat owners trip over their cats and end up with a broken hip, leading to a premature demise.   

This is my opinion, based on my experience.  Discard it if you wish.
I've seen the same pattern over and over and over and over and over.

Literally hundreds of people.  I am not exaggerating.  I have seen sufficient evidence to become convinced.

[Notanumber]

Most marriages that do not lead to divorce are stifling, sexless, oppressive living arrangements that leave a man bankrupt, obese, psychologically taxed and prone to depression.

Evidence, please!  Over the years I recall seeing a number of studies showing that married people actually live longer and are healthier than those who are single.
Of course, the same is said about having cats vs not having cats, and I don't see how that is possible.  I would guess that an appreciable number of elderly cat owners trip over their cats and end up with a broken hip, leading to a premature demise.   

This is my opinion, based on my experience.  Discard it if you wish.
I've seen the same pattern over and over and over and over and over.

Literally hundreds of people.  I am not exaggerating.  I have seen sufficient evidence to become convinced.

As much as I disagree with your other points, I know from personal experience that you are correct on this one.  I do know people who dont suffer from this problem, however.  Usually because they are in a strict religion bordering on cult like.

[Notanumber]

Again, voluntary is when you have a MEANINGFUL choice.  In california, for example, the signatures required to send your kids to private school are not all private.  The state requires certain paperwork.   This is really no different than 'right to travel' activism concepts.  People should have a 'right to live' without filling out these documents that you say are 'voluntary' yet they are required to live anything resembling a normal life.  Sure, you can forgo marriage, not have any kids, and go live in a cave and survive on mushrooms, but why should you have to?  Are you suggesting that people 'voluntarily' agree to pay the income tax when they sign the w-2  that is required for them to work at all?  Of course they dont HAVE to work, they dont have to breathe, either.  That is voluntary as well. 

Wow, you need to free your mind, brother.  You're clearly trapped in the statist paradigm.

Yes, you do volunteer to pay income tax when you sign the w-2.  Not all jobs require you to sign a w-2.

No, you don't have to sign anything to have kids.  It's a biological function.  Kids will come whether or not your papers are in order.  You don't even have to be living in a cave for it to work.  You'll have to trust me on this one.

Yes, you can be married without the state blessing the union.  Why are you so hung up on what the state thinks?  I hope you someday realize you're worshiping a fictitious entity.

You acknowledge that this issue is--in your own words--"no different than 'right to travel' activism concepts."  Good, I'm glad you recognize that.  Now, does Russel have a MEANINGFUL choice whether he needs government papers to drive from point A to point B?  Apparently he does, since he has made that choice.  If Russell has a meaningful choice about whether he needs driving papers, then he has a meaningful choice about whether he needs baby papers.

Your idea that all of these things are voluntary make the assumption that it is reasonable for the state to expect people to not do these things that require them to sign a document.

I'm making no such assumption.  I'm not a state-worshiper like you.

Try being a little less insulting.

All of these things you say are freely chosen are actually conditioned on very real sacrifices for not complying.  I really dont consider that to be a meaningful choice.  To use the right to travel example...  Yep, you can choose to not take a license.  Eventually, they will lock you in a box for that.  That isnt a variety of meaningful options.  That is 'sign this to travel or not, just know if you dont sign, and travel anyway, we will lock you in a box, and kill you if you attempt to flee.'

I dont think you can fault someone who signs to avoid the negative consequences and call that voluntary.  I call that coercion.

[malcolm]

...words, words, words...

I'm making no such assumption.  I'm not a state-worshiper like you.

Dude!  That's rude.  Is it so hard to disagree, without being disagreeable?

[mackler]

...words, words, words...

I'm making no such assumption.  I'm not so mesmerized by the state.

Dude!  That's rude.  Is it so hard to disagree, without being disagreeable?

my bad.  forgot what a big insult that is around here (a good thing).

[kola]

Well back to Russell and his situation:

The million dollar question remains (pun intended):

What is it you want Mindy aka Russells ex).

[Notanumber]

Well back to Russell and his situation:

The million dollar question remains (pun intended):

What is it you want Mindy aka Russells ex).

Isnt that pretty obvious Kola?  The only remedy she has under the law is money.  That is the remedy she pursued, and that is now why Russell is in debtor's prison.

[mackler]

Try being a little less insulting.

I apologize.  Sometimes I hit Post when I should hit Preview.

To use the right to travel example...  Yep, you can choose to not take a license.  Eventually, they will lock you in a box for that.

Apparently not in Keene this week.  Anyway, the chance of being locked in a box is a cost.  The certainty of paying a registration fee (after driving to the office and waiting in line) is a cost.  Your choice of which cost to assume is still your choice.

[malcolm]

To use the right to travel example...  Yep, you can choose to not take a license.  Eventually, they will lock you in a box for that.

Apparently not in Keene this week.  Anyway, the chance of being locked in a box is a cost.  The certainty of paying a registration fee (after driving to the office and waiting in line) is a cost.  Your choice of which cost to assume is still your choice.

I wonder about the average length of time in a thread before someone makes a post which makes an economic analysis.    It always happens in here.  (And that's not a complaint.  I'm an offender, myself.)

[mackler]

[T]he chance of being locked in a box is a cost.  The certainty of paying a registration fee (after driving to the office and waiting in line) is a cost.  Your choice of which cost to assume is still your choice.

I wonder about the average length of time in a thread before someone makes a post which makes an economic analysis.    It always happens in here.  (And that's not a complaint.  I'm an offender, myself.)

And the shorter that average length of time, the more rational we are.