Russell Arrested 3/17/08

[Lex]

I think she already stated that it's out of her hands now.. so it'll take some lawyering, regardless..

Maybe she just doesn't know her options.

[Barterer]

For $300 I would expect Marc Stevens to contact them both, and go over all the options.

[John Galt]

This is the saddest thing I've read here. I hope you do not have children. How is a  3 or 4 or 5 or 6 ......year old child supposed to be responsible for their own-well being? 

By asking an adult for help.  By undertaking learning and work on his own. 

I had chores at age five, and worked in a garden from age 4.  What is this absurd idea that children may do no work, that children have no responsibility for their own actions?

When my second eldest brother was four, he threw blocks in class.  My mom was called.  She said, "Ken, we don't throw blocks in school."  He responded, picking up and throwing a wood block, "Oh, yes we do!"

Now, whose responsibility is it?  Who did the act?

If you insist on not taking children seriously, then at what magical age are you ready to stop having people be absolved of all individual responsibility?  Homeland Security wants Real ID for everyone under 44.  You cannot be president under age 35.  You can't be a Senator under age 30.  You can't be a Congresscritter under age 25.  You can't get decent insurance rates under 25.  You can't drink under 21, legally, you can't get tobacco or vote under 18, you can't get into certain types of exciting films under 17, and you can't get a decent price for a seat over age 13. 

I've met ten year olds in Africa who carried rifles and served in the military.  You want to explain to one of them how he's not an adult, doesn't deserve a ration of food, shouldn't be held responsible for shooting enemy soldiers?

This nanny-state ideology is idiotic, and I won't have anything to do with it.

I agree with this.

[John Galt]

I stand by my husband 100%.  In the ~4 years we've been married, he's been the best husband I can imagine existing.  He is kind to me, considerate, want to make me happy.  He's been a joy.  He's gotten angry at me once in that time, when he raised his voice at me.  There has never been any violence.  I've never known him to tell a lie either to me or to others.  I miss him terribly and wish I could be with him.  My family is now torn apart and we're in grief.

I stand by Russell as well.

Sad day, sad day indeed.

[mackler]

Let me pre-emptively state here that I pay each and every tax that I owe.

And possibly even some you don't owe, just to be safe? 

[Barterer]

Is there an address to which I might send a money order?  I don't paypal.

I sent Marc an email asking for that, and a thumbnail sketch of what the $300 would buy.  Will post or PM that upon response.

Good idea.  I don't like Paypal much either.

[srqrebel]

Let me pre-emptively state here that I pay each and every tax that I owe.

Sneaky!

[srqrebel]

Speaking for myself, I view all manner of enforcement -- with the exception of peaceable withholding of values, or ostracism -- to be objectively criminal in nature.

Let's suppose I borrow money from you.  I claim it will be used to build a fast food-restaurant.  Instead of starting a business, I blow it all on hookers and cocaine (sorry for the double pun).  I also tell you that I just changed my mind on how to use the money.  I've also decided not to repay you.  What recourse should you have to recover the funds I took from you by fraud?

Most certainly not anything involving the initiation of force.

Outside of that, anything that proves effective.

If that happens to me, it is incumbent on me to be self-responsible and solve my own problem.  If I have been self-responsible in grooming my relationships with others, I may even have friends who will volunteer to help me solve my most difficult problems.

As the free market mechanism develops, there will be entrepreneurs who will specialize in creative, peaceable ways to recover defrauded or stolen funds and goods.  In the meantime, it is still not in any way justifiable to violate the rights of the offender by initiating force against him, just because he did the same to you.  That sort of thinking amounts to, "No one may initiate force, except when it is for the purpose of good".  That is simply an oxymoron, and originates from the same criminal mentality that the entire AMOG rests upon.

Note that without the option of initiating force, one still has the two most powerful methods for dealing with crime at one's disposal: Deterrence and self-defense.  These are within the boundaries of the equal rights of all individuals, and cannot be manipulated for the purpose of selfish interests at the expense of those rights.

Again, if you have failed to deter and defend, you do not have the right to resort to the initiation of force.  The one recourse you have left at that point, that is within the boundaries of our equal rights, is ostracism.

The reason ostracism is within those rights, is because every individual has the inherent and exclusive right to the use and disposal of his own property, as long as he does not use it to initiate force or fraud against another.  Since the values you produce are your property, and withholding them from others does not constitute the initiation of force or fraud (unless a contract is broken), it is a valid recourse -- and the same goes for passing accurate info along to others so they make informed decisions of their own about who to exchange values with.

[srqrebel]

..."What steps can one take to protect oneself against the irresponsibility of others, and if that fails, what peaceful means can be employed to mitigate the damage?".
I am hoping not to get drawn into an extended philosophical discussion here... I just think it is useful for you to have some insight into how we (or at least I) view such matters.  It simply avoids a lot of frustration.

I would love an answer to that question...your thoughts?

Well, first of all, since it is your problem, the responsibility for creating a viable solution rests upon you, hard as that may be to bear.  The point of my post that you referred to, was simply that initiating force against the offender is not within the boundaries of our equal rights, therefore is itself objectively a crime -- regardless of what other options are readily available, if any.  It is a matter of principle over efficacy.  Two wrongs do not make a right, regardless of outcome.

That said, I am not familiar enough with how family matters are handled by the courts to be able to spell out your options for you at this point in the game.  Based on the Russell I know, it seems to me that if you were to take every step possible to let him have the contact with his own children as he desires, in good faith, he may be willing to negotiate a financial agreement with you.  Attempting to force him will only make him more obstinate, as it should -- as well as continue to channel the support of the freedom community in his direction, as it should.

Hint: If you make every effort at your disposal to stop the current action in its tracks and secure his release, and strictly refrain from any further use of force, directly or indirectly, to extract his cooperation, you may actually see popular sentiment in his own circles turning in your favor.  That IMO is genuinely the most powerful recourse available to you at this time.

[malcolm]

Speaking for myself, I view all manner of enforcement -- with the exception of peaceable withholding of values, or ostracism -- to be objectively criminal in nature.

Let's suppose I borrow money from you.  I claim it will be used to build a fast food-restaurant.  Instead of starting a business, I blow it all on hookers and cocaine (sorry for the double pun).  I also tell you that I just changed my mind on how to use the money.  I've also decided not to repay you.  What recourse should you have to recover the funds I took from you by fraud?

Most certainly not anything involving the initiation of force.

Can you not see that I, in stealing your money, have already INITIATED force against you?  Would it not be within your rights to RESPOND (with force, if necessary) to recover what was stolen?

[srqrebel]

Can you not see that I, in stealing your money, have already INITIATED force against you?  Would it not be within your rights to RESPOND (with force, if necessary) to recover what was stolen?

Actually, you have just confirmed something that had just recently occurred to me as a strong possibility: That there exists among freedom activists a widespread misunderstanding about what constitutes initiation of force.  (In fact, two weeks ago I would have agreed with you on this, although with a haunting sense of "something is not quite right" about it.)

I believe this misunderstanding is perhaps the biggest obstacle that keeps many sincere freedom activists from making the comprehensive paradigm shift that I have been referring to on other threads.  I have been meaning to start a thread on this subject, and have simply been procrastinating.

I am not comfortable discussing the issue of what constitutes initiation of force any further on this thread, because it deviates from the subject, and has a strong potential for taking over the thread.  I will start a new thread on this subject over in the Endless Debate and Whining section.  It may take me a few hours, so bear with me... but I very much value your (and everyone's) input on this very important subject, so please stay tuned!

Edit: The "initiation of force" discussion is now diverted to this thread.

[SamIam]

There's a website now. . .

FreeRussellKanning.com

I'll figure out a way for non-paypal people to donate. I need to talk to Kat, but likely she can accept them and send them on. Marc is going to help by showing Kat which basic principles of the law apply to Russell's case, and helping her craft the documents to the court asking them to explain their conflicting position.

[Lex]

Yes, please post the details for snail mail/check donations. I think most people, including myself, would prefer that over paypal.

[Friday]

Russell's mom messaged me that she has been traveling and just became aware of Russell's situation.  She is not in frequent contact with his ex-wife, and has not had a chance to read any of her accusations.  Perhaps she can comment more later.

[Jacobus]

There's a website now. . .

FreeRussellKanning.com

I'll figure out a way for non-paypal people to donate. I need to talk to Kat, but likely she can accept them and send them on. Marc is going to help by showing Kat which basic principles of the law apply to Russell's case, and helping her craft the documents to the court asking them to explain their conflicting position.

I've just chipped in $100.