Russell Arrested 3/17/08

[John Galt]

I came on here...with one purpose. To tell my side of the story. To proclaim in the only way I can, on a public forum, that Russell is not innocent of the these charges. I am not trying to be liked...I am not trying to convince you..but I will not go silently either. He is guilty. He may never pay...but it doesn't absolve him from the need to do so.

I don't know you and I don't if I want to know you.  I know Russell and I consider him a blood brother.  I would give my life for Russell.  I don't think anyone should force Russell to do anything that he does not want to do and obviously you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  You can murder him by forcing his head underwater until he drowns but you can't make him drink by drowning him.

Either you are part of the problem, or you are part of the solution in every example or situation or case.  In this case you can either empower the state and be part of the problem or you can work hard to show the illegitimacy of the global goon-squad(like Russell does) and be part of the solution.  As long as you and others like you think it's ok to imprison people and torture them and even murder them to get what you want, you are the problem and you are the enemy against basic human rights.

Let's look at this another way to show the fraud in the "fair share" or "your part" scam.  Let's just say that right before you and Russell split up he received a head injury and became totally disabled.  Then what would you demand from him?  Then what would the goon-squad demand from him?

And if the demand for the surrender of one's property or labor or results of some labor or thought or idea or invention is BASED ON ABILITY!?!  Then just exactly WHO gets to DETERMINE exactly WHAT someone's ABILITY is or isn't?  Who gets to determine what a fair share is?  Who gets to determine what part of his part, or my part, suddenly becomes your part?  And aren't all these terms(ability, fair, share, part) subjective?

Would you demand the same monetary amount from a beggar as a millionaire?  What if the beggar is actually going to be a billionaire in a few months when he discovers the cure for cancer and the millionaire is only a millionaire on paper and he really has no liquidity?  Then does the burden of ability and shares and fair and part CHANGE?  Does their subjective definitions and determinations CHANGE?

What if(as an example) several months from now one of your children(or dogs) disappeared.  Are you going to have the goons torture Russell until he tells you where the child is?  What if he doesn't really know?  What if he isn't involved in any way, shape, or form?  What then?  Do you just go down the list and torture everyone until you get your way?  Your answers?  Your wish?

Do you see how all this is just an illusion created by sick, twisted, and perverted monsters who want to control and manipulate each and every human being on the planet?  And you are playing right into their game.  We'd love to have you see the light and join us in our struggle against global tyranny.  After all, it's for the children.  All the children.

And, while I'm thinking of it.  Russell has done more than a million dollars worth of freedom activism.  This activism will help all children including yours.  You should be as grateful for his contributions as the rest of us are.  So should the goon-squads whose children will also benefit.  Unless the goons want their children and grandchildren to be slaves on the global plantation.

I challenge you to read Mary Ruwart's book "Healing Our World In An Age Of Aggression" and also "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.  While you're doing that, figure out a way to get Russell out and back to his wonderful freedom fighting.

After all, it's for the children!

[PattyLee loves dogs]

It all comes down to contracts. If someone signs a contract that obligates them to pay for their children's support, then they can hardly complain if the court tries to enforce it... usually libertarians complain when the courts don't enforce contracts. Now, it's possible the State's one-size-fits-all marriage contracts aren't suitable for every situation, which is why there are prenup agreements. This is probably the only reason Bill Gates isn't shoveling denim in Washington State's dismal Grunge Mines.

Anyway, let's be civil to both parties here. As we all know, both parties in a divorce often come to think that they are the only one in the right. In this case, it's obvious they are both in the wrong... they both admit that they are guilty of trying to live in California, which we all know is a crime that carries the debt penalty.

[kola]

I disagree.

these so-called "contracts" are designed to fool the common folks. Its deception fraud, you name it. They are unfair contracts as 99% of people have no idea what they are signing and if they refuse to sign they may be subject to negative repercussions.

These are bogus contracts designed by manipulators.

Kola

[John Galt]

I disagree.

these so-called "contracts" are designed to fool the common folks. Its deception fraud, you name it. They are unfair contracts as 99% of people have no idea what they are signing and if they refuse to sign they may be subject to negative repercussions.

These are bogus contracts designed by manipulators.

Kola

I'm with Kola here.

[Tom Ploszaj]

   Sometimes it is difficult differentiating libertarian rhetoric from socialistic rhetoric when laced with emotion       which can cloud a sovereign's responsibility   

[J’raxis 270145]

A guy over at NH Tea Party has an interesting take on the marriage "contract" idea:—

I have a contract with my wife, it is very simple, mine is 'I shall love you for as long as our love shall last'. I think anything more goes against the nature of humanity, since it is my belief monogamy is not a natural concept, but a artificial one.

Makes sense to me. A marriage "contract," at least nowadays, is predicated entirely on the fact that two people are in love with each other, but the contract then stipulates all sorts of obligations placed upon the parties beyond that—obligations that two people would never want to uphold if they hadn't been in love with each other, and most likely won't if they ever fall out of love with each other. Thus, the expectation of performance of such a contract is, at least in my estimation, so ridiculous that it is possible to say that anyone believing such performance will take place is so ill-informed as to be incompetent to agree to such a contract.


By the way, could all of this discussion be split off into a separate thread? This was the "Russell Arrested 3/17/08" thread and has been threadjacked off into yet another philosophical discussion, which while interesting gets in the way of looking for updates about Russell's situation.

[picaro]

First, monogamy occurs in nature.  It isn't artificial or unnatural.  Off-hand, I can think of certain bird species that often mate for life.

Marriage has only recently been conflated with romantic love.   Love is absolutely desirable.  However there are other reasons for marriage to exist like child rearing, property, and security through sickness and old age.

Thus, the expectation of performance of such a contract is, at least in my estimation, so ridiculous that it is possible to say that anyone believing such performance will take place is so ill-informed as to be incompetent to agree to such a contract.

Right to contract?  The state treats people like incompetent children.  Free people are responsible for their agreements they make -- even if they aren't profitable.

That said, involuntary child support is fucked.

Do state marriages licenses explicitly declare their terms?  Adding harsher child support penalties (recent legislation) after someone has already married would qualify as a significant change to the terms of the contract.

[J’raxis 270145]

First, monogamy occurs in nature.  It isn't artificial or unnatural.  Off-hand, I can think of certain bird species that often mate for life.

I assume he meant humans in a state of nature. Bonobo chimpanzees, our closest animal relatives, at least, are far from monogamous.

Thus, the expectation of performance of such a contract is, at least in my estimation, so ridiculous that it is possible to say that anyone believing such performance will take place is so ill-informed as to be incompetent to agree to such a contract.

Right to contract?  The state treats people like incompetent children.  Free people are responsible for their agreements they make -- even if they aren't profitable.

A valid contract requires that all parties fully understand the terms, implications, and so on. It also requires that both parties be of sound mind. That's what I was contending is missing from a marriage situation and why it shouldn't be considered a valid contract.

That said, involuntary child support is fucked.

Do state marriages licenses explicitly declare their terms?  Adding harsher child support penalties (recent legislation) after someone has already married would qualify as a significant change to the terms of the contract.

Another good point—terms of a contract can't exactly be changed after the fact without an agreement by both parties, or an agreement ahead of time that they'll allow such to happen (as is often stipulated in AUPs, credit card agreements, &c.).

[RussellsEx]

I think many of you have an odd view of traditional marriage. The dissolution of marriage is sad for anyone. It often involves figuring out how to best help the children in the aftermath. If one party has been harmful to the kids, it only makes sense that they would not be desirable for more exposure to the kids...

I do realize that many of you are close acquaintances of Russell's, and cannot imagine the difficulties I mentioned.... but how many times do you hear of someone who seemed so good, so moral..so just...who turns out to be something different...something immoral or unjust....this is my story.

Russell had the same access to legal help (free legal help) to assist him as I did. He had visitation rights that he never exercised...So, in essence, he didn't do the things he could have done...It would have been against the law for me to 'keep the children from him.' Police would have had to have been called. The children could have been forced to have been taken from me for his scheduled visitations...this never happened, because he never tried! (Again...see the public records)

This all makes me sad...not angry. Many of you think my children do not have a right to  Russell's help with basic fundamental needs. The law states otherwise...and unless another clear, peaceable way to address this problem presents itself, I suppose he will be in jail. As I said earlier...he holds the keys to his own freedom.

[picaro]

A valid contract requires that all parties fully understand the terms, implications, and so on. It also requires that both parties be of sound mind. That's what I was contending is missing from a marriage situation and why it shouldn't be considered a valid contract.

So, people who have no real understanding of the terms of their mortgage should not be accountable for the money they owe on their house?

Making a lifelong vow is extreme... but somehow a good number of people have managed to do this throughout history. 

What are the limits of consent?  Would a stateless society tolerate the enforcement of blatantly imbalanced agreements?

I trade you my kidney for your promise to wash my dishes and laundry daily...  can a person consent and be held accountable for this?

--You can't or won't fulfill your promise (health reasons, grow to hate dishes) -- at what point can I repossess my kidney?

I trade you a mess of pottage for your indentured servitude... can a person consent and be held accountable for this?

I trade you some shiny beads for your ancestral hunting grounds... can a person consent and be held accountable for this?

If value / price / worth are determined by the buyer and seller -- what business does a third party have interjecting?

[J’raxis 270145]

A valid contract requires that all parties fully understand the terms, implications, and so on. It also requires that both parties be of sound mind. That's what I was contending is missing from a marriage situation and why it shouldn't be considered a valid contract.

So, people who have no real understanding of the terms of their mortgage should not be accountable for the money they owe on their house?

That's right. My reaction to the ongoing sub-prime mortgage crisis has generally been an attitude of "serves you right" directed toward the creditors. They relied on the financial ignorance and unrealistic expectations of borrowers in order to sell their loans, and then relied on harshening bankruptcy laws in order to collect the debts they knew would be defaulted on. They went too far, to the point where the large chunks of the entire economy seem to rest on these mortgage-backing companies, and now the situation is imploding.

Making a lifelong vow is extreme... but somehow a good number of people have managed to do this throughout history. 

Indeed. And as love-based marriages have becoming more prevalent (this has only been the norm for 100–200 years now), divorce rates have skyrocketed. I wonder if there's actually a causative relationship there.

What are the limits of consent?  Would a stateless society tolerate the enforcement of blatantly imbalanced agreements?

I trade you my kidney for your promise to wash my dishes and laundry daily...  can a person consent and be held accountable for this?

I trade you a mess of pottage for your indentured servitude... can a person consent and be held accountable for this?

I trade you some shiny beads for your ancestral hunting grounds... can a person consent and be held accountable for this?

If value / price / worth are determined by the buyer and seller -- what business does a third party have interjecting?

Magnitude of imbalance doesn't enter into questions of competence, unless one side can be shown to have been uninformed about what they were contracting to do.

[J’raxis 270145]

I'm not clear what a discussion of monogamy has to do with this thread.

Absolutely nothing. It was a nearly irrelevant piece of my quotation which people are now debating.

[picaro]

Any of you Puritanical slime who think that you are better than everyone else because you are against the lifestyle choices of other consenting adults can go burn in the flames of perdition.

Monogamy is a typical stipulation in most marriage agreements (in other words: "a lifestyle choice between consenting adults").  I'm curious about the initiation of fraud when one person fails to honor the promises they made with another -- not the specific morality of monagamy.

[J’raxis 270145]

Back to the topic of this marriage "contract," we have no idea what the terms were—we know what the State expects (child support, alimony, &c.)—but not what was actually in the agreement between Russell and Mindy. Nor should we really know, or care, that being an entirely private matter.

We also know that the State is currently committing aggression against Russell, because they're not a (legitimate) party to that contract, and yet they're holding him at gunpoint in a jail right now.

What are we doing to help Russell at least get out of jail?

[kola]

I do not think she holds a grudge.

Reading between the bullshit lines that she writes, it is all now very clear:

She wants money.

And she will attempt to use her bullshit "laws" to try and get it AND use her bullshit laws to punish
someone else.

Instant karma; I hope she gets nothing but agony.

Kola