Russell Arrested 3/17/08

[d_goddard]

Vitriol goes directly against it -- and serves only to alienate the audience.

You could be effective in winning hearts and minds, should you ever decide to engage the people involved in the political process.

[Lex]

You could be effective in winning hearts and minds, should you ever decide to engage the people involved in the political process.

Politicians have hearts and minds?

Sorry, couldn't resist 

[Barterer]

Maybe you hadn't seen my prior posts, but I have tried many times to work with Russell, in a capacity outside of the court system. It is my guess, and I have not spoken with him yet, that he will make this a political issue. Russell has not seemed to want any sort of resolution at all. I don't think that will change now. But if he would consider mediation, I welcome that.

Sounds like a good start.

It may surprise you that Russell and Kat have recently kicked the "political" type discussions off this forum.. or tried to.  

[John Galt]

+1 on cutting out the vitriol... if Russell's freedom depends on the diplomacy skills here, he'll be trundling those wheelbarrows of bean curd around for the rest of his life.

+1... most of the verbose posters come off as poster children for the 'single nutcase theorist who cares for nobody else and is alone with his guns and porn' archetype many of us are trying to change as the most common public perception of 'libertarians/freedom lovers/etc'.

+1... most of the verbose posters come off as poster children for the 'single nutcase theorist who cares for nobody else and is alone with his guns and porn' archetype many of us are trying to change as the most common public perception of 'libertarians/freedom lovers/etc'.

Are you saying that people who just want to be left alone(Clint Eastwood is the most known libertarian who has been quoted several times in print and on video as saying "everyone leaves everyone else alone") somehow don't deserve that simple courtesy and the respect of the most fundamental basic human right?

Perhaps others would like a further explanation of your remarks also.

Perhaps you can't read simple English, since you twisted what I wrote to mean something else entirely.
Try reading what I wrote, instead of what you imagined I wrote.

Originally Seth responsed to someone's comment about "diplomacy".
IMHO an individual sovereign human being doesn't require "diplomacy" to be left alone...all aggression/force/fraud should be repelled, at the very least.

Your OPINION that anyone NEEDS "diplomacy" to repel aggression is very insulting to those who just want to be left alone.

Seth's reference to some contributors here as giving legitimacy to any negative stereotypical opinions that the uneducated might hold is also sad, and shows the apathetic and venomous looters for the philosophically immature monsters that they are.

[John Galt]

My son's girlfriend is pregnant right now and I feel that my son has an obligation to help raise the child monetarily and personally.

Your son's girlfriend can abort, can give birth and the put the child up for adoption, raise the child on her own, or raise the child with another man.  If she chooses to, she can give birth, change her mind about raising the child, and leave it at the police or fire station.  Your son has no right to decide any of these matters.

Many paths are open for her.

Your son has only one path: TO PAY.

Why should men and women not have the same rights?

If he were my son, I'd have him on the first flight out of the country that wasn't going to any of the following places:

• Australia
• Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Branswick, Newfoundland/Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Ontario
• Czech Republic
• Ireland
• Netherlands
• Norway
• Poland
• Portugal
• Slovak Republic

Each of the preceding places have reciprocal agreements with the United States to extradite those fleeing child support decrees.  There are many places NOT on that list that one could live comfortable, and have a productive life: Quebec, France, Hong Kong, Singapore, Germany, Brazil, etc.

More info here: Public Notice in the Federal Register (Vol. 65, Number 98, Page 31953)

I agree that there is a terrible double standard with respect to this issue.
There are millions of men who have no "justice" because the courts are corrupt.

And I wanted to throw another thought into this just as food for thought.

IMHHO
Right now the corrupt "system" is designed to keep women of child-bearing years single after child birth and/or divorce.  There's a reason for that.  It gives easier access and a larger "pool" of sexually active and potentially promiscuous women.  Not to mention less involvement with their children which gives the priests more quality time with them.  Now I'm not saying women shouldn't be sexually active or that they shouldn't have multiple partners or that they shouldn't participate in gang bangs or orgies or whatever.  To each his or her own.  I am saying that, whether by design or not, this is the perceived and probable result.

There's a war going on for our minds, our bodies, our labors, our strengths, our property, our children and the majority are not winning the battle.  And we, the minority, are unable to break this stranglehold.

Rand believed, and I concur, that we've never had to fight them, we just shouldn't support them.  The direct and indirect products of our minds and backs have furthered our progression down the rabbit hole.  Now we're on the brink of, at the very least, a civil war in this country and, quite possibly, another world war more terrifying that one could imagine.

[John Galt]

All of the things you promise to each other when you get married are nullified when you get divorced.

Except the financial obligations, plus any others you agree to in order to get the divorce.

These are not totally voluntary full disclosure contracts and virtually all of them are forced at threat of gunpoint and, as such, are null and void.

[John Galt]

Well, my 'goal' is to stand up for my kids, who have rights too.

Also, I have heard you all throw around 10 years in prison.... I have never seen that number in any official sort of way, so is that arbitrary, or are you privy to different information? It was my understanding, we were talking about 2 years...now, if you add on other charges, of which I am not aware of, that may be the '10'.

You are right that so little is served by his being in jail...this is what's sad. Why didn't he prevent this?

Russell is a Christian. He has such little compassion for his children? Christians do believe in being compassionate and just, as that is closer to the character of God. I have compassionately, and patiently been waiting for some resolution to this crime for many years.

Your arguments just don't stick.

There is really no need to argue at all.  Either you believe that you have a "right" to murder someone to make them give you something or do something for you, or you don't.  You are either an individual sovereign human being who is philosophically mature and lives by the Non-Aggression Principle, or you're not.  You're either a producer or a looter.  You're either a "leave me alone" person or you're a "taker".  Takers and looters are murdering monsters.

You decide which you are.

[John Galt]

I have compassionately, and patiently been waiting for some resolution to this crime for many years.

This is not vindictive..it is merely that Russell's time of grace...ran out, according to the law.

The resolution here is that you have been free and with your children, unencumbered by the attempts of another individual sovereign human being to force you at gunpoint to do something, anything, against your freely chosen will.

Others, not so much.

Millions of men and women do not believe that Russell has committed any "crime", especially not as you describe.

Your attitude and mindset still boils down to aggression/force/fraud.

[John Galt]

Well, a I understand it, the goal is to apply pressure to the criminal, by making them sign financial statements, etc. ensuring that their failure to pay will no longer continue. The jailtime itself serves very little purpose....but as I have said all along, Russell could have avoided jailtime. He knew it was coming, and chose not to. Sounds like a person who rather likes prison...If I was you, I would not waste one precious dime trying to 'Free Russell'. If he wanted to be free, he would be.

How can he be free with other individual sovereign human beings pursuing him, demanding something from him against his free and voluntary consent?

You are just as guilty as the kidnappers, the torturers, and the murderers.

I'd ask you to put yourself in your victim's shoes but I don't expect the perpetrator and accomplices to be able to see and empathize with their victims.  That's how they become and continue to be terrorists, thugs, takers, and looters.

[John Galt]

Well, a I understand it, the goal is to apply pressure to the criminal, by making them sign financial statements, etc. ensuring that their failure to pay will no longer continue. The jailtime itself serves very little purpose....but as I have said all along, Russell could have avoided jailtime. He knew it was coming, and chose not to. Sounds like a person who rather likes prison...If I was you, I would not waste one precious dime trying to 'Free Russell'. If he wanted to be free, he would be.

To some degree he is free in his mind. But we want him to be free physically too because we benefit from his company and his activism.

IMHO

Russell is content to be sheltered, clothed, and fed.  When he's not being victimized by the state he's able to do this on his own.  When the state kidnaps, tortures, and imprisons him, he is unable to do these most basic things for himself.

But he IS able to witness to others about his philosophy and his spiritual beliefs.  I think he feels that his "god" puts him where he is needed, when he is needed there.  So in that way he is able to do his work whether imprisoned or free and Kat loves and understands him enough to see all this and to be able to bear their time apart.

The saddest part for me is that they are apart.  I hope Russell is back home with Kat and Kira soon!

[John Galt]

I'm going to wait for the rebuttal if Russell cares to tell it. There's more than one side to every story. Some stories are more like Bucky Balls. 

Very true and it seems like a lot of people are making claims without knowing all of the facts, if Russell or his ex feel like sharing; which of course they have the right to say, this is a private matter.   Maybe I was wrong for even stepping in here but I did say that I don't know the story just what I'm reading and went from there with my own feelings on the matter.

I just feel some absurd comments were made regarding responsibility and children, anytime I read or hear of a situation like this I'm always wondering how the kids feel, they are the true innocence in any situation like this.

We'll I don't think any of us are wrong to come here and advocate totally for the Non-Aggression Principle and to admonish those who are attempting to force anyone to do anything against their will and that would include some supposed contracts or agreements made under duress.

Also, you say that "kids are innocent in any situation like this" but that IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT TRUE!

I know personally of situations where the CHILDREN actually destroyed beautiful marriages because they were typical jealous spoiled brats who learned exactly how to manipulate the destruction of their parent's marriages from other children in THE PUBLIC INDOCTRINATION CENTERS!

You would do well to stand by each and every individual sovereign human being's basic human right to be left alone and to never ever have anyone else commit aggression/force/fraud against you or anyone else.

You can't have it both ways.  You're either a "leave me alone" person or an abuser/terrorizer/thug/taker/torturer/looter.

[John Galt]

Your son's girlfriend can abort, can give birth and the put the child up for adoption, raise the child on her own, or raise the child with another man.  If she chooses to, she can give birth, change her mind about raising the child, and leave it at the police or fire station.  Your son has no right to decide any of these matters.

Many paths are open for her.

Your son has only one path: TO PAY.

Why should men and women not have the same rights?

If he were my son, I'd have him on the first flight out of the country that wasn't going to any of the following places:

• Australia
• Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Branswick, Newfoundland/Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Ontario
• Czech Republic
• Ireland
• Netherlands
• Norway
• Poland
• Portugal
• Slovak Republic

Each of the preceding places have reciprocal agreements with the United States to extradite those fleeing child support decrees.  There are many places NOT on that list that one could live comfortable, and have a productive life: Quebec, France, Hong Kong, Singapore, Germany, Brazil, etc.

More info here: Public Notice in the Federal Register (Vol. 65, Number 98, Page 31953)

I'm not totally sure that I understand what your trying to say here, is it that you think my son should leave his girlfriend because she's pregnant with his baby?  Why would he want to?  He wants to be part of the baby's life, he's the baby's father.  It may sound odd to you but there are actually males in this world that enjoy being parents.  His girlfriend didn't get pregnant by herself why are all of those choices just hers?

I'm not saying that he MUST walk away.  I'm saying he should HAVE THE RIGHT to do so; just like his girlfriend does.

My son has much more paths to choose from than the one you presented here so your are wrong.  His girlfriend does have choices also but I think it's nice that they are making them together.  What in the world do you mean when you write, "Why should men and women not have the same rights?"  What rights are missing?

What other path does your son have if his girlfriend gives birth and keeps the baby?
She makes all the choices, he get the responsibilities of her choices, but can make no decision of his own to direct his own future.  How can you not see this?  If he DECIDES that he does not want to raise a child, or pay for the raising of that child, how would he enforce this decision.  His girlfriend can drop the baby at any police station.  What can he do?  The issue isn't what you think is "nice", but what (objectively) his rights and choices are.

So in other words both parents have the right to bring a human being into the world and "dumping them"?  That's gross!

Women have that right.  Men do not.  That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

I think it's great that I don't need to tell my son, my feelings on his obligations and that he is smart enough at 19 to figure them out on his own.  I don't know how old you are but you don't seem as mature as my 19 year old.

Your son is about to condemn himself to a life of poverty.  At 19 years old, with no secondary education, and a new baby and girlfriend, that's the life he'll have.  Your son would be fortunate to have REAL OPTIONS in life, not have his life dictated to him by a woman.

I'll leave you crack at my alleged immaturity alone.  You don't know what you are talking about there.

To be honest the feeling I'm getting from certain posts being made here are being made by bitter and ignorant people that are not taking into consideration that it takes 2 people to bring a baby into this world and the kids should be the most important issue or who else do they have? My observation from your post would be that you will have a stupid, immature comment to the last question I asked.

Unbelievable, I'm grossed out by your disregard toward pregnant females and your statement that my son has only 1 choice to split, right?  Isn't that what your saying?

Shaming language already?  Come on, raineyrocks, you can do better than that!  Shaming language is not an argument.  Don't give up that easily.  Give me a real argument why women should have more rights than men.  At least try.

Or not, since no one really believes some individual sovereign human beings have more rights than others, no matter whether they have a penis, a vagina, or both.

[Kevin Bean]

Wow!  And people think I'm a troll. 

[John Galt]

You can take your vile communitarian, communistic, socialistic views about the invalidity of self-ownership and self-determination... [blah blah blah and onward in the same vein....]

Jim, you can take your kneejerk diatribes and insults, print them out, and shove them deep enough into your mouth/throat/etc until your fingers stop typing them.  It's folks like you that are part of the problem, not part of the solution... you do no good to anyone else by posting them, so STFU.

Jim, I disagree with Seth here.  All the other individual sovereign planetary human beings should know exactly how you feel and I applaud your taking your valuable time and effort to share with the world!

I think all your posts and articles are well written and the looters need to be reminded how many John Galts there really are in the world.

Thanks!

[John Galt]

(Tongue in cheeK) I wish I knew about Libertarian principals when I got married, I'll let my son know this so if he ever has children he will know the reasons why he should not support them and where to go and have a group to assist him in living free.  Am I wrong or should statement be re-thought?

Let me ask you, Tom, if my children have a right to enslave me to provide them with all the fruit of my labor, then who else has that right?  Does the state have that right? Do you?

I say you do not, the state does not, the children do not, and I further say that I have the means of self-defense.  You can put your tongue in your cheek if you like, but I'll spit in your eye.  To perdition with you and your "right" to the fruit of my labor without my consent.

Have my children earned my love and affection?  Yes.  Do I willingly choose to provide them with food, books, shelter, clothing?  Yes.  But these are my choices.  And you may be damned to hell, sir, if you think it is their right.

No one has the right to demand that any other person live for their sake.  No one.  Not the aged and infirm.  Not the young and innocent.  Not the sick and bereaved.  Not the bureau-rat and his sycophantic friends in the legislature.  No one.  You do not.  Your children do not.  Your grandchildren do not.  The cooperation of the parent is earned through love and tenderness and affection.  And how sharper than a serpent's tooth to have an ungrateful child, but how mete and just and earned it is by the parent who sows the wind.

I will, out of the goodness of my heart, and out of my interest in a better world, provide to the weak and the ill, the sick and the poor, the child and the elderly, exactly that which I deem to be the extent of my generosity and charity, just as I see fit.  And it is disgusting, vile, despicable, and evil of you to assert that anyone has the right to demand any more from me.

The fruit of my labor is mine, by right, by effort, by work, by choice.  It is not yours.  It is not your children's.  It is not my children's.  I have sworn on my honor and by my life and my love for it that I shall never live for the sake of another, nor allow any to live for my sake.

You can take your vile communitarian, communistic, socialistic views about the invalidity of self-ownership and self-determination, you can wrap them around broken glass, and you can shove them where the Sun does not shine.  Or, if you deny any such views, you can explain what it is in a re-statement that you feel is required.