Russell Arrested 5/29/08 for no government drivers license

[KBCraig]

btw, whos rondinia? isnt that a style of pasta?

Someone who's been around here a helluva lot longer than you, that's who. And who has earned some respect, even though she's taking a position here against the prevailing sentiment.

Rodinia, I gave you +1, and it wasn't "sympathy karma", even though I disagree with you. The karma was for coming here and speaking up for what you believe.

The forum was mostly very accepting of Maxfield and Highline, right up until Maxfield made his indefensible arrest of Russell and came back here to try to justify himself. I don't know why Highline left the forum; he'll have to speak for himself.

[Ron Helwig]

Just stating my opinion:

I'm in the camp that understands that not everyone can become 100% anarchist upon first hearing that govt is bad. Some people's skulls are thicker and it can take months or years for them to come around. Just ask Sandy how long it took her. Should we have been calling her names and making her go away?

It took me years to go from green-ish to Libertarian, and more years to get to "philosophical anarchist yet political minarchist".

Shane was moving in our direction. It may have been slow, and this incident would certainly count as a step backwards, but progress was being made. I'm afraid that because of all the vitriol, that progress has come to a complete stop.

[Rodinia]

btw, whos rondinia? isnt that a style of pasta?

Kolinia

That would be rotini. Rodinia is the Russian name given to the oldest known super-continent. My slave name is Suzanne.

[Rodinia]

Well then, thank you KB. The only sentiment I have been trying to convey is to echo what Ron posted, that if people are willing to come to you and engage you in discourse, what have you got to lose by reciprocating?

In my opinion, the opportunity to argue principles is our greatest advantage.

btw, whos rondinia? isnt that a style of pasta?

Someone who's been around here a helluva lot longer than you, that's who. And who has earned some respect, even though she's taking a position here against the prevailing sentiment.

Rodinia, I gave you +1, and it wasn't "sympathy karma", even though I disagree with you. The karma was for coming here and speaking up for what you believe.

The forum was mostly very accepting of Maxfield and Highline, right up until Maxfield made his indefensible arrest of Russell and came back here to try to justify himself. I don't know why Highline left the forum; he'll have to speak for himself.

[Friday]

I'm in the camp that understands that not everyone can become 100% anarchist upon first hearing that govt is bad. Some people's skulls are thicker and it can take months or years for them to come around. Just ask Sandy how long it took her. Should we have been calling her names and making her go away?

Heyyyyyyy... did Ron just comment on the thickness of my skull?  He did, didn't he?  Smack upside the head coming your way, buddy.     

[Caleb]

I don't know about all this. My experience with the two cops was that if you did engage them respectfully, a lot of times your most important questions would just go unanswered. Particularly with Highline. I engaged him very respectfully a little before he left the forum, but he never even acknowledged that I had asked him a question. I'm not advocating rudeness, by any means. But engaging respectfully doesn't necessarily get you anywhere either.

No. No one should have attacked Sandy. But Sandy wasn't hurting anyone either. If Sandy's life pursuit prior to her conversion was to track down "evildoers", then perhaps avoiding her completely would have been the safest bet. 

[Rodinia]

I understand your concern Caleb. I actually have a friend from Australia who I can constantly in "debates" with. He calls them debates, I do not. Arguing with him has driven me towards learning a whole lot about debating and different types of arguments. Logical fallacies, ad hominem etc... There are literally dozens of ways for people to subvert what you're trying to say and there are names for the ways they do it.

It is my belief that these subversive tactics can always be exposed for they are. While you can't "force" someone to answer a question, you can point out their unwillingness to do and  hold their feet to the fire on that singular point. At some point, if you're consistent, they're going to have to answer or admit they can't answer the question. Chances are, their "answer" is going to be another subversive tactic which can be proven to be a subversive tactic.

It takes time and patience. I believe people are inherently good and if I expect the benefit of the doubt, I need to reciprocate the sentiment.

[John Edward Mercier]

The purpose of debate isn't to win... its to change the oppositional point of view. Sometimes of all involved.
Many times in a debate an open-minded individual will need to take some time to see things from different perspectives... as our current system just didn't happen, it evolved over time.
The questions aren't ignored but assessed.

Like the main point of the thread... Russ is invoking his right to liberty, and the local agents of the citizen's association is invoking their right to property.
Thus arbitration... or outright confrontation.
The arbitration option is in place of 'might makes right'.

[Rodinia]

I agree with point of a debate isn't to win. My Aussie friend insists he "wins" every argument and it's pretty frustrating to try and explain that simple because he's declared  himself the "winner" doesn't make it a mutually consenting outcome.

I suppose this example can equivocate that I haven't consented to being ruled by any authority agency.
It just seems the only thing that can productively change public opinion is to change their minds.

[John Edward Mercier]

I consider that I've 'won', when I walk away with a broader viewpoint (I gained something from the exchange).

As for an authoritative agency... my viewpoint is more along the line of agents of a complex association.

[Kat Kanning]

I'm in the camp that understands that not everyone can become 100% anarchist upon first hearing that govt is bad. Some people's skulls are thicker and it can take months or years for them to come around. Just ask Sandy how long it took her. Should we have been calling her names and making her go away?

Heyyyyyyy... did Ron just comment on the thickness of my skull?  He did, didn't he?  Smack upside the head coming your way, buddy.     

Yes, but Sandy wasn't going around hurting people, so the thickness (or not) isn't particularly of concern to the rest of us 

[Russell Kanning]

Shane was moving in our direction. It may have been slow, and this incident would certainly count as a step backwards, but progress was being made. I'm afraid that because of all the vitriol, that progress has come to a complete stop.

BTW I totally agree with Sandy and Caleb and Kat

Sandy because she might beat me with a pan.
Caleb and Kat because Sandy is in a very different position that a cop. The next step for her was very different than these guys.

Who says that it has stopped? When people are debating .... that isn't a good sign to me. Why did he come here in the first place?

We may be very wrong ... so maybe the cops will start showing up on forums where they can debate with people and go down a different path and take positive steps. I don't see any reason to commend cops on this forum, when they enforce laws they themselves don't agree with.

[kola]

I don't see any reason to commend cops on this forum, when they enforce laws they themselves don't agree with.
 

yup, I just can't get buy it either.,,, its too damn hypocritical.
kola

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

There are literally dozens of ways for people to subvert what you're trying to say and there are names for the ways they do it.

It is my belief that these subversive tactics can always be exposed for they are.

"Always" is so.... ummmm.... "complete". Just like "never"... Unfortunately, those who are well-versed in these debating tactics (usually, but not necessarily, gubermint minions such as politicians, lawyers, cops and others of that ilk) are often able to sway the sheeple by twisting the "debate" into their own propaganda.

Chances are, their "answer" is going to be another subversive tactic which can be proven to be a subversive tactic.

As I said... 

It takes time and patience.

I no longer have the time or the patience to waste on those who debate using deception, inveigling, and/or obfuscation. I have more important things to do with my life. Others, OTOH, are more than welcome to spend their time and patience.

I believe people are inherently good...

Now... if we could just get the cops, politicians, lawyers and other commie bastards (but I repeat myself ) to feel that way, things would be much easier.

Fundamentally there are three situations in society... 1) People are inherently good, 2) people are inherently evil, 3) there is a mixture of good and evil people...

If "1" is true, then we don't need gubermint to legislate our lives because people being inherently good will "do the right thing" regarding others.

If "2" is true, then we don't need gubermint to legislate our lives because people being inherently evil means that those running the gubermint are inherently evil... and how can any gubermint that is inherently evil be trusted to legislate what "the right thing to do" is for everyone else.

If "3" is true, then why would we form a gubermint, such as we currently have, that allows the worst of the worst of the evil to rise to the top and grant them power over everyone else's lives... insuring that evil grows and gains power over those who are inherently good.

I was debating these things this past weekend with some LEO (local and Fed) family and "friends". I have one sister who absolutely refuses to discuss it with me anymore and I finally found out why. Underneath it all, she "gets it", but the fact is that her hubby isn't the "bread winner" in the family, so it falls on her shoulders to support the mortgage, the kids, the bills, the living expenses, etc. Basically, she told me that until she can find something else that gives her the hours/pay/benefits/etc, she can't leave... and as long as she's there, she feels like she has to do the job or risk standing out too much. I still have a problem with it, but at least I know she understands and will "use her discretion" as much as she can. BTW, she's with the Feds... Her hubby, OTOH, is very gung-ho, pro-JBT, and calls me names which he thinks are derogatory (but I take as compliments, such as anarchist, freedom-ranter, libertarian-whacko, etc...  )

I don't see any reason to commend cops on this forum, when they enforce laws they themselves don't agree with.

Also the fact that cops often break (and allow each other to break) the very laws they use to harass the rest of us. Within their own ranks: Traffic laws don't apply to cops. Drug laws don't apply to cops. Gun laws don't apply to cops. Domestic Violence laws don't apply to cops.   And the list goes on and on... And none of them apply to politicians, cop "friends & family", or others who are "connected", unless that person happens to do something that pisses off a cop... then they can be harassed, setup, and brought down, just like the rest of us peons.

I firmly believe that there should be term limits... and I'm not talking about political office, I mean for cops and public employees. In the case of LEOs, the limit should be somewhere in the 6 year range (give or take a couple of years)... and after that time, no shuffling around to the department in the next town or up/down the levels between town, county, state, fed either. The reason I feel this is a good idea is that it would keep officers in check from simply harassing people, setting up people, being jerks, using the position as a means to get special privileges, etc. If someone is an LEO and they know that in ~6 years, they won't be an LEO, but instead will just be another private citizen driving around, then they will be far less likely to be a jerk and/or abuse the position simply because pretty soon, they're going to be the one who could get pulled over by the next person in that position that may be looking for a little payback for the way they were treated by you when you were the cop. I know that was kind of rambling, but it was just a thought...

[Russell Kanning]

they would look at things differently if they were not working towards retirement many years later