Breaking: Drama at Manch Porc Manor

[Feanor7]

I haven't - thanks for the link!

[Caleb]

By "implied consent," I only mean that if the people who voluntarily set up the state delegated the legitimate use of force to a particular agency or class of agencies (like private security/insurance groups, etc.), those who chose to be criminals (and of course I only mean real criminals, i.e. those who use theft, force, or fraud) among those who consented to governance could be imprisoned/have force used on them, and it would be with their implied consent.

Of course, as the thief is being hauled off to jail, he won't consent.

The problem comes in when you try to get down to the business of defining what "force or fraud" is, because two people will often have dramatically different views as to what is right and wrong. The State is largely an instrument designed to enforce the arbitrary decisions that support the structure of society. That's why the state's definition of criminal often differs from any common-sense definition of the term: the state has a vested interest in protecting the structures which facilitate its implementation.

I guess my point is that it starts to get real hard to determine who is a criminal and who is not a criminal once you've discarded the State, because the arbitrary lines of legitimacy go when the state goes. You can't support the "legitimate" functions of the state while denying it what it needs to survive. It sort of ends up being an all-or-nothing proposition once you've sorted through it all. Either you are for the state (and by extension whatever the state must do to ensure its survival) or you are against the state, (and by extension are against any measures the state takes to preserve itself and the structures of society. But in my experience, any attempt to conjoin the two, to try to reign in the state to a set of narrowly defined actions will necessarily place the state in a situation in which it cannot survive if it maintains itself according to the prescribed behavior. It will, for instance, not be able to tax, and thus will not be able to maintain those functions that you want to maintain.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Feanor, have you read "The Market for Liberty"?

This is perhaps one of the most personally impacting books I've ever read in my life, I highly recommend it as well!

[John Edward Mercier]

EDITED AGAIN: apparently I misunderstood what voluntarist meant.  If it means that one believes that all interactions should be consensual (including the implied consent that exists when one cedes some small part of their autonomy, e.g. the use of force against others, to the state), then count me in.

I've never met a voluntaryist who believed in implied consent. A voluntaryist believes all interaction should be voluntary. The state does not fit into that. As a monopoly, you can't opt out. It seems to me to always be used as a more P.C. term for anarchist. For instance, I would never give my consent to a monopoly because I think corruption is inevitable with monopolies. So if you want to implement a state, I will explicitly tell you that I don't consent to that to make sure there is no misunderstanding about implied consent.

The term "libertarian" has already been watered down to near meaninglessness. Let's please not water down the term "voluntaryist" now as well.

Consent can be implied, but it is also periodic.
For example, while standing in my garden... I notice you trepass against the far end. You wave, and I acknowledge your presence. I have implied consent for you to trespass. The next time, I may not.

The reason it doens't fit into the current government model can be easily seen in the NH Constitution.

'Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.

June 2, 1784*'... makes sense. Each individual is born equally free and independent. Rights originate from the people, are founded in consent (respect of claim), and instituted for general good (your Rights have indirect positive effects on my well being).

The problem.

'[Art.] 12. [Protection and Taxation Reciprocal.] Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection, and to yield his personal service when necessary. But no part of a man's property shall be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent.

June 2, 1784'

It equates 'with his own consent' and 'representative body of the people'.

[Caleb]

how exciting! 

[John]

.

[John]

I haven't had/taken/made time to know of this (?) (nor time today to read it all) . . . I am not on the FSP board, and don't plan on going back there.
Please, just remember to treat others as you would wish to be treated.
Everything is gonna be alright.

[Mellamo]

I haven't had/taken/made time to know of this (?) (nor time today to read it all) . . . I am not on the FSP board, and don't plan on going back there.
Please, just remember to treat others as you would wish to be treated.
Everything is gonna be alright.

Well said good sir!   

[Russell Kanning]

don't get caught up in John's happiness vortex ... there is no going back

[Mellamo]

don't get caught up in John's happiness vortex ... there is no going back

How terrible! 

[Hubbard]

Protect himself from what?! Being evicted with 30 days notice? That's not a rights violation. If you respect property rights, you get the fuck out when you're told.

[/quote]

Why all these words and explanations and questions? See above, enough said.

[error]

So there are some updates to this situation.

Long ago when this situation first arose there was a second thread on the FSP forum about it, which was quickly deleted. This morning I received email from Mackler regarding this deleted thread in which he alleges that I "wrote that an act of physical violence had been committed against Meg Steward and that I was 'the only person who could have possibly done it.'" Since the thread is long since gone, I cannot verify that I said anything of the sort. Nevertheless, I will say that I have no firsthand knowledge of the situation, since I was out of town at the time these events occurred. It would be impossible for me to have knowledge sufficient to make such a claim. And if I did indeed post something of that nature, consider it retracted.

The message above was posted under a credible threat of violence.

In that same email Mackler says that "Your publishing that false statement has severely damaged my reputation and I am holding you responsible for my injury." For those familiar with the law, you will recognize that this is the last thing you say before filing a lawsuit.

Even without having evidence to claim that Mackler committed the act of physical violence against Meg last July of which he was accused, I have plenty of evidence that he has committed a different act of violence against her (to wit: a countersuit in court, which the judge promptly threw out) and threatened one against me. It is for these reasons that I must state that Mackler should be considered dangerous and people coming into contact with him should take special precautions to protect their lives and property. My opinion of Mackler expressed here is based solely on his own actions which he has committed in full view of myself and witnesses and for which I have firsthand knowledge.

Furthermore, the last resort has been reached, I have no other options, and I must now call for Mackler to be generally ostracized until such time as he renounces his violent ways.

[Russell Kanning]

people that like to use the government to hurt others are not nice

I never met Meg (that I can recall), had Mackler on ignore (was that a rasputin avatar?) and know Error pretty well.

That his reputation has suffered shows our group is working. Error seems to have only 1 major flaw.... he sleeps through 1/4 of the activities.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Mackler got a name, or, as the English say: "What's his name when hes at home?"

[mackler]

This is a follow up to Michael Hampton's recent post about me.  Buried among his strident calls for a general ostracism, he made the following key points to which I draw your attention:

Regarding his earlier claim that I had committed an act of violence against my housemate, Michael Hampton has just now admitted the following:

• "I will say that I have no firsthand knowledge of the situation..."
• "It would be impossible for me to have knowledge sufficient to make such a claim."
• "And if I did indeed post something of that nature, consider it retracted."

In other words, Michael Hampton has now, if reluctantly, acknowledged that when he publicly posted that I had committed an act of violence against my housemate, he knew that what he was writing was false, or at least he knew that there was a very high risk of it being false.  But he went ahead and published it anyway, without even bothering to talk to me first.

This journalist, who said he had conducted an investigation of the matter, and who leveled the most specific accusations against me has now publicly retracted his accusations.  Those of you whose opinions of me have been tainted by stories emerging from 412 Central Street should take due note of this.

Michael Hampton has admitted that what he did to me was wrong and for that I would thank him, if it weren't for the rest of what he wrote.  Michael Hampton has called for my general ostracism.  I don't know how much credibility a man can have when calling to ostracize another in the same breath as admitting that he knowingly posted lies about that other on the internet, but just in case anyone reading this is still taking him seriously, I'll say I agree partly with him.  Ostracism would be appropriate in this situation.

Michael Hampton says I should be ostracized because I sent him an email saying "Your publishing that false statement has severely damaged my reputation and I am holding you responsible for my injury."  Yet a basic premise of individualist philosophies is self-responsibility.  People who claim to want freedom must take responsibility for how they use that freedom. 

But Michael Hampton does not want to be held responsible for what he did.   By Michael Hampton's logic, telling someone that you're holding him responsible for the injuries he caused you is in itself an act of violence.  Apparently if your neighbor throws a ball through your window and it hits you in the head, and you say, "That ball broke my window and gave me a concussion, and I am holding you responsible for my injuries," then Michael Hampton will accuse you of threatening violence and he will lead the call for your ostracism.

Michael Hampton says I should be considered dangerous, because I said I would hold him responsible for hurting me.  If that makes sense to you, then I do hope you stay away from me, because if you're the sort of person who wants to be able to hurt others without being held responsible, then you're the one who poses a danger to others.

Michael Hampton claims that I committed an act of violence against a person who dragged me into court against my will by appearing to defend myself.  The claim is so ludicrous on its face it barely warrants a response.  If Michael Hampton really thinks that people prone to bringing lawsuits are dangerous, he would be calling for the ostracism of the person who sued me.  Of course he is not saying any such thing.  Michael Hampton is a hypocrite.

To those of you who have a hankering to see how effective ostracism is to enforce community standards of individual liberty and self responsibility, I propose that you ostracize one of the following two personages:

PERSON 1:

• Was falsely and publicly accused of a crime he didn't commit.
• Was a victim of a contract breach by his landlord, and was served threatening government papers by said landlord without an opportunity to utilize any non-government dispute resolution.
• Was hauled into court in a lawsuit based on falsehoods, initiated by unidentified parties who paid for the suit but did not apply their names to it.
• Despite the egregious lies published about him, and despite the legal actions taken against him, he has not sued nor threatened to sue anyone.
• Has spent the last several weeks trying to use cooperative means to get the person who published the biggest lie about him to admit it.  Finally successful in his quest for a non-government solution, he is a model to all who shun state-oriented solutions.

PERSON 2:

• Published on the internet a lie that another had committed a violent crime when he had no reasonable basis to make such a statement.
• Refused for several weeks to admit that he had no reasonable basis to believe what he posted was true.
• Claims that the defendant in a lawsuit based on the lies that he published was committing an act of violence by defending himself, while ignoring the responsibility of the people who paid for and brought the lawsuit.
• Objects strenuously to being told he is responsible for his own actions and their effect on others.

Will you ostracize the person who despite being dragged into court has not even mentioned initiating legal action against anyone else, and who has worked hard to find a private remedy for some of the damage another has done to him?  Or will you ostracize the person who claims that holding a person responsible for his own actions is a violation of community standards?

This will be a very interesting experiment to see how principled the ostracizers are. 

So there are some updates to this situation.

Long ago when this situation first arose there was a second thread on the FSP forum about it, which was quickly deleted. This morning I received email from Mackler regarding this deleted thread in which he alleges that I "wrote that an act of physical violence had been committed against Meg Steward and that I was 'the only person who could have possibly done it.'" Since the thread is long since gone, I cannot verify that I said anything of the sort. Nevertheless, I will say that I have no firsthand knowledge of the situation, since I was out of town at the time these events occurred. It would be impossible for me to have knowledge sufficient to make such a claim. And if I did indeed post something of that nature, consider it retracted.

The message above was posted under a credible threat of violence.

In that same email Mackler says that "Your publishing that false statement has severely damaged my reputation and I am holding you responsible for my injury." For those familiar with the law, you will recognize that this is the last thing you say before filing a lawsuit.

Even without having evidence to claim that Mackler committed the act of physical violence against Meg last July of which he was accused, I have plenty of evidence that he has committed a different act of violence against her (to wit: a countersuit in court, which the judge promptly threw out) and threatened one against me. It is for these reasons that I must state that Mackler should be considered dangerous and people coming into contact with him should take special precautions to protect their lives and property. My opinion of Mackler expressed here is based solely on his own actions which he has committed in full view of myself and witnesses and for which I have firsthand knowledge.

Furthermore, the last resort has been reached, I have no other options, and I must now call for Mackler to be generally ostracized until such time as he renounces his violent ways.