Coconut will not pay : 9-26-08

[dalebert]

The latter gives them money. The former costs them money. I'll always opt for costing them.

That's the way I look at it. The reality is we live in a world dominated by government. It's tendrils are in everything. I acknowledge that painful reality and do my best to live with it. We all have our individual comfort levels. Lauren and Russell are quite ready to go to jail over a lot more things than I am. However, I'm quickly coming to terms with the things I'm willing to go to jail over and a lot of that depends on just what I'm having to compromise and what I'm going to have to suffer. I pay taxes, but I'm doing whatever I can to reduce what I pay and that means making some sacrifices in terms of how much money I make and HOW I make the money. By not taking a job, I'm not handing a lot of money over up front before I even see the check from an employer who's in complete control and I'm opening up a lot of avenues for legal loopholes. Like I said, we have to live in the world we live in. We can't all be hermits in boogar huts in the woods living completely off the grid. *shrug*

[Russell Kanning]

Vehicle registration papers?  Touchy issue.

Look at it from the judge's perspective.

the cops do like to touch you if you don't have their ID papers
from the judges perspective ... he should quit his job and start dealing with people on a voluntary basis ... not people who have been dragged there.

[Russell Kanning]

In my opinion the initiated use of any service qualifies as an agreement to the conditions of use set forth by whomever is offering the service.

Where can I live in america where the government doesn't claim the land I stand on?
Where can I walk or drive my car where they have not already been there and tell me what to do?
Coconut could be driving safely ... but they threw up a 35mph sign in front of him ... does he have to follow all of their rules? What happens when the UN sends you bill for income taxes? Are you using their services of relative freedom throughout the world? How do you decide?

[Paul]

Where can I live in america where the government doesn't claim the land I stand on?

In these united states, in the State of New Hampshire, or in the City of Keene?  In the former, American Indian reservations are probably the closest you can get.  Otherwise the Republic was here first.  Like it not, they planted their flag long before you were born.  If you're going to challenge the legitimacy of the State, this is your starting point.  If not, just don't worry about it and respond appropriately when necessary.  Same you would do if anyone wished to do you harm. One can either resist actively (Brown), passively (Canario), or go underground (Mitnick).

Coconut could be driving safely ... but they threw up a 35mph sign in front of him ... does he have to follow all of their rules?

If he were a guest, yes.  If he is a resident tax-victim he is within his right to do whatever he wishes on the roads he has helped fund so long as he does not place the life, body, or property of another in imminent danger unless he has explicitly agreed to the extra conditions.  If he does not agree to those conditions he is within his right to challenge them or refuse payment however if he continues use of those roads he no longer has grounds to object.  It is my opinion this is what the judge ruled on in his case as it was a core component of his argument from what I could make out.  It's one thing to be speeding through a residential neighborhood where kids are running around in the street.  It's another entirely to be on a clear path not a threat to anyone.  Dumb laws should always be challenged, so long as one is willing to accept that if the challenge fails their options become limited.  If not, just ignore them or accept them.

How do you decide?

By the initiation of use.  It's the same issue as property taxes for services not requested or desired.

My personal suggestion in your case if you do not wish to resist when the time comes is to register your vehicle and perform the community service.  Continue challenging it, but if you keep trying to fight it in court while simultaneously disobeying they're just going to prove themselves.

[Paul]

Apologies for missing this.

What's the difference between going to court because you're afraid of their guns, or just paying your fine because you're afraid of their guns?

Not much.  Either way you're complying with their demands and therefore recognizing their legitimacy.  If you acknowledge yet challenge this legitimacy there will only be one of two outcomes:  You succeed, or you're SOL.  Congratulations again on your success.

[Paul]

I should also state that this is simply the circumstances as they exist today (as I interpret them anyway) with regards to any attempts at in-the-system activism through the judiciary (as opposed to the legislature).  As time progresses and more minds are opened to the ideas of liberty the very real power of jury nullification comes into action.  Then all that must be done is defendants take their cases to trial.  This is why it is my opinion that it is vital for the civil disobedient-types and the political-types to work together and support eachother.  With an impotent judiciary and a stronghold in the legislature the authoritarians are powerless and nature is free to run its course.

[David]

What's the difference between going to court because you're afraid of their guns, or just paying your fine because you're afraid of their guns?

The latter gives them money. The former costs them money. I'll always opt for costing them.

Bingo.  Fred Parcells, a former Keene cop, is egging us on to 'prove' that we really believe the gov't has no authority.  Yet If he was still a cop, I am confident he would love to put metal bracelets on Ian in particular, maybe me, and a few others. 

[Paul]

Personally I would advise against letting them. The State is real; It exists.  As an individual sovereign one can either recognize the State as a legitimate body established by the People or reject its legitimacy as such.  When choosing to interact with its court one runs the risk of imprisonment.  I have the utmost respect for those who take it this far for it brings true individual liberty, but it's short lived.  I absolutely will support those who make this sacrifice but I'm still going to discourage it.  Martyrs can help, yes.  But I don't like to see assets lost.  If someone goes to jail the only thing they can offer is a name for a bumpersticker.  Pick your battles and know when to withdraw.

[FTL_Ian]

Only men threatening force is real; the state is a fantasy.

[Russell Kanning]

Where can I live in america where the government doesn't claim the land I stand on?

In these united states, in the State of New Hampshire, or in the City of Keene?  In the former, American Indian reservations are probably the closest you can get.  Otherwise the Republic was here first.  Like it not, they planted their flag long before you were born. 

so I guess you are saying ... nowhere
there have been many people who have walked this ground before me ... do I have to ask them all permission to do so ... or just the guys with guns?

[Russell Kanning]

Not much.  Either way you're complying with their demands and therefore recognizing their legitimacy.

your are recognizing their use of force ... not legitimacy

[Paul]

As an individual sovereign if you submit to their force without resistance you are recognizing their legitimacy.

Only men threatening force is real; the state is a fantasy.

Believe that if you wish but a fantasy can quickly become a nightmare.

[Tom Sawyer]

As an individual sovereign if you submit to their force without resistance you are recognizing their legitimacy.

You must have submitted to be around to say this.

[Paul]

so I guess you are saying ... nowhere

That would be subjective which is why I differentiated the relationship.  What government are you talking about?  If you're talking about the Federal Government, at present day, yes... basically nowhere.  An independent New Hampshire would change this obviously.  Then all you have to deal with is the New Hampshire State Government, a system of governance established by the People (land owners) over two hundred years ago.  Don't like it? Too bad.  Facts are facts.  They were here first.  Deal with them or ignore them.

As far as cities are concerned I think you're just out of luck.  Any land incorporated into the City is under that city's domain as allowed by the New Hampshire Constitution.  If you don't like the property taxes and associated regulations implemented by a city, don't move into that city.  Just as if you didn't want to agree to the rules set forth by a voluntary community, don't move to that community.

On that topic however a voluntary community can exist within the domain of a state sovereign.  You just have to create one or convert an existing one.  Once the voluntary community is established if a general attitude of mercantilism is initially adopted the community, embracing the free market, can dominate economic competition in the state.  As councils of other cities lose power and the cities adopt the attitudes of the successful voluntary community the State Government is progressively weakened.  Once again at this point with the judiciary and legislature under control of free minded individuals, nature runs its course.

Just avoid going to jail.  Yes, they can and will make room for everyone if given the opportunity.  Don't give it to them.  If you're going to refuse their legitimacy, do so as Canario did.  Otherwise know when you're beaten and keep your ass on the street where you can still do some good for liberty.  If the time comes where people are backed into a corner with one option left, you're useless behind bars.  Don't become a casualty over a stupid couch or piece of paper.

[Paul Comeau Jr]

See -- the system works!     

The question is: Why and how did the system work?

After listening to the trial again, I couldn't help but notice two things.
1) When Nick went before the judge, the judge asked him "DO YOU swear before me that the testimony you are about to give is the truth...." and Nick's reply was "It is" not "I do". I'm not sure but I think this might have some relevance.
2) Then the judge asked him if his name was "Nicholas Ryder" and Nick's reply was "That's the name on my license". Not satisfied with his answer, the judge continued with a second question, "But is that who YOU are?" and Nick's reply was "That's what my friends call me". It appears to me that Nick never admitted or consented to being the "person" (artificial entity) in question here and responsible for the ticket. This is the reason I believe, and I could be wrong, he was found not guilty.