No offense, but that courtroom stunt was dumb

[joeyforpresident]

[JewHampshire.com]
No offense, but anarchy is something I'm not into, judging from the news yesterday that two Free State Project/NH Underground activists were arrested for not taking off their hats in a courtroom.

Granted, the matter opens up discussion for what is proper courtroom decorum, but come on, is that really what this FSP thing is all about? What does being jailed prove to anything or anyone? Refusing to pay taxes is revolutionary. Going to jail for not taking off your hat is just dumb.

That's just my view though.

Oh, and I joined the Pemi-Valley Baker Republican Party yesterday. Should be great fun for our open U.S. Senate seat next year and the open U.S. House seat.

[shyfrog]

Going to jail for not [admitting the Earth is at the center of the Universe] is just dumb.
Going to jail for not [denying one's faith and belief system] is just dumb.
Going to jail for not [sitting at the back of the bus] is just dumb.
...

No offense, but this is a very long list. Would you like me to continue? 

[dalebert]

I predict a lot of people will completely miss the point just as you did, but that's why we need to have discussions about it. The act itself merely inspires and draws attention to such discussions. Is it silly to disobey a minor rule about clothing? Perhaps. But it's downright obscene the amount of violence they're willing to use to enforce such a silly rule.

[Sam A. Robrin]

No offense, but . . .

I joined the Pemi-Valley Baker Republican Party yesterday.

. . . and you call them dumb?

[thinkliberty]

Going to jail for not taking off your hat is just dumb.

I agree. Why in the world would anyone be sent to jail for not taking of their hat?

[FTL_Ian]

No offense, but . . .

I joined the Pemi-Valley Baker Republican Party yesterday.

. . . and you call them dumb?

[Bill St. Clair]

But it's downright obscene the amount of violence they're willing to use to enforce such a silly rule.

The penalty for breaking ANY of the king's rules is death. Yes, it will take a while, and you'll be given lots of chances to capitulate, but if you don't, and you resist being kidnapped, they will kill you.

[Jan]

Joey, are you going to become the new "Luke"?

P.S.  You might want to join Luke over at http://www.nhliberty.org/forum

[Kat Kanning]

I was unimpressed by what Jesse did.  I felt like he was lying about having quasi-religious reasons for not taking off his hat.  And it's not like he was forced to go into that courtroom if he didn't like their rules.

Charlie is a different story, from what I hear.

[AntonLee]

I believe I have as much right to wear a hat anywhere on public property that I so choose to stroll into.  You could say I believe in that just as much as someone might believe in a god. 

[grasshopper]

 We don't have to bow or do anything special to anyone for we are all free.
  I say the judge should be arrested for trying to become royalty, which is against the law in this country.

[Tom Sawyer]

Not being present I have no first hand knowledge of events other than what people have said...

One person got the bailiffs agitated and they attacked someone else.

They will find Jesse guilty of disorderly conduct. The one that is open to interpretation is Charlie being charged with disorderly conduct.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I support free people making their own choices.

. . . and you call them dumb?

I was thinking the same thing.

[Kat Kanning]

I support free people making their own choices.

Like Joey choosing to join the republicans?

[AnarchoJesse]

I was unimpressed by what Jesse did.  I felt like he was lying about having quasi-religious reasons for not taking off his hat.  And it's not like he was forced to go into that courtroom if he didn't like their rules.

Of all people, I can't believe this is coming from you.

To begin, what does it matter if I may feign quasi-religious feelings? These are the same people who refused the press, require us to be defenseless in a building full of fiends and criminals (and I'm not strictly talking about the people facing trial), and had as all subject to search of our person, which if not complied with could lead to eviction or arrest. The very act of invalidating our liberties removes the same liberties they may be entitled to-- any sound methodology that claims validity must apply equally to all people, and the actions they took before the entire scene took place removed any obligation I had to speak to them on an honest basis (not that I consider my words dishonest-- Lady Liberty wears a crown, and I wear a hat, as somewhat of a reminder.)

Second, you're evading the two core moral issues at hand-- was it necessary to use force to evict me over a singular inoffensive article of clothing; and by what right do they have the authority to establish the "rules" in the first place? The end of your argument reeks of the ever prevalent "Love it or leave it" bromide-- why must I leave a public establishment, maintained with public funds, and submit to people who are effectually my equal? Not to even touch on the issue of the State being incapable of owning property in the first place, I'm left wondering how you can possible justify such a stance.