I Will Be Boycotting the NHUnderground Forums

[littlehawk]

I see. So the Underground Forum and your friends are all pacifists? That makes things a bit clearer as I did not know that, Mr. Russell.
As I mentioned earlier, maybe that fact should be posted somewhere where people can see it.


Littlehawk

[Tom Sawyer]

Who the heck is Littlehawk? I have never met him, never seen him out supporting any of my friends. So to me, he is part of the static...

The pacifists baiting thing has happened so many times... Some are pacifists, some are not.  Maybe, "the expert" that has been around for 43 posts didn't take the time to assimilate into the culture/community that has spontaneously developed here.

Kat is about the best freakin' host we could hope for. She is very tolerant of the guests at this party. Some of the rest of us less so.

Everyone is not equal... I, as many others I'm sure do, weigh who is posting and in the light of past performance, make up my opinion. This is a really small corner of the internet, I'm sure folks should be able to find their place, and if it isn't here they can find where they do fit in.

[David]

The last several posts are funny.  This is one of 4-5 NH focused liberty forums, and it is the personal property of the Kannings, Kat in particular if I am not mistaken. 
I wish they would ban more people.  All the big talkers who pretend they are going to shoot gov't people for this action or that action.  They know damn well the gov't eventually responds to that kind of bull shit, and knowing damn well the gov't is not particularly discriminating about who they hurt when it finally responds.  I believe it is the big talkers who are a threat to those on this forum.  I am not a pacifist, but I am disgusted by the lack of meaningful activism by all these big talkers who knowingly jeopardize my safety by painting a huge bright red bulls eye on our little corner of the internet. 

I am glad Russell no longer allows the rats to 'spew venom' and then disappear. 

If you don't like they way Russell and Kat run their forum, then go start your own damn forum.  You can get hosting for about 12 bucks a month on yahoo.  Of course, most of you won't lift a finger to do even that.  It is far easier to bitch about how others should be doing it. 

[Russell Kanning]

i like this tom sawyer guy

[MaineShark]

I disagree with MaineShark in that trespassing can justify full enslavement, unless there was a contract between two people which stipulated trespassing would justify enslavement. Enslaving someone for trespassing is the moral equivalent of seizing 1000 FRNs as retribution for a theft of 20 (minus extenuating circumstances such a violent robbery).

There can't be a contract to cover acts of aggression.  An aggressor is, by definition, someone who violates the rights of others.

Only the victim of a violation can determine the level of harm done, and the appropriate restitution to relieve that harm.

That's morality.

Aesthetically and practically, if some kid swipes a candybar from your store, and you demand a hundred ounces of gold as restitution, I'm not going to shop at your store anymore (aesthetically, because I find that offensive, and practically, because I could accidentally damage something and face penalties that I consider excessive), and I would encourage everyone I know to stop shopping there, and to refuse to do business with you.

But, in practical reality, no one would be stupid enough to try and demand ridiculous levels of restitution, like that.  It "could" happen, just like less restrictions on gun ownership "could" lead to massacres.  As is obvious by comparing NH (with one of the most gun-friendly legal climates on the planet) to many other areas with restrictive gun laws, that just isn't the case.  In practical reality, humans are social creatures, and will trend towards cooperation, even when competing.  The isolated lunatics will be a thorn in our side, but the supposed cure (government) is many orders of magnitude worse (like trying to pry that proverbial thorn out with a chainsaw).

Joe

[AntonLee]

I can sell myself into slavery if I want to.  Please don't tell me I can't be a slave if I want to.  Therefore, someone would be my legitimate slave owner.

[MaineShark]

I am not sure if you are disagreeing with Giggan, or if you are attempting to point out the same minor discrepancy which I am.  But just for purposes of clarification, do you agree with contracts which would allow for a lifetime labor agreement (i.e. similar in severity to slavery, with the exception that the person gets to choose to enter the agreement... a provision which a bona fide slave is not afforded)? 

Or alternatively, do you agree with a contract which stipulates one party can kill another, for almost any reasons which is mutually agreed upon in the contract?



The way you phrased your comment,  "There can't be a contract to cover acts of aggression" would lead me to believe you should have no problem with one or both of the hypothetical contracts I mentioned (as they are obviously not aggressive acts when consensually agreed upon), but I just want to make sure I am reading you right, for purposes of future reference.

The commentary was in reference to defense against aggressive acts, not selling one's indentures.  Giggan asserted that he doesn't believe that enslavement could be justified, in response to an act of aggression, unless there was a contract to that effect.  I merely pointed out that contracts covering aggression are silly, since aggressors don't have any reason to obey contracts (similar to how laws against murder don't stop murderers).

I don't have any issue with someone selling his indentures.

Joe

[Coconut]

I can sell myself into slavery if I want to.  Please don't tell me I can't be a slave if I want to.  Therefore, someone would be my legitimate slave owner.

If you wanted to be a slave (involuntary servitude) then you couldn't be voluntarily. The terms conflict.

[LordBaltimore]

I see. So the Underground Forum and your friends are all pacifists? That makes things a bit clearer as I did not know that, Mr. Russell.
As I mentioned earlier, maybe that fact should be posted somewhere where people can see it.

Perhaps if they hadn't chosen Ed Brown "I'm going to kill the judge and his kids and build dozens of bombs and landmines" as the place to recruit new members for this forum, they wouldn't have attracted the "gun cleaner" crowd...

[Russell Kanning]

could we have a "three name guy" give us a final ruling on the definition of slavery

anyone?
bueller?
ferris algernon bueller?

[Becky Thatcher]

 

[Russell Kanning]

see those rotten clique members are grinning again

[AntonLee]

I wonder if selling myself into slavery could possibly mean I'm selling my service as acting as a person's involuntary chattel.

[leetninja]

epic.

[Giggan]

There can't be a contract to cover acts of aggression.  An aggressor is, by definition, someone who violates the rights of others.

Well, you could have a contract to cover acts of aggression, I just don't see many people wasting their time on them.

Only the victim of a violation can determine the level of harm done, and the appropriate restitution to relieve that harm.

That's morality.

And that's also very subjective.

Aesthetically and practically, if some kid swipes a candybar from your store, and you demand a hundred ounces of gold as restitution, I'm not going to shop at your store anymore (aesthetically, because I find that offensive, and practically, because I could accidentally damage something and face penalties that I consider excessive), and I would encourage everyone I know to stop shopping there, and to refuse to do business with you.

But, in practical reality, no one would be stupid enough to try and demand ridiculous levels of restitution, like that.  It "could" happen, just like less restrictions on gun ownership "could" lead to massacres.  As is obvious by comparing NH (with one of the most gun-friendly legal climates on the planet) to many other areas with restrictive gun laws, that just isn't the case.  In practical reality, humans are social creatures, and will trend towards cooperation, even when competing.  The isolated lunatics will be a thorn in our side, but the supposed cure (government) is many orders of magnitude worse (like trying to pry that proverbial thorn out with a chainsaw).

Joe

Would the store owner be justified in enslaving the child for 100 oz of gold? No. Should he even have the ability to do so? No. This is where third party arbitration comes in to settle disputes. While the owner is permitted compensation for his loss, he does not have the right to agress for more than the value of damages. Since it's difficult to be unbiased in this situation, if a deal can't be reached, arbitration is necessary.

Granted, most store owners won't go crazy over a kid and a candybar, but neither should they have the ability to.