• Welcome to New Hampshire Underground.
 

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Main Menu

Freedom to Travel Event, Part 2

Started by Dave Ridley, May 26, 2005, 10:56 AM NHFT

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 20
User actions

Kat Kanning

#75
June 01, 2005, 08:38 AM NHFT
Stike the Root http://www.strike-the-root.com/ is listing the Portmouth Herald article today "Free Staters Plan More Civil Disobedience".

Russell Kanning

#76
June 01, 2005, 09:20 AM NHFT
Hopefully we can follow Mike's example and not get beaten by any batons :)

ethanpooley

#77
June 01, 2005, 11:19 AM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on June 01, 2005, 05:11 AM NHFT
Isn't the important factor not what "rights" the Supreme Court is still upholding, but how we are actually treated by police officers?

How we are actually treated is certainly more important to the question of what our current level of freedom is. But what rights the Supreme Court still deigns to recognize is very important to anyone (like us) who wants to turn the country around. Maybe it's just a matter of personal preference, but I would rather have things right on the books and wrong in the streets than the other way around. Not because I would be more free, but because I would have more hope of being truly free.

Russell Kanning

#78
June 01, 2005, 11:23 AM NHFT
I don't even want any books....so I will take freedom in the streets ;)

ethanpooley

#79
June 01, 2005, 11:27 AM NHFT
Btw, I loved this line from the article on the Freedom to Travel event: "Kanning?s ... inspirations, he said, are Ghandi and Fisher."

Talk about a perfect example of how activism snowballs! Fisher is inspired by Ghandi, and takes action. The very next person to take action cites Ghandi AND Fisher. I love it.

Russell Kanning

#80
June 01, 2005, 11:30 AM NHFT
next time it will be gandhi mike and that ethan guy 8)

ethanpooley

#81
June 01, 2005, 11:43 AM NHFT
This may be old material to people here, but I found this piece of writing a while ago and re-read it regularly. It's called "Our Enemy, the State" by Albert Nock. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/nock1.html)

It is quite long, but here's part of it. I guess I'm mentioning this here because it speaks to the idea of "no books", something that is actually possible if government is limited to its proper role. The full work points out a fundamental distinction between society and government, and shows how empowering the government always results in a drain of power from society.

Quote"AS FAR back as one can follow the run of civilization, it presents two fundamentally different types of political organization. This difference is not one of degree, but of kind. It does not do to take the one type as merely marking a lower order of civilization and the other a higher; they are commonly so taken, but erroneously. Still less does it do to classify both as species of the same genus ? to classify both under the generic name of "government," though this also, until very lately, has been done, and has always led to confusion and misunderstanding.

A good understanding of this error and its effects is supplied by Thomas Paine. At the outset of his pamphlet called Common Sense, Paine draws a distinction between society and government. While society in any state is a blessing, he says, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." In another place, he speaks of government as "a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world." He proceeds then to show how and why government comes into being. Its origin is in the common understanding and common agreement of society; and "the design and end of government," he says, is "freedom and security." Teleologically, government implements the common desire of society, first, for freedom, and second, for security. Beyond this it does not go; it contemplates no positive intervention upon the individual, but only a negative intervention. It would seem that in Paine's view the code of government should be that of the legendary king Pausole, who prescribed but two laws for his subjects, the first being, Hurt no man, and the second, Then do as you please; and that the whole business of government should be the purely negative one of seeing that this code is carried out.

So far, Paine is sound as he is simple. He goes on, however, to attack the British political organization in terms that are logically inconclusive. There should be no complaint of this, for he was writing as a pamphleteer, a special pleader with an ad captandum argument to make, and as everyone knows, he did it most successfully. Nevertheless, the point remains that when he talks about the British system he is talking about a type of political organization essentially different from the type that he has just been describing; different in origin, in intention, in primary function, in the order of interest that it reflects. It did not originate in the common understanding and agreement of society; it originated in conquest and confiscation.1

Its intention, far from contemplating "freedom and security," contemplated nothing of the kind. It contemplated primarily the continuous economic exploitation of one class by another, and it concerned itself with only so much freedom and security as was consistent with this primary intention; and this was, in fact, very little. Its primary function or exercise was not by way of Paine's purely negative interventions upon the individual, but by way of innumerable and most onerous positive interventions, all of which were for the purpose of maintaining the stratification of society into an owning and exploiting class, and a property-less dependent class. The order of interest that it reflected was not social, but purely anti-social; and those who administered it, judged by the common standard of ethics, or even the common standard of law as applied to private persons, were indistinguishable from a professional-criminal class.

Clearly, then, we have two distinct types of political organization to take into account; and clearly, too, when their origins are considered, it is impossible to make out that the one is a mere perversion of the other. Therefore when we include both types under a general term like government, we get into logical difficulties; difficulties of which most writers on the subject have been more or less vaguely aware, but which, until within the last half-century, none of them has tried to resolve.

Mr. Jefferson, for example, remarked that the hunting tribes of Indians, with which he had a good deal to do in his early days, had a highly organized and admirable social order, but were "without government." Commenting on this, he wrote Madison that "it is a problem not clear in my mind that [this] condition is not the best," but he suspected that it was "inconsistent with any great degree of population." Schoolcraft observes that the Chippewas, though living in a highly-organized social order, had no "regular" government. Herbert Spencer, speaking of the Bechuanas, Araucanians and Koranna Hottentots, says they have no "definite" government; while Parkman, in his introduction to The Conspiracy of Pontiac, reports the same phenomenon, and is frankly puzzled by its apparent anomalies.

Paine's theory of government agrees exactly with the theory set forth by Mr. Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The doctrine of natural rights, which is explicit in the Declaration, is implicit in Common Sense;2 and Paine's view of the "design and end of government" is precisely the Declaration's view, that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men"; and further, Paine's view of the origin of government is that it "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed." Now, if we apply Paine's formulas or the Declaration's formulas, it is abundantly clear that the Virginian Indians had government; Mr. Jefferson's own observations show that they had it. Their political organization, simple as it was, answered its purpose. Their code-apparatus sufficed for assuring freedom and security to the individual, and for dealing with such trespasses as in that state of society the individual might encounter ? fraud, theft, assault, adultery, murder. The same is clearly true of the various peoples cited by Parkman, Schoolcraft and Spencer. Assuredly, if the language of the Declaration amounts to anything, all these peoples had government; and all these reporters make it appear as a government quite competent to its purpose.

Therefore when Mr. Jefferson says his Indians were "without government," he must be taken to mean that they did not have a type of government like the one he knew; and when Schoolcraft and Spencer speak of "regular" and "definite" government, their qualifying words must be taken in the same way. This type of government, nevertheless, has always existed and still exists, answering perfectly to Paine's formulas and the Declaration's formulas; though it is a type which we also, most of us, have seldom had the chance to observe. It may not be put down as the mark of an inferior race, for institutional simplicity is in itself by no means a mark of backwardness or inferiority; and it has been sufficiently shown that in certain essential respects the peoples who have this type of government are, by comparison, in a position to say a good deal for themselves on the score of a civilized character. Mr. Jefferson's own testimony on this point is worth notice, and so is Parkman's. This type, however, even though documented by the Declaration, is fundamentally so different from the type that has always prevailed in history, and is still prevailing in the world at the moment, that for the sake of clearness the two types should be set apart by name, as they are by nature. They are so different in theory that drawing a sharp distinction between them is now probably the most important duty that civilization owes to its own safety. Hence it is by no means either an arbitrary or academic proceeding to give the one type the name of government, and to call the second type simply the State."
[/size]

Russell Kanning

#82
June 01, 2005, 12:09 PM NHFT
"without government" is an appealing phrase. 8)

Dave Ridley

#84
June 01, 2005, 05:23 PM NHFT
Here is some good advice from an NH resident for anyone planning future civil dis.

From merrimackforum.org

>> DadaOrwell wrote:
What are your thoughts on how they could fight this (considering there are only 360 of them in state so far with average turnout of 15 a their events)?  >>

RBarnes wrote:

<< O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?
Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

So how do a small amount of people make a difference? There?s the question your organization should be asking itself.

Embarrassment. The government isn?t going to change because it wants to. It?s not going to change because of people want lower taxes (I doubt you can find a single person who would argue their taxes aren?t high enough). No, the only way a politician will change or eliminate a public program is if they are embarrassed to the point of doing so because they fear not doing it would cost them votes. Make the public aware of who signed the bill allowing sex offenders to get free Viagra for instance (for the record it was Teddy Kennedy).

Getting yourselves arrested in protests in which you don?t have a vast majority of the public supporting you on will accomplish nothing. So I?d suggest looking for issues like the Viagra for sex offenders and making it as public a story as possible and start off protesting these things people would support your protests on. Everyone in your organization should have the addresses of where to send letters to the editors not only for all NH papers but most major papers across the country. Flood them with letters expressing examples of government tyranny. Spell out in black and white exactly where the government is over stepping its bounds and let people come to their own conclusions. If your arguments are strong and sensible people will support them and back you on them? then politicians will either have to wake up and accept what people want or eventually get voted out of office. But the key is getting your arguments out to the public. Try to get yourselves booked on radio talk shows such as Jay Severin or even smaller shows like the one the coalition of NH taxpayers puts on every Thursday. Bring your message to the public, educate the public as to what too look for as far as government over stepping its bounds. And make the government aware that you will bring to light every off the wall thing they try to pull.

Just look at this forum? while there is a lot of joking and people giving you a hard time because of your protests, you have at least started discussion. Discussion of what the governments role should be is the first step. Encourage it and embrace it.>>

KBCraig

#85
June 01, 2005, 07:45 PM NHFT
That's good feedback, Dada.

And the writer is correct about shaming government into change. It does require a voting majority to "shame" the politicians into changing laws, because left to themselves, politicians are totally shameless.

The value of events such as Mike's, or Russell's, is to wake up the voting public, and stir their outrage, so that they will cry "shame, shame!" at their elected officials. You don't need the support of the majority coming in to the event; you just need to wake up a majority by the time the dust settles.

Kevin

Michael Fisher

#86
June 01, 2005, 11:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on June 01, 2005, 05:23 PM NHFT
Getting yourselves arrested in protests in which you don?t have a vast majority of the public supporting you on will accomplish nothing.

I strongly disagree.  The May 9th civil disobedience event created a larger effect than anything I've EVER tried before.  The effect of this event was significantly larger than the anti-war protests in Burlington, VT before the Iraq war which included over 3,000 people.  It was hardly covered at all even though it was the largest news event in the state by far.

We do not need a majority of public support and we do not need 3,000 people to create a wildly successful event.


Quote from: DadaOrwell on June 01, 2005, 05:23 PM NHFT
So I?d suggest looking for issues like the Viagra for sex offenders and making it as public a story as possible and start off protesting these things people would support your protests on.

This person believes that publicizing information about a program that gives Viagra to sex offenders would be a more effective protest than a well-planned civil disobedience event?  I very strongly disagree.

We will protest what each of us want to protest as individuals, and if the people of New Hampshire truly want liberty, then we will have some support.  If not, then liberty is finished, because I'm taking my stand, right here, right now.  Either we win freedom right now or it is forever lost.

FTL_Ian

#87
June 01, 2005, 11:56 PM NHFT
Right on LR6.  If we were protesting something with majority support, then it really wouldn't be much of an issue, would it?  Plus how does one gauge if an issue has majority support, anyway?

John

#88
June 02, 2005, 12:34 AM NHFT
Dude (s), I'm taking my stand with you> you are offering a resistance which is quite moral . . .
I've been having a hard time because of some issues wich are quite difficult and personal - but your examples rage in my mind. ?- ?RAGEING - LIKE A GOOD COASTAL STORM . . . Thank you.
Thank you for inspiring better action ! ?(or (for today) non-action (on my part) as it may be.
I'm strong enough to wheather the storm - without over-reacting.

Michael Fisher

#89
June 02, 2005, 12:40 AM NHFT
Quote from: John on June 02, 2005, 12:34 AM NHFT
I've been having a hard time because of some issues wich are quite difficult and personal

Feel free to talk about these issues if you wish.  You are among friends!
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 20
User actions