July 31, 2006: Russell arrested

[FrankChodorov]

when the protestors got arrested in Judd Gregg's office they came to inquire about an appointment to meet with their representative (legitimate) and then stayed there in protest when he wouldn't meet with them (illegitimate) and were arrested - knowing full well that they would be.

We're arguing about principles, not legally legitimate actions.

Russell had every reason to believe that handing out those flyers or attempting to could have led to his arrest. He did not back down because the law says that doing so is an "illegitimate" way of getting a point across, he did it because the law is irrellevant in his (and most folks here) ethical reasoning.

yes they were arguing principles too - the individual common right for redressing grievances...

[FrankChodorov]

In the interest of unhijacking this thread I motion that all interaction between forum members be civil and polite.

Frank - I think you have an idea when something you say is going to start a flame war. Please consider how you phrase things.
Tracy - an ad hominem is an ad hominem if it's true and especially if it's true - it's just using someone's charachter flaw to make their argument look bad rather than using superior logic.

I wrote nothing that was hijacking the thread...
I wrote nothing that was untrue ...

[yamnuska]

"you have no right to use collective property in a way that is outside of it's intended purpose that can only happen in common areas..."

    I would agree with you if I had volunteered to contribute funds and effort towards the collective property, but I have not volunteered, I have been forced via taxes to pay for the "collective" property. I have not been asked or counsulted in any manner as to what the intended purpose of the collective property is either, perhaps I think the collective property should be used as a base to hand out fliers from. Maybe I think the collective property should be turned into a bawdy house, but nobody from the government knows because they never asked me. How can collective property truly be collective if every stakeholder has not been consulted as to what it's intended purpose is to be? C'mon, if you are going to go all commie on us at least let the common worker have some say. I wonder what the founding fathers would do to you if they found out you used the phrase, "collective property," ?

[FrankChodorov]

in the case of federal income tax and federal collective (nation-state) property - I agree that taxation is theft...I was just laying out the case for the other side where 96% of your fellow citizens agree.

in the case of taxes on labor and capital here in NH - I agree...

in the case of taxes on land (called "natural" economic rent) shared between neighbors in a community here in NH - I disagree...

in the case of taxes on land (called "social" economic rent) paid for public infrastructure (collective property - roads, courts, schools, prisons, etc) in a community here in NH - I think people who don't agree in a face to face, small-scale, direct deliberative democracy (town meeting) where you act as your own citizen legislator (no delegated authority) but majority rules...then you can move to another area of NH where your vote is in the majority.

[Caleb]

After refusing an attorney, the libertarian activist -

I'm pretty sure Russell doesn't want to be called a "libertarian" activist.  Perhaps "Christian" or something else would be better.

[Lex]

After refusing an attorney, the libertarian activist -

I'm pretty sure Russell doesn't want to be called a "libertarian" activist.  Perhaps "Christian" or something else would be better.

I don't think he has a generic label, he's just Russell. But if you have to give him one I think freedom activist might work, that leaves a lot up to the imagination and we know Russell is definitely for more Freedom so it works out

[Caleb]

ya, welcome to the forum michelle but what kind of reasoning is that?

Leave her alone, Dada.     She did a kind deed for Russell.  And I've been saying that the dissension in our ranks is killing us.  That's kind of why I wanted to take a break from the forum ... I was worried that I was so pissed off that I couldn't hold myself back from saying things that were actually making us look like there is a lot of infighting.

For the record, Dada, you're my bud and I'm giving you karma.  But I think Michelle was just sticking up for Russell, something I think he deserves after what he just did for all of us.

[Caleb]

Tacy I just smited you for the ad-hominem.

Watch out, Denis.  You're starting to spell like him. 

[Rocketman]

I think you'll find that when Russell is released and reads or hears Denis's opinion of what happened, his reaction will be respectful and tolerant.

I think you're wrong!!
He'll probably laugh at how ridiculously pointless us "politico" types are, and maybe even point out that's why the most simple, obvious thing to do is to disobey the state purposefully

Just my guess, tho

Funny, Denis... that reaction (exactly what I'd expect from Russell) actually falls within my definition of "respectful and tolerant," as it's a far cry from "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION WHAT I'M DOING!  GO BACK TO CALIFORNIA, JERK!"

For the record, I think you go a bit far in calling Russell's action an initiation of force.  As an individualist, I don't see who he could have been initiating force against.  If he intended to hand out a few flyers, make a few minutes worth of conversation with the employees, then leave, that can hardly be construed as an initiation of force.

That said, I agree that for civil dis to be effective, there should be no hint of aggression in it whatsoever...

[srqrebel]

After refusing an attorney, the libertarian activist -

I'm pretty sure Russell doesn't want to be called a "libertarian" activist.  Perhaps "Christian" or something else would be better.

I don't think he has a generic label, he's just Russell. But if you have to give him one I think freedom activist might work, that leaves a lot up to the imagination and we know Russell is definitely for more Freedom so it works out

I agree "freedom activist" is probably better suited to Russell, as a lot of Libertarians are trying to distance themselves from him (see Hammer of Truth), and Russell does not believe in politics.  That said, calling Russell a small "L" libertarian is not a misnomer, but many people don't know the difference between small "L" and big "L" Libertarians (only the latter refers to the political party).

[FrankChodorov]

For the record, I think you go a bit far in calling Russell's action an initiation of force.  As an individualist, I don't see who he could have been initiating force against.  If he intended to hand out a few flyers, make a few minutes worth of conversation with the employees, then leave, that can hardly be construed as an initiation of force.

here is the argument from the state...

the building housing the IRS and post office are collective property with delegated authority as to their purpose and who can use it for what purpose.

1. the lobby, halls and stairs are general purpose areas that are used to make your way to transact business in the specific business areas
2. the offices are specific business areas with only one purpose - to transact the business of the federal government

out front on the sidewalk infront of the building is collective property with a equal access common right of way inwhich you can excercise your individual rights of freedom of speech, thoughts, conscience, assembly, etc. so long as you are not infringing on anyone else's right to do the same

the officers knew what the pupose of Russell's visit was - to disrupt the business of the IRS in their offices.
they asked what his intentions were in going into the office and he told them to "ask the employees to quit" (paraphasing) they determined that it would interupt the transaction of business of others and so told him he could not transgress the common purpose area to specific business area line or he would be arrested.

the state will make the case that he intiated force by transgressing the line for the explicit purpose of disrupting legitimate federal government business...

[srqrebel]

FrankChodorov:
Though I disagree with the State's position, I must say that you stated their position exceptionally well. 

[Caleb]

Frank, property rights are immaterial because Russell doesn't acknowledge the legitimacy of the Federal Government.  If the UN came in and started claiming that they own lots of property here and wanted to act like they were the big boss, people here would defy them.  For some reason, the people think of the US as "our country". 

Russell's entire point is that the federal government DOESN'T represent the people here.  Its illegitimate government.  Even if your theories were true, they would only apply to LEGITIMATE government, which is exactly what Russell is questioning.

Caleb

[FrankChodorov]

After refusing an attorney, the libertarian activist -

I'm pretty sure Russell doesn't want to be called a "libertarian" activist.  Perhaps "Christian" or something else would be better.

I don't think he has a generic label, he's just Russell. But if you have to give him one I think freedom activist might work, that leaves a lot up to the imagination and we know Russell is definitely for more Freedom so it works out

I would consider him an emotive, moral, or philosophical anarchist...

excerpt from anarchist/libertarian activist Bryan Caplan's anarchist FAQ: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm

What other anarchist viewpoints are there?

There is definitely another strand of anarchist thought, although it is far vaguer and less propositional than the views thus far explicated. For some, "anarchist" is just a declaration of rebellion against rules and authority of any kind. There is little attempt made here to explain how society would work without government; and perhaps there is little conviction that it could do so. This sort of anarchism is more of an attitude or emotion -- a feeling that the corrupt world of today should go down in flames, without any definite view about what if anything would be preferable and possible. For want of a better term, I would call this "emotivist anarchism," whose most prominent exponent is almost certainly Max Stirner (although to be fair to Stirner he did briefly outline his vision for the replacement of existing society by a "Union of Egoists").

For the emotivist anarchist, opposition to the state is just a special case of his or her opposition to almost everything: the family, traditional art, bourgeois culture, comfortable middle-aged people, the British monarchy, etc. This position, when articulated, is often difficult to understand, for it seems to seek destruction without any suggestion or argument that anything else would be preferable. Closely linked to emotivist anarchism, though sometimes a little more theoretical, is nihilist anarchism. The anarcho-nihilists combine the emotivist's opposition to virtually all forms of order with radical subjectivist moral and epistemological theory.

Related to emotivist anarchism is a second strand of less intellectual, more emotional anarchist thought. It has been called by some "moral anarchism." This view again feels that existing statist society is bad; but rather than lay out any comprehensive plans for its abolition, this sort of anarchist sticks to more immediate reforms. Anarchism of this sort is a kind of ideal dream, which is beautiful and inspiring to contemplate while we pursue more concrete aims.

The emotivist anarchist often focuses on action and disdains theorizing. In contrast, another breed of anarchists, known as "philosophical anarchists," see few practical implications of their intellectual position. Best represented by Robert Paul Wolff, philosophical anarchism simply denies that the state's orders as such can confer any legitimacy whatever. Each individual must exercise his moral autonomy to judge right and wrong for himself, irrespective of the state's decrees. However, insofar as the state's decrees accord with one's private conscience, there is no need to change one's behavior. A position like Wolff's says, in essence, that the rational person cannot and must not offer the blind obedience to authority that governments often seem to demand; but this insight need not spark any political action if one's government's decrees are not unusually immoral.

Yet another faction, strongly influenced by Leo Tolstoy, refer to themselves as "Christian anarchists." (Tolstoy avoided the term "anarchist," probably because of its association with violence and terrorism in the minds of contemporary Russians.) Drawing on the Gospels' themes of nonviolence and the equality of all human beings, these anarchists condemn government as contrary to Christian teaching. Tolstoy particularly emphasized the immorality of war, military service, and patriotism, challenging Christians to live up to the radical implications of their faith by withdrawing their support from all three of these evils. Tolstoy's essay "Patriotism, or Peace?" is particularly notable for its early attack upon nationalism and the bloodshed that usually accompanies it.

[srqrebel]

Yet another faction, strongly influenced by Leo Tolstoy, refer to themselves as "Christian anarchists." (Tolstoy avoided the term "anarchist," probably because of its association with violence and terrorism in the minds of contemporary Russians.) Drawing on the Gospels' themes of nonviolence and the equality of all human beings, these anarchists condemn government as contrary to Christian teaching. Tolstoy particularly emphasized the immorality of war, military service, and patriotism, challenging Christians to live up to the radical implications of their faith by withdrawing their support from all three of these evils.

IMHO, this is Russell in a nutshell.