Julia and I are being investigated by the NH attorney genital.

[eques]

Can I be Costello of the Shire?!?

[error]

We need Larry, Moe and Curly of the Shire.

[CNHT]

Ian

I will help you fight this to the death.

You might ask him what laws you have broken? You LIVE HERE, you VOTE HERE. Period. No laws broken.

Ask them how they can let Geoff Wetrosky BREAK THE LAW OF NH by voting here when he LIED ON HIS APPLICATION saying he lived here when he did not and still does not? Many others too. We have the Wetrosky records...they will not get away with this..

Right now the Democrats are as we speak engaged in other 'communication jamming' crimes and I've called the FBI on the perps.
I can't say what it is right now, but there are going to be some heads rolling soon.

[CNHT]

At this point, his identity will remain secret unless they decide to escalate.  I want to give them the opportunity to back off.

I will be calling them myself on Monday. This is outrageous. I  was just tonight with a candidate who said 12 people were allowed to vote OUTSIDE the laws in his district...

[Dave Ridley]

Kinda late in bringing this up I am, but against calling bureaucrats names I also am.  Generally.

[lordmetroid]

Calling bureacrats, bureaucrats is good enough for me. Sounds way more degenaratory then anything else I could come up with. 

[powerchuter]

Requesting Update from OP...

Also would like to know who you have confided this person's identity to...in case they drag you away in the night?

After all, we would encourage anonymous reciprocation(which is what it will ultimately take to get rid of the scum anyway)...Read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross today!

[CNHT]

The first question Ian should have asked is, how does he merit investigation of voeter fraud when Wetrosky voted in Manchester but did not live there and got off scott free, and a Canadian was caught voting in Greenfield this past election cycle, when she was not a resident of NH?

Ian should have stood his ground and said, "I am a legal resident of NH and that's all you need to know". Otherwise, go chase the true voter fraudsters!

[FTL_Ian]

Requesting Update from OP...

Also would like to know who you have confided this person's identity to...in case they drag you away in the night?

The bureaucrat in question has not returned either of our e-mails at this point.  I'm not too concerned about being dragged off.   

[powerchuter]

Requesting Update from OP...

Also would like to know who you have confided this person's identity to...in case they drag you away in the night?

The bureaucrat in question has not returned either of our e-mails at this point.  I'm not too concerned about being dragged off.   

I'm not too concerned about the water you're drinking either...since I'm not drinking it...
But you'd like to know if I saw some poison sitting close to the water's edge...wouldn't you?

Or how about that bridge that's ready to collapse...
I'm not driving on it...so why do I care if someone else doesn't know?

I'm assuming that you were concerned enough about yourself and Julia to make the OP...
So...
Perhaps you'd relay all pertinent information to help the rest of us evaluate a similar or identical threat?

Perhaps a post of a similar nature to your OP except being a little more factual(including names, descriptions, addresses, phone numbers, vehicles, registration numbers, etc.)...

You know, all those things that would help us determine whether this is an isolated, random incident or something that is happening more frequently...

Obviously you are under no obligations to report or relate anything to anyone else...
And the same is true of those you ask to be on your FTL program...
And the rest of us...

[FTL_Ian]

Well, I would think that if you crossed out the paragraph that I did then you're likely to be investigated too.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread I'm not revealing the bureaucrat's identification because he has apparently bowed out at this point, which is what I was hoping he would do.

Rest assured: if they continue to bring us trouble, their identities will be revealed.

[MaineShark]

Well, I would think that if you crossed out the paragraph that I did then you're likely to be investigated too.

They haven't come after me on that one, yet.  Of course, I both crossed it out and initialed it, so maybe that makes all the difference (standard contract-modification procedure)... maybe it was just a liguistic issue?

Joe

[dalebert]

I've always just viewed voter registration as a means of Am I talking out of both sides of my mouth if I claim it's not legitimate and yet register and sometimes vote? By signing a statement like that in NH, would I then be a hypocrite if I later claim that their laws are not legitimate?

Yes and yes

I completely understand the line of thinking and this is something that has caused me some cognitive dissonance so I've been thinking on this subject. Voting is technically participation in force. If others are exercising votes to exert force on my and limit my freedom, is it not defending against force with force in order to protect yourself?

Think about this. When is it appropriate to use force to defend yourself, and how much force is justified? That's a judgment call we have to make. I wouldn't, for example, feel justified in shooting someone just because they were looking at me in a threatening manner, but most libertarians feel it is not a violation of the ZAP to shoot someone who is actively trying to shoot at you.

From that line of thinking, is it not a reasonable use of counter force to vote for more freedom for individuals? It's not even nearly as difficult a question as "do I need to shoot someone?" because you're not necessarily doing any harm at all, particularly if you're vote is designed to prevent a new harmful law from coming into being that will continue to exert force on all the citizens. It doesn't mean you approve of the process. I don't approve of people shooting people, but I will still do it to defend myself or another innocent person from serious harm. I should do what I can to state my position as articulately as possible, but If someone infers that means I approve of voting for whatever suits me, that's an error on their part.

If you accept that line of reasoning, the question then becomes one of effectiveness rather than morality. Due to the misunderstandings of the sheeple, are you contributing more to the illusion of legitimacy than the good you can do with the vote? I think that gets back to what D_Goddard said about small elections vs. huge national ones.

[powerchuter]

You can't "vote" yourself or anyone else "more" freedom...  You can only CHOOSE to recognize that you have always been free...you just haven't acted like it when you have allowed yourself to be put "under" the supposed "authority" or "jurisdiction" of another...  And you can respect everyone else's freedom but you can't "give" them more since they already HAVE 100%(minus what they allow others to erroneously control).

If you want to parallel voting with aggression then voting would be like throwing knives at each other in a pitch black room...the size or "righteousness" or "goodness" of your knife doesn't matter...you're still attempting to stop blades coming at you in the dark by THROWING YOUR BLADES IN THE DARK...

Does that make sense?
Depends on who's in the room you say?
What if you don't know?
What if it's your parents, your wife, your children?
What if many of the knives are hitting you?
What if only a few are?
Does the possibility that your wife may be throwing them at you anonymously(because of the dark) cross your mind?

My suggestion is not to be in that predicament to begin with...

Again, defensive force must be used only against known aggressors...

Remember the Non-Aggression Principle and the Golden Rule!

[dalebert]

Your analogy doesn't hold, at least not in all cases. I should clarify that when I say "how you vote is crucial", that includes whether you vote at all. Consider a somewhat more black and white example like the seat belt law. This is a case where a specific measure is being voted on that will result in illegitimate authority being given more power to harass people. I can see no moral issues with voting against that measure.

A grayer area would be electing an (illegitimate of course) official, which I think is more in line with your analogy. If a standard Republican and a standard Democrat are running, it does feel pretty random and pointless. Keep in mind however, that someone is going to get elected whether you vote or not. Remember that post recently about how someone was reelected and NO ONE voted? Now consider that a well-known (to us) FSPer is running for that illegitimate position. I know him pretty well and I'm pretty darn confident that he'll do what he can to reduce the force that's being exerted against people via illegitimate authority. If he wins, is his new authority illegitimate? Sure, and that certainly has it's own irony. It doesn't change the fact that the power exists, whether the authority is legitimate or not. The mob responds to that illegitimate authority whether it's Mainshark or someone else.

Is it a judgment call? Certainly. No action at all isn't always the most moral decision you can make. If a guy starts firing in a crowd and everyone is scattering for cover, then I would consider myself justified in shooting at him, but that's a judgment call. He seems to be the aggressor and the others seem to be innocent bystanders. Now what if I miss and hit a bystander? That's another judgment I have to make. Maybe I'll decide to wait a few seconds for people to clear his immediate position, making me more confident, but in those seconds, he may kill more people.

Life is about judgment calls. Again I say that voting is a use of force, just like firing a gun. Firing a gun or even threatening to in order to steal or get revenge is clearly wrong, but there are cases when it's not wrong. In an ideal world, no one would ever fire a gun at another person and no one would vote, but we don't live in an ideal world.