Free Keene

Comment by The Central Scrutinizer

August 23, 2008 @ 11:59 am

Wow, can you hear how aggravated Fred is with rational thought? If this radio show doesn’t exist for philosophical debate, then what does it exist for? Is it just some sort of broadcast puppetry where people can call in, agree and receive some sort of psychological validation in knowing that more people may agree with them? In regards to “what can we model ourselves after?” Asinine. No progress is going to be made if “decisions” are made by a blank mind who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others. For “a quarter of a ____” (millennium is the word you were looking for Fred) the people of Keene have not thought about a new way of living, they’ve simply accepted, without objectionable thought, the archetype thrust upon them. The school building is not the problem, but rather the quality of instruction, the parents and the children themselves. I unfortunately am also a product of public schools, and I only turned out alright because I sought knowledge for myself. Fred’s response is like saying child abuse is alright because “Hey, you got the snot kicked out of you daily and you turned out alright” or that spoiled food is acceptable because “Hey, you survived food poisoning.” The real issue is that this “majority of people” simply want everyone else to assume their responsibilities, even their own children. It’s sick. A million dollars for survey work and plans from an architect? I plan on BEING an architect and that just seems ludicrous to me. Yes, survey the land and put that information out there. Have an open contest for any interested architect to design a new school and do it as CHEAPLY AS POSSIBLE. The accusations of pre-sale are entirely accurate. Sounds like a no bid contract to me.

Comment by Patrick Shields

August 23, 2008 @ 12:35 pm

Another thoroughly awesome call. I will start calling in too when I have the chance.

Ian, you are totally right that Fred “wasn’t being very nice.” It seems like the bureaucrats are sick of the thought of losing their power.

“What should we model ourselves after?” That sounds exactly like the Dean in the first chapter of The Fountainhead. Creativity and originality are obscene, everything good has already been invented, etc., etc., etc.

I would call Fred out on the idea that Keene has the best possible system. Sure, it has one that works in terms of survival of a species, but it does it at expense of the minority. I am sure there’s a system that abides by the zero aggression principle that works. Humans are capable of a lot more than Fred seems to think.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority, and the bureaucrats don’t want to talk about it anymore.

Comment by nick

August 23, 2008 @ 11:26 pm

Fred has been friendly for the most part to people who call this show, so he gets credit for that. However, he’s all too willing to turn off his mind and repeat the same “That’s the way it is.” And “work in the system” and “show me where it’s worked before.”

As Ian tried to say, libertarians have tried the system for 35 years. It’s stacked unfairly against them. Just as the court systems are stacked unfairly against harmless defendants, and countless rules and regulations are stacked against people exercising their first and second amendments.

Article 10 of the NH constitution gives permission for the people to resist the orders of government, and that’s the way it is.

Comment by Vince

August 24, 2008 @ 6:43 pm

Great job to Sam, Mark, and Ian.

Might get listeners thinking, \”Why is he getting so mad and cutting off these callers?\”

Comment by severin

August 25, 2008 @ 2:35 pm

I live in cocoon of voluntaryist and minarchist thought and don’t really listen to a lot of other views, so these calls always interest me. This one though was really aggravating. Fred would not answer the questions at all and I think Mark tried to make a great point about a person playing within the system still getting screwed over, even when the vote goes in a way that a small government type would support. It is sad that Fred did not address his concerns and instead said “well you don’t live in this school district so it doesn’t matter what you think”. Is it really outrages to ask the question “if the voters said no to a new school, why are you still trying to push one on us (even if now they are saying it is a remodel, putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t make it any less of a pig).

Comment by btoto

August 28, 2008 @ 9:37 am

If memory serves, Fred has criticized Ian in the past for somehow having “consented” to the system in Keene simply by moving there. So when Sam calls up and merely ASKS questions about what the system is, Fred says “when you move up here we can have this discussion.”

Now he want folks to supposedly “consent” to a system without even the chance to learn about it beforehand?

Comment by Brede Armozel

August 29, 2008 @ 4:33 pm

Okay, this is obviously a late response to the Fred Parsons Talkback segment there, but I thought about it and decided to give my two cents.

First, he asserts there is no “leave alone” society. This is quite false due to the fact that all social interactions cannot be enforced with absolute capacity (that is to say there are no physical ‘laws’ that make a person obey). The fact that Mr. Parsons didn’t decide to go rapist-cannibal on his co-host is proof enough that the interactions of the most particular (person-to-person) are “leave alone” or consensual. All one has to do to consider this fact is take a leap in [mathematical] inductive reasoning to see if the form retains the same consistency over larger numbers of people in unparticular situations. Whether we’re talking about private organizations or the coercive government itself, it’s always “leave alone” or consensual (there are folks actually do consent to coercive government, sadly).

Secondly, he asserts that one *must* use a single institution’s methodology to change that institution or improve it. What rubbish! Whether we look at the work of Gandhi and Dr. King or whether we look at the numerous editorials written by numerous individuals in the world (and throughout modern history), we find that there has been and always will be more than one way to change institutions, social norms, and intellectual paradigms. Voting or getting elected are not the primary, nor necessarily moral means for which one can do such changes. When was the last time a vote or becoming a politician ever produced an invention? Or how about a work of art? Clearly, it does not follow that voting and getting in the system are the only ways to affect change in a civilization.

The fact that Mr. Parsons exhibited no means to reason or think outside of his assumed norms for the sake of argument makes it clear to me he is the type to avoid at all costs. As his words are simply a form of intellectual smokescreen by which he wishes to bring in his own ‘people’ to subvert any liberty message and/or movement. The funny thing is he’s quite obvious and bumbling about it, too.