Will they throw me in a cage or steal my home over this? (Freedom Couch Pictures!)

Freedom CouchIf you’ve been reading this blog you know that the people calling themselves the “City of Keene” have been threatening me over a couch in my tenants yard. The latest on the situation? They are demanding that I come back to their court on October 29th at 10am for a “trial”, that I did not consent to. When I tried to ask questions in their court, I was threatened with arrest. I was however, able to successfully make my offer to the “City of Keene”: I agree to remove the couch if they’ll agree to discharge this issue, to only prosecute me in the future if they have a victim, and if the original complaining party comes and meets me and talks to me, like an adult. Couch Enforcer Carl Patten says he attempted to persuade the woman to meet me, but she refused. A reason for her reticence might be that she’s frightened that I will find out who she is and retaliate against her by snitching her out to the government people. It’s quite a sad commentary on the state of neighborly relations these days. In case she’s reading this blog, I’d like to make it clear that I would never complain to the government people about anything she did on her property. If I cared about my neighbors’ property I would live in a deed restricted community.

With this in mind, I’ve scheduled a meeting next week with the assistant city manager who also acts as the head of the “code enforcement” department. I will be making another offer, as the complainant is allegedly unwilling to meet me, and I want to give the “City” an easy out from this situation. As no one from the “City of Keene” responded to my request for proof of obligation to obey their “ordinances” (that’s because no agreement between us exists), I will agree to remove the couch if they agree to discharge this issue, only prosecute me in the future if they have a victim, and acknowledge the truth that no contract exists between us. Hopefully they will accept my offer and we can make this whole issue go away.

Otherwise, I will visit their court on October 29th. I will make it clear I am not consenting, attending under duress, reserve all rights, ask lots of questions they would rather I not ask, and refuse to pay any “fine”. I do not want conflict, it is they who are insisting on it. If they insist on railroading me through one of their “trials” without my consent, the ball is in their court as to how to handle this situation. Will they brush the situation under the rug and let me go mostly unmolested? That is the next best option for them if they refuse to discharge this issue and cancel the “trial” in advance. Will the “judge” attempt to “fine” me? If so, I will not pay. Will that noncooperation lead the “judge” to throw me in a cage? Does the “City of Keene” really want that sort of publicity?

Is this government really by the consent of the governed or are the elections and courtrooms nothing more than a cover to obscure the violent threats of men and women who refuse to act on consensual basis? As more and more of us move here, choose freedom, and decide to noncooperate, the answer will become clear. The choice to initiate force is theirs. Will they continue to victimize peaceful people as attention to their violent actions increases? Time will tell.

Between now and my next update on this situation, enjoy these pictures of the “Freedom Couch”. Many of you have been asking to see it, so here it is. As you can see, my tenants are actually utilizing the couch for their Halloween decorations. It seems the character they have placed on it does not appear very happy about the threats to remove his perch:

Facing north:
Freedom Couch Facing North

Facing South:
Freedom Couch Facing South

Medium shot:
Freedom Couch Medium Shot

Freedom Couch Close Up

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. Well now you have turned the tables on them. You've transformed this into a case of 1st Amendment freedom of expression.

    You seem not to want to deal with the possibility (the strong likelihood IMO) that you will be found not guilty by the court. You seem to want to be a victim.

    The prosecutor has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you are in violation of the ordinance, which makes no mention of furniture. You don't have to cooperate beyond showing up. You can ask questions of the witness(es), but you don't have to. You don't have to testify in your own defense. If you don't testify in your own defense, you won't have to answer any questions (just like on TV :-) ). The burden will be on the prosecutor (whoever is presenting the case on behalf of the city) to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the placement of this couch in your yard is in violation of the language of the ordinance. The ordinance contains many provisions, most of which are obviously not applicable to this situation. There is something in the text about a "public nuisance", and something about "litter, defined as all rubbish or garbage, trash, debris, dead animals and other discarded materials of every kind and description". I think they will have a hard time proving that your couch fits into either of these categories. You do not have to prove that you are not guilty.

    You might be found "not guilty" in spite of yourself. :-)

  2. I think you misunderstand, Curt. I want this to go away, that's why I'm making these offers to them. They insist on victimizing me. I do not want conflict.

    Anyway, thanks for the description of how *their* trial operates. I'm quite familiar with their system. I'm not interested in their system, and I don't consent to it.

    As I said, a "not guilty" is their second best choice. That still allows me to visit their court and ask questions they won't like very much. They'd be wise to just discharge this matter administratively and cancel their "trial".

  3. I agree that it would be best for them to drop the matter. When you meet with the city guy, since you like to ask questions, I hope you will ask exactly how they think you are in violation of their own ordinance.

    As for questions in court, questions related to the facts law of the matter will be welcomed. Questions as to the legitimacy of the court will be indulged up to a point then you will be gaveled down if you persist. You know that, of course.

  4. I don't think you understand, curt. I don't think Ian is interested in the details of the ordinance, even if there is an exploitable loophole. It is the "City of Keene" that is aggressing, that is Ian's problem with this whole situation.

  5. Ian will do what he wants to do.

    I just think that he is being incredibly passive, and I don't think he is acting in his own best interests or those of fellow property owners in Keene.

    If this were happening to me in my town, I would have brought the battle to the people doing the damage from the first instance. I would have looked up the ordinance and the law the first time Carl Patten (or equivalent) contacted me. I would have challenged his authority under his very own ordinance that he cited. I would have put my town on the defensive and made it clear to them that they have no case in their own terms and that I know it. If they did not back down, I would have demanded an appeal of the administrative decision from the building code board of appeal, which is composed of local citizens. In most towns that is the same board as the zoning board of adjustment (ZBA). I haven't been able to figure out from web searches what they have in Keene. In my case it is the ZBA and I would have to recuse myself because I am a member of ours. I would aggressively seek to have the action overturned at the local level before there was any thought of going to court. I have a reputation in my town for knowing the laws and never losing on interpretation. So there would be none of this pathetic "please don't lock me in jail or take my property" that Ian is spouting. I know my rights and I would not let people trample on them. If I did not win with my local board, which has to take the ordinance as valid and interpret it, I would then have hired a lawyer to make the case (which I would tell him to save me money) that the state law that authorizes local building laws does not authorize municipalities to regulate stuff in your yard that is not part of the structure. If we wound up in court I would fight aggressively. I don't think we would wind up in court though.

    I think I would have been more effective in defending liberty in my little corner of NH than Ian has thus far in his.

    This is all academic since Danville is about as LFOD as you can get in Southern NH. I mowed my lawn once last year. I didn't get around to it so far this year. My brown Christmas wreath sits in my driveway next to the walkout door from my cellar. My Christmas tree sat next to my front steps until I finally dragged it into the woods (on my property) in May. I think my property is far more offensive to common standards of upkeep than Ian could ever hope to achieve :-) .

  6. No one has trampled on me and I haven't begged for anything.

  7. You are on the defensive, having offered to remove the couch under certain circumstances. For all intents and purposes, you have accepted their incorrect interpretation of the law by not challenging them on it.

  8. Challenging them is consenting to their process. I'm offering them ways to get themselves out of a mess they have created.

    I don't care what their interpretation is, because I didn't consent to their laws in the first place.

  9. It is!!! It's my old couch!!!

  10. There is no way that the Keene authorities could agree "to only prosecute me in the future if they have a victim." That would amount to a "get out of jail free card" for Ian. I assume that he would include possession of marijuana as a victimless crime. At least I would. There is no way that the administrative hierarchy of Keene could give him immunity from future criminal prosecution of unrelated matters.

  11. Ian, just curious. Have you ever been incarcerated? Arrested? I'm behind you 100% here, even though I don't really think you're 100% correct. Hey, it's your couch, & case, too. Maybe you're "afraid" to get cuffed, shackled, & driven to the "Westmoreland Hilton" for a few days? Hey, no offense. I'm not suggesting you're a coward or anything. Just curious. Is there anything *YOU* can do, to reduce your "fear"(or whatever…)of the cops? Really, I think you should listen to the others, who have suggested your "letter", good as it is, is way "over-the-top", or whatever…Yes, I realize that you didn't consent to this…but, it's involved you now. Would KPD & Patten *LIE*, & *CLAIM* your "neighbor" ratted you out? YES! ABSOLUTELY! Demand *PROOF* that "your neighbor" called…I bet they can't produce any evidence…See, this is the kind of petty bullcrap that Patten & his kind of weasels would pull…see him chewing gum in Court??? Notice that? And how nervous he looks? AND WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING? MEETING patten IN *PRIVATE*???…w/out a recorder???…he "played" you, dude…Sorry, but that's how I see it…I still think you're great, for doing what you do…fight the bastards…we need the practice, for the coming Military Coup…*grin*…~e~.

  12. Also, to repeat: I think you blew your own case, when you even *offered* to remove the couch. It seems pretty clear to me, that Keene has *NO* legal or statutory basis to *compel* you to remove the couch. If they can't *force* you to lose the couch, why not just KEEP IT!? It looks fine, for now! Put a little sign on it that says: "Habitat for Chipmunks", experimental breeding center, or some crazy stuff like that. "If you can't dazzle them w/brilliance, then baffle them w/bullshit. If you can't dazzle them w/bullshit, then baffle them w/brilliance"…~e~…

  13. Ian says he would remove the couch if his complaining neighbor asked him to face to face, because he wants to be a good neighbor, not because he wants to appease the city.

  14. Ian,

    You should take it a step further and request that your property be removed from the geographical area they call the "City of Keene".

  15. Making a request would be recognizing them as legitimate.

    If it truly is MY property, then it's up to me to choose whether to participate in their fantasy.

  16. From the Wikipedia article on Keene
    <blockquote cite="The Wikipedia article on Keene">The community was granted as Upper Ashuelot in 1735 by Colonial Governor Jonathan Belcher to soldiers who had fought in the war against Canada. Settled after 1736, it was intended to be a fort town protecting the Province of Massachusetts Bay during the French and Indian Wars. When New Hampshire separated from Massachusetts in 1741, the border between the two shifted south, and Upper Ashuelot became part of New Hampshire.

    During King George's War, the village was attacked and burned by Indians. Colonists fled to safety, but would return to rebuild in the early 1750s. It was regranted to its inhabitants in 1753 by Governor Benning Wentworth, who renamed it Keene after Sir Benjamin Keene, English minister to Spain and a West Indies trader. Located at the center of Cheshire County, it became county seat in 1769. Land was set off for Sullivan and Roxbury, although Keene would annex 154 acres from Swanzey (formerly Lower Ashuelot).

    Ian, your property title and the authority of the City of Keene both derive from acts of the Province of NH in the 18th century. The notion of property ownership completely independent of government is a fantasy. The government wrenched it from the Native Americans and gave it to you (indirectly).

  17. Check out the History of Upper Ashuelot (Keene), particularly Part I and Part II where they go into a lot of detail about the original settlements, first under the authority of Massachusetts, then under the authority of NH.

    FWIW NH was separated from Massachusetts well before the province line was moved in 1741. It's just that Benning Wentworth was the first "royal governor" as opposed to previous "lieutenant governors" who were junior to the governor of Massachusetts. One generation before a son moved to Danville, one branch of my family went to bed in Amesbury, Mass, and woke up in South Hampton, NH.

  18. Hey, Scott in Winnipeg! How's things up there? Dude, *MY POINT* **IS**: Knowing Keene as well as I do, I don't believe that his neighbor *did* rat him out! I think that the "neighbor complaint" was a fabrication. You know, a "LIE"???…I know that neighborhood. &I know how petty & venal the folks in this town's power structure really are…**And on another historical note: The official name was/is: "Massachusets Bay Colony *Company*", right? Wasn't the Kings' Charter given to a private-profit-driven *Corporation*??? Hey, if I'm wrong, correct me!~E~

  19. I think Curt, Elkheart and most of the other posters are missing the point. Ian believes he was sold some property, in this case land with a building on it. I don't know if he thoroughly read the legalese paperwork for the sale but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that.

    Assuming there wasn't any hidden legalese that bound him to some kind of contract with the city or any other party beyond the previous owner and himself, the property should have been transferred to his sovereign ownership. If the previous owner didn't really own it i.e. the state owned it or the city owned it, blah blah blah, that would be fraud.

    If sovereign ownership was indeed transferred, however, then it doesn't matter whether it's Carl The Couch Enforcer, The Pope, George Bush or Mickey Mouse hanging around outside his house telling him to get rid of the couch, it's none of their damn business what he does with his sovereign property.

    Now obviously, a neighbor who wants a good reputation in his community will listen to his neighbors if they have a complaint and discuss possible solutions for any disputes. Since the alleged lady neighbor refuses to come forth, any claims that she had a beef against Ian re: the couch are just hearsay.

    So here Ian is sitting in the house he owns in sovereignty and along come the Government Busybody Enforcers who say "Hey.. you can't put that couch there. We wrote up a list of things we don't like on some paper and if you do one of those things, we're gonna send you a bill. And if you don't pay that bill, we're gonna put on a show we'll force you at gunpoint to attend and a guy in a black dress who works for us will decide whether or not you did one of the things on our list. If he decides you did, you gotta pay us some money. If you still refuse, the black-dressed man will have you thrown in a cage to deprive you of the other thing that's valuable besides money: your life. Oh it'll only be 15 days or 30 days or something like that but that's days of your life we'll completely waste unless you give in to our demands and pay our bill. You can always make money back but time? You'll NEVER get that back. We'll make you 30 days closer to DEAD if you don't play ball, son."

    Obviously, anyone in their right mind would tell those people to fuck off and not want to play their little game of "I've got the bigger penis and you'll do as I say."

    While most of you are championing the idea that Ian should use their very own system to turn the tables on them, Ian is simply not interested in participating in this colossal waste of time. That's the difference in a nutshell. You say "Fight fire with fire!" and Ian says "Stop it you pyromaniacs!"

    That all said, however, you are correct if you believe they're more likely to just club him over the head repeatedly and throw him in jail if he doesn't get with the program. Of course, that's Ian's entire point. That they'll resort to violence because he refuses to give in to their intimidation tactics. That there's any question about the likelihood of them using violence against him is ludicrous to me but some people need to feel the elbow to the chin and the boot to the head before they're convinced that what they already know in their heads and hearts is true.

    Beaten to a pulp and tossed into a cage for saying "No, I refuse to play your game.", Ian will have proved his point. Cynics and realists will say "Yep. That's what I what I figured would happen." Statists will say "That's whatcha git fer not obeyin' the LAW!". Regardless, the world will continue to turn.

    As long as Ian is happy with that kind of Pyrrhic victory, I suppose that's all that matters.

  20. Is there evidence of a complaining party? Yes or No

    If yes, please produce it.

    If no, then why am I here?

    The prosecutor has the burden of proof. The city is a legal fiction it's not tangible.

  21. Zeus, why so negative? It could be different this time. It was for Nick Ryder and Dave Ridley. If they think they can "send a message" by forcing me into a cage, they are right, but they don't realize the message they will be sending.

  22. Ian's land title was created by the government. Our government came in here from England and took possession from the people who were living here. Maybe it was totally by force, maybe there was some sort of treaty or deed involved. The point is that it was the government that created the title to Ian's land. The government is the only guarantor of Ian's "ownership" of his land. The government created a "title" (see I can use quotation marks too :-) ) that is subject to the government's rights of regulation and of taxation. As already discussed in another thread, Ian's ownership is fee simple. Ian is the "owner" of a piece of land that was taken from the native people by our government (its predecessor) either with actual violence or threatened violence. So he is not in much of a position to complain about "violence" from the government. Occupying "his" land, he is the indirect beneficiary of past government violence.

  23. Curt, what people did before Ian bought the property is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who stole what from who, what they wrote down on some paper, what legalese they used to justify it and so on.

    All that matters is whether or not the previous owner actually owned the property and then contracted to sell that property to Ian. If the sales contract doesn't state or imply these other details you're talking about or some kind of disclaimer that he's not really buying the property, then that's fraud.

    If the previous owner believed in good faith that he or she owned that property when they sold it to Ian, then the fraud my go on down the line all they way back to when the government stole the property from the natives and then turned around and sold it under the claim that it owned that land (wherein there would need to have been an exchange of value for value — not a musketball to the eyesocket — for that to be true), in which case, the government should be brought up on various charges of theft, murder, fraud and so on and Ian should continue unmolested to own the property that he bought in good faith.

    Is that going to happen? Of course not. But that only serves to prove that government wins by the use of force and coercion, not because it has any logical or moral justification.

  24. Ian, while I understand that you're just trying to show everyone the gun in the room here, you talk about all the horrors government commits six days a week. They steal, lie, cheat and kill people and they get away with it more often than not (and that's not cynical or negative, that's just reality).

    To deny everything you've learned about them and pretend you don't know what the logical outcome might be is disingenuous at best. You KNOW what they might resort to.

    I'm not saying you should be afraid of that. I just think it's important you understand and acknowledge what you're getting into before you do it rather than walk into this expecting something different. I'd hate to see them harm you but there's nothing I can do about that other than point out to you that it is the most likely outcome so that you are prepared to pay the price when tangling with these people.

    If you win and they do not harm you, you'll have another minor victory in telling the government to stuff it. If you lose and they do harm you, you'll have shown everyone the gun in the room so again, another minor victory albeit at great cost to you (hence Pyrrhic).

  25. Zeus,

    You can't sell what you don't own. That includes rights that others have to use "your" property. All land titles created by the English government and successor American colonies, states, and federal government were conveyed to private parties subject to government rights, even if it is not specifically mentioned in the deed. It's all tied up in the legal meaning of the word "grant", which by statute confirms the old terms "give, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff, convey and confirm."

    Sorry, but neither Ian, the owner of one or more properties in Keene, nor I, the owner of 46 acres of woodland plus a house lot in Sandown and Danville, can ignore the "original sin" of the government creating our land titles to the detriment of the original inhabitants of southern NH.

    Regarding Nick Ryder's "win", if that's what you want to call it, he secured that by cooperating with the system, and the system found him not guilty and not subject to legal penalties.

  26. You can’t sell what you don’t own.

    Curt, you should explain that to the government that originally stole the land from the natives, wrote up some some fancy documents excusing the theft via the power of the English King and his United State Government successors who then sold that land to the first Keene resident who thought he had actually purchased the property legitimately from its rightful owners and later sold it in good faith that it was rightfully his to sell.

    I'm not arguing with your claim that this truth is irrelevant in the face of their violent enforcement of these land grants, titles and other legal mumbo jumbo. I'm only pointing out the immorality and flawed logic of it.

  27. Not all of the land was "stolen" from the Native Americans, some of it was contracted through treaties. Now, the fact that the government has repeatedly broken treaties notwithstanding, how far back do you want to go to make a land claim? I'm pretty sure that the castle that my family has 600 years ago in Scotland was invaded and taken over, do I have a right to claim that property today?

    It's better to deal with what we have now, rather than what happened hundreds of yeasr ago.

  28. I’m pretty sure that the castle that my family has 600 years ago in Scotland was invaded and taken over, do I have a right to claim that property today?

    If the invaders were a government and they still claim to own it, you could make a claim of rightful ownership and/or seek restitution (monetary recompense). You'd need to prove your family owned it and that it was stolen from your family, of course.

    If the invaders were a government but no longer claim to own it, the person who owns it now bought it in good faith and shouldn't be subject to your dispute with the invaders so you're SOL on getting the land back. You might still seek restitution from the invading government though.

    If the invaders were individuals, well they're dead now so you're SOL on either front.

  29. Zeus, I appreciate your concern, and I understand what the government people are capable of.

    No one ever got freedom by begging, however. I must be the change I wish to see. I can't get on the radio and talk about noncooperation while cooperating. If I want others to do these things, I must set the example.

    If they choose to throw me in a cage, do not be so sure that I will be losing or that the cost will be so great.

    Anyway, things are different up here. You'll see! 😉

  30. Ian, if you go to jail for a few weeks I'll fly down and co-host the show with mark LOL.

  31. Speaking of the couch enforcer, guess who I saw at price choppah last night?

  32. My point is not that we should give "our" land back to the Native Americans. My point is that all land ownership is from a government and guaranteed by that government. If something happens to a government, land titles might well be overridden and replaced by land titles given to new people by the new government. Examples include ethnic Germans in adjacent countries after World War II, also Poles in Brest-Litovsk, Palestinians, etc. Probably Greeks in Constantinople when the Turks invaded. Etc. Etc.

    Thus there is no such thing as "sovereign ownership" (quoting Zeus) of land by individual persons independent of government. Your land title comes originally from the government and is guaranteed on an ongoing basis from other claimants by the government. Only the government has "sovereign ownership", meaning all rights, of property. This is called "allodial title". When land is transferred to individuals, the government retains rights of taxation and regulation. The original inhabitants of Keene, who were brought there as a government project to build forts against the French and Native Americans, were certainly aware of that.

    Ian's "ownership" is a creature of the State of NH, and subject to regulation by its political subdivision, the City of Keene.

  33. Sorry Curt, that was not part of the deal. Just because the city is the agency with a coercive monopoly on titles doesn't mean they own and control my land.

  34. Thus there is no such thing as “sovereign ownership” (quoting Zeus) of land by individual persons independent of government.

    In modern times where governments plague all four corners of the Earth and there is little undiscovered country left to escape from them, this is probably correct from the point of view of those governments.

    The question you should ask, however, is "Why is that?". The obvious answer is that modern governments have unrivaled firepower which gives them the "authority" to rule the lesser-armed by force and create all sorts of legal mumbo jumbo rules and excuses for what they do like you mentioned above.

    For Ian and many others, what these governments say or do is irrelevant. To paraphrase Ian, "If I did not consent, there is no agreement between us for me to obey your silly rules."

    If all these things you're talking about are indeed true (and I have no doubt the government believes them to be so since they're the ones making up these rules), it all should have been in the sales contract Ian signed when he purchased the property.

    I'm sure he would have had at least had some questions had there been something stating (in plain English) "You're not really buying the house — even though we use words and phrases like homeOWNER, SELL, BUY and OWN your own home — you're really just leasing it from the government and you hereby agree to obey whatever laws, rules, ordinances, etc. or this contract is null and void." I'm fairly certain that in any other case where the culprit was an individual rather than a government, such deceptive language when "selling" something would constitute fraud.

    No, according to your statements, Ian is just supposed to assume that whatever the government says is true and do whatever they say. That's immoral, illogical and completely antithetical to the philosophy of freedom.

  35. Zeus,
    It's not just modern government. I don't think you could cite any civilization where purported "owners" of individual parcels of land were not subject to taxes and regulation by some government. Can you?

    Ian says he would live in a "deed-restricted" community if he wanted to have some say in his neghbors' use of their property. The whole country is "deed-restricted" in the sense that your deed is subject to certain reserved rights to the government.

    There are limits on government rights because of the constitutional prohibition of taking land without compensation. This means that the government can not go beyond the rights that they reserved when they conveyed most of the rights in the land to the first person to hold private title.

    Ian, if you don't recognize that the government is not the guarantor of your rights in "your" land, does that mean you would not ask the government to intervene if I hired some guys to throw your tenants off your property and to occupy it on my behalf?

  36. I wrote "Ian, if you don’t recognize that the government is not the guarantor of your rights …"

    Meant to write "Ian, if you don’t recognize that the government is the guarantor of your rights …" (took out "not")

  37. The 'government' as an entity has no rights to reserve. It only has what rights the people who are included in the 'government' have.

    I don't have the right to walk on your property and force you at gunpoint to pay me $3000. And, I don't gain that right just be being elected by a group of people.

    To say that the 'government' has rights directly conflicts with the idea that humans have rights. If the 'government' has rights, then humans only have privelegdes.


  38. By extention, no groups have rights. Only humans have rights; so, a company/corporation has no rights either. When a company/corporation does buisness it does it as a unit acting on behalf of those people who voluntarily called themselves the Company.

    But no has ever been asked to voluntarily sign up as a member of the government. Even if we did, this still does not give the government any rights that we ourselves do not already have. All participation between people and government can be said to be done coactus volui, I consented under compulsion. — Side note, how about signing all government documents with this message :)

    We do need to protect our private property, otherwise everytime we left home someone else would come in and steel it, and we have a right to defend our life and property; so, we can pay someone to protect our land because we are paying them to only do something we ourselves have a right to do. We cannot rightfully pay someone to go and steel something from a neighbor because we ourselves do not have the right. So, it is OK to higher the police. The police are still limited by a humnan's rights.

    It is true that all of our land may have been nefariously and coercively taken from native people several centuries ago. That is an unfortunate situation. But, the best we can do is guaruntee (sp) from this point on that such actions do not hapen ever again.

  39. Curt, just because a group of people believe a fantasy doesn't make it true.

    You believe the fantasy that the men and women calling themselves "government" have some legitimate claim to my property.

    I believe in the facts: they are just men and women doing business at the threat of violence. They have no legitimacy and no claim beyond threat of force.

  40. I'm an idiot:

    higher = hire

    steel = steal


    It is OK to hire the police, it should also be OK to NOT hire the police, or hire a non-governmental police.

  41. Thanks, Fraker! Now I won't "steel" your "hire" resolve, if you "higher" me to "steal" it!…*BIG GRIN*…As to the ongoing inanities of Mr.'s Springer & "ZEUS", *I am a *NATIVE AMERICAN*// **MOST of the people whom you think of as "native american", call themselves *AMERICAN INDIAN". Yes, there's a small, very vocal minority of "politically correct" ones who keep claiming "native american", despite the illogic of their claim. America didn't *EXIST* when their Great-Grandfathers were born! &YES, most American Indians either don't care, or think it's good, that we have sports teams, etc., named "Braves", "Chiefs", "Redskins", etc. It's only you thin-skinned, pale-faced, bleedin' heart *LIBERALS* who have a hissy-fit over native/american/indianwhatever….TRUTH: The US government has *YET* to make a "treaty" with *ANY* Indian Nation, which that same US Gov't *hasn't* broken.

  42. I'm not into political correctness, I simply used the first description that came to mind. With "Indian" originating from Christopher Columbus and his pals ("Look! We're in India!") and this land being what modern day English speaking people call "America", I'm sure your ancestors had some other non-English word or phrase to describe their people. I just don't know it.

  43. Re Native American vs. Indian, I just try to call people what they seem to want to be called. I don't conduct polls. And terms go in and out of fashion over time.

    Elkheart I don't know how old you are (and I'm not asking), but perhaps you remember all the "Indian Symbol" controversy at Dartmouth College.

  44. Ian wrote:

    Curt, just because a group of people believe a fantasy doesn’t make it true.

    You believe the fantasy that the men and women calling themselves “government” have some legitimate claim to my property.

    I believe in the facts: they are just men and women doing business at the threat of violence. They have no legitimacy and no claim beyond threat of force.

    Ian, there is no fantasy here. The settlement of Keene (Upper Ashuelot) was a government project to create a fort to help defend more settled areas. The government funded an army and supplies. As part of it, it did deals with people who were willing to participate partly in hopes of getting some land. They got the land but with strings attached, like having to clear it, some rent, reservation of white pines. And very early on they were taxed. As you might know, "ownership" of real estate is a bundle of rights. Enumerating all the rights is like counting how many angels can dance on a pin. If you are the "owner", you have all the rights not specifically held by others. And the right of regulation and taxation was reserved by the government. Your title passed to you from the original grantee according to government laws on conveyances and wills, and recorded in government records. Your ownership of your land is in the context of government. Our specific government. If we were to be invaded and conquered by the Huns or the Goths or some modern equivalent, your "ownership" would likely vanish with the current government.

    Your "sovereignty" is the fantasy.

  45. You can talk all you want. Facts are facts:

    "Government" is men and women threatening others with force.

    Aggressing against our neighbors is not legitimate, whether the aggressors call themselves the "crips", "bloods", or the "city".

    Everything they do is void as a result of their aggression.

  46. HERE is a more neutral dispassionate definition of government. But whatever you want to say about it, you have been the beneficiary of its existence, not least in the creation of your title to real estate.

    BTW have you ever thought about the demographics of your movement? You all seem to be young, white, and college-educated. As I was once (still 2 out of 3 :-) ). Yes that's a gross generalization without any facts. But I would propose that an overwhelming majority of the population is less privileged, less confident in their own prospects and sees more utility in government than you, and you are going to have a hard time removing the scales from their eyes.

    Maybe you should find your own area to build your voluntary society instead of trying to transform the existing one. Sort of like the Quakers in Pennsylvania or the Mormons in Utah. Then we could all look in and see how it's going.

  47. BTW, Ian, weren't you going to meet with the city guy today? Did you? What came of it?

  48. CURT! I was born in Keene, NH, USA, *AMERICA*. I'm *NATIVE AMERICAN*. My dad was a "Nixon Republican". I **LOOK LIKE** a "white guy"…"They" like American *Indian* because it's a reminder about just how stupid "white" people can be…think about it…The Caucuses Mts., are a geographical area, *NOT A "RACE"! "Race", & "races" are a *DELUSION*…Yes, Dartmouth was founded specifically to educate "Indians". The first graduate was Charles Eastman, also known as "Ohiyesa". I'll write more later…YOU NEED SOME SLEEP, FRIEND! *grin*…~E~

  49. Great job handling the situation so far. Keep up your great work and I hope to see you in New Hampshire some day.

  50. Curt, in nearly every instance you immediately attempt to back up your position by talking about what dead people calling themselves government did centuries ago as if their actions have anything to do with the sales contract Ian signed when he bought his property in good faith two years ago.

    At no time did Ian give explicit consent to obey the rules made by those dead people or their successors and no such consent was included in the sales contract.

    From what you've said so far, I can only assume that your position is either:

    A) that consent is implied even though it's not part of the written contract. If so, you must realize that this is neither just, moral or even good business. At best, it's deceptive. And if it were true, I could just sell you a widget and then, after the sale is concluded, just say "Oh and btw, you can only use that product on Tuesdays when there's a full moon otherwise you owe me an extra $10. Coming into my store and buying that product implies that you have to follow my rules". That would be insane. When the sale is concluded, it's concluded!


    B) that consent is irrelevant because government has a monopoly on force and will use the threat of coercion and violence to make you do whatever they say regardless of morality or logic.

    So which one is it, Curt?


Care to comment?

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!