Ian Freeman Released

Also, if your only exposure to the freedom movement is Ron Paul, it stands to reason that you are a "Constitutional Minarchist" or "one who wishes to shrink government back to it's Constitutional limits".

A little further down the pro-freedom slide you'll find "Voluntaryists" (like Ian) who believe all societal interactions between people should be voluntary with mutual consent (hence a proliferation of contracts).

To them, the flawed Constitution — which didn't stop government from becoming the behemoth it is now and which has no teeth with which to punish bureaucrats who disobey it — is not something they gave consent to or signed and thus to them, it does not apply.

In other words, dead men wrote it 200+ years ago and modern people who did not consent to it have no obligation to it, especially since it was meant to bind down government and not the people and thus only applies to government bureaucrats.

You don't have to go that far. All you need to understand is that most laws are busybody laws created by the tyranny of the majority and are thus unjust, that the system as it exists now is inaccessible to anyone who either doesn't have the money to play in it or anyone who chooses not to, and that there are so many laws that no one can ever know them all. In that case, common law (do no harm) — which has existed in societies for thousands of years — is the only system necessary to keep the peace and that anyone being honest with themselves can master it fairly quickly.

According to you guys one part of the ordianance states;

"Every occupant and/or property owner shall dispose of all litter, rubbish or garbage in a clean and sanitary manner by placing such litter, rubbish or garbage in a container approved by the solid waste director.”

I take it Ian didn't dispose of it in a approved container since it was sitting on his tenants lawn.

You guys also said;

"Ian was not a run-of-the-mill violator. He was targeted because his mission is to hold city workers responsible for their actions. And it turns out that a city worker was the person who complained about the couch in the first place."

I'm all for people who want to hold government officals responsible. This is what I meant in some of my original posts about "the history between the city and Ian". So you guys are sayin he was targeted by this city offical. Hmmm…..that sounds like it was the case….but…..he he did violate an ordinance which is meant to keep the city clean from garabe and debri. Although it seems clear that wasn't why he was targeted he was probably in violation of the ordinance in my legal opinion based on what I've read here. (having no formal legal knowledge of the case or the towns or states laws)

Zeus,

I could agree with your 76870 post much more than your 76868 on3.

I know all too well how little incidents can turn into big ones. I have no need to read up on the butterfly effect. While I'll admit to not knowing about the town of Keene……again……I doubt we'll George Orwell's 1984 society imposed on this city because of Ian's tenants couch.

Zeus stated;

"If there were more voluntary agreements between consenting persons, it would certainly remove government from most of those situations, which means less violence and less wasted time and money."

While I agree with the idea of removing government from certain of these situations I believe there are times when government intervention is needed. While this isn't the situation in Ian's case consider this example.(Let's say Ian's tenants neighbor was trying to sell their house. But debris such as couches in yards in the neighborhood were bringing the value of the house down. So Ian's tenants neighbor can now not sell their house because they can't afford to sell it as a lesser value. Ian's tenant's neighbor ask's Ian's tenant to remove the couch and the tenant says no. Now that neighbor has the option to call the city about it and the city can enforce the ordiance.) That is one reason why this type of ordinance is written into law. Because it can effect the neighbors right to "life,libery, and the pursuit of happiness".

I know that isn't the case with Ian but it brings up a valid point about how the ordinance belongs there.

Zeus you also stated;

"The Constitution says that the powers of government are derived from the consent of the people. If one does not consent, then government’s laws are irrelevant and the common law of do no harm takes effect. Your mileage may vary as people love to argue about implied consent and so on."

The Constitution says "WE the people". If ONE does not consent it is ONE and not WE. The constitution words "WE the people" refers to WE and not ONE who disagrees with it. Your 1st Amdendment right's allows you to "peaceably assemble" but that doesn't mean that ONE that does not consent makes the constitutions amendments irrelevant.

You also stated;

"While I may find value in the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights), no one living signed that document or agreed to it either. Everyone who did is now long dead so their agreement is technically no longer binding (at least not by anything other than force or the threat thereof)."

That's a double negative. Your saying you find value in the bill of rights….but….that holds no meaning because you weren't alive then and all those people are dead so…..they don't mean anything either. It's an insult to the founding fathers and to those who sacraficed so that we could have some of the civil liberties we have today.

So it's like saying…if your a law maker and once a certain generation dies off then….those laws are irrelevant. Hmmm……you must think alot of laws(some which ensure peace)need to be taken off the books then.

One statement I agree with you on that you said was;

"You don’t have to go that far. All you need to understand is that most laws are busybody laws created by the tyranny of the majority and are thus unjust, that the system as it exists now is inaccessible to anyone who either doesn’t have the money to play in it or anyone who chooses not to, and that there are so many laws that no one can ever know them all. In that case, common law (do no harm) — which has existed in societies for thousands of years — is the only system necessary to keep the peace and that anyone being honest with themselves can master it fairly quickly."

Clearly, this is the case. Reverting back to common law I don't think is the answer though. Holding our current leaders accountable is. Which it appears is the case with Ian and why he was targeted in the first place. Common law is too general for todays world just like in some cases the constitution is.

I'm all for an overhaul of the system thru peaceful means. If we can do it while still agreeing to place the constitution in it's true place as our founding document. Don't ever forget the sacrafice our founding fathers made for liberty. But yes we do need to change the system as it is today so that money and big business do not run our government.

Also thank you for the education on libertarian views. I can't say I'm for the "Volunatarist" view but I do agree with some of the more Ron Paulish views of the political spectrum. I'll read up on those references you told me about several posts back on libertarians.

So what's the big deal about Keene? What is going on in this town that people feel the need to not rise when the judge walks into the courtroom?

While I agree with the idea of removing government from certain of these situations I believe there are times when government intervention is needed.

The question is, how far are you willing to aggress (or have the government aggress) against those who do not share that view.

Let’s say Ian’s tenants neighbor was trying to sell their house. But debris such as couches in yards in the neighborhood were bringing the value of the house down. So Ian’s tenants neighbor can now not sell their house because they can’t afford to sell it as a lesser value. Ian’s tenant’s neighbor ask’s Ian’s tenant to remove the couch and the tenant says no. Now that neighbor has the option to call the city about it and the city can enforce the ordiance.

Or, instead of calling in the men with guns to enforce the neighbor's will anonymously, the neighbor (an actual damaged party) could bring suit against the owner of the couch for damages and the two can arbitrate the matter on their own dime with the loser paying court costs rather than the taxpayers.

The Constitution says “WE the people”. If ONE does not consent it is ONE and not WE. The constitution words “WE the people” refers to WE and not ONE who disagrees with it.

The problem is that the people who wrote "WE the people" are all dead. The only people who might have an obligation to what they signed is the organization they created, the government. The Constitution does not tell people what to do. It explains how the government organization is organized and includes a small list of rights that the organization's members must not transgress against. This does not mean those are the only rights people have nor does it stop these people from transgressing those rights on a daily basis.

The Constitution is really not much different than the employee handbook you get when you get a job. It explains a bunch of the rules and rights the corporation and it's employs must follow. It is irrelevant to the unemployed, self-employed or persons working elsewhere.

Your 1st Amdendment right’s allows you to “peaceably assemble” but that doesn’t mean that ONE that does not consent makes the constitutions amendments irrelevant.

This isn't a logical argument. The 1st Amendment simply states that persons (1 or more) may assemble peaceably without being transgressed by the government organization and its employees. It's simply a guarantee (promise really) not to bring the smack down on groups of persons who assemble and are not violent such as protesters and block parties. Anyone in such a group may indeed decide not to "consent" and leave the assembled group. I don't see how this holds any water.

That’s a double negative. Your saying you find value in the bill of rights….but….that holds no meaning because you weren’t alive then and all those people are dead so…..they don’t mean anything either. It’s an insult to the founding fathers and to those who sacraficed so that we could have some of the civil liberties we have today.

I personally find value in the Bill of Rights. I'm happy that at least those protections (promises) were put in place in an attempt to keep the newly created government of 1789 from transgressing against people.

Not all liberty-minded people are the same. Others believe that the Constitution is flawed as it has no teeth with which to punish those it employs who decide to ignore it (like most Congressmen) or even throw out whole chunks of it (like the current President).

That the government regularly does not obey it's own document and has its hands in all sorts of areas that were not enumerated for it to be involved with is another problem.

I have high regard for the Founding Fathers and what they tried to do, I just don't think they were perfect and that those who would seek to abuse others have perverted the system they created. They knew this would happen eventually and told us that when it does, people should start over.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." – Thomas Jefferson

So it’s like saying…if your a law maker and once a certain generation dies off then….those laws are irrelevant. Hmmm……you must think alot of laws(some which ensure peace)need to be taken off the books then.

Considering the federal tax code today covers 17,000 pages, the federal criminal code today spans some 1,400 pages and the Federal Registry, which records all of the regulations the federal government imposes on businesses (all of which carry the force of law), now exceeds 75,000 pages, yes, I'd say there are plenty of laws on the books right now that are irrelevant and which should have had "sunset clauses" included in them.

Clause 2 of the Constitution requires that Congress must assemble AT LEAST once each year. In modern practice, Congress is in session virtually year-round. The Founding Fathers never meant for Congress to be sitting there all year long churning out new laws and regulations.

Check out dumblaws.com for some examples.

Reverting back to common law I don’t think is the answer though. Holding our current leaders accountable is. Which it appears is the case with Ian and why he was targeted in the first place. Common law is too general for todays world just like in some cases the constitution is.

And while I would agree that holding them accountable is preferable, in many cases it's like asking a police officer to arrest himself.

Today's world is no more complicated than it was in 1789. The Golden Rule still applies. The majority of laws on the books and being created daily is simply the work of busybodies looking to enforce someone's will (their own or whomever bribes them the most via a lobbyist) on other people through the perceived authority of government and the police power.

I’m all for an overhaul of the system thru peaceful means. If we can do it while still agreeing to place the constitution in it’s true place as our founding document. Don’t ever forget the sacrafice our founding fathers made for liberty. But yes we do need to change the system as it is today so that money and big business do not run our government.

Certainly we can try to change the system through peaceful means. Some choose to do so politically, others choose civil disobedience. I personally recognize the sacrifices that the Founders made but it would be foolish of me to project my respect for them on the corrupt, powermongering liars that have infiltrated and perverted the organization they created.

Others in the liberty movement, particularly voluntaryists, have no such respect nor disrespect for the Founding Fathers. They simply do not recognize the authority of a group of people (government) with whom they didn't consent or contract with to claim dominion over their lives.

This country was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is tyranny of the majority or "mob-rule" wherein 51% of the voters can tell not only the other 49% what to do or not do with their lives but also the 100% of non-voters as well. With democracy, someone always loses. In a society based on liberty and individual responsibility, everyone wins save those who wish to harm others.

Also thank you for the education on libertarian views. I can’t say I’m for the “Volunatarist” view but I do agree with some of the more Ron Paulish views of the political spectrum. I’ll read up on those references you told me about several posts back on libertarians.

Not a problem. I hope you find some useful information and a new perspective on the different facets of the liberty-movement.

So what’s the big deal about Keene? What is going on in this town that people feel the need to not rise when the judge walks into the courtroom?

Keene is in New Hampshire, the state chosen by the Free State Project a few years ago. The FSP's goal is to move 20,000 pro-freedom activists to New Hampshire wherein they will work to create a society where government's MAXIMUM role is to protect life, liberty and property.

Keene happens to be a focal point of activism and, as you can imagine, not every activist sends a positive message. Not every tactic they try is logical or successful and since the locals tend to group Freestaters together as if they all have identical beliefs, one bad apple can leave a bad taste. This is what I believe happened in Keene. Certain bureaucrats and locals got peeved at certain activists and decided to take it out on Ian and other prominent persons in the movement there.

All I'm saying, Curt, is that the accuser would have to bring suit and then prove damages which is far more fair than anonymously calling in the goon squad to enforce one's will over another, otherwise it just might get as ridiculous as you mention with swat teams raiding you for a bathtub Jesus or, oh I dunno… a moldy lawn couch?