Free Keene

Comment by Manuel Lora

November 18, 2008 @ 2:45 pm

Excellent.

Comment by Laur

November 18, 2008 @ 2:47 pm

Well done.

Comment by HOO-HAA

November 18, 2008 @ 2:51 pm

Very cool open letter. I hope she gets in touch and you get to have an adult conversation about this.

Comment by jamie

November 18, 2008 @ 3:17 pm

Nice letter. Hopefully she will join the peace movement.

Comment by Shyfrog

November 18, 2008 @ 3:17 pm

It would be such a positive thing to see two people come together in the spirit of forgiveness and friendship.

Comment by Duc

November 18, 2008 @ 3:35 pm

You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I wouldn’t be surprised if she becomes a liberty oriented person in the future. You rock, Ian. She should come on the show.

Houston, Texas

Comment by Nathan Reiber

November 18, 2008 @ 3:47 pm

What a courteous response to such a brash and terrible action against your personal liberty. This is very commendable.

Comment by Anton Lee

November 18, 2008 @ 3:57 pm

such a selfless act shouldn’t be overlooked. Here is a man who has gone through hell to keep his personal freedom, while a city ‘leader’ has chosen to attack you personally, and you forgive her.

If someone walks away with ANY understanding of this event, it should be this. Myself and my girlfriend were out for chinese food after hearing about your imprisonment, and my fortune cookie revealed a simple phrase that struck me as somewhat fitting for our discussion over dinner.

“be the change you wish to see in the world”

We can only hope that this woman will find her peace and realize that only through peaceful exchange can progress happen.

Comment by AnAmazedReader

November 18, 2008 @ 4:01 pm

My goodness, what a thoroughly passive-aggressive, disingenous and patronizing post. I might agree with the notion that there’s something a little creepy about a neighbor going to the authorities to complain about the actions of another neighbor, but it’s not as if she did anything illegal; she simply exercised her option as a citizen. And the idea that Ian would have disposed of the couch if she had come up to him and asked him to do so is a sort of conjectural hindsight; we don’t know what that exchange would have been like, and there are a number of possibilities in terms of what the result of the conversation would have been.

The thesis that has been put forth on this site is that this complaint was motivated by the animus this city worker feels towards Ian. That’s more an assumption than a thesis; I don’t think we know yet, based on any sort of hard evidence, exactly why she lodged the complaint. It could have been anything from thinking the couch was a blight on the neighborhood that the city should address to perceiving an opportunity to punish a free-stater. Perhaps we’ll find out more facts as time goes along, but for now, any assertion as to this complainant’s motives is speculative.

What would be interesting to examine is if this woman might have felt intimidated about speaking with Ian directly, and more importantly, if she felt that way, is there any legitimate basis for that fear? The rhetoric of free-staters is more than occasionally quite vitriolic, and even violent. While the project involves a comparatively small number of people, many of the participants feel passionately about the project’s ideas and mission, and the work they undertake on behalf of the cause and the way they express themselves reflect that passion. The movement has a strong us vs. them, good vs. evil quality to it, which has strong resonances of fundamentalist religious movements. And people who believe they possess some sort of received “truth” can be pretty scary, as well as destructive. After all, look at what the complainant received in exchange for filing a complaint that was thoroughly legal: publication of her personal profile, public mockery, and repeated on-air threats from callers to a radio show. “I don’t bite”? Please.

Ian could have complied with the order to dispose of the couch; he chose not to, and that’s not the complainant’s fault. He chose to behave in a certain way in court, which resulted in the contempt citations and the jail sentence, now suspended; the complainant did not force him to behave in a way that he later apologized to the judge for. My overall point here is that while it may be comforting to attack someone else instead of examining your own piece in a situation, it’s that self-examination that usually moves one along to a better place. And it’s hard to see how attacking and even threatening someone before you know all the facts helps anything, unless the goal is simply to find villains to rail against.

Comment by fester

November 18, 2008 @ 4:13 pm

Very nice letter, I wonder how this lady would feel if Cynthia from Talk Back organized a conversation between the two of you. It might be something to suggest to Cynthia if you have a way to contact her. I guess you and Mikaela sort of met on that show, so it seems appropriate.

Comment by Ian

November 18, 2008 @ 4:19 pm

Amazed,

Are you suggesting that honoring your neighbors’ choices is somehow invalid?

We don’t need to find villans; they find us. We just want them to stop hurting people. What’s wrong with that?

Comment by Rance Muhamitz

November 18, 2008 @ 4:48 pm

Amazed doesn’t seem to understand the difference between “the law” and morality. This sounds like the mentality of many bureaucrats. It’s a serious problem when a person can’t determine right or wrong without referring to a book of “magic” yet arbitrary words.

If the law determines your morality, you’re a danger to everyone. It takes a serious amount of compassion for Ian (who has done no harm) to forgive his aggressor. This is a man who has dedicated almost everything to achieving liberty for EVERYONE, including those who wish to harm him.

Comment by Anton Lee

November 18, 2008 @ 4:51 pm

Well fellas, the law is the law. . . thankfully some people stood up to those laws when it came to where someone could sit on a city bus.

There is a huge difference between laws and doing what is right. Doing what is right is always beneficial, following laws can be quite the opposite.

Comment by ANONYMOUS

November 18, 2008 @ 4:59 pm

Jamie, I agree. I hope she joins the peace movement too.
Great letter, Ian.

‘We are not liberated until we liberate others.? ?So long as we need to control other people,? ?however benign our motives,? ?we are captive to that need.? ?In giving them freedom,? ?we free ourselves.?’-?Marilyn Ferguson.

Comment by Slim

November 18, 2008 @ 5:00 pm

AnAmazedReader: I will not dispute that some free staters may seem abrasive when talking to people, and others are very eloquent. You will run the spectrum when talking about a diverse group of people. I will admit I still have some troubles when talking with people about liberty and some statements may seem harsh, it is not because I have hate in my heart but because I am trying to cram so many examples and personal experiences in a short conversation. If someone thinks I was harsh I will not hesitate to apologize because I know I am not a great communicator. I then take the time to go over the conversation and learn from the mistakes that I made.

As for the violent accusation I do not know of any violent people that are free staters but with a group I am sure there will be a couple that may fall in to that category. If you know of any examples I am sure that others in the movement would like to know who it is so they can distance them from those people and ostracize them.

Comment by AlsoAmazed

November 18, 2008 @ 5:09 pm

Amen, AnAmazedReader. Well put.

Comment by Pensive

November 18, 2008 @ 5:26 pm

I agree with the freestaters on principle here, but I think there is another principle – that apologies shouldn’t be followed with buts, ands, ifs, and futher counter-accusations and the like, and I think that also should go for letters of forgiveness. I think it was rushed, and had you slept on it, I think you might have rewritten it.

Comment by AnarchoJesse

November 18, 2008 @ 6:45 pm

Comment by AnAmazedReader

My goodness, what a thoroughly passive-aggressive, disingenous and patronizing post. I might agree with the notion that there’s something a little creepy about a neighbor going to the authorities to complain about the actions of another neighbor, but it’s not as if she did anything illegal; she simply exercised her option as a citizen.

This falls within some notion of Legal Positivism– Natural Law Theory (the basis of the New Hampshire and Federal Constitutions, supposedly) does not hold this to be an ethical or legitimate option. If we were to judge the morality of a given concept simply by it being an option, truly some horrific actions can be forgiven.

And the idea that Ian would have disposed of the couch if she had come up to him and asked him to do so is a sort of conjectural hindsight; we don’t know what that exchange would have been like, and there are a number of possibilities in terms of what the result of the conversation would have been.

Your ignorance is making itself obvious– Ian is very passive, and has stated since the beginning that if she approached him he would remove it. It’s on record here on FreeKeene as far back as August when this nonsense started.

The thesis that has been put forth on this site is that this complaint was motivated by the animus this city worker feels towards Ian. That’s more an assumption than a thesis; I don’t think we know yet, based on any sort of hard evidence, exactly why she lodged the complaint. It could have been anything from thinking the couch was a blight on the neighborhood that the city should address to perceiving an opportunity to punish a free-stater. Perhaps we’ll find out more facts as time goes along, but for now, any assertion as to this complainant’s motives is speculative.

It’s no secret that the city has a poor outlook on us (not that I care really, as I can only speak for myself and the feeling is mutual), so it doesn’t seem to be a stretch that one of us may be targeted to be made an “example” of– and this isn’t paranoia, because there has already been a case where a woman who is loved by many in the movement was sentenced to prison under precisely this reasoning. You see, they think they can scare us into being good little sheep, and they do these things to try and stifle others from doing the same.

But I digress– the issue of the couch itself being a “blight” (whatever that may mean, given that this seems to be an arbitrary definition, or at least use of the word)is by no means an ethical validation to use the aggression of the State against another individual.

What would be interesting to examine is if this woman might have felt intimidated about speaking with Ian directly, and more importantly, if she felt that way, is there any legitimate basis for that fear?

An appeal to fear– sheer conjecture and fear-mongering.

The rhetoric of free-staters is more than occasionally quite vitriolic, and even violent.

Oh? Like, say, lets kill 250 million people in the 20th century alone kind of violent? Lets host a slew of genocides kind of violent? Lets carpet bomb indiscriminately kind of violent?

No, we’re not the violent ones. In fact, few of us ever speak of using violence at all, and the only case I can specifically recall violence being an issue is when I burned the flags– there was a huge debate on whether or not I should defend myself should I have been attacked. So don’t kid yourself into thinking that the State is some peacemonger– because the State isn’t the one calling for an end to institutionalized theft, it isn’t the one out on Central Square on Saturday holding the Anti-War signs.

While the project involves a comparatively small number of people, many of the participants feel passionately about the project’s ideas and mission, and the work they undertake on behalf of the cause and the way they express themselves reflect that passion. The movement has a strong us vs. them, good vs. evil quality to it, which has strong resonances of fundamentalist religious movements.

Libertarianism is an ethical philosophy premised within the context of reality as it exists– of course we’re going to call those and things we find to be morally repugnant so. If calling a spade a spade is fanaticism, then so be it.

But that said, this isn’t fanaticism– it’s taking our beliefs to the fullest logical extent and maintaining our moral integrity.

And people who believe they possess some sort of received “truth” can be pretty scary, as well as destructive.

What have we destroyed? Nothing– we encourage growth; indeed, we encourage those who do business to do business freely, those who are upset with the Status Quo to try new options, to grow as human beings and individuals.

But pray tell, what has the State destroyed in it’s perceived “truth”? More than we could possibly discuss in a weeks worth of exchanges here. Lives, homes, economies… there are countless casualties at the hand of the State.

After all, look at what the complainant received in exchange for filing a complaint that was thoroughly legal: publication of her personal profile, public mockery, and repeated on-air threats from callers to a radio show. “I don’t bite”? Please.

On-air threats? From whom? From where?

Ian could have complied with the order to dispose of the couch; he chose not to, and that’s not the complainant’s fault.

What moral authority does the city or this complainant have in the first place to demand that Ian do certain things with property?

He chose to behave in a certain way in court, which resulted in the contempt citations and the jail sentence, now suspended; the complainant did not force him to behave in a way that he later apologized to the judge for.

You’re using a tautology– you’re assuming that they even have the legitimacy to “sentence” him to incarceration in the first place, let alone dictate what he can do with his property.

My overall point here is that while it may be comforting to attack someone else instead of examining your own piece in a situation, it’s that self-examination that usually moves one along to a better place. And it’s hard to see how attacking and even threatening someone before you know all the facts helps anything, unless the goal is simply to find villains to rail against.

Don’t be disingenuous– they came to Ian, he didn’t go to them. The entire situation could have been avoided if they avoided violating his property rights.

Comment by AnAmazedReader

November 18, 2008 @ 6:51 pm

Some quick responses:

Ian, regarding your question about honoring neighbor’s choices, that really is a straw-man and an empty cliche. In these situations, the devil tends to be in the details. There are all sorts of things a person might do on/with his property that sane, fair observer might not only reasonably dishonor, but indeed act on that sense. And of course a person see something he or she dislikes in another person’s yard, yet conclude that it’s something to be tolerated. The possibilities are pretty endless, and dependent on the circumstances.

In terms of villains “finding you (us)”, you really have articulated the vain conceit that is threaded through so much free-stater rhetoric. Consider your current situation. Unless there is some new information I haven’t heard about, you really don’t have much in hand at this point in the way of facts to make a rational assessment of the complainant’s motivations. There is even a possibility that this person may have had motivations with which you might have some sympathy; the point is, we just don’t know yet. Once you found out her name, you had all sorts of options, one of which would have been to contact her and see if you could reach some sort of understanding. You chose not to do so. Fine. But then you also chose to post this woman’s professional and personal profile and mock her on the air and online. Posters and callers have talked about gathering and picketing her home. So the notion that you and your supporters are victims is quite a bit overdrawn; your aggressive actions and rhetoric in this situation are a matter of record. This aggression was manifested most clearly in the pain you caused those who love you most. But unfortunately you are so unaware of your own inner violence, a violence born of certitude, that the pain you would cause them didn’t seem to cross your mind before you did the damage. To your credit, your narcissism is not so debilitating as to prevent you from at least seeing some of the pain your hostility caused, and so you honorably caved in and apologized to the judge for your actions (although I suppose you now run the risk of being referred to as “Caveman” instead of “Freeman”; no matter). So why not apply some of this insight to at least consider the possibility that the complainant’s motivations might not be what you assume. Although I imagine that claiming victim status must be good for business. After all, a sense of resentment (legitimate or not; it doesn’t seem to matter) can be a strong bonding force among groups of people; it attracts radio listeners and website hits. And perhaps that’s the point: to attract attention. After all, you didn’t follow through, “walk the walk” and serve your full sentence. You were inconvenienced for a weekend, but ended up getting a lot of attention. It’s all good.

Slim, I’m with you in terms of not holding a whole group of people responsible for the actions of a few. Although I will say that hyberbolic rhetoric seems to be a feature of the way free-staters express themselves. I prefer light to heat.

Cheers,

Amazed

Comment by gRegor

November 18, 2008 @ 6:56 pm

I tend to agree with “Pensive” a bit. I’m not questioning the intent to be forgiving, but it reads a bit passive-aggressively to me. I can understand how it could appear to be a bit disingenuous because of that.

I’m glad you’re out of jail, Ian.

Comment by Zaphar

November 18, 2008 @ 7:25 pm

“The rhetoric of free-staters is more than occasionally quite vitriolic, and even violent.”

I must have missed the memo. There’s no violence here, that job belongs to the state.

Comment by Ian

November 18, 2008 @ 7:47 pm

Amazed, I never posted anything about Mikaela. Others did that on their own without input from me.

I considered some sort of protest, but then decided to forgive and move on.

Of course, even forgiving someone still brings out the critics, obviously.

“You didn’t do a good enough job of forgiving!”

Comment by nick

November 18, 2008 @ 8:25 pm

I would agree that the letter is accusatory. Starting a statement with “I forgive you” is basically just bringing up the fact that she did something wrong.

However, she was wrong, and Ian has enough supporters that at his whim, they could make Mikaela’s life hell with floods of e-mails and calls. Fortunately for all of us, that is not the route he wants to take. There are enough accusations of “childishness” against liberty activists, but what will it take to get people to see that complaining to a government about your neighbor’s property, and hiding when he wants to talk to you, is the true childish act.

Comment by John Galt

November 18, 2008 @ 8:39 pm

This is John Galt speaking:

To AMAZEDREADER…

I too have “options as a citizen” that I am free to exercise as well.

When I got up this morning, I went out front to get a breath of fresh air and the neighbor’s cat came up to me on the porch. The cat was clearly out of her yard and :EGADS!: she was wearing no tags or collar. I fed her a piece of sausage patty left over from breakfast, petted her for a few moments and felt quite relaxed, as pleasant, peaceful and kind interactions with pets are good for the people who engage in them as well (lowers blood pressure, reduces stress, etc).

What I didn’t exercise was my “citizen’s right” to call the animal shelter and have poor Angel picked up, imprisoned, and possibly executed by the government, should the family across the street not be able to pay the ransom (adoption fee) for her release. Naughty me, I didn’t use my “citizen’s right”.

I didn’t vote for any candidate for county office this month. None of them were even casual acquaintances of Liberty, much less it’s friends. I did vote to boot out each and every last one of the three judges on the ballot (as I always do). I voted for the Libertarian Party candidates on the ballot (except Bob Barr, and I wrote in Ron Paul). So shame upon my Libertarian personage, I did not exercise my citizen’s right to vote for any county oafs…uh officials.

The usual gaggle of vile busybodies will soon goosestep their way to the city-county building to vote to expand the smoking ban pushing smokers out of bars and totally ignore the property rights of bar owners. I did not exercise my citizen’s right to join in their hatred of freedom and push their neighbors around. Dang my slimy freedom loving soul to a week and a half of perdition for not exercising my citizens right to screw up the lives of others.

Citizen’s right? Maybe now you get it or perhaps you never will. Here’s to hoping that you do. If you find amusement while the monster devours your fellow human beings, you’ll take little comfort when you eventually realize that he will find you and those you love, taste just the same to him.

With Liberty,

John Galt

Comment by AnAmazedReader

November 18, 2008 @ 9:36 pm

Ian, please, don’t write “I never posted anything about Mikaela” and expect a sentient person to think you’re credible; when I scroll to the top of this page, I see that the title of your blog post has the woman’s name in it, and her photo is posted right next to it. Or is this just a reaction to the “tyranny” of reality? Why not just admit to being a bit angry at her, with the result that you acted on that anger. Why not just own your aggression and move on? It shouldn’t be a big deal.

Comment by Ian

November 18, 2008 @ 9:45 pm

Sorry, should have been clear. I didn’t post anything until after others had first. I didn’t post her personal info and etc as you had accused me of doing.

I have not aggressed against anyone. Nor am I angry at her. She likely didn’t realize what she was doing.

Comment by bile

November 18, 2008 @ 10:20 pm

If anyone can be accused of posting Mikaela’s info it would be me. All I did however was take publicly available information and place it, very neutrally IMO, in a single location. It takes but a few minutes and Google to find it. Those who would use those facts to threaten or harass her would be just as ostracized by the liberty community as she was for instigating this entire situation.

She had plenty of opportunity to publicly or privately contact those involved to express her side of the story. In nearly 3 1/2 months she has not. I have little sympathy for an individual who is willing to use the force of government to get their desires enforced and yet won’t even face those who they advocate, implicitly or explicitly, harm to. If she wanted privacy she should have been more careful in her online adventures.

There was no mockery. No threats. No harassment. At least none publicly by anyone of noteworthiness. What resulted in being the most pointed to source for her data was and is neutral and based on data she provided the general online community. Simply reporting the facts is in no way an aggressive act against her. She may not like the publicity but that’s the cost of her actions. If she’s embarrassed, she deserves to be. If she’s frightened, it’s not based on the facts.

Comment by PA

November 18, 2008 @ 10:24 pm

Amazed:

I agree that the letter came off as a bit passive aggressive. But two points:

1) It’s important that Ian communicate to Mikaela that he will not retaliate against her (as he would be perfectly justified in doing, IMO). This message was as much for Mikaela as it was for the other liberty activists. I’m not sure how else Ian could get that message across, especially if he wants to ensure that other liberty activists do not retaliate.

2) Rather than worrying about passive aggressive letters, maybe you should worry about people threatening to hurt and imprison other people over things that are none of their business. What kind of twisted person thinks that the right response to a neighbor having a couch in their own yard (or asking a judge questions, or not sitting down fast enough) is prison time? Do you go around kidnapping people because you don’t like the color they painted their homes too?

Comment by Rod Johnson

November 18, 2008 @ 10:45 pm

I hope she reaches out to you, ian. In fact I think that you, Mikaela and Julia should all go out to dinner and get to know each other. Then go back to your place, spark-up a spliff, have a few laughs and then have a 3-some.

I think this has the potential to end beautifully…

Comment by Troy

November 18, 2008 @ 10:57 pm

Forgiveness might work for Ian. But if this tattling nannyist was my neighbor, the first thing I would do when I got out of the joint would be to place a recliner and a broken down washing machine in my yard next to the sofa. How do you like my yard now?

This entire non-antagonistic, niceguy approach to dealing with these collectivists is making me ill. We need to start agitating, repudiating the stupid “laws”, and fighting back. I’ll give you a real reason to call the cops, lady. Now get off my property before I shoot!

Comment by Big Dong Johnson

November 18, 2008 @ 11:09 pm

troy, this is why ian is so many cuts above you. He is trying to reach out to people, preach a message and change minds. Its Jesus like.

You on the ohter hand sound like a jerk, who seeks confrontation. Sure you got a right to your property, but if you think any one is going to lift a finger to help you if you start threatening your neighbors for dropping by to complain about the junk on your lawn, you are sadly mistaken.

Ian becomes the change he seeks. He seeks a voluntary society of reason. Agitation sounds a lot like coercion. Tolerance and negotiations will go further.

Besides, you’ll never get a crack at the make up sex, like the previous poster suggests ian/julia/mikaela are likely to partake in.

I disperse some virtual flatulent gas in your general direction, sir.

Big Dong Johnson

Comment by AnAmazedReader

November 19, 2008 @ 1:05 am

“Jesus-Like”. Wow. I must say that the degree to which folks on this site indulge in fantasy and romance is really entertaining, particularly as it often seems to be concurrent with a devotion to all sorts of rigid orthodoxies. It’s positively fetishistic and religious, although unfortunately it’s also as irrelevant as a wolf howling at the moon. Too bad. But Ian, the schtick is just great, and utterly on the same level as many big-market hosts I’ve heard. Smooth deal.

I’ll bid you all adieu with the words of the great Bugs Bunny, who so sapiently intoned the following:

“I’m sorry, fellas, I can’t play with yas any more; I gots impointent woik to do!”.

Cheers,

Amazed

Comment by modelmotion

November 19, 2008 @ 1:20 am

Maybe Ian should sell the couch on e-bay now. It is probably the most famous couch in the World after couchGATE.

Just saying:)

Comment by Big Dong Johnson

November 19, 2008 @ 1:21 am

I have no delusions of romance with ian, truly i don’t swing that way. but to be honestly, i have not ian fetish, but shall indeed concede a possibly unhealthy fascination with this idea that Makaela will some how come around and see the light, and then have some crazy freaky-ass make-up sex with Ian and his “family.” It would certainly make a great radio bit.

As per the Jesus like nature of the Freeman, nay, I don’t believe that this radio jock is the Messiah. That would be Howard Stern (duh). But Ian practices what he preaches, by not retaliating, and instead looking ahead to build voluntary bridges of understanding and mutual respect, and be the great change for which he so yearns.

And for the douches who knock ian for not ’sticking it out’ and ‘bowing down to take a deal,’ as a charge of hypocrisy, you foolish naves simply reveal your own stupidity. The voluntarist thing to do was to seek compromise and resolution, once the matter progressed to violence against Ian’s person. It was a Master-Stroke of professional activism. An epic tale of heroism to behold and pass down thru the ages of man as an archtypeal alegory.

Surley as A = A, Ian lives to tell his tail, build his show, and fight another day.

You naysayers are just jealous punks. Ian’s got a bigger one than you and you know it! Go take your inadequacies elsewhere.

Good day, sirs!

-Big Dong Johnson….

Comment by Shyfrog

November 19, 2008 @ 1:24 am

Aww…AnAmazedReader’s leaving so soon? *sheds one emo tear*

Comment by LPVIPER

November 19, 2008 @ 2:48 am

To anamazedreader; sir, your attitude seems to be rather pro harassment. If you think honoring your neighbors’ choices is a ’strawman and an empty cliche’, then you don’t have the slightest clue what Ian is even thinking. There is no ‘except for’ in voluntary interaction, as in ‘I will honor my neighbors’ choices, except for when they have a couch out in their yard.’ Freedom either is or it isn’t. 1 cannot be 1 and also 2 at the same time. The middle ground between freedom and tyranny is tyranny, ok? It seems that you and people who think like you are content to live under the thumb of the state because you are afraid of interacting with people on a voluntary basis when you sense the possibility of conflict. Neighbor got an ugly couch? Call the state! Neighbor’s house emanating canabis-type odors? Call the state!

My advice to you, Mr. Amazedthatpeoplecantakepersonalresponsibilityfortheiractionsguy?

Grow a sac. When it descends, the freedom lovers will be here, and we’ll forgive you too, bud.

Andy in Michigan

Comment by Josh

November 19, 2008 @ 3:56 am

Ian, I fully apologize for doubting your courage to challenge government stupidity. While I am not at all surprised that they came after you and not being cowards with no basis, I was NOT happy you or anybody went to jail. Even while we argued on the forums, I was saying that if the City enforces don’t show up, it’s because it’s not worth their time, not because they have no justification (via force counts for them),turns out, it WAS (to them) worth their time (and they were not cowards).

You have my respect and recognition for going to jail and standing up for stupid rules. However, I hope you and other activists put energy into challenging more important freedom violations on drugs, taxation and immigration. This is NOT to say that what you did was insignificant, but to say that anybody can go to jail for anything stupid, it’s better to go to jail or be arrested for something more serious (I DO NOT want anybody to be arrested or jailed, but I REALLY don’t want anybody to be arrested or jailed over something as silly as a couch).

Take care and you are a hero.

Comment by Jen

November 19, 2008 @ 11:23 am

Its too bad Ian had to go to Jail…but maybe if he was smart and listen to a judge he wouldnt have gone in the first place.
I don’t beleive that Mikaela should apologize to you, she seemed ot be doing whats right in her community…I dont even think your a true free stater but a guy who has nothing else to do but harrass poeple who have a different opinion and approach to life then you. You also seem to get a thrill out of your “supporters” harrassing people who work for a living because of your sad, sad situation of being in jail for a whole three days…awww

Anyway, is this couch thing ever gonna end?? I agree with Josh’s comment about putting your energy into challenging more important freedom violations…but seirously do you even have it in you??

Comment by Nathan Reiber

November 19, 2008 @ 11:46 am

Jen, you obviously are victim to a series of unsettling delusions. The amount of time he spent in jail is irrelevant, it’s the principle fact that he was jailed. The idea that he acted in contempt of the court, by not sitting quite as quickly as the judge had wished he would, is ridiculous. Also the fact that he was forced to appear in criminal court for an action that had not even been proven to be illegal is ridiculous. He acted the way he did out of principal. And yes, he is now making a mockery of the political system that wrongfully imprisoned him, and the person who was responsible. I’m sorry but the simple problem with our system is that people use our government as tool for communication. If she truly had a personal problem with the couch she should have addressed Ian or his tenant. She should not have immediately filed a legal complaint to a police power.

Comment by DEB

November 19, 2008 @ 12:32 pm

Please cut Mikaela some slack, she was brought up in Rochester NY (where I live) and this is very common. I received a ticket for having my garage door open to long. She is used to paying $44.00 – $47.00 per thousand in property taxes (example is $200,000 house $9100 tax bill). Which makes people less tolerant of anything involving their property. Her college education comes from Buffalo NY where the government spends $26000 per student each year only to graduate 44%of its students. She didn’t have much of a chance and hope she will learn from this mistake. She was smart enough to leave NY.

Comment by Jen

November 19, 2008 @ 12:39 pm

Mr. Bile: There was no mockery? No threats? No harassment? At least none publicly by anyone of noteworthiness? I would agree with you about the “any one of noteworthiness” part – those involved in the libertarian extremist movement are not by any means “noteworthy” members of the Keene community. With that said, there is mockery, there are threats, and there is harassment against this young woman being committed by the very members of this extremist group.

This was posted on the Free Keene website just the other day: Post #76680
Comment by Rance Muhamitz

November 17, 2008 @ 11:49 am

It turns out the original couch complaint was made by Mikaela Engert, a city bureaucrat who didn’t like something Ian said to her on Talkback. What an evil little bitch!

This has also appeared on New Hampshire Underground:

Re: Ian Freeman of FTL arrested
« Reply #264 on: November 16, 2008, 09:14 PM NHFT »

——————————————————————————–
Mikaela Engert is on Facebook. If it was indeed her, and you have an account, search for her and send her a nice message telling her that you appreciate her actions. Flood that inbox.

This appeared on “Free State Forum” by George Donnelly:

georgedonnelly
FSP Participant

Offline

Posts: 33

Moving to NH Spring 2009

Re: Ian Freeman arrested, please DIGG
« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2008, 12:25:05 pm »

——————————————————————————–
Just posted by Brent Perry on facebook:

Quote
After being taken into the closed circuit court room, it was announced to Ian that Mikaela L. Engert was the lady who complained about Ian’s couch.

Mikaela is none other than a city planner for the City of Keene, NH.

JailedActivist.info has the story. Here is how you can get a hold of Mikaela.

Mikaela L. Engert
190 River Street
Keene, NH 03431-2454

Work Email: mengert@ci.keene.nh.us
Work Tel: (603) 352-5474

Personal Email: mlengert@gmail.com

It is time to let her know what she has gotten herself into.

Liberty in our Lifetime

And then this appears on “The Freeman Chronicles” in regards to the full posting of this woman’s contact information:

on November 18, 2008 at 12:34 am Ziggy
Though Ian has every right to know who sent in the complaint against him, is it wise to broadcast it over the net, there might be some folk who might act violently against her etc.

There are obviously people that belong to this libertarian extremist movement that wish harm upon this young lade, as Ziggy expressed above, and have taken measures to provoke mockery of, harassment towards, and threats to this young woman, who continually gives her time to this community both professionally and personally.

In addition, this was posted in response to Ziggy’s post on the Freeman Chronicle’s by Alex Libman:

on November 18, 2008 at 11:54 am Alex Libman
She should have thought of that before she initiated aggression against Ian.

Alex Libman also wrote this:

Sent: 11/18/2008 4:19 am
From: Alex Libman [alibman@ssl-mail.com]
Subject: Hate Mail #1,000,001

I hope you die in the most painful way possible, you dumb fascist bitch!

Best regards,
Alex Libman

And then this is on “Digg”:

OmegaWolf
on 11/17/2008 mengert@ci.keene.nh.us

This is the email address of Mikaela L. Engert, the city code enforcer who reported the couch. Give her hell!

So, maybe I’m confused, but what about the actions and comments of Ian and his followers are not considered threatening? Not considered harassment? And not considered public mockery? The examples listed are just the few that I found.

Michael Elliot publicly mocked her by photoshopping the picture of her that was part of a very positive community visioning initiative. And of course, Ian and others then posted these doctored photos on various websites.

As far as the statement from Mr. Bile about posting the “facts” (Simply reporting the facts is in no way an aggressive act against her.), facts were not posted. This woman’s appearance on the radio program and her interaction with the libertarian extremists (Sam and Ian) that called in had nothing to do with Ian’s subsequent violation and jail time. If you listen to it, her responses are clearly in the effort to focus the conversation back on the reason why she even appeared on the show: the community visioning process; and not indulge in the passive-aggressive overtures of Sam and Ian in regards to zoning and property rights. She clearly states near the end of the conversation that Ian’s questions about property rights are not relevant to the visioning process.

Ian’s “forgiveness” letter to this young woman also shouldn’t have been posted publicly for comment and ridicule. ian’s posting of it only shows how cowardly he is. He obviously did it to rally his supporters and the tone of it is not only passive-aggressive, but as Nick said, accusatory.

Comment by scott

November 19, 2008 @ 12:59 pm

Mikaela is hot. Hopefully she will be on the Shrine of Female Listeners someday.

Comment by nick

November 19, 2008 @ 1:01 pm

Jen,

You do realize you just repeated all the information that you said shouldn’t have been released. Thanks to you, now a whole new group of people have access to all of Mikaela’s information.

Ian was harassed, threatened, and mocked because of what Mikaela started. I wouldn’t encourage anyone give it back to her, but if she gets a little bit back from peeved supporters, it was because of what she did.

You say Ian should have “Listened to the judge and maybe he wouldn’t have gone to jail.” I say Ms. Engert should have listened to Ian’s SEVERAL offers to meet him and talk, and this wouldn’t have happened to her. The difference is, the city supports violence against Ian. Mikaela getting a couple of e-mails or phone calls is not violent.

Comment by bile

November 19, 2008 @ 1:26 pm

Calling her a bitch is not a threat. It’s not mockery nor harassment. It’s an assessment of someone’s personality.

Harassment would be assessed based on the content of the messages sent to her. I’ve none of those so I can not claim. But publicly I saw nothing which would be anything more then online ostracism. If she was threatened in any way she can and should call the appropriate authorities or publicly out those people who did it.

What Alex Libman said is vitriolic and childish but it’s not a a threat. It’s harassment but not in substantial way. You’ll see far worse from the average Manhattan subway rider.

What was said on DIGG is even less substantial. If I were to to take seriously the comments on DIGG or any other general communications forum you’d never sleep.

It seems to me that you’ve completely blown out of proportion the response assuming you’ve shared the worst of it.

I’d like to note that mockery is not a crime, a threat, or harassment. So I fail to see your reasonings for bringing it up. If you spend more then 10 seconds online you will find doctored photos mocking people. If you took a step back from the situation the “Keene can be…” photo was an obvious creation given the situation.

Given Mikalea has made absolutely no attempt to give her part of the story she is forcing everyone else to attempt to construct it. The fact she had a negative encounter with Sam and Ian a mere week prior to the supposed violation report is suspicious. To claim otherwise is silly. Given her job it is all the more suspicious. She deals with zoning. She deals with this visioning process. Both of which cover in one respect or another an old couch sitting on a lawn. His property rights are relevant if the city is going to force him or anyone else to change his property or pay taxes to fund it. Given both are likely true her statement is false. As for keeping on topic… it’s an open phone so you’ve got no sympathy from me. They could have screened the calls.

As for a public forgiveness letter. Mikalea decided to make this issue public by complaining about the couch and involving the city. She made it public by not addressing Ian after he requested to meet the accuser on several occations. She made it public by refusing to address the situation after his court appearance and later after his arrest. She had plenty of time to address the public or more importantly Ian specifically. She chose not to. So the public addressed her. The website created contained no opinion on her motives or instructions. It contained publicly available information. Much of which, in fact more, which is still available. The internet is quick to respond to people who make poor decisions. She made several. To assume that all those who responded were libertarian (which if they actually threatened her, they aren’t) or FSP members is just silly.

Comment by AnarchoJesse

November 19, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

Jen, you use the word “extremist” like it’s a bad thing– and I won’t deny that you’re right in that we’re extremists. We advocate violence against none, which is most definitely an extremist position. We take our philosophy to it’s fullest logical extent, and that is extremist– but it is all honest and we are not promoters of cherry picking our ethics.

As for people calling for Ms. Engert to be harassed– I have no sympathy. She used the city government to harass a very level-headed young man. Frankly, a few snarky remarks and some letters scolding her pale in comparison to what she had set off, and to act otherwise is just revealing your own disingenuous outlook on this.

Comment by Pensive

November 19, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

Everything DEB says about Buffalo and Rochester NY are true, in addition: nearly 9% sales tax in Erie county. That’s why I need outta here. When you’re surrounded by veritable desolation – poverty, crime, broken families, you end up thinking someone should do something, and government, a hydra so large you can’t see its faces anymore seems like a perfectly able vessel of salvation.

Comment by Anton Lee

November 19, 2008 @ 3:31 pm

I guess ‘extremist’ activity is okay if you’re forcing others to turn their house green. I find it shameful that anyone could defend her position.

Her actions have helped me make my decision on where I want to move to push forward liberty. That place would be Keene. At some point, your fabulous ideas will have to be funded voluntarily and not at the point of a gun. And you call yourself progressives.

Progress yourself towards non-aggression against your peaceful neighbors. Or progress yourself somewhere else.

Comment by Jen

November 19, 2008 @ 3:37 pm

Oh, you poor, misguided and delusional souls…you indeed have proved my point. I’ll pray for you. May you be saved by whatever God takes pity on you. So harassment is how you carry out your message, huh? It’s nice to know that Free Staters promote and represent fear and intimidation as a tactic to achieve their goals. You call everyone else in the community that doesn’t agree with your views as bullies, but in reality, you are the bullies.

You all only have sympathy for yourselves as it is obvious that you all only hear one another and do not recognize those that do not share your extremist views of government and community. You can try and dismiss or justify what you all have said or done in one way or another, however, it doesn’t really make your cause appealing to people. It really only makes you look like fools – oh, and deserving of the title “extremists”.

Nick, your comments don’t hold water. Her info, as you pointed out, is already out there, because you and all the others that decided to post it on your various blogs and sites. You’ve already encouraged your sympathizers to harass her. At least Ian has recognized the errors of his ways and is willing to drop it. How did it feel to apologize to the Judge, Ian?

You seem to have forgotten that this young woman is a community member first – and a very productive and active one at that, which none of you are – and she doesn’t lose her rights as citizen just because of who she happens to work for. And, she doesn’t owe you guys, or Ian, anything – so congrats to her for not wasting her time on responding to such specious acts and people as yourselves. And on that note, I bid you all adieu.

Comment by Kit

November 19, 2008 @ 4:01 pm

Hello, Jen.

You seem to have the amazing ability to judge an entire group by the action of a few members, do you think you’re the only person with this superhuman power?

What makes your assessment more accurate than that of a person who reads your statements and decides that, based solely on your posts, everyone named Jen is a condescending, closed-minded flake?

The vast majority of these free staters have not made such posts, just as the majority of Jens have not.

Please consider a certain amount of rationality when passing wholesale judgment on people you have never met.

Comment by Steve Flow

November 19, 2008 @ 4:16 pm

Hi Jen,

Do you think that it’s okay for person A to use violence against person B, if person B has not used violence against anyone?

Steve

Comment by AnarchoJesse

November 19, 2008 @ 4:22 pm

Oh, you poor, misguided and delusional souls…you indeed have proved my point. I’ll pray for you. May you be saved by whatever God takes pity on you.

The classic “patronizing you will get you to understand!” approach. I can already feel it working on my twisted, deformed spirit– by God, I think I see the light!

So harassment is how you carry out your message, huh? It’s nice to know that Free Staters promote and represent fear and intimidation as a tactic to achieve their goals. You call everyone else in the community that doesn’t agree with your views as bullies, but in reality, you are the bullies.

Words can’t even begin describe how I feel about this– first, your accusation of ‘harassment’ pales in comparison to what was done to Ian. Some have simply scolded and berated; Ian nearly had a quarter year of his life taken from him.

Second, we didn’t use fear tactics to achieve our goals– remember, it was the City that went to Ian in the first place! Ian didn’t go to the city and say “I’m here to pick a fight, and it’ll be over a couch that is on my property.” No, they went for Ian, and we responded with what we know best when dealing with the implicit violence of the State– words and advocacy.

Words and advocacy, my dear woman, are our driving tools. You see, we’re not like you; we’re not barbarians who only understand and believe in concepts under the threat of force. We’re civilized people, and our philosophy strictly dictates that we educate to get our point across– we’re so different, you Statists and us Voluntaryists; we refuse to use a bayonet to achieve our goals, while you have no issue with it.

This, is why we are your moral superiors.

You all only have sympathy for yourselves as it is obvious that you all only hear one another and do not recognize those that do not share your extremist views of government and community.

We see government as being the antithesis of community and society; government is a monopoly on force, while community and society are built around mutual and voluntary understanding and interaction. You speak in contradictions when you conflate government with community.

But again, being extremist doesn’t actually negate our point– we take a principled stance, and refuse to bow down to the tyranny that stems from pragmatic utilitarianism. I would not for a moment deny that our views are radical or extremist– we are, after all, the only philosophy that consistently applies the notion of not doing harm to other individuals.

But do not take this for not hearing you– we do hear you, we simply disagree, and that is all the fundamental difference between the philosophy of Liberty and the philosophy of State. When we disagree, we say “no thank you, this is not for us”; you say “you’ll take it, whether you like it or not.” There is nothing particularly pleasant or ethical about this method, so we avoid it as much as possible.

You can try and dismiss or justify what you all have said or done in one way or another, however, it doesn’t really make your cause appealing to people. It really only makes you look like fools – oh, and deserving of the title “extremists”.

Again, I wouldn’t deny the title of extremist. But hey, thanks for poisoning the well! Yeah, you know, that logical fallacy that eliminates all responses to a given statement before they are even made?

Nick, your comments don’t hold water. Her info, as you pointed out, is already out there, because you and all the others that decided to post it on your various blogs and sites. You’ve already encouraged your sympathizers to harass her. At least Ian has recognized the errors of his ways and is willing to drop it. How did it feel to apologize to the Judge, Ian?

Actually, Mikaela’s info is all over the net– a simple Google search will give you everything we pulled up. The information was made public, and we used it– indeed, to quote one of you sorry sacks of shit who are acting as apologists for aggression, “we exercised our options”.

You seem to have forgotten that this young woman is a community member first -

I am failing to understand what this has to do with the situation at hand– because she is perceived as some sort of utilitarian ultra-altruist we should be more respectful?

Fat chance.

and a very productive and active one at that, which none of you are

I’m sorry, what? Does Mikaela have moderately popular TV show in the local area? Does Mikaela have a moderately-to-pretty-damn-successful website or blog that gets her ideas out? Does Mikaela have a nationally syndicated radio show that draws in hundreds of thousands of viewers? No? Well, I can think of a few Keene residents off hand that you’re addressing right now.

But this evades something– yes, something. What is it… what could this be evading… Oh, right! You’re calling a city government worker “productive”. Now, if you hold in any manner a competent understanding of economics, you would understand the broken window fallacy, and would at least hold the notion that government can’t produce. Given that governments don’t actually provide any services, they don’t actually produce anything– they use the threat of force for compliance with their legislation (which is often to the detriment of property rights) and they only move resources from productive people.

Mikaela is not a productive member– she is a leech. She destroys everything produced by hard working people like me and everyone else.

- and she doesn’t lose her rights as citizen just because of who she happens to work for. And, she doesn’t owe you guys, or Ian, anything – so congrats to her for not wasting her time on responding to such specious acts and people as yourselves. And on that note, I bid you all adieu.

She owes Ian three days of time, if I recall. Because, you know, she is the one that violated his property rights and filed the complaint.

Comment by Jen

November 19, 2008 @ 4:36 pm

Kit, one could say the same for you.

Comment by Steve Flow

November 19, 2008 @ 4:40 pm

Hi Jen,

Again, I ask you the following question: Do you think that it’s okay for person A to use violence against person B, if person B has not used violence against anyone?

Steve

Comment by bile

November 19, 2008 @ 4:45 pm

Jesse, Mikaela didn’t infringe Ian’s property rights. Those who threaten him with jail do. She simply is a cheerleader and enabler for those people.

Given Jen refuses to answer criticisms or questions I or others have posed she’s either trolling or a lost cause.

Comment by AnarchoJesse

November 19, 2008 @ 4:55 pm

Jesse, Mikaela didn’t infringe Ian’s property rights. Those who threaten him with jail do. She simply is a cheerleader and enabler for those people.

I see the State as an institution, and thus, a tool. She used the tool– I see no difference between her using the State against Ian and a man using a gun to commit a robbery.

Comment by FreedomSooner

November 19, 2008 @ 5:34 pm

“I see the State as an institution, and thus, a tool. She used the tool– I see no difference between her using the State against Ian and a man using a gun to commit a robbery.”

I agree. She is a coward who sees goons with guns as tools to fix what she doesn’t like without getting her own hands bloody. You might as well claim innocence for a person who pays a hitman to kill another. And lets be honest. In all likliehood she didn’t just drive by his house and decide that something should be done about his ugly couch. It was mostly likely a result of her stewing and deciding something should be done about the nasty man who called in to WKBK and made a fool out of her I listened to when he called in to WKBK myself and he was actually very polite, but neither one of those “ladies” had any time for what he had to say and were shocked at the idea that they were aggressing against the members of the community that they claim to “serve”. Im not saying this is definitely true, but its most likely Ian was persecuted for excercising his right to freedom of speach. Either way, stop with the serving the community defense. If that was what she was trying to do, she would have been helping an old woman rake her leaves or something instead of sending goons with guns after one of the few people in history who have fought for true freedom.

Comment by bile

November 19, 2008 @ 6:08 pm

Your talking in collectivist speak. The State is not a tool but an idea. A god that the cult members act on behalf of. The men who threatened and aggressed against Ian are at fault. Not the imaginary god they make sacrifices to. Abstracting individuals actions out to “the State” absolves personal responsibility. They have free will, a tool does not.

Comment by Mark

November 19, 2008 @ 6:36 pm

This sounds just like what Ian and his “followers” engage in:

Cyberbullying is willful and involves recurring or repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text. Bullying intends to cause emotional distress and has no legitimate purpose to the choice of communications. Cyberbullying can be as simple as continuing to send e-mail to someone who has said they want no further contact with the sender. Cyberbullying may also include threats, sexual remarks, pejorative labels (i.e., hate speech).Cyber-bullies may publish personal contact information for their victims at websites.

Comment by Anti Police State guy

November 19, 2008 @ 7:33 pm

Seems to me there are more important things “liberty activists” should be fighting for besides couches in peoples yards.

Comment by mike

November 19, 2008 @ 7:53 pm

“You seem to have forgotten that this young woman is a community member first – and a very productive and active one at that, which none of you are ”

She is very productive at growing the size and powers of a state that hurts people. And she is very active at using violence against others. Which hopefully, none of us are

Comment by nick

November 19, 2008 @ 8:45 pm

“Go along to get along” seems to be the main argument for anyone against what Ian did. They have no moral standing for WHY Ian should have ‘followed the rules’ except that they’re the rules.

Neither Jen nor Mark have real reasons to condemn Ian for what he did either. Cyber-Bullying? Really? Cyber-Bullying? Why is the city and state, who are supposed to be serving you, not held to a higher standard in your eyes as far as bullying goes? Can you make one argument that the city and court was not a bully to Ian?

Can you dismiss the entire message of non-violence because a few people decided to write to Mikaela? I didn’t, and I don’t even know how many people did. Do you know how many messages she got? If not, what are you basing your claims of harassment on?

Comment by Curt Springer

November 19, 2008 @ 10:46 pm

Nick wrote:

“Go along to get along” seems to be the main argument for anyone against what Ian did. They have no moral standing for WHY Ian should have ‘followed the rules’ except that they’re the rules.

Ian should have followed the procedures to protest the maladministration of law because he most likely could have let his tenants keep the couch and perhaps not even have had to go to court. Instead he has/had to remove the couch, pay a fine, go to jail, admit wrongdoing and apologize for it. I just don’t see how this aided freedom in any way.

I’m reading the war of words between the Ian supporters and the Mickaela supporters. All I will say to that is that NH needs young adults with educations and skills, so come up here whether you’re into planning or into no government. You’ll all mellow out in 20 years.

Comment by Anti Police State guy

November 19, 2008 @ 11:17 pm

I agree with Curt. I just don’t see how this aided the freedom or liberty cause??? It’s a couch not a trial on someone who was tortured.

Comment by Anton Lee

November 19, 2008 @ 11:35 pm

For someone like Jen who talks about god so much, I wonder what god that would be who would support the initiation of force against others. What would Jesus Do? Jesus wouldn’t care about a couch in the yard, and would work to help others.

Jesus wouldn’t have stood for a judge either, nor would he have sat.

The couch was sold off, Ian made money off of it, where is your god now?

Comment by native

November 19, 2008 @ 11:45 pm

cyber-bullying is social ostracism and is completely legal, and in this case, completely called for. Ian has asked that people lead by example.

This woman should be ashamed of herself. The only bully in this situation would be her. It’s a damn shame that someone so rude and cowardly could hold any public office. Hopefully that will change quite soon, for the good of the community. We don’t need this sort of masshole behavior in NH.

Many of my fellow natives feel the same way.

Comment by Kit

November 20, 2008 @ 12:01 am

After all the justice people administered upon Jen’s comments, the best she could do was whip out an “I know you are but what am I?” on me? That tired argument went out with, say, first grade. I see that she had nothing in the face of the rational dissections of her statements offered so thoughtfully by others. Flame me, Jen. I *am* a little confrontational. Meanwhile, other people see you avoiding logical points like radioactive potatoes.

I am merely asserting, for other Jens that may still be lurking about, that using the actions of the few to judge the many is the very rationale behind racism, or bigotry of any kind.

If she got upset because I called her out on it, well, it’s a good thing I’m not interested in her forgiveness, nor that of her own personal two-faced god to whom she supposedly prayed for our redemption.

I did give my Sims a Freedom Couch. Seemed to be the least I could do. 30 game days in, no one’s complained so far….

Comment by AnAmazedReader

November 20, 2008 @ 1:36 am

My goodness, the Tale of the Holy Couch certainly stirred the Free Haters into their usual cliche-ridden, mouth-foaming mode of expression, the sort of behavior that simply confirms the stereotype that comes to the minds of those who are outside the blessed cult. It’s absolutely terrific for the movement.

Then again, is it possible that Mikaela is a diabolical genius who knew how simple it would be to get Ian to humiliate himself? Could this have been her secret plan to destroy the Liturgy Movement? Maybe not. Although Ian’s reaction WAS positively Pavlovian. “Here little fishy fishy, here ya go, take the bait….”

Comment by Kit

November 20, 2008 @ 3:38 am

Not supporting violence = hate?

I fail to see the logic in your assertion. Much the same way I fail to see ducks inside a banana,

Comment by LPVIPER

November 20, 2008 @ 5:42 am

Anamazedreader,

Ian’s reaction was ‘pavlovian’? You are one sick son of a bitch, you know that? Refusing to bow before people who have no legitimate claim to your property or any other part of your life is ‘pavlovian’?

Your grandchildren will remember you as one of those who defended tyranny, and Ian and other voluntarists as the brave forefathers of a voluntary order, the vanguard of a movement that tells people that they CAN take care of themselves, that they CAN interact freely with others without having their hand held by the state. They will remember the men and women, like Ian and Lauren and many others, who pointed out that giving individuals the power to regulate the activities of individuals is a contradiction. And maybe they will still have the freedom to read the words of Ayn Rand, who said,

“If you are confronted with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is faulty.”

The whole idea that any other individual knows better how to manage someone’s life than they do is just that; a flawed premise.

Mikaela has drawn the scorn of activists because she believes in and practices the use of this flawed premise. History will recall her as an accomplice to tyranny. It will recall you and the Jens of the world as her enablers.

Thanks

Comment by Anonymous

November 20, 2008 @ 6:38 am

Ian put HIMSELF in jail.

Comment by AnAmazedReader

November 20, 2008 @ 7:21 am

LPVIPER Wrote:

Refusing to bow before people who have no legitimate claim to your property or any other part of your life is ‘pavlovian’?

—— end of quote

Dear LPViper (by the way, great screen name; truly terrifying and impressive in every possible way),

I hate to wake you from your vivid fantasies of civil war, but perhaps you haven’t heard the news: Ian acknowledged the authority of the judge and the city by 1) apologizing to the judge for his behavior, and 2) getting rid of the couch. Then again, these facts may not be compelling to you, since reality has a well-known statists’ bias.

As to being “one sick son of a bitch”, I’ll assume that’s just your very special and effective way of reminding us how peaceful and loving you and your friends are. Talk about Pavlovian.

Cheers,

Amazed

Comment by Dennis Herrick

November 20, 2008 @ 8:36 am

Is there no discretion these days?

I’m from the other side of the state, so I apologize in advance if I get any of the names wrong.

Mikaela is just a pawn. Now I’d out Code Enforcement Office Patten and his Supervisor Medard K. Kopczynski. Then I’d move along to City Manager John MacLean and the entire City Council. And last, but not least, I check out this Mayor of yours, Philip Pregent. Any one of these fine folks could have put an end to all this foolishness, but they didn’t. Some leadership.

Comment by Steve Flow

November 20, 2008 @ 9:07 am

Hi Amazedreader,

Jen hasn’t responded to the question I posed, but perhaps you will: Do you think that it’s okay for person A to use violence against person B, if person B has not used violence against anyone?

Steve

Comment by Rance Muhamitz

November 20, 2008 @ 9:24 am

I think everything has been said in this thread. Any further comments are just using the chicken to measure it.

Comment by LPVIPER

November 20, 2008 @ 9:44 am

Um, you present the facts (Mr. Amazedreader) but not the context. Ian bowed down because he wanted to end his imprisonment. I will not speak to the intent behind the actions of a caged man, and it is rather presumptuous of you to do so, as well. Knowing Ian as a listener of his radio program, I know that it was not his intent at all to bow down, but he felt that his family was being damaged by his refusal to bow, so he bowed. Your assertion that Ian acknowledged the ‘authority’ of the ‘judge’ and the ‘city’ is ludicrous on its face.

And, as an aside, I am peaceful and loving, I would like to think. Problem is, I don’t like violence being initiated against people who have not caused harm to anyone.

So, in the spirit of love, I shall amend my statement as to your emotional state.

You are one sick puppy.

There. I used the word ‘puppy’. Is that better for you? Either way, you’re twisted, dude.

Later

Comment by PA

November 20, 2008 @ 10:31 am

Amazed,

When you hand over your wallet to a mugger, are you acknowledging his “authority” over you? Or just recognizing that if you don’t hand it over, he’ll shoot you?

How is this different than Ian bowing down to the court?

Comment by PA

November 20, 2008 @ 10:41 am

I also find it curious that you refer to free staters as “free-haters”.

What is hateful about finding peaceful, non-violent solutions to problems?

Comment by Edan

November 20, 2008 @ 10:44 am

“Did you realize at any point that men with guns would actually throw me into a prison cell over this?”

“This” is not about a couch, it’s about your reaction to the legal process. You caused all your own trouble by behaving the way you did. If you had been in court because of a parking violation, or jaywalking, or grand theft auto, my guess is you would have behaved the same way. Don’t blame Mikaela for your going to jail.

As I’ve mentioned to you and other Free Staters in the past, you need to clarify your cause. ALL government is not evil, and by making blanket statements to that effect you just muddy the waters and cause confusion about what your cause is, and you come off as whackos, and you definitely do not engender any sympathy or concern for your cause.

Since I definitely believe much of government is over the top, I’m partially on your side, but behaving the way you did will not move us forward to gain freedoms. Help make me understand what it is you want and I’m certain that I and others who now consider you troublemakers will lean more in your direction.

Comment by RWW

November 20, 2008 @ 10:58 am

ALL government is not evil…

I’d like to hear a definition of “government” that doesn’t imply evil.

Comment by PA

November 20, 2008 @ 11:44 am

““This” is not about a couch, it’s about your reaction to the legal process”

And when you get shot by a mugger, it isn’t about your wallet, it’s about your reaction to the “robbery process”.

How is someone who eschews violence and seeks only peaceful solutions a “troublemaker”?

Comment by Jasmine

November 20, 2008 @ 1:17 pm

Cheers to Edan! We are finally getting other opinions on these posts!

We cannot make blanket statements that all government/laws are evil. Many of them keep our world safe and orderly. I know we all hate paying driving violations, but I’m happy that the police are pulling over speeders and drunk drivers. And though the free-staters claim there is no victim to such actions, there are dozens of potential victims every time someone drives irresponsibly. Several times I have felt I’ve received an unjust parking ticket and was even fined for running a stop sign that I clearly did NOT run. I wrote a letter and appeared in court and it was found that indeed, the police officer had made a mistake. No harm done. They were very apologetic.

The truth is that I don’t trust the general public to behave responsibly. I do not trust you to stop at a stop sign or drive at a reasonable rate or not drive drunk. I do not trust the free-staters to behave non-violently. I’m glad that someone out there is watching.

Do all laws and ordinances make sense? Nope. Some are archaic and the intentions become unclear or irrelevant. Some are open to interpretation, such as the couch ordinance. To get them changed, you have to follow a process. Ian could have changed that ordinance, but he chose to go to jail. Just look at the man who wants to sell hot dogs! The ordinance was completely rewritten to allow him the chance to sell his product as long as it doesn’t negatively affect citizens in the neighborhood late at night.

Life is shades of gray. There are people working at the city to help out common folk like the hot dog man. There are so-called free-staters who made disgusting and violent comments to a fellow citizen.

Comment by AnAmazedReader

November 20, 2008 @ 1:46 pm

Edan,

Your attempts to reason with the cult of folks who populate this site is admirable, but the effort is probably futile; if there isn’t a shared sense of reality between the people conversing, everyone simply talks past each other, and the result is irrelevant noise. It’s unfortunate, because issues touching on human governance, human nature, the efficacy (or lack thereof) of governmental structures and of laws can be fascinating to discuss and debate, particularly if you are intellectually open and not afflicted by the sort of absolutist, adolescent mindset that tends to, out of deep insecurity, rigidly wed itself to a particular orthodoxy. Any belief system carries within it some inherent contradictions, but if your interlocutor has latched onto that system out of a certain inner desperation, they won’t be open to examining those contradictions. They can’t be, because to do so would make the whole house of cards fall over. It’s like suggesting to a fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, etc. that there might not be a God. You get nowhere. So it goes……

Comment by Anton Lee

November 20, 2008 @ 2:05 pm

I think AnAmazedReader is god, they know everything. Our lord must snitch on others, and when thy bidding is not done, they are struck down with the mighty hand of aggression.

It’s funny you mention adolescent mindset. When I was adolescent I was taught not to hurt others and not to steal from them. I guess your parents weren’t like mine, you learned all the “right” ways to deal with situations. . . like using clubs and handcuffs to settle disputes. I’m thankful my parents taught me how to be so wrong.

If there is a god, I’m sure he’ll know right where to put you. It’s hot there, bring some iced tea.

Comment by mr. pink

November 20, 2008 @ 3:12 pm

“When I was adolescent I was taught not to hurt others and not to steal from them. I guess your parents weren’t like mine”

Haha. Didn’t you say your parents are statists, and work for the IRS or something?

Comment by Rochester

November 20, 2008 @ 3:42 pm

Wow you people are crazy!

Keene is a toilet anyway let the man pile garbage in his front yard if he wants.

Comment by Rochester

November 20, 2008 @ 4:01 pm

27. The Keene area is a stunningly beautiful place to live. Old couches in every front yard!

Comment by Steve Flow

November 20, 2008 @ 4:57 pm

Hi Amazedreader,

I’ve asked a very simple question. Why won’t you answer?

Do you think that it’s okay for person A to use violence against person B, if person B has not used violence against anyone?

Steve

Comment by RWW

November 20, 2008 @ 4:58 pm

I’m amazed at AnAmazedReader’s ability to use so many words to say so very little. It’s like some perverse kind of poetry.

Comment by elkheart

November 20, 2008 @ 6:37 pm

…and all this, well, “brouhaha”, will have been in vain, wasted effort, *UNLESS* it results in a successful effort to have both Mr. Ed Burke, & Mr. Howard B. Lane, jr., *REMOVED FROM THE BENCH*, & hopefully *DISBARRED*, so as to preclude them from using their bag of legal “dirty tricks” to hurt even more people, & further cause Public ridicule of, and lack of respect for, whatever legitamacy the “Courts” might still have. I called Gov. John Lynch’s office on Monday, to express these thoughts. C’mon, Folks, help us Natives clean up the local “justice game”…

Comment by elkheart

November 20, 2008 @ 6:48 pm

Mikaela was/is(?) a Keene City *employee*, subject to being *TERMINATED*(”fired”,”let go”, etc.,) by fiat of John McLean, “Keene City Manager”. If *HE WAS* doing his job of supervising City personnel *COMPETENTLY*, this whole incident would never have occured….Considering his blatanly *INCOMPETENT* performance on last Fri. PM’s “Keene No Spin”, w/Randy Filiault, & Chris Coates, Firing Mikaela ought to be his last official act, before he resigns, himself. I’m only one of too many, too silent, citizens who continue to lose confidence & faith in Mr. McLeans’ ability to carry out his job functions…His latest? Rather than work pro-actively with E.P.A. on phosphorous level issues, Mr. McLean has chosen to assume an *ADVERSARIAL STANCE*, and suggest *WASTING* more TAX$$$ on yet another “study”…Money that would be better spent addressing the *REAL ISSUES*….Also, Mikaela may have been at best a pawn, or “dupe” in all this…now, made a *SCAPEGOAT*, by the far more corrupt Mr Patten, et al….Serious thoughts request a serious response…

Comment by Peacemaker

November 20, 2008 @ 6:51 pm

Boy, this Jen character sure pretends to know it all, doesn’t she?

I like Steve Flow’s question which she refuses to answer:

Is it OK if person A uses force against person B, if person B has not used violence against anyone?

With all her big talk, her silence on this Question equals that her mind is so fundamentally dishonest (and government indoctrinated), that she doesn’t even know it.

Sad really…just another reminder of how bad the Gov Schools have gotten.

Comment by Peacemaker

November 20, 2008 @ 6:54 pm

RE; The Word EXTREME

The word extreme means to be consistent in every way. So if one is an Extreme Snowboarder, then they are the best of the best.

There’s nothing wrong with being Extreme, it’s actually a good thing but it has been attacked/redefined by the Government brainwashers because they don’t like anything or anybody who is good at anything (except growing government that is).

Comment by Peacemaker

November 21, 2008 @ 12:58 am

Mikaela is either an example of an extremely government indcotricnated naive pawn that is so brainwashed that even she doesn’t realize she’s been transformed into a thug (got force?) who has NO problem using a gun to get her way….

Or

She’s a calculating good little government goon who loves, enjoys using force to move up through the ranks, to impress her collegues, to push people around because she and her fellow thugs think they know how to better than the rest, because they’re just smarter, than all of the peons who they steal their money from, to fund thier livelihoods.

Either way, it’s an extremely discusting pathetic revolting example of dishonest behavior, but least she’s the one who has to look in the mirror everyday and face that horror of a being.

Reality can only hope that she wakes up from her trance, because if she doesn’t do it now, she will be doomed to eternal insecurity and eventual deep depression as she won’t be able to fool her subconciousness mind forever.

This is where I would say “God save us,” but since I don’t believe in ghosts, I’ll skip it.

Comment by AnAmazedReader

November 21, 2008 @ 3:01 am

Ah yes, the incredibly probing question, the masterpiece of logic that would flummox a Socrates and which certainly renders the enemy helpless, lying in the fetal position in a pool of his own sick:

“Is it OK if person A uses force against person B, if person B has not used violence against anyone”

Answer: the question is tendentious and meaningless unless 1) the situation the question purports to elucidate is described in some factual detail; 2) the questioner and answerer share, at least to extent, a common sense of reality. Otherwise, the people involved will argue endlessly about what constitutes force and/or violence; lots of heat and very little light.

For instance, if person B decided to bury his grandmother in his front yard, which is a quarter of an acre in size and prone to flooding, would not the health risk this would pose to his neighbors be a type of “violence”, at least within the context of your absurdly broad and exaggerated use of the term? And if person A brought this to the attention of the local government (oooohhh, I did it, I wrote the BAD BAD word!), why wouldn’t that be a reasonable assertion of the right to self-defense? “The Devil is in the details”.

But again, none of this makes any difference, because attempting rational discussion with fundamentalists of any stripe is a fool’s errand. You will never be able to agree on even the most basic terms. The fundamentalist’s sense of identity, which is all too often fueled by a sense of individual inadequacy, is so profoundly wrapped up in the ideology they’ve embraced that open inquiry and doubt is all too often perceived as a threat. What a psychological prison that must be.

Comment by Anton Lee

November 21, 2008 @ 6:48 am

“Otherwise, the people involved will argue endlessly about what constitutes force and/or violence”

Is blue really blue? I only have to ask because there might be some alternate reality where blue is not blue. . . but blue is green.

This whole argument is stupid. One ‘woman’ is the cause of this problem. Not a couch. Not Ian Freeman. One woman got shown up on her own show. Hence the backlash began by those who are supposed to ‘protect’ and ’serve’ us.

Comment by Jason

November 21, 2008 @ 7:57 am

Amazed,

You say you enjoy discussing political philosophy but yet you seem unable to have a conversation without ridiculing anyone with a different opinion.

If you are trying to make a point it would help your case if you didn’t speak like a cad. Your words are more of a heckler trying to prove how bright he is instead of simply presenting your point of view.

Jen,

“You also seem to get a thrill out of your “supporters” harrassing people who work for a living because of your sad, sad situation of being in jail for a whole three days…awww”

Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing, harassing him? Your sardonic tone doesn’t demonstrate the intelligence you seemingly try to write from. By talking down to others any good point you may have made is dissolved in your antagonism.

—

His letter could have been more thoughtful. However, the guy doesn’t deserve to go to jail for not sitting right when the judge told him to. Any kind of reasonable person would agree with that. A judge is a public servant and does not have the right of absolute rule. That’s supposed to be the central issue.

Comment by Luke

November 21, 2008 @ 11:46 am

First of all I would like to say that I am not a Free Stater or a libertarian and I don’t agree with their worldview. But some of the stuff that I’m reading on here is very scary. All this stuff about people being jailed over couches and people being jailed for not sitting down fast enough for a judge and people cheering that on and people wanting the government to tell people that they can’t bury their family members on their land is very scary to me. In fact, how would anybody find out about it if somebody buried their family members on their land? Unless there were people snooping around in business that is not their own, they wouldn’t.

Comment by John Galt

November 21, 2008 @ 12:16 pm

This is John Galt speaking:

The real question that evades “Jen” and will continue to do so most likely forever is:

What kind of jackbooted scumbag ghouls would order someone to dig up their own relatives should they make the choice to bury their loved ones on their own land?

Nope, she won’t ever get that.

With Liberty,

John Galt

Comment by Shyfrog

November 21, 2008 @ 12:43 pm

Even more grandiloquent masturbation from AnAmazed. If at any time the sound of one hand clapping was more pronounced it would be during his/her verbose and prurient (must be getting some sort of thrill from all that uni-clapping) posts.

To quote from a much earlier post:

I’ll bid you all adieu with the words of the great Bugs Bunny, who so sapiently intoned the following:

“I’m sorry, fellas, I can’t play with yas any more; I gots impointent woik to do!”.

Cheers,

Amazed

Comment by Kellie

November 21, 2008 @ 1:40 pm

To AnAmazed:

Ah yes, the incredibly probing question, the masterpiece of logic. . .

Why the acerbity? It was JUST a question.

the situation the question purports to elucidate…

The fundamentalist’s sense of identity, which is all too often fueled by a sense of individual inadequacy, is so profoundly wrapped up in the ideology they’ve embraced that open inquiry and doubt is all too often perceived as a threat. What a psychological prison that must be.

Are you here to debate or to psychoanalyze? The arrogance with which you assert your “wisdom” is astounding. And you speak of individual inadequacies. There is really only one person on this thread who appears to suffer from inadequacies.

If you really believe that a discussion on the nature of government would be futile, then why on earth are you still here? If, instead, you actually wish to get your point across and to possibly persuade someone, then drop the pedantic rhetoric and just speak.

Oh, and stop with the psycho-babble, Sigmund.

Comment by Anton Lee

November 21, 2008 @ 1:45 pm

for someone who seems so smart they still think Initiation of Force is up for interpretation.

Comment by Jasmine

November 21, 2008 @ 3:09 pm

Just to see how you might all tear me apart, here are my thoughts…

A world without laws would be pretty scary, I’d say. Let’s take an issue that seems to come up among free-staters: speeding tickets and driving violations in general. They are a headache for all of us, but I’m willing to get my occasional ticket to keep the roads safe. Do you really want to be driving around with other people defining their own speed limit? Their own blood alcohol content? There is no victim when you are caught speeding, but there are dozens of potential victims. I do not trust the general public to behave responsibly. I do not trust you to drive at a reasonable rate or to not drive under the influence of alcohol. I benefit from such laws and I’ll take them, even though sometimes they’re an inconvenience.

Some laws and ordinances are archaic and don’t apply to our lives today. Some can be interpreted many ways. They were written out of context or by someone not-so-competent. The beauty in this is that they can be changed! Ian could have explored the couch ordinance to see if it applied to his situation, or even had it rewritten. Skeptical? Look at the hot dog man! That ordinance has been rewritten to give the man a chance to sell his product as long as it doesn’t harm neighbors at 1 am. He followed the process and he is likely to win.

And what of corrupt government officials? Let’s go back to driving violations, since I’ve never been to jail. I was once fined for running a stop sign, but definitely STOPPED. Me against the police- ugh. I wrote a letter and appeared in court. I was found to be in the right and the policeman and magistrate involved were apologetic. No harm done. An hour of my time is nothing if it keeps others from running stop signs and t-boning my car.

Let’s try to see the world in the shades of gray that it is. There exist government officials who are reasonable, humane, and looking out for our best interest. There are also so-called free-staters who have made disgusting, violent, and threatening comments to a fellow citizen when Ian made his own decision to go to jail.

Comment by Steve Flow

November 21, 2008 @ 3:58 pm

AMAZEDREADER WROTE:
“For instance, if person B decided to bury his grandmother in his front yard, which is a quarter of an acre in size and prone to flooding, would not the health risk this would pose to his neighbors be a type of “violence”, at least within the context of your absurdly broad and exaggerated use of the term? And if person A brought this to the attention of the local government (oooohhh, I did it, I wrote the BAD BAD word!), why wouldn’t that be a reasonable assertion of the right to self-defense? “The Devil is in the details”.”

I’m happy to answer your question, Amazedreader:

I say no, the health risk alone this would pose to his neighbors would not be a type of violence. However, if this risk turned into reality, then yes, I would say that our grandmother-burying friend owes some kind of compensation to the damaged party or parties.

Can we both agree, though, that Ian’s couch didn’t damage Mikaela’s person or property, let alone run the risk of doing so?

Steve

Comment by Toby

November 21, 2008 @ 6:06 pm

I invited Mikaela onto Free Minds TV. So far, no response. I don’t think I’ll be holding my breath.

Comment by AnarchoJesse

November 21, 2008 @ 9:50 pm

I find it somewhat troubling that at no point have my points directed towards “AnAmazed” have been answered. Indeed, for someone who likes to show them self of intellect and reason, there seems to be little in the way of philosophy or ethics behind their arguments.

I’m interested in knowing why Ian should have to submit to government and why his property should be the concern of another person. If you could explain this without using any fallacious appeals or without using tautologies, I’d love to hear your reasoning.

Comment by Rochester

November 21, 2008 @ 9:57 pm

Toby,

With such intellectually provocative emails such as “I hope you die in the most painful way you fascist bitch” I can see her point.

Ian,
You are all hypocrites. Ian for you to say you only posted her person info after others had done so is ridiculous. I expect better from my eight year old. That’s like me saying “I only raped your “companion” after the two guys I was with raped her first.” C’mon stop painting yourself as a victim. You weren’t jailed because of a couch. You were jailed because you acted like an ass in the courtroom. You didn’t stand up to anyone. It’s good for ratings though,huh?

If you want less government move to Africa. There are plenty of countries where you could promote your views and improve the situation. The other 300,000,000 of us are happy here. That and the answer is ten. Like the IQ of you people. Hows that for childish?

Comment by Rochester

November 21, 2008 @ 10:18 pm

The NH underground is so awesome. I never knew that there really were people like this out there. Carpe Diem! Oops five. It’s so great that the anti spam answer is so easy otherwise I wouldn’t be able to post a response.

Comment by Rochester

November 21, 2008 @ 10:20 pm

Oh, and Ian your use of commas is fabulous. twelve!

Comment by Kit

November 21, 2008 @ 11:31 pm

Rochester, all this would be nice if you were expressing yourself maturely enough for more people to care about your opinion.

Comment by Anton Lee

November 22, 2008 @ 5:30 am

Yeah, don’t bet the farm on it Toby. . . government people, for all the guns they have seem to be quite cowardly.

Comment by PA

November 22, 2008 @ 12:37 pm

Rochester:

Do you imprison people for not sitting down quickly enough for your liking?

If not, why not?

Comment by NICK

November 22, 2008 @ 2:48 pm

Rochester is right. You all are the hypocrites that can’t see how immaturely you’re all behaving – not to mention how you all have spun this to your liking: typical. Remember, Ian got himself into this mess and behaved like a jerk in front of the judge which is what got him landed in jail. You guys make the the whole movement look stupid. And where has Ian been on this whole thing? He hasn’t said a word on this string at all. I bet his girlfriend is telling him to keep his mouth shut. Just like she told him he’d better apologize to the judge if he wanted to get out of jail – which he did. That was a classic move using your girlfriend as a scapegoat, Ian. She’s way stronger than you give her credit for. She would have been fine for 93 days.

Comment by Troy

November 22, 2008 @ 5:26 pm

Rochester,

You are confusing rule of law with government. The idea that Africa has “less” government is preposterous. Less order- yes, less government- no. Most of Africa is a textbook case of government gone wild. See: Zimbabwe- a country with no property rights, no liberty, no rule of law, hyperinflation, just government-by-whim by a tyrant and his looting henchmen. Mugabe is kind of like a democrat on steroids.

There are really only two philospohies: collectivism and individualism. One views individuals as a means to a “greater good” (which is defined by the tyrant who is in charge) and the other views individuals as their own ends.

One seeks to use government to keep people in line (stand before his honor or go to jail!), the other accepts it as only a method to keep the mob from looting the property of individuals.

If you want to live in a free country you must accept that people will do, say, write things that you may not like such as putting a sofa in the yard.

Do you want to live in a free country or not?

Comment by Rochester

November 24, 2008 @ 4:32 pm

Of course I want to live in a free country. As I accept the fact that people may do things I don’t like, I also accept the fact that there are laws, rules and ordinances in place that I may disagree with. Be them in the form of speed limits to try to help keep us safe or ordinances to keep people from spoiling natures majestic beauty by leaving old couches in their front yard for nine months.

PA- You know full well this isn’t about sitting down fast enough. Don’t ask me stupid questions again. If your post was spoken I would sue you for stealing oxygen from me that I could have used to smoke another cigarette. Even at my most immature my posts have a valid point buried somewhere in there. Nick said it best, and I quote: “Rochester is right”. I am always right. Get off your high horse and grovel before my greatness.

Comment by Jason

November 25, 2008 @ 4:10 am

Rochester

In your words then, what is this whole situation about?

Laws and statutes are different. Laws are created to protect people. Statutes are created to make money for the state.

No one is going to argue that driving 45 mph in a school zone at 3:30pm is dangerous and the speeder should get in trouble. But what about “rolling” a stop sign at 2:30 am? Is that offence really hurting anyone?

My point is, the ideas of authority and liberty need to be kept in balance.

You’re right; this isn’t about sitting down fast enough. It’s a bigger dick contest. The judge knew Ian wouldn’t simply submit, so he arrested the guy for challanging his authority to show what a big man he is.

Comment by Zeus

November 25, 2008 @ 2:41 pm

I just made a motion for an ordinance that says anyone using the pseudonym “Rochester” on my computer screen must pay me $50 every time they post on the internet and I see it. My friend seconded the motion and it passed into law.

Since the two of us outnumber you and you didn’t even vote on it, the majority wins by default. Since I know you like to follow arbitrary rules made up by people you don’t know who tell you what to do with your property, I’m sure you’ll pay up, right? You can go ahead and just donate the entire amount to Free Talk Live or Free Minds TV in whatever proportion you wish.

Wow, this whole democracy thing is the bee’s knees!

Comment by Rochester

November 25, 2008 @ 5:02 pm

Jason,

It’s about some guy who would not follow the rules.

Fact: The couch was in his front yard for nine months. This was not a Halloween decoration his “tenant” put out a few weeks before with a scarecrow and some strategically placed leaves to create a cute autumn scene. Thus it’s an eyesore.

Fact: He was asked multiple times to remove said garbage (read:couch) from his front yard.

I agree no the couch was not “hurting” anyone. However, some people like to take pride in where the live. I know, I know, this is apparently a foreign concept. What if everyone in Keene had an old couch sitting in their front yard? Is this the image of your city you want to put forth? This is the reason for the ordinances such as these. Think about it you know I am right.

Finally, I take issue with your rolling stop point. It makes no sense. Yes, you would most likely get pulled over for a DWI check. However, were you sober, did what you were asked and treated the officer with respect he 9 times out of 10 he would let you carry on about your business.

Zues,
Your comment is invalid and summarily dismissed as such. You sir are a dolt. Present a valid point and I will give you a valid and respectful answer. Reading your post robbed me of thirty seconds of my life that I will never get back. I would sue you for compensation but that has yet to pass into law.

Comment by Zeus

November 25, 2008 @ 5:23 pm

Fact: It sat in his yard for 2 years, not 9 months, ya Nimrod.

Fact: He was asked jack squat. Asking implies you have the choice of saying no and not getting locked up in a cage for it. Instead of being asked, he was threatened multiple times by a city bureaucrat who barely filled out the paperwork. No one else was vocal about having a problem with the couch.

Fact: You’re responsible for what you choose to read. You’re claim would be dismissed, Jackball.

Fact: Your “facts” are anything but.

Comment by Rochester

November 25, 2008 @ 6:10 pm

You still have yet to make a valid point. Ok so I said the couch was there far less time than I had knowledge of. So what? You read my complete post. He didn’t follow the rules. Fair enough technically it wasn’t a question but, don’t presume to tell me the cops kicked his door down in the middle of the night and dragged him off to jail because that is not what happened so do not insult my intelligence. Stop trying to paint a false picture. Ian isn’t stupid he knew what he was doing thats why he had his camera guy in the courtroom.

Jackball and nimrod aren’t nearly as witty as my line about you robbing me of thirty seconds of my life either. C’mon dude try harder.

Comment by Zeus

November 25, 2008 @ 6:40 pm

“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” – Ayn Rand”

Well, for the sake of repeating what everyone has already tried to explain a thousand times already to statists such as yourself…

1. The land and house are his property since he paid for them in good faith. Ownership means you get to determine what is or isn’t done with what you own and no one else can tell you otherwise. If they can, then you don’t really own it and whomever is responsible for “selling” it to you under false pretenses should be sued for “selling” you something they didn’t own.

2. Who made those rules? A bunch of men and women who were able to convince a bunch of other men and women to check a box next to their name in a booth somewhere. Ian didn’t vote for them and he didn’t consent to their rules. There is no implicit agreement between him and the city to obey their arbitrary ordinances. If they own the land (which would give them property rights over it), they should prove it. And then they should be sued for deceptively leasing the property under the fraudulent pretense of it being an outright “sale”.

3. Ian got jailed because the judge went off his nut, plain and simple.

4. No one cares about your wit. This isn’t an ego-stroking contest. You’re either here to discuss the facts and philosophy of the situation or you’re here to troll. I think you’ve already established which one you’re here to do quite plainly.

Comment by Rochester

November 25, 2008 @ 8:33 pm

Finally a well put response.

1 and 2. True but with ownership comes responsibility. I am sure Ian is a good guy and a fine neighbor. But, again the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Not everyone will respect thy neighbor. Again, one mans couch is a pile of trash in the next mans lawn. He was told to remove the offending piece of trash so you do it. If you don’t agree then fine but you do it anyway because you respect other people and the rules put forth by the governing body. He was asked repeatedly to remove it so you remove it. Complain, whine, fight for your right whatever but you follow the rules, that is how you gain respect. Again, dude you completely disregarded my comment about “civic pride” and why we have these “silly” ordinances. Yeah it’s property “ownership” not ownership but you should know that going in. Plus I would gather a bank actually owns said house not Ian. Just taking a wild guess but I would say he didn’t pay cash for it.

3. Yes, the video would suggest such. However, I am thinking this is not the first nor the last time Ian was in a courtroom in Keene. I mean come on we all have our limits. This guy was asked to move a couch and kept coming back with “offers”. You think this judge wants to screw around with this guy every week? He has bigger fish to fry. Ian jerked the system around instead of making a valid point. Why doesn’t he run for city council? Thats how our system works, sorry too bad. The “closed trial was broadcast on closed circuit tv but surprise no one knows what went on in there. No mention of questions asked of Ian, no mention of questions asked by Ian. That and we probably didn’t see the whole video.

4. Stop with your nonsense. I have made good strong valid points in all my posts but maybe one or two. I was simply trying to insert some personality into the discussion, but you don’t appreciate that. Fine I can accept that but I am who I am.

Additionally, if I was here to troll so what? Don’t take away my freedom or better yet my liberty to act like an ass in an open forum. There are no rules I had to agree to to post,I had to only answer a simple mathematical equation. The admins can IP ban me at any time. Don’t be a hypocrite.

Comment by Zeus

November 25, 2008 @ 10:03 pm

1 and 2. True but with ownership comes responsibility. I am sure Ian is a good guy and a fine neighbor. But, again the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Not everyone will respect thy neighbor. Again, one mans couch is a pile of trash in the next mans lawn.

Correct and the proper response to that is not to call men with guns to threaten him, it is first to ask him politely to remove the offending couch and to ostracize him publicly if he does not.

He was told to remove the offending piece of trash so you do it.

Says who? It’s his property (the house and land). It’s his tenants’ couch. Just because some stranger comes up to you and tells you do something doesn’t mean you do it. That’s completely illogical.

If you join the military and you are asked to jump, you do indeed say “How high?” because you contracted with them to obey their rules in return for medical care, training, spiffy clothing, a gun and a modest paycheck.

Ian has no such contract with the people calling themselves “The City of Keene”. He has requested no services from them in exchange for his obedience and no such contract between them exists.

He pays for all the services he wants (electric, water, heat, etc.) voluntarily. And yet he is not only robbed each year in the form of property taxes on land he supposedly owns but they also claim to be able to tell him what to do with his property at a whim.

Looking at those facts, no one can honestly claim that the City of Keene is not simply just another group of men and women who arbitrarily make up rules and force others to follow them involuntarily through the use of force or the threat thereof.

If you can’t admit that much, you’re simply being dishonest with yourself.

If you don’t agree then fine but you do it anyway because you respect other people and the rules put forth by the governing body.

1.) Ian did not choose the governing body. He did not vote for it nor contract with it and, as Thomas Jefferson himself said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people [who bothered to vote] may take away the rights of the other forty-nine [plus all those who didn't bother voting].”

2.”Governing bodies” do not exist in reality as they are a mental fiction, a pseudonym or alias for a group of men and women who claim authority over the people and land of a particular geographic area and who use men with guns to enforce their will.

He was asked repeatedly to remove it so you remove it.

You said that already.

Complain, whine, fight for your right whatever but you follow the rules, that is how you gain respect.

No, you gain respect by interacting with others in a peaceful manner, giving them as much freedom to do as they will (so long as they harm no one) as you would wish for yourself. You don’t use physical or mental violence against them, you don’t deceive or defraud them and you don’t steal from them.

“Following the rules to gain respect” is what Slaves do to gain status with their Masters. Judging by your mindset thus far, you will do well when the robot overlords come to claim us all.

Again, dude you completely disregarded my comment about “civic pride” and why we have these “silly” ordinances.

“Civic Pride” is simply a buzz phrase used by collectivist masters to fool their slaves into following orders by giving them a happy fuzzy feeling when doing so.

It’s no different than how “National Pride” and “Racial Pride” have been used throughout history by dictators, religious orders and cultists to fool people into feeling good about following their Masters’ orders.

Yeah it’s property “ownership” not ownership but you should know that going in. Plus I would gather a bank actually owns said house not Ian. Just taking a wild guess but I would say he didn’t pay cash for it.

So here you openly admit that the house and land were sold to Ian deceptively if anyone else is allowed to tell him what to do with said property or in your words: “Ownership” is not ownership. Thanks for clarifying.

And yes, Ian owns the property outright. There was no clause about “Ownership” not being ownership nor any clause about him agreeing to follow city ordinances in the sales contract.

3. Yes, the video would suggest such. However, I am thinking this is not the first nor the last time Ian was in a courtroom in Keene.

It was his second actually. And the judge threatened him with arrest the first time. I will admit Ian was following some very bad legal advice but he did nothing, as the video shows, to illicit a smack down like that.

I mean come on we all have our limits. This guy was asked to move a couch and kept coming back with “offers”. You think this judge wants to screw around with this guy every week?

Then maybe he should have accepted one of Ian’s reasonable offers or just dropped the case. They brought the fight to Ian, not the other way around.

He has bigger fish to fry.

You would think so, wouldn’t you? But instead the judge and his cronies chose to force Ian to come to their courtroom the first time with the expectation that he would enter a plea.

The court then entered “not guilty” for him when Ian asked for clarification as to the nature and cause of the charge. If they can do that without his consent (and their own law states that they cannot), then he didn’t even need to be there.

The second time, they forced him to be there under threat of warrant and arrest. No sooner had he said “I’m uhh” when they addressed him did the judge start barking at him like a wild animal.

Ian asked for none of this and offered them several avenues to drop the whole thing. They chose to continue antagonizing him.

Ian jerked the system around instead of making a valid point.

If you can make a valid point with the words “I’m uhh” before the judge starts barking at you, be my guest.

Why doesn’t he run for city council? Thats how our system works, sorry too bad.

That’s how YOUR system might work, it’s not how Ian’s system works. Ian did not agree to your system, does not participate in your system (voluntarily) and isn’t harming anyone. “Sorry, too bad” doesn’t cut it nor does it change the immorality of your system to violate peaceful persons who have committed no crime against another person or someone else’s property. “Sorry, too bad” is nothing more than a cop out to justify the immorality of your system and it’s violence against him. So there.

The “closed trial was broadcast on closed circuit tv but surprise no one knows what went on in there. No mention of questions asked of Ian, no mention of questions asked by Ian. That and we probably didn’t see the whole video.

For someone so sure of himself, you are sorely ill-informed on this subject. The full video is available online. Ian and his captors know exactly what happened in that room and Ian has covered what kinds of questions they asked. Nice try.

4. Stop with your nonsense. I have made good strong valid points in all my posts but maybe one or two. I was simply trying to insert some personality into the discussion, but you don’t appreciate that. Fine I can accept that but I am who I am.

My nonsense? Calling the Kettle black you are, Mr. Pot.

Additionally, if I was here to troll so what? Don’t take away my freedom or better yet my liberty to act like an ass in an open forum. There are no rules I had to agree to to post,I had to only answer a simple mathematical equation. The admins can IP ban me at any time. Don’t be a hypocrite.

I haven’t taken away anything, I was merely clarifying my speculation at your true purpose here… just so that there aren’t any illusions otherwise.

Comment by ROCHESTER

November 25, 2008 @ 10:42 pm

Lemme see if this works….GREAT! Since you’re reading this, I *can* post as “rochester”(all caps…)But really, I’m only Curt Springer, pretending to be “Central Scrutinizer”….my REAL NAME is “Former Spook”…this is so much fun!….

Comment by Troy

November 25, 2008 @ 11:03 pm

Rochester,

You seem to be making the pro-liberty point when you admitted that the couch wasn’t hurting anybody.

In a society that respects property rights, the community recourse to the eyesore on Ian’s property would be to reason with him, pay him to remove it, or sanction him with some SYMMETRICAL response like witholding neighborliness.

Running to the “code enforcers” and employing an agent of the state with the ability to incarcerate and fine is neither a symmetrical response nor neighborly. But that is exactly what our nanny state is devolving into- the tattle-tale society!

Regards,

Troy

P.S. When laws become too numerous, onerous, and vague, they cease being a means of defining order and become a tool for one group to harrass, and intimidate another.

Comment by Eduardo

November 29, 2008 @ 12:38 pm

Dear Ian,
Your letter brought tears to my eyes.
I do hope you guys are able to reach out to more people with the message of freedom and touch their minds and hearts as you have done me.
Thank you so much!
Eduardo, in Sao Paulo, Brazil

Comment by Starchild

December 22, 2008 @ 6:47 am

Jen,

I notice you repeatedly use the term “extremists” to criticize people. I’d like to remind you of a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

““Though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.’… Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.”
-Martin Luther King, Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Comment by Unforgiven

December 28, 2008 @ 9:59 pm

“Dear Mikaela, I forgive you.” -IAN

“Beware the sin of forgiveness.” – AYN RAND

Comment by geofalcon007

January 1, 2009 @ 6:14 pm

The claim wasmade that Ian did not vulunteer into “the system”. I believe he did. I bet you will find that Keene is an incorporated body politic. (read government corporation).

When he contracted with the property owner to buy the property that later became the focus of a government action concerning a couch, he knowingly entered into a contract to buy the bundle of rights that the seller had to sell him. (All property ownership is a bundle of rights)

He knew that the property was in the jurisdiction of an incorporated entity with ordinances, services and an executive branch and a legislative branch The STATE takes care of the judicial branch). He knew that the body politic elected a governing council, the executive branch, the mayor and councilors. He knew that being in the geographical bounds of the “city of Keene” would subject him to the “rules” of the City of Keene.

I think the real problem is the the “movements” understanding of just what rights they bought when they bought someones property. I also think the problem is there understanding of government.

I believe Ian mentioned the free market and homeowners associations. What is so magical about a homeowners association when it is contrasted with government? Elected bodies, by laws and the preservation of rights are ideas and principles found in both models.

The problem with the government is people and their egos and personalities. You find busy bodies in homeowners associations just like you find executive bureacrats in government.

I listened to Sam and Ian on the talk show and they came across a confriontational argumentitive and they apparently pissed someone off as a result of their attitutde.

A government or a homeowners association is only as good as the people that serve on the board or are appointed to enforce the ground rules or by laws or ordinances.

No body politic will ever be effective in creating a freestate.

I am on the zoning board of appeals in the town I live in and I am looking to get elected to the planning board. I serve becasue I believe that the current group of individuals acting as the executive branch of government pushs an agenda of control instead of protecting peoples rights I actively remind people that government is supposed to protect their rights and I tell them when I think that they are trying to infringe on those rights. I am also a town meeting member, the legislative body of the body politic.

Comment by Vesuvius

January 2, 2009 @ 3:36 pm

The “movement” has a perfect understanding of government. There are two ways people can interact with one another and influence the others action: by reason or by force.

Civilized people meet each other on a level field and employ reason and persuasion to bring about whatever result they desire. Force is not an appropriate or acceptable tactic, and that is what government chooses to do. If reason fails the state they resort to the institutionalized force they claim exclusive use of.

So-called private citizens who dare to control their neighbor via force are usually treated to a return of equal force. The state, however, simply escalates the use of force while justifying it in defense of some vaguely defined greater good.

For a society that wants to fallaciously aggregate all people as one body politic, isn’t the state aggressing upon all when it aggresses upon one?

Comment by geofalcon007

January 2, 2009 @ 10:01 pm

Hey Vesuvius “civilized people meet on a level playing field” and “employee reason or persuasion” to bring about a desired result. Works if you believe everyone is reasonable and no unreasonable people will ever be encountered.

What about when the guy with deep pockets wants to buy the land around your home to put a toxic waste dump in or what about the pig farmer that doesn’r care about economics , becasue he is unreasonable, buys the houses around you and has 100 hogs surrounding you. What are you going to do to reasonably talk him out of doing what he wants to with his private property?

The concept sounds great in writing on a blog but does not work in the real world becasue people are greedy, egotistical,vindictive and do not care about your “rights”

The economic value of my investment can be undermined by someone buying the land in my neighborhood and doing anything they want to. Why is it so hard to understand that zoning and building codes have been instituted to protect my investment.

In your world view, my quite enjoyment and economic value of my property is at risk by someone selling their property to someone that might build something on the property that causes a nusiance or a tresspass. I do not have a reasonable protection from someone putting something less than desireable next to my “castle” or in the neighborhood. I have no redress for a greivence against the new use or the new neighbor that I believe has cuased me harm.

At least with zoning and building codes I have a reasonable expectation that the houses around my castle will not be sold to a pig farmer. (I do not want to hear about the likelyhood of this happening is slim becasue of economics)

I have a reasonable expectation that the contractor that built the house employeed minimum building standards and it will not posion me or fall down . A mortgage banker and an insurance company also have that expectation. The building code also ensures that materials used will allow for a safe evacuation of the building in time for the fire department to come an put the fire out. ( How does it work in your world view when you have to tell the family members of the 100 or so people that died in the rhode Island night club fire becasue they used what ever they wanted)

The “movement” has not gotten past government is force and I never consented to be forced statements. When the “movement” begins to explain why it is better to develope and redevelope property sans zoning and building codes and how society would be better off for it I venture to say it might begin to make progress.

I have had this disussion on some yahoo groups. When I asked if the anti zoning/building code people how society would function without them I was summarily removed from the list without an explaination .

If you rely on the fire department to put out a fire in your house, why is it unreasonable to collect money in advance ? How would it work if it was privatized? What business man would by a municipal fire department and rely solely on user fees? Millions of dollars in capital investment and more money to staff it 24/7.

The real problem is “the movement” believes it never consented. The real problem is the “movement does not deal with unreasonable elected or appointed officials or thepaid staff.

I say you consent to be subject to the “rules” of a municipality and a state by living within its geograhpical boundary.

Comment by Zeus

January 3, 2009 @ 8:41 am

geofalcon007 wrote:
I bet you will find that Keene is an incorporated body politic. (read government corporation).

Indeed, Keene is a Municipal Corporation.

When he contracted with the property owner to buy the property that later became the focus of a government action concerning a couch, he knowingly entered into a contract to buy the bundle of rights that the seller had to sell him. (All property ownership is a bundle of rights). He knew that the property was in the jurisdiction of an incorporated entity with ordinances, services and an executive branch and a legislative branch The STATE takes care of the judicial branch). He knew that the body politic elected a governing council, the executive branch, the mayor and councilors. He knew that being in the geographical bounds of the “city of Keene” would subject him to the “rules” of the City of Keene. I think the real problem is the the “movements” understanding of just what rights they bought when they bought someones property. I also think the problem is there understanding of government.

All of this is irrelevant or flawed logic. Government claims to be the true owner of all property. You may possess property at their behest but, depending on the situation, you must pay taxes. If the property is land, you pay a property tax. If the property is a gift from someone, you pay a gift tax. There are also death taxes and inheritance taxes, etc.

If you truly owned anything, you wouldn’t need to pay a tax on it because it’s yours and not theirs which means YOU have all rights to it.

Which brings us to Ian. The seller of the property, like most of us at one time or another, probably thought they owned that bundle of rights you talked about above. They paid for it right? Spent tens of thousands of dollars to *buy* that property over X amount of years right? Of course not. Did we already forget? “Government claims to be the true owner of all property.” So the seller sells Ian a bundle of rights over the property because he/she believes they have the authority to do so. Ian buys those rights in *good faith*, thinking that he is the Owner of the property. The contract between them says nothing about obeying the government or that the government is the true owner. It also doesn’t matter what Ian and the seller know or don’t know about jurisdictions and geographical boundaries or whatever. What matters is what’s in the contract.

If it ain’t written down and specified in the agreement, it is irrelevant. This is why there are contracts: to spell it all out so everybody knows what they’re agreeing to and neither party can later claim something else.

And yes, I will agree with you that there is a problem with people understanding what rights they’ve purchased when they “buy” property. This is because the government has conned most Americans into thinking that he who pays for the property owns the property. It should be clear that the government should not be allowed to lie to people in this fashion. If government is going to claim “true ownership” unto eternity over all property and protect that ownership claim by deadly force, that should appear somewhere in the contract, otherwise, all claims regarding ownership (and the ability to tax the property) should be considered null and void.

Comment by Zeus

January 3, 2009 @ 9:41 am

Geofalcon007 wrote:
What about when the guy with deep pockets wants to buy the land around your home to put a toxic waste dump in or what about the pig farmer that doesn’r care about economics , becasue he is unreasonable, buys the houses around you and has 100 hogs surrounding you. What are you going to do to reasonably talk him out of doing what he wants to with his private property?

The concept sounds great in writing on a blog but does not work in the real world becasue people are greedy, egotistical,vindictive and do not care about your “rights”

This is essentially the same dire argument that always comes up on the radio show. It is called the \”Utopian Argument\” i.e. because a liberty-based voluntary society is not perfect, we should all just stick with the status quo of tyranny by voting majority.

First, there is no Utopia. No society will ever be perfect. The one we have now, however, can be better by applying the tenets of freedom and voluntary interaction.

Now you mention the guy dumping toxic waste all around your yard as if there aren\’t any rules to a voluntary society. A voluntary society is not the same thing as a chaotic anarchy (in the modern sense of the word).

How many times do Ian and Mark have to say \”Do what you want so long as it doesn\’t infringe upon the rights of others.\” before critics actually hear any of the words after \”Do what you want…\”? If it WAS \”Do what you want\” and that was it, then yeah, you\’d have a point. It would be a chaotic free-for-all without rules. But it isn\’t. There are rules and the biggest of them is that you cannot infringe on the rights of others.

\”What if I do? Who\’s going to stop me?\”, you say. Well, likely whomever you\’re trying to infringe on, their family, their friends anyone else who believes what you\’re doing is damaging to that person. But, since we are men and women of reason (as Vesuvius pointed out), courts of arbitration would need to be established to settle disputes so that force wasn\’t necessary. These would likely be populated by men and women of good standing in voluntary society, people who have reputations and are seen with high regard for their dealings with others. It remains to be seen how this would evolve but the point is this: If you don\’t want to be part of that society, you don\’t have to. You DO have to respect the rights of others, however. So yes, while there are unreasonable men and women in the world, they would not last long in a voluntary society and would likely be better off plundering and pillaging the seacoast or something else.

A society must have rules. Our beef is that the rules (laws) in current society are arbitrary and involuntary whereas the rules of a free, voluntary society are based on Natural Rights (vs Legal Rights).

\”Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.\”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

This is what the Founding Fathers were talking about in the Declaration of Independence when they said all men were endowed with certain unalienable rights.

You should look into it. Perhaps you will better understand the finer points of our philosophy.

Comment by geofalon007

January 3, 2009 @ 11:07 am

Zeus,

When property is sold and a deed is drawn up to document the passing of title it sometimes has a clause in it that says I sell to the buyer the rights I have to the property and nothing more.

In other words if I do not have absolute title to the property the next buyer will not have absolute title to the property either.

That which you claim to without the 4 corners of the law, the contract for sale, is actually in the contract right in front of you.

I whole heartedly believe it is a problem of lack of knowledge the people suffer from regarding what ownership is.

Isn’t ownership just a mental construt to facilitate orderly living? Ownership can be in many forms and subdivided . Doesn’t the bank have equitable ownership until the mortgage/note is satisfied. That is not a condiion of 100% ownerhip is it. When a husband and wife own it together, that is not 100% ownerhip isn’t it. They have a divided interest in the property so it is not absolute ownership is it?

Private property means that I have the right to exclude others and it is the antithesis of public property.

Didn’t the government get “title” to the colonies whne it threw of the “King”? Are the people the government? Did the collective formely Englishmen now american citizens get the ownership the king formerly have? The status of the one in pssoession of the land did not change but who had absolute title to the land did change, didn’t it. Did anyone really have “100% ownership” of the land anyway? So how could I sell you something that was never possesed by anyone in the chain of title to begin with? If it was never in the chain of title as a right in the bundle of rights how is it that you beleive that it is a “fraud” on the American people and the government is lying?

Havent you ever studied the forms of ownership that are founds in deeds, fee simple, tenants by the entirety, joint tenants with right of survivorship, thenants in common, etc. Fee simple is the highest form of owernship in the united states of America and is subject to the 4 powers of government, the police power, (zoning and building codes), emenent domain, (power to take private property for a public use) taxation and escheat.

You claim that the government needs to be recognized in the contract or its claims are null and void. I maintain that they are there right in the open and are found if the people are knowledgable about what happens when purchasing land and buildings called real estate.

When people reference the takings clause of the 5th amendment and say that it protects private property but not real estate have you ever pondered what it is taking about?

If you have a good understanding of what happens in a transaction to pass title on land and buildings you might come to understand that all forms of ownership of said land and buildings is a type of estate andthat the terms private and public property are used to deliniate who has title to the property. It is private property when a non government entity has title and public property when the government has title.

As an example, your castle is private property when you buty the bundle of rights to it. when you sell it to the government corporatiopn know as the City of Keene and they have the title to it it is public property. It is a description of the owner and not necissarily as description of the absolute ownership of the complete bundle of rights.

Remeber this too, geofalcon007 does believe that the “government and its force” , in particular, zoning and building codes, have become a tool for evil tryannical egos to weild against a populace that has not been vigilante in restaining the use of this force. It must be dealt with constantly. the people are the ones to blame for not watching the servants , elected appointed, or paid so they get away with what they can until they are challenged. I do not believe the form of “government” needs to be changed, I believe the ones that populate the positions of servants need to be changed on a regular basis until one is found to be just in their applivastion of the delegated power and authority, when they become abusive they needto go in turn as well.

You also missed my point about the contract between a homeowners association and the municipal corporation know a a government entity.

Doesn’t the homeowners association have police powers to impose fines for non compliance to a by law,and doesn’t it have a geographical boundary? Doesn’t it require a maintenence fee for “common areas or “public property”? Doesn’t it have the authority to lien approperty if the maintnece fees are not paid and force a sale of the property? If you know enough to be concerned about the impacty of a homeowners association on the property you might by shouldn’t you be concerned about the government as well?

Comment by Zeus

January 3, 2009 @ 3:57 pm

When property is sold and a deed is drawn up to document the passing of title it sometimes has a clause in it that says I sell to the buyer the rights I have to the property and nothing more.

“Sometimes” being the key word there. Again, if it isn’t in the contract, it is irrelevant. That’s why they have contracts, so that the entire agreement between the two parties is written down and the terms viewable by all parties.

In other words if I do not have absolute title to the property the next buyer will not have absolute title to the property either.

If you do not have absolute title to the property, it should not be sold as such. It should be very clear what you are and are not transferring. Most people in America are gullible and take things for granted. Considering it takes a lawyer 8+ years to understand a fraction of all the laws out there, the average joe and jane haven’t got a chance at understanding all that legalese gobbledygook in most current contracts and thus leave it up to the agent, the bank and the seller to be fair and sell them what they think they are buying. As we’ve seen recently with all the ARM mortgages going topsy-turvy on millions of so-called homeowners, the only person you can really trust to look out for YOUR interests is YOU.

That which you claim to without the 4 corners of the law, the contract for sale, is actually in the contract right in front of you.

I’ve asked Ian about his contract. He claims that there is no language stating that the government claims ownership or that he must abide by their diktats nor pay a toll for “possessing” the property. I have no reason to doubt him. I have never seen any such language in a sales contract and I’m certain co-host Nick M. (also on Free Minds TV/Radio) would know since that’s his day job.

I whole heartedly believe it is a problem of lack of knowledge the people suffer from regarding what ownership is.

And I wholeheartedly believe it is a problem of delusion on the part of bureaucrats that makes them think they somehow own everything anyone else possesses and thus it can be taxed and controlled. If they actually do own something (and I don’t see how that’s possible considering anything they bought was purchased with stolen money), they tend to lie to people when they offer to “sell” it to them i.e. not inform them that “by using the word sell, we really mean we’re leasing it to you.”

Isn’t ownership just a mental construt to facilitate orderly living?

Either people own things or they don’t. It all starts with whether or not you own yourself. Your body, your labor and the results of your labor. If not, anyone can take anything from you and you can anything from anyone else and that’s going to cause a shitstorm of problems. So yes, ownership rights do indeed facilitate a just and orderly society. Lying about what you’re selling (or not being entirely forthcoming about it) or selling what you don’t own, however, is fraud and deception.

Ownership can be in many forms and subdivided . Doesn’t the bank have equitable ownership until the mortgage/note is satisfied. That is not a condiion of 100% ownerhip is it. When a husband and wife own it together, that is not 100% ownerhip isn’t it. They have a divided interest in the property so it is not absolute ownership is it?

Certainly people can make contracts with each other to divvy up property ownership among several parties. Again, I’ve never seen a sales contract for a house or a lot that said the government retained true ownership, had the right to tax you and that you had to obey their diktats in regards to the property. Again, if it isn’t in the contract, it doesn’t mean squat.

Didn’t the government get “title” to the colonies whne it threw of the “King”? Are the people the government? Did the collective formely Englishmen now american citizens get the ownership the king formerly have? The status of the one in pssoession of the land did not change but who had absolute title to the land did change, didn’t it.

The government claims it got title to the colonies via the spoils of war. Some people claim to be the government. The possession of the land did not change as it does when you buy a house and occupy it.

Did anyone really have “100% ownership” of the land anyway?

The Indians did but it was stolen from them by the English King and his flunkies.

So how could I sell you something that was never possesed by anyone in the chain of title to begin with? If it was never in the chain of title as a right in the bundle of rights how is it that you beleive that it is a “fraud” on the American people and the government is lying?

You’re using my own argument to try and invalidate my claim. It belonged to the Indians, was taken from them by force by the English and was then taken from the English by the U.S. Government which divvied it all up amongst the states and the counties and the towns who then teamed up with the banks and real estate agents to “sell” a piece to Joe and Jane Homebuyer who thought they were really getting a loan to actually buy the property. Poor Jane and Joe, like most of us foolish Americans, didn’t think twice about paying property taxes because they bought into the whole social contract idea the government espouses. But the sad truth is that they got taken for a ride. They thought they were buying something but instead, they were really just leasing it. Why do I say it was leased and not sold? Because you don’t pay taxes on something you actually own. Unless the contract actually stated that they were only buying some of the property rights and that they government maintained true ownership, then it was “sold” via deception and fraud. Period.

Havent you ever studied the forms of ownership that are founds in deeds, fee simple, tenants by the entirety, joint tenants with right of survivorship, thenants in common, etc. Fee simple is the highest form of owernship in the united states of America and is subject to the 4 powers of government, the police power, (zoning and building codes), emenent domain, (power to take private property for a public use) taxation and escheat.

Unlike most Americans who don’t have time or the inclination to bother with such things, I have indeed researched and studied the concept of fee simple.

I think it’s a load of horse crap.

The whole concept is born from a “legal rights” perspective (which is pretty much an “Obey us or we shall smite thee” attitude) rather than a “natural rights” perspective (which is a pro-liberty attitude).

While I am certain the concept of fee simple is how the bureaucrats rationalize their fraud and deception (if they even bother to rationalize it beyond “STFU up and do what I say or else”), it is still fraud and deception.

In other words, fee simple is a con game and not only is it immoral but it is entirely incompatible with the philosophy of liberty, voluntary interaction and explicit consent.

And thus it is an argument that holds no weight with me.

You claim that the government needs to be recognized in the contract or its claims are null and void. I maintain that they are there right in the open and are found if the people are knowledgable about what happens when purchasing land and buildings called real estate.

And I maintain that if you find it and prove it’s there in plain English, then yeah, then you would be right in that particular case. I have not nor do I know of anyone who has ever seen such a clause.

When people reference the takings clause of the 5th amendment and say that it protects private property but not real estate have you ever pondered what it is taking about?

I have not. First, that’s another legal rights argument rather than a natural rights argument. Second, I have no interest in the rules of operation for a business a bunch of dead men created to 200+ years ago other than not wanting to be harmed or stolen from by their successors, particularly when that business uses force and coercion to achieve its goals and it’s operating agreement has failed miserably at “bind[ing them] down from mischief in the chains of the Constitution”.

Might as well have been paperclips.

Comment by geofalon007

January 3, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

Didn’t the Englishmen throw off their King to try an experiment with self-government and wasn’t it based on the concept of natural rights?

They became Americans and had a government of the people by the people and for the people to protect their rights and limited their government to subject enumerated in the federal constitution.

How would the liberty-based society with its rules and courts of arbitration where no ones rights are to be infringed on be different than what we have today?

How does the public infrastructure get maintained? Who pays for the fire and police departments and the courts? Water and sewer? trash? what are the proposed rules? Are they different that the laws statutes regulations ordinances and by laws we have today?

When you are able to communicate to people what this society will look like and how it will function you might have something, until then you will probably be received like people that hate authority and have no respect for the current rule of law. (not meant to attack anyone but stated as an observation.

Show me a ‘charter” for this newly founded society. If someone is going to buy into this “community” when they purchase property, should they be able to see the rules and know how what the cost of living on property in this new community?

If we woke up one day and Keene New Hampshire was operating under this model what would it look like?

Would I have to send my kids to school? Do I need a driver’s license? Could I operate a casino? Can I open a gentlemen’s club next to a church? How about a concrete patch plant or an asphalt plant next to a water supply? Assuming the water supply is for the whole community? Can I burn my garbage in my front yard? Could I burn my house down intentionally an not be charged with arson? What if I killed someone on a public street with my family car? Is there auto insurance that the widow would be entitled to and mandatory for me to have?

I am really trying to understand how this society would be fundamentally different than the one we currently live in?

Comment by Zeus

January 3, 2009 @ 9:06 pm

Didn’t the Englishmen throw off their King to try an experiment with self-government and wasn’t it based on the concept of natural rights?

Men and women of English descent did indeed band together to throw off the shackles of a tyrant king. 56 men crafted a Declaration of Independence. While some of these men were pro-liberty and believers in natural rights vs legal rights, there were others who still believed in the divine right of kings, men who wanted another monarchy. Don’t be fooled by “pop history” revisionists into thinking the alliance they shared was an easy one.

Like any group of diverse personalities, there was compromise and argument. In fact, several members of the group refused to sign unless a Bill of Rights was added, to ensure that the new government would not simply devolve into one just as imperious as the one they had cast off.

They became Americans and had a government of the people by the people and for the people to protect their rights and limited their government to subject enumerated in the federal constitution.

They became Americans long before they had cast off the tyranny of King George. Most of these men had been born in America, lived in America and would die in America.

And while it’s a nice sentiment, “for the people by the people” devolved over time into “for the privileged by the ignorant”, with wealthy elites, actors and oil men being voted into office by throngs of duped voters, fooled into believing whatever lies politicians spewed forth from their lying mouths.

How would the liberty-based society with its rules and courts of arbitration where no ones rights are to be infringed on be different than what we have today?

How does the public infrastructure get maintained? Who pays for the fire and police departments and the courts? Water and sewer? trash? what are the proposed rules? Are they different that the laws statutes regulations ordinances and by laws we have today?

The first rule is the golden rule. Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you. Do as you will so long as you do not infringe upon the natural rights of others. No killing, assaulting, raping, stealing or defrauding.

The public infrastructure is maintained not unlike it is now but for one exception: Those who want it pay for it and those who don’t do not.

The difference being that you are robbed on a regular basis via taxation to pay for things you do not use or approve of. In a voluntary society, you pay for the things you want voluntarily and are never forced to pay for something you do not want or use.

If someone is going to buy into this “community” when they purchase property, should they be able to see the rules and know how what the cost of living on property in this new community?

Of course. And you could opt out as well.

If we woke up one day and Keene New Hampshire was operating under this model what would it look like?

Would I have to send my kids to school?

You’re the parent. They’re your responsibility. Do as thou wilt in this regard so long as you aren’t forcing others to pay for their schooling.

If you’re a caring parent who doesn’t want a bunch of jobless dim bulbs running around, you’ll either educate them yourself or pay someone to do it for you. But no one is going to force you.

Do I need a driver’s license?

If you can drive I don’t see why you’d need one. If you can’t drive, we’ll know soon enough and you’ll be paying the consequences.

Could I operate a casino?

As long as you aren’t defrauding anyone, go for it.

Can I open a gentlemen’s club next to a church?

If you want an angry mob of zealots outside your building all hours of the day and night bothering your customers and the bad publicity that would come from it, be my guest. A wiser businessman would choose a different location IMO.

How about a concrete patch plant or an asphalt plant next to a water supply? Assuming the water supply is for the whole community?

If you can keep your pollution on your property without it seeping over to your neighbors or infecting the water supply of others, asphalt away. Otherwise, you may be sued for damages.

Can I burn my garbage in my front yard?

If you have the power to keep the smoke and stink in your yard (some kind of smokeless incinerator? A glass dome over your house?), go ahead.

Could I burn my house down intentionally an not be charged with arson?

If you do it to defraud an insurance company, no. That would be theft. If a neighbor’s house catches fire because of it, you’ll have to deal with those consequences as well. Plus there’s the matter of the smoke drifting onto other people’s property and damaging their lungs. If you can’t around all of that and not harm anyone or their property, light ‘er up!

What if I killed someone on a public street with my family car?

I’d hazard a guess that the dead person’s family would be none too pleased and might opt to sue you for negligence or wrongful death. Your car, your responsibility. You might also want insurance to protect yourself in case there’s damage to your vehicle or someone else’s property.

Is there auto insurance that the widow would be entitled to and mandatory for me to have?

Entitled to, probably. Mandatory, no. But you’ll reap what you sow and it won’t be pleasant. Everyone has to be responsible for their own actions in a free society.

It’s really not that complex. It’s mostly common sense. So long as you don’t infringe on the natural rights of others, you should have a peaceful, productive co-existence in a free voluntary society.

Just don’t initiate violence (you may respond to it, however) and don’t damage or take what doesn’t belong to you.

Such a world really isn’t too hard to imagine. It’s easy if you try.

Comment by Zeus

January 3, 2009 @ 9:36 pm

Didn’t the Englishmen throw off their King to try an experiment with self-government and wasn’t it based on the concept of natural rights?

Men and women of English descent did indeed band together to throw off the shackles of a tyrant king. 56 men crafted a Declaration of Independence. While some of these men were pro-liberty and believers in natural rights vs legal rights, there were others who still believed in the divine right of kings, men who wanted another monarchy. Don’t be fooled by “pop history” revisionists into thinking the alliance they shared was an easy one.

Like any group of diverse personalities, there was compromise and argument. In fact, several members of the group refused to sign unless a Bill of Rights was added, to ensure that the new government would not simply devolve into one just as imperious as the one they had cast off. (Fat lot of good it did them)

They became Americans and had a government of the people by the people and for the people to protect their rights and limited their government to subject enumerated in the federal constitution.

They became Americans long before they had cast off the tyranny of King George. Most of these men had been born in America, lived in America and would die in America.

And while it’s a nice sentiment, “for the people by the people” devolved over time into “for the privileged by the ignorant”, with wealthy elites, actors and oil men being voted into office by throngs of duped voters, fooled into believing whatever excrement politicians spewed forth from their lying mouths.

How would the liberty-based society with its rules and courts of arbitration where no ones rights are to be infringed on be different than what we have today?

How does the public infrastructure get maintained? Who pays for the fire and police departments and the courts? Water and sewer? trash? what are the proposed rules? Are they different that the laws statutes regulations ordinances and by laws we have today?

Comment by Zeus

January 3, 2009 @ 9:37 pm

The first rule is the golden rule. Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you. Do as you will so long as you do not infringe upon the natural rights of others. No killing, assaulting, raping, stealing or defrauding.

The public infrastructure is maintained not unlike it is now but for one exception: Those who want it pay for it and those who don’t do not.

The difference being that you are robbed on a regular basis via taxation to pay for things you do not use or approve of. In a voluntary society, you pay for the things you want voluntarily and are never forced to pay for something you do not want or use.

If someone is going to buy into this “community” when they purchase property, should they be able to see the rules and know how what the cost of living on property in this new community?

Of course. And you could opt out as well.

If we woke up one day and Keene New Hampshire was operating under this model what would it look like?

Would I have to send my kids to school?

You’re the parent. They’re your responsibility. Do as thou wilt in this regard so long as you aren’t forcing others to pay for their schooling.

If you’re a caring parent who doesn’t want a bunch of jobless dim bulbs running around, you’ll either educate them yourself or pay someone to do it for you. But no one is going to force you.

Do I need a driver’s license?

If you can drive I don’t see why you’d need one. If you can’t drive, we’ll know soon enough and you’ll be paying the consequences.

Could I operate a casino?

As long as you aren’t defrauding anyone, go for it.

Can I open a gentlemen’s club next to a church?

If you want an angry mob of zealots outside your building all hours of the day and night bothering your customers and the bad publicity that would come from it, be my guest. A wiser businessman would choose a different location IMO.

How about a concrete patch plant or an asphalt plant next to a water supply? Assuming the water supply is for the whole community?

If you can keep your pollution on your property without it seeping over to your neighbors or infecting the water supply of others, asphalt away. Otherwise, you may be sued for damages.

Can I burn my garbage in my front yard?

If you have the power to keep the smoke and stink in your yard (some kind of smokeless incinerator? A glass dome over your house?), go ahead.

Could I burn my house down intentionally an not be charged with arson?

Comment by Zeus

January 3, 2009 @ 9:37 pm

If you do it to defraud an insurance company, no. That would be theft. If a neighbor’s house catches fire because of it, you’ll have to deal with those consequences as well. Plus there’s the matter of the smoke drifting onto other people’s property and damaging their lungs. If you can’t around all of that and not harm anyone or their property, light ‘er up!

What if I killed someone on a public street with my family car?

I’d hazard a guess that the dead person’s family would be none too pleased and might opt to sue you for negligence or wrongful death. Your car, your responsibility. You might also want insurance to protect yourself in case there’s damage to your vehicle or someone else’s property.

Is there auto insurance that the widow would be entitled to and mandatory for me to have?

Entitled to, probably. Mandatory, no. But you’ll reap what you sow and it won’t be pleasant. Everyone has to be responsible for their own actions in a free society.

It’s really not that complex. It’s mostly common sense. So long as you don’t infringe on the natural rights of others, you should have a peaceful, productive co-existence in a free voluntary society.

Just don’t initiate violence (you may respond to it, however) and don’t damage or take what doesn’t belong to you.

Such a world really isn’t too hard to imagine. It’s easy if you try.

Comment by Zeus

January 3, 2009 @ 9:48 pm

If you do it to defraud an insurance company, no. That would be theft. If a neighbor’s house catches fire because of it, you’ll have to deal with those consequences as well. Plus there’s the matter of the smoke drifting onto other people’s property and damaging their lungs. If you can get past all of that and not harm anyone or their property, light ‘er up!

What if I killed someone on a public street with my family car?

I’d hazard a guess that the dead person’s family would be none too pleased and might opt to sue you for negligence or wrongful death. Your car, your responsibility. You might also want insurance to protect yourself in case there’s damage to your vehicle or someone else’s property.

Comment by Zeus

January 3, 2009 @ 9:49 pm

Is there auto insurance that the widow would be entitled to and mandatory for me to have?

Entitled to, probably. Mandatory, no. But you’ll reap what you sow and it won’t be pleasant. Everyone has to be responsible for their own actions in a free society.

It’s really not that complex. It’s mostly common sense. So long as you don’t infringe on the natural rights of others, you should have a peaceful, productive co-existence in a free voluntary society.

Just don’t initiate violence (you may respond to it, however) and don’t damage or take what doesn’t belong to you.

Such a world really isn’t too hard to imagine. It’s easy if you try.

Comment by Zeus

January 3, 2009 @ 9:50 pm

Is there auto insurance that the widow would be entitled to and mandatory for me to have?

Entitled to, probably. Mandatory, no. But you’ll reap what you sow and it won’t be pleasant. Everyone has to be responsible for their own actions in a free society. It’s really not that complex. It’s mostly common sense. So long as you don’t infringe on the natural rights of others, you should have a peaceful, productive co-existence in a free voluntary society. It isn’t Utopia. It’s just a society a bit better than what we have now.

Comment by geofalon007

January 3, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

I noticed one thing that is common to all reponses. The liberty based society assummes that all men are good and there is no obligation to fund any of the common things that provide benefits to all.

Do you really think that enough people will volunteer to pay for a fire or police department? Or any other service needed to ensure the general health and welfare of the society.

Even with all the laws and consequences to the TVA designed to be an incentive to keep the toxic sludge on their property and dealt with properly they still managed to pollute 100’s of acres and have not even begun an earnest clean up.

Your liberty based society will only encourage things like this , not prevent them. Do you think a businessman is going to care about his neighbors or his bottom line? It appears in your liberty based society only the strong financially will prevail. No one will have the resources to counter their unbridled lawlessness.

You still haven’t convinced me what your society will look like. What “rules” will there be? Who makes and enforces them? How will it be fundementaly different than what we have now?

I am from Missouri, show me don’t tell me stories. Show me the model charter for the community. What will its operating budget look like? Who will be responsible for the snowplowing of the roads? Who pays the firefighters.

Every answer to the question you have chosen to answer previously still only tells me that the inhabitants of the society will be good mannered and willing to take responsibility for their actions and will do no harm to other and are not responsible for any service financially. (no taxes for public safety or any other service now provided by government),

You never tell me how it is to be brought into existance or how it is to be maintained.

Who wouldn’t want to live in a society that requires no taxes and where you can avail yourself of the services becasue someone else funded them. Who in their right mind would pay a gas tax or a property tax if it was voluntary?

I get that you want people to be responsible for their actions and not harm others but you assumme that people are inherently good, they are not.

Comment by Zeus

January 3, 2009 @ 11:51 pm

I noticed one thing that is common to all reponses. The liberty based society assummes that all men are good and there is no obligation to fund any of the common things that provide benefits to all.

It assumes no such thing. Besides the previously discussed arbitration courts where people can settle disputes there is also the right to self-defense of one’s person and property and ostracization. I’m sure others will come up with or have already thought of other protections against “bad men”.

Also, keep in mind this isn’t socialism or communism. It isn’t a good system for slackers and mooches. People must earn their keep. As for the poor, infirm and unfortunate, America as it stands now is one of the most generous cultures in the world. Hundreds of billions of dollars are given for any number of charities from Jerry’s Kids to Aids research to St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital to Red Cross and on and on. It would only get better in a free society as people would be able to keep what they earned and only pay for what they used.

Do you really think that enough people will volunteer to pay for a fire or police department? Or any other service needed to ensure the general health and welfare of the society.

I think necessity is the mother of invention and that capitalism will drive innovation.

Your liberty based society will only encourage things like this , not prevent them. Do you think a businessman is going to care about his neighbors or his bottom line?

If he cares about his bottom line then he’d better not pollute someone else’s air or land unless he wants to be sued and get a lot of bad publicity. Businessmen are in business to make money. Bad publicity and toxic waste have a habit of keeping people from buying your products. No sales > no profits > no business.

It appears in your liberty based society only the strong financially will prevail. No one will have the resources to counter their unbridled lawlessness.

There you go again with this misbelief that people will be able to damage others without consequence. If you run around stabbing people, one or more of them is probably going to shoot you in the head since they have the right to defend themselves and their property. You’re not going to be doing a whole lot of unbridled anything at that point.

While this has been an interesting discussion and I’ve tried to explain as much as possible, it seems to me you’ve already made up your mind and have accepted the status quo.

With that in mind, I’ll leave it to others to spend the time and energy writing up a “charter”, rulebook and tutorials explaining every nook and cranny of a system you obviously aren’t interested in.

Good night and good luck.

Comment by Curt Springer

January 4, 2009 @ 4:52 pm

Zeus wrote:

If he cares about his bottom line then he’d better not pollute someone else’s air or land unless he wants to be sued and get a lot of bad publicity. Businessmen are in business to make money. Bad publicity and toxic waste have a habit of keeping people from buying your products. No sales > no profits > no business.

Air and water pollution has been greatly reduced over the last 40 years, not because of lawsuits from neighbors of industrial plants, although there have been some class action law suits, but because of government laws and regulations, particularly construction permits and ongoing monitoring requirements.

It’s not realistic to expect individual homeowners to prevail on their own against large corporations, particularly when pollution could be coming from a number of different point sources.

Comment by Kit

January 4, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

“I get that you want people to be responsible for their actions and not harm others but you assumme that people are inherently good, they are not.”

The perfect reason not to give them big guns and trust them to treat us well.

Comment by geofalon007

January 4, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

Kit,

The few that abuse the “force” that they exercise you see the need to be afraid of them all and deem them all to serve no useful purpose?

Tell that to a victum that has seen the police catch the crook and the courts have convicted.

It is the people that populate the government you have an issue with, so change the people in the governmet.

I doubt very much that any replacement of the form of government will acomplish anything greater.

I have seen very little in the way of substance with repect to this “liberty based” society the
“movement ” wants to institue.

A court of arbitration, that is the use of force isn’t it? Is it for civil matter and criminal matters?

The concept of volunteering to pay for the “public infrastrructure” does not tell me what kind of public infrastructure we will have in this “new society”.

Wake the people up to the fact that they have the power to tell the “government” what its limitations are supposed to be.

Tell me what happens to the municipal water and sewer system and how it gets paid for? Is there a need for it in the “liberty based society? Will I have to buy water off of a truck and have a different truck take my waste daily? A well and a septic works on 10 acres in the woods but does not work on a 6500 square foot building lot in an urban neighborhood.

Comment by geofalon007

January 4, 2009 @ 9:54 pm

Tell me how these types of infrastructure will be paid for and maintained if the power of taxation is a foreign concept to a liberty based society.

Water, wastewater and stormwater system are essential to public health and economic development ans require a very large investment to establish and maintain. Do you expect anyone to believe that people will volunteer to pay for these systems and those that don’t pay can still use them?

How much do you think a 3 family in the heart of Manchester NH or Lowell MA would be if it did not have public water and sewer? Would it even be inhabitable? Should I get to own it and rent it out if I get to use water and the sewer system for free?

What about water to fight the fire when the apartment catches fire from food on the stove. Will the “fire department have the equipment , water and man power to prevent a conflagration? will I be relying on un paid volunteers with hoses and pumps that they paid for to hook up to a water hydrant that is maintained by the neighborhood watch that might or might not have water?

http://liquidassets.psu.edu/

If no one has an answer for this type of question then how can the “movement” hope to reach a critical mass in any one geoprahpical area?

What good is it to say we want to gather 20000 freedom and liberty loving porcupines into a single municipality to populate a “liberty based society” if no one has the answers to this type of question?

I am all for taking on the abuse in a municipality, that is why I a town meeting member where I live. That is why I am climbing the political ladder to eventually get elected as a state representitive.

The very first election I put my name of the ballot for was for a state rep seat. Silly me thought running as a Libertarian against the encumbent who had been in office since the year I was born without any financial support or an organization. I did get 21% of the vote without campaigning or a single sign.

I realized you cant start at the top, you need money to get well known and you need to meet the people in the district you plan on winning in, no matter what the seat. You also need to have some type of public serve thru appointed boards committee and commissions.

I am finding that the elected and appointed servants are just plain people that have varied understandings of just what government is an is not.I am finding that the paid help has varying degress of commitment to the job or the municipality and that it is always out weighed by their commitment to the paycheck and the benefits.

Land use, zoning, planning real estate and construction are interests in my professional life as well as in my service to the community, that is why I am asking what the “liberty based society ” is supposed to look like ? If you do not know what the result is supposed to look like you can’t build it.

Comment by Kit

January 4, 2009 @ 10:13 pm

“The few that abuse the “force” that they exercise you see the need to be afraid of them all and deem them all to serve no useful purpose?”

Actually, I just asked why you’d want to voluntarily give control over yourself to people you don’t trust and relinquish your rights to defend yourself. I never said they have no purpose — I fully believe that 2% of them are not corrupt.

“Tell that to a victum that has seen the police catch the crook and the courts have convicted.”

How about I tell that to my partner who was handcuffed and shoved into the back of a cop car for someone claiming she was suicidal? How about my own car getting stolen and the cops showing up 2 1/2 hours later, calling me for leads on the case, and eventually charging me $600 to get it out of an impound in another state? How about my uncle getting shot in the face? Hell, while we’re at it, how about the alarming amount of puppycide police have been committing lately. I’d ask this alleged person you mention, if I actually knew anyone the police had ever helped in the past.

“It is the people that populate the government you have an issue with, so change the people in the governmet.”

This has failed to work up to and including now. The corrupt people in power have not obeyed their own rules or the rules of democracy.

“I doubt very much that any replacement of the form of government will acomplish anything greater.”

Even if I believed it would improve nothing, it is in all manner of interpretation wrong to victimize people and force them to your will.

“I have seen very little in the way of substance with repect to this “liberty based” society the
“movement ” wants to institue.”

Arguably because we have no liberty to speak of.

“A court of arbitration, that is the use of force isn’t it? Is it for civil matter and criminal matters?”

I’d suggest that a person who opted out of arbitration would probably not be very popular, and that he would likely be socially ostracized. If he was not guilty, he would probably want to clear his name and then be compensated for his lost time by his accuser. That’s just my expectations, since you threw all this at me.

“The concept of volunteering to pay for the “public infrastrructure” does not tell me what kind of public infrastructure we will have in this “new society”.”

I suppose the highway system would manage the way it did before the government took it over. It’s in the best interests of businesses to keep roads maintained, and would be much easier to pay for if everyone was allowed to keep their money. I know I’d sure be willing to give a little to keep the roads in my area up. I believe this is what the gas tax is suppose dto be for currently, so again there is no current justifiable reason to steal money from people directly.

“Tell me what happens to the municipal water and sewer system and how it gets paid for? Is there a need for it in the “liberty based society? Will I have to buy water off of a truck and have a different truck take my waste daily? A well and a septic works on 10 acres in the woods but does not work on a 6500 square foot building lot in an urban neighborhood.”

I imagine that is is in the interests of a landowner to work in conjunction with his neighbors to increase the value of both of their property, though I suppose it’s possible you could have a water-tank filling service if that is what you want. Incidentally, it’s also possible to share a well with other people. Would someone be likely to move onto a piece of land which has no chance for water/sewage services of some type? Probably not, which means the land will sit in the hands of its owner, probably making them no money when they could have been renting it out. The incentive is always there to improve.

I don’t have all the answers, but I hope this helps you to understand a couple of the issues you’re asking about.

Comment by geofalon007

January 4, 2009 @ 10:42 pm

In the current system we still have means to defend ourselves. You helped me make a point by saying that the majority of the “government” is corrupt. If you cant find good people to be our servants now, what changes the hearts of people in a liberty based society? If it is going to be totally different people that you in particular a comfortable with, are they moving to populate the positions of government now?

This nation got lost along the way. We were given a republic , we just could not keep it and devolved into a tryrannically run democracy.

As for the question about the water, wastewater and storm water systems I am wondering what would happen to the existing infrastructure when the “liberty based society” reach critical mass? Voluntary payments right? I dont think the example about a vacant piece of land adresses my concern. If not enough people volunteer to maintain the currently buried water and sewer pipes and they fail, how is that good for protecting my liberty and freedom?

Not wanting to be “controlled” by bureacratics ushered in the liberty based society and all I have to show for it is no water and sewer system and I have to get creative to provide services to my current tenants of I will lose my investment wont I?

Sure you could privatize the water and sewer system as the transition form government bureacrats to a customer service based provider like the power company or the gas company but isn’t that just changing the name on the letterhead ? Since government wasrestained from making a profit, what prevents tthe private water and sewer company from aqueezing people to make a profit from the shareholders? Lets see if the people in New Hampshire are sucessful in throwing off the non performing power company , you know the one that left people in the dark for 2 weeks after the major ice storm.

The law is force.” Bastiat
“Use the force,” Yoda

Comment by Kit

January 5, 2009 @ 9:42 pm

“Away put your weapon, I mean you no harm” -Yoda

In the current system we still have means to defend ourselves. You helped me make a point by saying that the majority of the “government” is corrupt. If you cant find good people to be our servants now, what changes the hearts of people in a liberty based society? If it is going to be totally different people that you in particular a comfortable with, are they moving to populate the positions of government now?

Defend ourselves? Ah, you must mean calling the police when your home is being broken into and hoping they show up eventually. If you shoot the intruder, after all, your’re probably going to jail. And that’s with a government approved weapon, no less.

The way you automatically assume people will have or be “servants” speaks magnitudes about how you see others. Here’s something you can try at home: Whatever it is, do it yourself instead of forcing someone else.

As far as populating government offices, nobody would spend millions of dollars campaigning to get a $120,000 a yeas job unless their bread was getting buttered elsewhere.

This nation got lost along the way. We were given a republic , we just could not keep it and devolved into a tryrannically run democracy.

I won’t argue that. The experiment, however well-intentioned, has failed disastrously. Assuming there even was a magic reset button, would you want to spend the next 200 years watching it fail again?

As for the question about the water, wastewater and storm water systems I am wondering what would happen to the existing infrastructure when the “liberty based society” reach critical mass? Voluntary payments right? I dont think the example about a vacant piece of land adresses my concern. If not enough people volunteer to maintain the currently buried water and sewer pipes and they fail, how is that good for protecting my liberty and freedom?

Well, for one, no one would make you pay for some water and sewage system you weren’t using. Your odds of being without those services are directly proportionate to the odds of you renting land that doesn’t supply them. I can’t give you an answer that will satisfy your desire to use force on people. Do you really think people would NOT want these services? If it’s a legitimate concern and not just trolling, I suggest directing your question towards someone in the real estate development field. If you think it’s okay to just take money from people for services they may not even use, I could you an invoice for a computer repair I just gave someone else.

Comment by geofalon007

January 5, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

Kit,

I am no troll and I am doing what I think is best to shape the world I live in.

The “movement” has said it is a bad world becasue government uses force to arbitrarily subject people to its will.

I buy into the concept of liberty and freedom. I buy into the concept of doing away with bad government actors.

When I ask how simple services will be provided in a liberty based society thebest you can do is tell me to ask a real estate developer?

If you can’t tell me how to provide for basic sanitary services in a liberty based society how would a real estate developer be able to tell me?

I know how they are brought into existance and maintained in this current “government by force scenario”, (I will remind you I am one of those evil servants that hears developers and builders proposals that need permission from government by way or a zoning variance and special permits).

In todays “government by force world” the developer gets his plans approved by the government. He gets to hook up to the municipal water and sewer pipes after paying the appropriate fees . The property owner then gets bills for the water and sewer service based on water consumption at a rate set by the municipality to maintain the infrastructure. If the owner does not pay the bill his property is liened and then sold to satify the lien.

The “liberty based society ” people prevail and the government by force is overthrown by reason.

My existing house and the people living there still depend on the infrastructure to live in the house since the land is not big enough to support a well or a septic system ( you see the government by force help create habitable dwellings that could not have been brought into existance without someone creating the infrastrucure).

Is someone now operating the water treatment and sewer treatment plants for profit? Did the treatment plants get shut down becasue no one was forced to pay the bills becasue force has been over come by reason?

Will I have to buy large tanks that need to be filled with water and large tanks that will be pumped regularly becasue no one knows how to fund the existing infrastructure?

If the “movement” really hopes to bring about a sea change in peoples hearts and minds regarding the “failed government by force” shouldn’t it have a clear vision of what type of system will replace it.

If the “movement” cannot explain in detail how large public infrastrucure the urbanized areas of our nation will remain in operation to protect life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I suggest to you and the readers that it will never come to pass.

Making reference to me being a troll or telling me I should go ask a real estate developer doesn’t address the issue except to get it off of your specific plate.

Comment by Zeus

January 5, 2009 @ 11:23 pm

When I ask how simple services will be provided in a liberty based society thebest you can do is tell me to ask a real estate developer?

If you can’t tell me how to provide for basic sanitary services in a liberty based society how would a real estate developer be able to tell me?

Your first problem in comprehending what a free society would be like is your assumption that it will function drastically different than what we have now. It isn’t the function so much that will be different (save for the absence of being forced to do things you don’t want to do or else) but rather the benefits. In a free society, you will only pay for what you consume and explicitly contract to use. So long as you don’t infringe upon the rights of others, you are essentially left to your devices. Should you come into conflict with others, it is the victims of your actions that you would pay restitution to rather than The State.

Your second problem in comprehending a free society is that by your very questions regarding the finer details regarding how things will operate, it’s obvious that you seek the order and safety of central one-size-fits-all central planning. I say this because you are asking about the smallest details on how a free society would operate as if they’d all work the same. The very fact that people will be free to choose for themselves what’s best means that there will be no single one-size-fits-all method of operating a free society. Some will choose methods that work better than others. Some will choose worse. The fundamental difference between that and what we have now is that you don’t have that option to choose. You’re stuck with the local government and it’s diktats or else.

Now, if you really want to live in some kind of commune where someone tells you what to do and takes a portion of what you earn, you could still do that in a free society: Just go get a bunch of neighbors together, form an association and elect a neighborhood dictator, czar or grand poobah to rule over the rest of you and who will deal with water treatment plants and sewage for you and your fellow members. So long as you don’t force others to join your group, you should get along with everyone else just fine.

Comment by geofalon007

January 6, 2009 @ 10:57 am

Zeus says:

Your first problem in comprehending what a free society would be like is your assumption that it will function drastically different than what we have now. It isn’t the function so much that will be different (save for the absence of being forced to do things you don’t want to do or else) but rather the benefits. In a free society, you will only pay for what you consume and explicitly contract to use. So long as you don’t infringe upon the rights of others, you are essentially left to your devices. Should you come into conflict with others, it is the victims of your actions that you would pay restitution to rather than The State.

I ask:

The public infrastructure is a great benefit to society that has enabled the people to use the land in a manner that creates a situation that enabled people to reap financial benefits from smaller parcels of property . In my example , if you do not use the water that flows from the public water system and dump waste into the public sewer system you do not pay for it directly.

If there is not a government that forces people to make tax payments to maintain this infrastructure andthere are not enough volunteers to pay for this system, it will fail.

You seem to ignore the fundimental reasons why such a system was created in the first place and do not want to address how such a system will be maintained in a liberty based society.

The cities of modern America would not have come into existance with out a “central way” to deal with water, waster water and stormwater management across actificial boundaries such as property lines and lines that deliniate cities and towns.

The “movement” says they demand that private property rights be respected and that an individual should be able to do no harm to other it their use of their property and should be free of a bureaucrat forcing them do do something.

The fact that “government” created an infrastrucure that allows you to benefit from a property in such a manner that would not be possible without the benefit of a water, wastewater and strom water management system seems to be lost in this discussion.

The soil shape and topography of land dictates how it is able to perculate waste from the houses plumbing and if there is water in the earth with the lot lines and itf there is enough room to bury trash.

People came up with the idea to centralize thes services hundreds of years ago to promote the general health safety and welfare of a larger area than just someones private property.

What happens to these systems when you no longer have a government to force collection of payments in the form of service fees and taxes to maintain them?

This is the answer Zeus gives:

Now, if you really want to live in some kind of commune where someone tells you what to do and takes a portion of what you earn, you could still do that in a free society: Just go get a bunch of neighbors together, form an association and elect a neighborhood dictator, czar or grand poobah to rule over the rest of you and who will deal with water treatment plants and sewage for you and your fellow members. So long as you don’t force others to join your group, you should get along with everyone else just fine.

Zeus,

I think the “movement” does not know how to answer the question of how to deal with issues that cross “private property boundaries”. The health and safety issues solved by a central water, sewer and stormwater management system take a back seat to “don’t tread on me”.

Yet the “don’t tread on me crowd” will not acknowledge how such systems benefit everyone. They seems to be selfish as say I did not conset and I will not be forced to concent and I don’t have true ownership of the property if I am force to pay for such things and the same time taking the benefit.

If you or any other freestater believes that they could remove themselves from the grid and still maintain a property fit for human habitation, is there an example of how this would work.

Did someone cut the pipes at their private property line ansd provide an alternate means of potable water and wastewater disposal. Did they also cut the electric and gas lines? what about the cable? All of these systems are tied to the governments force andif you do not conset to the governments force you should not benefit from it either. Do you rely on the fire department? what about the public road? will you stop using this means of travel? how will you exit your private property to get groceries if you can not longer benefit from the “public infrastructure?

Comment by Zeus

January 6, 2009 @ 11:40 am

If there is not a government that forces people to make tax payments to maintain this infrastructure andthere are not enough volunteers to pay for this system, it will fail.

Exactly. The possibility of failure is the price paid for free will. It also provides you an incentive to work with others who are also obsessed with water and sewage to come up with a plan that is workable without government force.

You seem to ignore the fundimental reasons why such a system was created in the first place and do not want to address how such a system will be maintained in a liberty based society.

It is irrelevant how they will maintained. Either they will or they won’t. If you can’t figure out how to come up with a plan that doesn’t involve robbing your neighbors at gunpoint then maybe you should live out in the boonies and dig a well?

What happens to these systems when you no longer have a government to force collection of payments in the form of service fees and taxes to maintain them?

If these systems can’t adapt to being voluntary services, they will fail. Me? I’ll just move into a neighborhood that includes all these services for a monthly fee and spend my time dealing with more important matters.

Yet the “don’t tread on me crowd” will not acknowledge how such systems benefit everyone. They seems to be selfish as say I did not conset and I will not be forced to concent and I don’t have true ownership of the property if I am force to pay for such things and the same time taking the benefit.

You seem to be under the delusion that we all just want to be a bunch of jackasses once we’re free to choose. While there will be the occasional jackass miser, most of us just want to go about our lives without having the government pick our pockets and obligate us to things we disagree with.

If government is handling the water and sewage now by force, there is no reason not to believe some enterprising capitalist or two in search of profits can’t do it without force. After all, I go to Best Buy or Target to purchase certain products but nobody from those companies comes over to my house, tells me I have to buy from them, or throws me in a cage if I refuse. I buy from them because it’s convenient and reasonably priced. Not because someone sticks a gun to my head and says “pay up ’cause we’re the only game in town.”.

Comment by Alex Libman

March 26, 2009 @ 1:45 pm

All’s well that ends well.