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).