Money vs. Obedience

Well of course it's about obedience. And the judge couldn't care less if you gave the money to the city directly or to some worthy charity.

"Extracting money from the local population" is NOT an "important goal." The cost of keeping Carl Patten Jr on the payroll and running the courts far exceeds the piddling amounts collected as fines. The goal is behavior modification. They set the fine high enough to be a deterrent (it is hoped) to an individual committing the crime. But it's chump change for the city.

I'm not talking about "around the country." I'm talking about NH, specifically Keene.

Please. You have not been abused, Ian. I love how you take a strong fundamentalist line on a free society – it only shows your stupidity. The only ill-mannered trash of character in "this" community is you. Way to be a walking contradiction in the truest sense of the saying. Congrats! My hat is off to you, Ian the Idiot. Oh, and you're welcome.

Please. You have not been abused, Ian. I love how you take a strong fundamentalist line on a free society – it only shows your stupidity.

This remark has sparked my concern in several manners.

The first is that your most pressing concern is not freedom, but rather, some sense of what I'm imaging you would call "moderation", and there is nothing at all respectable about that.

The moderate is supposed to be the opposite of the radical. The moderate is thought of as being reasonable, while the radical is thought of as being irrational. The moderate is looked to as someone who won't go through allegedly extreme measures to prove their point or achieve their cause. But I would say that there is a negative sense to being a moderate, particularly as it relates to politics. In my view, a political moderate is someone who lacks the courage of their convictions or is unable to make up their mind about much of anything. A moderate political person is someone who constantly changes their position in an oppurtunistic manner, essentially "blowing in the wind". A moderate politician is one who essentially panders. I don't see this as a good thing at all. Why is it a good thing to have your mind so open that you don't really believe anything? Shouldn't you have some courage to your convictions? The moderate lacks the certainty and confidence of the radical. The moderate is unstable in that they lack any fixity to their position on any ideological spectrum.

There's another sense in which moderation can be viewed. Moderation is the process by which people become radicalized. That is, when faced with new information or when one finds logical inconsistancies in their own positions, they moderate, as in change, their position. In order for someone to become a radical, they must go through such a process of moderation. Obviously no one starts out as a radical because they still are going through a learning process (and of course to some extent we are always going through a learning process, by being faced with new information and internally digesting that information and drawing one's own conclusions from it). In either case, as we can see, the whole radical vs. moderate dichotomy, as it is commonly thought of, breaks down because the way that the terms are typically used is disingenuous. They are essentially anti-concepts. Surely being inconsistant and uncertain ("moderate") is not necessarily a good thing, and surely being consistant and certain ("radical") is not necessarily a bad thing. Truth and falsehood is what really matters. But unfortunately terms such as "fundamentalist" and "radical" have become smear words against anything that is either logically consistant or certain.

To quote Goldwater– "Moderation in the pursuit of liberty is no virtue."

You've insipred me to do something similar.

http://freedommanitoba.blogspot.com/2008/12/fight…

What I'd really like to know is what this all accomplishes. This was a waste of $240 that could have been used for something more productive in Ian's life or the lives of those he would have otherwise spent it on. Instead, it's going to go to a charity which will likely keep most of the money while a pittance actually makes it to the intended recipients.

If those of us who know what the government is and what it does spend all our efforts on antagonizing local bureaucrats and paying the price for doing so, how exactly is that going to bring us liberty in our lifetime?

Wouldn't it be more practical to spread the message of freedom to those with open minds and preparing to not only survive the inevitable economic collapse coming in 2009 but to thrive and consolidate with like-minded individuals?

Arguing with Burke and his ilk seems like a big waste of time. He and the others will be gone as soon as the structure that supports them crumbles from a lack of funds in the very near future. Your true enemy then will be the armed statist groups that rise up to replace them and their cloak of legitimacy will be much more transparent.

Unlike them, who either have no idea what is coming or are still clinging to the notion of the gravy train lasting forever, pro-liberty activists like yourselves recognize the coming collapse and still have months to prepare for it and what shall come in its wake.

Why not take advantage of that rather than fighting these useless little tiffs with inconsequential bureaucrats?

Judging from some of the talk between Ian and OTN Sam on FTL, playing "pro se" attorney and using questionable legal theories to harass these bureaucrats is great for shits and giggles entertainment but not for achieving liberty in our lifetime.

You are correct Patrick, Starchild is trolling because that's what trolls do. So what? At least it stimulated another spewage of intellectual gobbledy-gook from the frothing cranium of anarchojoke-ass dude…That's aways amusing. Watching jesse trying to lift the stone too heavy to be lifted which he has created in his mind, actually is "shits & giggles"…literally…*GIGGLESHITS*…(Your valiantly futile struggle continues to inspire us all. Keep writing, jesse, you'll make sense of yourself someday, I'm sure)/

Jesse is incapable of giving a short and succinct answer and usually delivers a dissertation. And that is why his arguments almost invariably are rock-solid. And we missed you at the burning Elkheart. Weren't you supposed to bring a Chinese made American flag? I waited and waited for the Masked Patriot to patrol central square in an ever tightening circle. What a tease.

Question. Why is everyone so hard on the enforcers of the law? The police are suppose to police the public to insure the laws are being followed. It would be irresponsible of them to pick and choose which laws they are going to enforce. (granted, it does happen, but they should enforce all laws without prejudice). The judge is supposed to judge whether or not the laws have been broken, to assign guilt/punishment based on the law. It would be irresponsible of them to pick and choose what laws they are going to enforce. (granted, it does happen, but they should enforce all laws without prejudice). They do not have the authority nor the right to disregard a law because the accused does not agree with it. Everyone who breaks the law has a rationale for breaking it.

If you want to change the laws you need to follow the guidelines set forth by the constitution to change the laws. Petition the lawmakers for a change in the law. If the people of this city/county/state/country agree with your ideas on how a community should be required to behave, the lawmakers will have no choice but to listen. They are the representatives of the people and are required to respond to will of the people. If they disregard the will of the people they will be voted out and replaced by someone who will respond to the will of the people. Most politicians love there jobs(power)and will not risk being replaced.

The big issue is whether your ideas are the will of the people. We live in a country where majority rules or at least the appearance of majority. You must be willing to gather the petitions, promote it in public and pressure the lawmakers for change. You must be willing to see it through the process. There is no way to side step the process. You must attend the meetings, contact your representatives/councilmen, overwhelm them with the idea that this is what the public wants.

Do you know how many motorcycle helmet laws have been revoked or modified or denied because a bunch of bikers got together and approached the lawmakers (not the law enforcers) and overwhelmed them with idea that this is what the (interested) public wants? All of them.

It works when you follow the process set forth by the constitution.

So who is going to take the lead and see about getting the ordinance, that pertains to the couch on the lawn, appealed? Who is going to be willing to attend the meetings, rally the (interested) public, and see this through to the end? And when it is appealed or found that this it what the majority wanted, move on to the next law or ordinance and do it all over again.

Don't waste your energies martyring yourself for the enforcers. It is a waste. Like the enforcers, you are trying to get them to obey your will for your own reasons. The problem is you do not have power nor authority in these arena. The enforcers do. Change to the arena in which you do have power. Focus your energies on changing the laws not rebelling against them. Lawmaking starts with the people. You may find that the ease in which these laws and ordinances were established, will be the same in getting them modified or revoked.

Sorry, Vesuvious…I just today read your post #77313, above. You're right. My bad. I've still got that "100% polyester, Made in China" "american flag"…missed the flag-burning due to last minute scheduling conflict…*That's* the issue…To those who favor the Constitutional Rape of outlawing flag burning, would a "made in China" U.S.Flag be covered? Is it an *AMERICAN* flag, if it's *MADE IN COMMUNIST CHINA*???…I don't think so…&Personally, I find jesse's arguments about as "rock-solid" as TALCUM POWDER…but, I always read them, always think about them, and I'm glad that jesse does what he does, & writes what he writes. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend you right to say it."…that's how I feel about jesse. Who says we all have to think alike, just to get along??? Hell, I don't always agree with *myself*!!!……