Sam’s Detainment Makes Sentinel Front Page

May 17, 2009 by Nick Ryder
Filed under: News

Sam The Keene Sentinel, which was present on April 13th for the arrest of Sam, and 6 others, has finally published an article specifically about him and his in-jail protest.

Testing the system behind bars, Free Stater chides court, gains recruits
Sam Miller talks about his experience in the local court system during a visit at the Cheshire County jail in Westmoreland.
By PHILLIP BANTZ
Sentinel Staff
Published: Sunday, May 17, 2009 8:07 AM EDT

WESTMORELAND — A battle of wills is playing out within the cinder block walls of the Cheshire County jail in Westmoreland, where an activist has spent more than a month protesting a judge’s order that he identify himself to police.

John Doe walks into the jail cafeteria, a faded orange jumpsuit draped over his lanky frame and a folder of legal documents tucked under his arm. He sits at a stainless steel picnic-style table and when he smiles the tendons in his long, thin neck bulge.

Doe says he hasn’t eaten solid food since he’s been behind bars because he’s on a hunger strike. When he came to jail he weighed 180 pounds, and now he weighs 116, he says.

Court and jail officials know Doe’s real name — Sam A. Miller, a 33-year-old former telecommunications specialist from Texas who moved to Keene earlier this year to join the Free State Project. They have Miller’s Texas driver’s license.

But Keene District Court Judge Edward J. Burke has ordered Miller to remain held on $10,000 bail and will not schedule a trial until he gives the Keene police his name.

“While the prospect of the Defendant’s indefinite confinement is distasteful, the Court reiterates, however, that the Defendant holds the key to his release,” Burke wrote in his order.

It has already cost thousands of taxpayer dollars to keep Miller behind bars.

Miller has been in jail since April 13, when he was arrested for refusing to turn off his video camera in the Keene District Court lobby. An unsigned order taped to the wall banned photography in the lobby.

Miller, who also goes by Sam Dodson, was protesting the ban along with other Free Staters and activists with ties to the group, which aims to convince 20,000 “liberty lovers” to move to New Hampshire.

Police carried Miller out of the courthouse after he fell to the floor and went limp. Six others were arrested or given summonses for disorderly conduct.

Miller was initially charged with possession of property (his video camera) without a serial number, resisting arrest or detention, refusing to be processed and disorderly conduct.

Keene Police Prosecutor D. Chris McLaughlin stated in court documents that he plans to dismiss the charges of possession of property without a serial number and disorderly conduct, and add a charge of criminal contempt against Miller.

Miller’s attorney, Ivy Walker of Grafton, and other activists have filed several arguments with Cheshire County Superior Court and the state’s Supreme Court saying Miller’s rights are being violated and he should be set free or taken to trial. The courts have rejected some of the arguments, and others remain under consideration.

Meanwhile, Miller said he has already convinced about 10 of his fellow inmates to join the Free Staters when they’re released from jail. Many of the converts are older inmates, he said.

“Some of the younger kids here are a little hostile towards me. I don’t know if it’s their age or mindset,” he said. “A lot of the older people just seem to understand what I’m doing.”

Jail Superintendent Richard N. Van Wickler said Miller has a knack for recruiting other inmates.

“He seems to seek out offenders who have no purpose in life. Wherever he goes, he quickly makes friends,” he said. “There have been comments from other inmates about the Free State Project that they wouldn’t have made without him being here.”

Miller stands out from the other inmates not only because of his gaunt physique, but because of the reason he’s in jail. And that has helped attract followers, Van Wickler said.

“There’s a big difference between having your freedom taken away and offering up your freedom,” he said. “Sam has offered up his freedom and it has elevated him and allowed him to get his message out to others and, dare I say, he’s doing a good job of it.”

Miller recently had an interview with a reporter from The Boston Globe, and said he receives stacks of mail daily from people around the world who support his cause. Some want to move to Keene and increase activism in the city, he said.

While Miller speaks with The Sentinel, a middle-aged inmate wheels a cart of food trays into the cafeteria. He comes over and says he’s joining the Free Staters as soon as he gets out of jail. Then he gets back to work before the guards notice him speaking with Miller.

“A lot of prisoners want to fight the system,” Miller says. “They just don’t know how to do it. I think that’s one of the reasons they’re drawn to me.”

Miller has written extensively in online blogs about what he describes as squalid conditions at the jail, from overflowing toilets to broken air conditioners and stifling heat. His blog entries have received dozens of comments, some are critical of the jail and others are critical of Miller.

Van Wickler said Miller’s writings about conditions at the jail are “absolutely deceptive.”

He also stressed that jail officials are making sure Miller stays healthy, despite his hunger strike.

“We’re keeping a close eye on him because of his caloric intake,” he said. “He’s doing very well. If we thought his health was threatened we would put him in a medical observation unit.”

At a cost of approximately $64 per inmate per day, which is a conservative estimate, according to Van Wickler, at least $2,240 of taxpayer money has been spent to keep Miller in jail, so far.

Miller said he will not provide his name to expedite his release. He aims to pave the way for other activists to refuse to hand over identification to the authorities. If he bends and says his name, the time he’s spent in jail and the arguments he’s filed with the courts will be meaningless.

“This is completely about me challenging their system and their authority,” he said. “And as long as I’m in here, the word is slowly getting out.”

Phillip Bantz can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1409, or pbantz@keenesentinel.com.

http://www.keenesentinel.com/articles/2009/05/17/news/local/free/id_356129.txt

http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Lol . Now that is a suit I would pay to see.
Andrew

I've attempted to make a wikipedia page for Sam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Dodson

Help try to keep it from getting deleted.
zonsb

Sam didn't injure any one or their property. For if he did, let the injured party write an affidavit under penalty of perjury. Therein stating the nature of their injury and that Sam caused the injury.

Sam has been kidnapped and is being held against his will. He can send all those involved in kidnapping him and holding him against his will bills for the services he has been forced to provide.

Think about it, if you point a gun at me and tell me to mop your floor, I'm going to do it because I don't want to be shot and perhaps killed. And the law says that I have 72 hours to present you with a bill for the service you forced me to do — mop your floor. Plus, I can charge you thrice that amount as penalty.

Also, Sam could use the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of the IRS to collect all the kidnappers hazard/risk bonds.

Most likely the office of risk management would determine that the kidnappers are uninsureable and will not issue new bonds for them. In effect they will all be fired. Because it's very unlikely that they will put up their own assets as surety to pay for an injury they do to a man or his property while doing their government jobs.
http://jailedactivist.info bile

Andrew, Wikipedia likely isnt going to allow it to stay up. It's against their policy. Sam isn't known enough.

I understand that Wikipedia is more widely known but what's wrong with http://sam.jailedactivist.info ?
to some extent?

I know this is going back, but Cyberdoo wrote:

"Murder and rape, and to some extent child molestation, are actual crimes, people have actually been harmed."

You'll need to explain this- how is child molestation ever NOT a crime??? This "to some extent" business is throwing me for a loop. Is this an accepted free-stater belief?
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Child molestation is absolutely a crime.

I don't know what Cyberdoo was saying, I can't speak for him, perhaps he thinks that the age of consent should be lowered by a year or two — but I would think that would affect statutory rape law, not molestation.
http://alongsidenight.ar.to/ Jim Davidson

LP Viper, how very droll. I propose to honk my horn early in the morning near the judge's house, and perhaps scatter a few items of a tire puncturing sort near parked police cars, and you have me using "violence to overthrow the government."

Wow. You are a coward. Beep, beep.
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

Jim,

Isn't easy and fun to lob insults from 1,000 miles away. If you think that harassing the judge is such a great idea, why don't you drive or fly to Keene and do it yourself.
Lpviper

Glad I could amuse you, Jim. Channel your wittifiedness into peaceful activism for a while, and you may even live to see a free society. Your statements in the recent past have alluded to a hell of a lot more than a few caltrops.

Your assessment of me as a coward has no factual basis and I reject it.

Violent revolution has never produced a free voluntary interactive paradigm among men, and I am fairly convinced that it will not this time either.

Unconvince me. Go.
charley hardman

Lpviper:

It boils down to the simple difference between being labelled by the public at large as kooks or as heroes.

self-excusing blah blah aside, you're on a PR mission instead of one related to integrity — a PR mission that keeps your skin intact while subjected.

The major battle right now is to destroy the aura of legitimacy that surrounds the government,

and so you embrace as your primary method the affirming of that aura, presumably insisting that the state be treated other than a rapist. or do you advocate succumbing to conventional rape as well? you are worshiping a double standard, couching it in snot-nosed "i'm peaceful" terms.

Besides which, FSP and most other liberty lovers around the country are peace loving people, and you aren’t going to convert them to violence without damn good reason.

newsflash: what we're discussing here is that they have been converted to violence. they live under the threat of it at nearly every turn. that's the problem. you pressing flesh hasn't removed the violence, and it hasn't countered the truth that sometimes violence properly applied deters much larger amounts applied to the wrong parties.

your entire angle is based on a false premise — that defensive violence is not peaceful. a peaceful man is not barred from fighting off a highwayman. a peaceful man remains peaceful while using such violence. the voluntarist world needs to get straight on language, and it may as well begin with "violence". contrary to mass convenient delusion, violence is not an inherently bad thing. the use of violence is not necessarily the breach of peace. it can be the restoration of peace.

though you're probably assuming otherwise, i am not advocating that anyone use violence against the state, anytime. however, unlike you, i do not pretend to know what the solution is (i.e., "peace", in your view — in quotes), nor make retarded claims in this infested atmosphere about what will work, what won't work, etc.

you don't know.

it shouldn't be ignored that the throwing off of the british tyrants here began not with traditional war, but with riots, vandalism, and veiled/explicit threats against those criminals. it seems that most americans have either forgotten that or never knew it. no surprise that it wouldn't be stressed in the state centers of youth indoctrination.

And I, for one, do not want to see a world full of violence, hatred and strife.

oh, bully for your precious ass. your rat-like implication, of course, is that jim does — an obvious and disgusting absurdity. shame on you.

Do I know better? YES.

you know what side your subservience is buttered on. that's clear. how 'bout trying a hearty "i don't know" next time you're tempted to invoke the sanctimony approach from your shelter.

i don't know.
Zeus

it shouldn’t be ignored that the throwing off of the british tyrants here began not with traditional war, but with riots, vandalism, and veiled/explicit threats against those criminals.

It also shouldn't be ignored that that the patriots of '76 a) had the home advantage and b) had more or less equal force of arms.

In today's world, the tyrants outgun you a billion to one if not worse. They have the most powerful, cutting edge weapons available to man. Arms, armor and machinery that the average civilian has been barred from possessing. Things the Founding Fathers never could have imagined from Apache helicopters and kevlar body armor to teargas, tasers and flashbangs. So much for the protection and equalizing intention of the 2nd Amendment.

They also have the air of legitimacy and control of the media. The simple facts are that any violence used against them will paint you as a nut or a terrorist and end up with you in prison or in the morgue just as it did with that guy on the east coast not too long ago who shot up a bunch of cops called in on a domestic dispute.

You will die and you will be painted as insane by the media. It's simple math combined with common sense. At "best", you might end up with an "insurgence" situation akin to the one in Iraq which is just an endless cycle of violence and death.

You are far more likely to succeed by refusing to participate in their system and other peaceful activism. Eventually, their incompetence and mismanagement of the system will cause it to crumble in upon itself. You can't fix it and make it better but you might be able to help them speed up the inevitable.

If my arguments do not convince you, however, at least do us all a favor and wear a "Che" shirt and a beret when you get shot down in a blaze of glory. The rest of us would prefer not to have our cause and beliefs damaged by your premature actions.

"Man who stand up for rights through peaceful means, have brains. Man who stand up for rights against freight train also have brains. Smeared all the way down track." -Confucius (not)
Lpviper

Charley, I never said defensive violence is not peaceful. I simply asserted, as Zeus so eloquently did above, that it will not work. It will get you caged or killed in the current paradigm, and the masses will yawn and turn back to 'Idol.'

Nor did I say that Jim wants a world full of violence and what-not. I simply assert that that is what he will get by using violent means to defend himself against the government people.

What you call 'subservience' is, in my view, a simple mechanism of survival. I tend to tread carefully around violent people, it's called prudence. If I go storming into the Cheshire County Jail in full ninja outlay, and I'm gonna get Sam out, I'll be dead. If I throw caltrops under the cop car tires, I will be villified by the boot licking media for 'wasting taxpayer dollars' and 'vandalizing public property' and 'endangering the safety of the community' by disabling the chariot of one if its protectors.

Look, man, I know that you are technically correct. But I also know that it won't fly right now in this paradigm. We need to educate the people and show ourselves to be the ones who are loving and peaceful. Otherwise we'll be nutjobs in the eyes of the brainwashed masses and our message will fall on deaf ears.

Thanks
charley hardman

Charley, I never said defensive violence is not peaceful.

[...]

Nor did I say that Jim wants a world full of violence and what-not.

it was disingenuous preening then. not sure which is worse.

What you call ’subservience’ is, in my view, a simple mechanism of survival.

penchant for noting the obvious as though it's revelatory. talk about yawning.

I tend to tread carefully around violent people, it’s called prudence.

without exception, by advocates of not standing it's called prudence, even when it collapses into raw cowardice.

, I will be villified by the boot licking media for ‘wasting taxpayer dollars’ and ‘vandalizing public property’ and ‘endangering the safety of the community’ by disabling the chariot of one if its protectors.

more PR nonsense, showing exactly whence your opposition to opposition comes.

But I also know that it won’t fly right now in this paradigm.

and there goes perhaps the most preposterous bit — the implication that your method is working. your method isn't doing squat. neither is mine, but i don't pretend otherwise when discussing options.

We need to educate the people and show ourselves to be the ones who are loving and peaceful.

frankly, i don't think you'll get the chance. within nearly everything you say on this subject rests the vaporous presumption that your method will work — if not during your life, then upon some foundation you helped build for others while you were enslaved (borderline sick). it's hardly so tidy as your opposition to jim here pretends.

Otherwise we’ll be nutjobs in the eyes of the brainwashed masses and our message will fall on deaf ears.

back to the PR. in the long run, i suspect (i do not know) that carl drega did more for liberty than you'll ever. you and your fellows should consider that these hooligans surrounding us might be incorrigible or, at best, incapable of moving toward liberty in substantial numbers for another 100 years.

i don't know. you don't know.

willingness and preparation to use violence do not necessarily lead to violence. you should ditch the "sky is falling", horribly binary approach that, frankly, reeks more of fear than any concern for the increase of liberty. being unwilling to use violence often lapses directly into a debilitating psychological, then physical slavery.
Lpviper

Fine, you win, dude. No matter what I say, I'm a coward and I'm deluding myself. Fine. I'll go off and do it elsewhere.

Real uniting sort of message you have there, sir.

Prolly woulda worked out real good for Sam if he had fought his captors instead of going limp, too, eh, birdman?

I don't know. You don't know. You don't know if I'm a coward, and I don't know if you're a psychopath.

We just don't know
charley hardman

Real uniting sort of message you have there, sir.

more shamefully fallacious code words from the socialist border. rational individualism is all that's required — a truth that arrives slowly to those conditioned to operate in mobs.

Prolly woulda worked out real good for Sam if he had fought his captors instead of going limp, too, eh, birdman?

straw man. bleh.

You don’t know if I’m a coward, and I don’t know if you’re a psychopath.

evidence here strongly supports that you're a coward and that i oppose psychopathy (while also being a coward).
Lpviper

OK, you caught me with the 'uniting' comment. I deserved that one. The other thing (straw man) I didn't get, but that's ok, I'm still learning.

In the end, I'll go my way and you'll go yours, and I want the same thing you want, Charley. I wish you luck on your quest for freedom.

And by the way, I refuse to admit cowardice. I just do. LOL. Take care, man

Good Day

I looked up psychopathyin the dictionary and I agree with you to a point. Your attitude could be considered psychopathic in relation to the current paradigm, but having said that, I of course do not consider you psychopathic or cowardly.
cyberdoo78

I have been witness in times past the charge of 'child molestation' used against individuals where no actual crime was committed. I will use as an example a 19 year male who fondled the sex organ of a 16 year old female to which the 16 year old female happily and without resistance accepted.

The charge of 'child molestation' in this case is baseless, since the 16 year female is neither a child, nor was she being molested. In the strictest sense of the words, of course.

In the case where a 30 year old male fondles the sex organ of a child of 7 years old, a charge of 'child molestation' has some base.

In my mind, a crime to me is where one party has violated the rights of another and where damages have occur ed because of that violation. Without a rights violation there is no crime. Without damages there is no crime.

It is from this point that I say that the latter example is not a crime in the strictest sense, since a rights violation could have occurred, but damages, that is the loss of use of a right, is hard to say. Did the 7 year old accept the fondling of his sex organs? If he did accept it then no crime, if he resisted, then there are strong grounds for a criminal charge.

Understand there is a difference, a very huge difference, between immoral and unlawful. I think it is immoral for the 30 year old to be fondling a 7 year old's sex organs, but who is to say it is a crime(in the strictest sense) but the 7 year old himself? The worst thing I can do to the 30 year old is to ostracize him and those whom he associates with. Anything else, in my opinion, is a violation of his rights.

My opinions are my own, and should not be used as evidence of any opinions of any group of human beings. To say that Republicans believe taking money from people and giving to the military does not mean that anyone who labels themselves a Republican agrees that money ought to be taken from people and given to the military. To say a Democrat believes taking of money from people and giving to those who don't have enough money does not mean that anyone who labels themselves a Democrat believes that its okay to take money from people and give to those who don't have enough money.

Further that because I believe that unless a right has been violated and damages incurred because of that violation of right that there is no crime, does not mean that others here agree with me.

Some believe that it is moral to murder others who have murdered someone. For those I say, did you grant the right to that man to live, if you didn't, you have no right to take it from him after the fact. You do however have the right to protect yourself from him, but not by killing him before he has made any intention of depriving you of your right to life, liberty, or property.

A group is made up of individuals joined together for a cause. Don't think for a moment that anyone here represents anyone other then themselves. Don't think that because I think that crimes should held to the strictest standard that the is the view held by all, or a majority. I might actually be in the very small minority. Don't think that because Jim believes that Burke should pay for his crimes against Sam with his life, liberty, or property that is a majority belief held by all. Don't think that because Sam believes dying just to prove a point is a view held by a majority of us, although I would be willing to die if I felt it would forward the cause of liberty.

Oh and by the way, just for shock value, I also don't believe in prisons/jails either, I say let criminals meet their fates.
http://ringingliberty.com paul

I don't want to get into a big discussion this topic, but let it be noted that I disagree strongly with cyberdoo. Those who are intoxicated cannot make substantial decisions for themselves, because their judgement is impaired. No contract signed by a drunk man should be binding. Similarly, children do not have the capability to decide for themselves.

Not only is it morally disgusting, it's absolutely right for it to be illegal. Prison or some sort of lengthy forced compensatory work program should result.
cyberdoo78

I don't want it to be a big discussion either, that's what the forums are for. However, to my point that we are different people who don't always agree. My suggestion to people who choose to become intoxicated is that they stay away from situations that can lead to things they don't want.

Since different people have different ranges of intoxication its hard to say when someone is or isn't too intoxicated to enter into a contract. If you think someone you are contracting with is drunk, then perhaps you ought to not contract with them at that time. However, a drunk is entitled to assert their right to contract at any time they want to. This all being said, I have to say I wouldn't enforce a contract where one person was drunk at the time.

Paul says that 'children' don't have the ability to decide for themselves. I don't know what he would consider a child. In the days of Rome a child was an adult at 7. It would appear that he views children as property and not as human beings. I believe that children are a product of their parents. I would say most are not able to make good decisions because their parents do not allow them to start making decisions until they are in their teens. I allow my child to make decisions for himself with our guidance. To simply say a child has no ability to decide for themselves is not logical. A child as young as 3 can decide they do not like peas. This is a long distance between deciding to like peas and deciding to have sex, granted. However if you don't allow child to learn from their mistakes, how are they to learn?

I disagree that things that are immoral should be made illegal. By making a crime of those things that people can do such as prostitution and drugs, you are violating their right to their liberty. In my eyes it is you who are the criminal for doing so. I have no problem with morals, I just have a problem with someone's morals being enforced upon those who don't agree with them.

As far as locking human beings in cages, I strongly disagree. Here we have Sam the human being, who is being locked up in a cage for not harming anyone. If the cages didn't exist then there would be no way for unjust men to lock just men in cages in the first place. I think its interesting that we treat animals better then we treat our fellow human beings. A dog tears up someone else's property, we don't lock it in a cage for several months, but a man who damages another's property we have no problem locking them in cage for months to years. What's that say about man? Do we really value animal life more then we value human life?

There are ways to persuade people to get what you want without using cages. For example the use of ostracization would do far better to stop those who kill people then sticking them in cage. Refusing to trade with those who kill would go farther toward bringing a killer back into line with what is acceptable. If he is unable to find anyone willing to trade for food, water, or shelter, he will either leave the area or he will try to take it by force. If he tries to take it by force he may very will end up dead, otherwise others will be informed that he is a danger and will eventually end up dead. With either leaving the area, or ending up dead, we have solved the problem of what to do with killers, all without violating the rights of the killer or the rights of others. That which can be applied to killers can be applied to all other real crimes.
Zeus

I disagree that things that are immoral should be made illegal. By making a crime of those things that people can do such as prostitution and drugs, you are violating their right to their liberty. In my eyes it is you who are the criminal for doing so. I have no problem with morals, I just have a problem with someone's morals being enforced upon those who don't agree with them.

Your conception of "morals" and that held by most libertarians and voluntaryists is apparently different.

If an action committed by someone is the product of initiated aggression, it is immoral. That's really all one needs to know.

It applies to murder, theft, rape, assault, vandalism, fraud and pretty much any other "real" crime I can imagine. Real crime involves property, be it your own body or something you own. And usually involves someone attempting to take or destroy it.

Prostitution and drugs, while often lauded as "immoral" by the religious right, are simply people doing as they will with their own property (their bodies). So if you're using their definitions of "moral" and "immoral", you aren't going to understand what most of us mean by those terms.

Their definitions are based on ancient mysticism. Ours is based on modern logic.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Again, to go on the record, I myself do think prostitution and many drugs are immoral. To use force to prevent someone from participating in these things is also immoral, however, because to initiate violence is wrong.

I believe child molestation clearly has a victim, so not only is it immoral, but it would also be moral to use force to prevent someone from comitting it.
Zeus

Please explain how consentual prostitution and the taking of drugs is immoral, Paul.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

I surmise that you do not share my views, but I myself believe there is a God, and that our bodies and our lives are a gift which we should use responsibly. In my view, to live morally is challenging, but to live legally is easy.

Thus, a person who lies constantly, cheats on their spouse, uses hard drugs all the time, is lazy, irresponsible, stingy, and enjoys intentionally hurting the feelings of others, is acting immorally. They have not, however, broken any (just) laws — meaning that to use force to prevent them from acting in any of these ways would be immoral.

In short, the law represents that small portion of morality which is rightfully enforcable by our fellow man. The rest is enforcable only by God. I hope that clarifies things
Zeus

I interpret your statements to mean you believe that anything labeled a "sin" in your preferred holy text is what defines immorality whereas I let the non-aggression principle guide my thoughts on the matter regardless of my religious beliefs (which tend to be in sync with the non-aggression principle anyway).

If that's the case, then yes, on that matter we disagree.

But that's okay.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Zeus,

It is not so arbitrary as you make it sound. Certainly you must recognize that there can be behavior which is self destructive, or destructive towards others, which does not rise to the level of criminality. I believe that that is immoral behavior. It's fine if you disagree, but let's not pretend my beliefs are based on randomly selecting some book out of a bargain bin, based on its nice looking cover, and deciding to follow its every dictat.
Zeus

I really wasn't trying to offend, Paul. I see what you're saying now. I think our fundamental difference lies in our definitions.

You use immoral to describe undesirable behavior whereas I use it to mean unjust behavior.

To me, undesirable behavior means conduct that doesn't quite reach the level of injustice or wickedness.

For me, immorality is a matter of evil whereas undesirable behavior is about people making choices that are self-destructive, illogical and/or humiliating to themselves and others.

While I'm fairly neutral as to the desirability of marijuana use, I find heroin and meth use to be extremely undesirable. Since neither is inherently good nor evil, neither can be described as moral or immoral.

I would consider selling or giving those substances to a child extremely to be extremely immoral, however.
http://ringingliberty.com paul

Hey Zeus,

You didn't offend . I think you hit pretty close to the mark here with this last post. I would have the following three categories:

Immoral behavior (illegal): That type of immoral behavior which involves violence against another person or their property. It can be moral to use force to prevent this kind of behavior. I believe this would fit entirely in your "immoral" category.

Immoral behavior (legal): That type of immoral behavior which does not involve violence against another person or their property. It is not moral to use force to prevent this kind of behavior. This category includes self destructive behavior, such as hard drug use, as well as destructive behavior towards others which is not violent, such as verbal abuse. I believe this falls into your "undesirable behavior" category.

Imperfect behavior which is not immoral: Undesirable behavior due to personal limitations, such as clumsiness, lack of intelligence, etc. This behavior is not immoral, because it is due not to poor priorities or bad judgement, but to lack of raw ability or education.

Does that make sense? Also, I am curious, is it right to use force to prevent everything in your "immoral" category, or are there some things which you consider immoral, but should not be met with force? That is, does the line between "immoral" and "undesireable" for you also determine the justifiability of force as a response?
Zeus

I would shy away from the words "legal" and "illegal" primarily because they both mean "of or relating to jurisprudence" or "conforming (or not) to the law".

I don't believe there is such a thing a "perfect" behavior so I can't really subscribe to a belief in "imperfect" behavior either.

Pretty much everything I consider to be "immoral" relates to the "real crimes" of murder, assault, rape, theft and vandalism. These are all crimes involving usurpation of another person's property (be it their body or other type of property).

Since these are all the initiation of force, using counterforce to prevent them or subdue the perpetrator would be justified.

I can't imagine a scenario wherein undesirable behavior would justify counterforce but if you have one, I'd be interested in hearing it.

So yes, unless you have some convincing argument otherwise, the distinction I make between the two does determine whether or not force may be used as a response.
http://ringingliberty.com paul

In general, I think your definitions are reasonable, and it makes sense to put the line between justifiable counter-force where you have. Let me respond to your specific points:

Regarding legal/illegal, I meant not what is currently legal or illegal, but what should be legal or illegal. So, murder should be illegal — drugs should not. If you like, perhaps replace illegal with "morally preventable by force", and legal with "not morally preventable by force". That's all I was trying to communicate with those terms — I probably could have chosen better ones.

By "imperfect" I really just meant "undesirable".

What if someone began spreading lies about you to all your neighbors, that you were, say, a pedophile? I would certainly consider that unjust, but I wouldn't say it should be prevented by force. I would guess you probably consider it the second category, because only unjust force, not just any injustice goes in the first category, right?

Actually, this is a larger question. Don't you agree that one can behave unjustly towards others without acting violently? Would you say nonviolent injustice is only undesirable then, and not immoral? Or do you also have a third category, of immoral behavior which should not be prevented by force?

I agree that nothing you put in the "undesirable" category would justify counter-force.

I think our worldviews are not terribly different, and our views on what justifies counter-force are pretty much identical.

I think the key difference is that I believe that we have been given our lives by a creator, to whom we are morally responsible for not abusing them. I think you would say that we have no such moral responsibility, that we can morally use our lives any way we choose, as long as we don't harm others, right?

By the way, what do you believe is the source of the moral law you describe — which prohibits violence towards others? Do you think there is an inherent moral law to the universe, somewhat like physical laws?
Zeus

What if someone began spreading lies about you to all your neighbors, that you were, say, a pedophile?

Certainly such slander would be exceptionally damaging to one's reputation and livelihood but in a voluntaryist society I would openly challenge them to prove their allegations publicly.

Should he accept and lose, he will have damaged his own reputation and livelihood and would likely be ostracized. Should he decline, same result. No force necessary and he looks like a fool and a liar if he refuses to provide satisfaction (can't get no).

Should he accept and win, then that would prove his allegations to be true and my reputation and livelihood would be damaged as a result of my own actions and not his. As much as punching someone in the face for such slander might seem necessary, you may have to pay for it later. Literally, via restitution. Cooler heads will prevail.

I would certainly consider that unjust, but I wouldn’t say it should be prevented by force. I would guess you probably consider it the second category, because only unjust force, not just any injustice goes in the first category, right?

Correct. Undesireable behavior would, in most cases, be filtered out through competing market systems based on reputation rather than force. If someone runs around being a douchebag (proven by making false allegations he either cannot prove or refuses to do so), then he'll get his when he tries doing business with those who don't appreciate douchebaggery.

Actually, this is a larger question. Don’t you agree that one can behave unjustly towards others without acting violently?

I believe people can act hateful, stupid and emotional to others and thus be douchebags but if they have the right to express themselves, then they must be free to make fools of themselves and produce undesireable behavior if they so choose. Make no mistake, there would be market consequences for such behavior.

As for the examples from an earlier post, prostitution and drug use, obviously those will also have consequences. Some people won't care to do business with such people, and others won't care. But, barring extenuating circumstances, neither of these things harms anyone else but the consenting individuals who choose them. In many cases, you will never even know that these individuals engage in these practices.

Undesirable behavior is subjective. Immoral behavior is inherently objective because it is by it's nature, destructive.

Would you say nonviolent injustice is only undesirable then, and not immoral? Or do you also have a third category, of immoral behavior which should not be prevented by force?

Again, if no one is harmed or damaged in some way, it is not immoral to me so yes, "nonviolent injustice" is undesireable but not inherently immoral.

I see no reason for a third category. If it doesn't hurt another or affect me in some way, then it's none of my business. What a high-priced call girl does in Los Angeles or a pot smoker does in Seattle is not my business. And, while unfortunate, neither are the self-damaging choices of a street walker in Hoboken or a meth head in Chattanooga. It all comes back to non-aggression and self-responsibility.

I agree that nothing you put in the “undesirable” category would justify counter-force.

I think our worldviews are not terribly different, and our views on what justifies counter-force are pretty much identical.

I think the key difference is that I believe that we have been given our lives by a creator, to whom we are morally responsible for not abusing them. I think you would say that we have no such moral responsibility, that we can morally use our lives any way we choose, as long as we don’t harm others, right?

And that's a fine belief with one minor (yet dangerous) flaw: it includes those who may not believe as you do into your religious collective i.e. you include all of humanity into your belief rather than just those who subscribe to your beliefs.

This plants the seed for enforcing your collective's ideas of what is or is not acceptable behavior on others. The Catholic Church and it's inquisitions is an obvious historical example of this as are the Salem witch trials.

"She doesn't act as we believe she should act. She must be a witch! Burn the witch!"

"He doesn't prostrate himself before us and worships heathen idols, he is a heretic! Burn the heretic!"

And so on.

So yes, I believe people should have the freedom to do with their lives as they wish. As much as I hope that they would choose a constructive path rather than a destructive one, I do not believe they have any obligation to do so. Their lives would, however, be better if they did.

By the way, what do you believe is the source of the moral law you describe — which prohibits violence towards others? Do you think there is an inherent moral law to the universe, somewhat like physical laws?

There is natural law which, to me, is to imagine what kind of choices you could make, for good or ill, in a world where you were the only person on earth.

Now take that and add 6 billion more people with that same ability. In order to prevent or alleviate the conflict that will naturally arise from interaction, there must be a common sense set of principles shared amongst a society.

That set of principles is the philosophy of liberty.
Zeus

I should add here that this is the fundamental difference between voluntaryists/abolitionists and statists.

Whereas we believe the Philosophy of Liberty is the best method for interacting with others, statists believe that a handful of people should be given a monopoly on force to keep both the immoral and the undesirable in check.

The flaw with that line of thought being that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

And yet this is the tool statists give to those who seek power. Immoral people are attracted to power like flies to dung.
cyberdoo78

Sorry for taking so long to respond this dropped off the front page and so it dropped off my map. So I will clarify where clarification is needed.

When speaking of morals, I was speaking in the religious sense, since that appeared where Paul was coming from Zeus. I agree with you, Zeus, that morality should be based on whom ever initiates force is the one acting immorally(this time not in the religious sense).

However, my problem is that parents treat children as property, deciding what is an initiation of aggression for a child instead of letting the child decide. And in doing so are actually initiating aggression against others without any authorization, since it is the mind of some people that children are unable to give authorization until they reach some magical, mystical age.

For an example, I, like some others, was fondled as a child by someone older then me, a pre-teen male kid in the neighborhood. I did not view his fondling then, or even now, an initiation of aggression against me, even though my parents might consider it one and subject the young man through torture that is the criminal justice system. If I don't feel it was an initiation of aggression, then and even more so now, was it a violation of non-initiation of force principle? If anyone acting on my behalf, neither asking my input nor considering what I might want, were to initiate force against this young boy, would they not be in the wrong?

Can you honestly say you are prepared for the act of sexual intercourse and its possible results, even if given an education about the act for 10 years time? Such is the saying about crossing such bridges when they are reached. You could plan and train for years for an event as crossing a river, but never be totally prepared for the actual crossing of a river, and it isn't until you are on the other side of that river that you can really say, you know what you know.

It is this conversion of knowledge to experience before one really can, in my mind, actually give consent to anything.

The argument that children can not make such choices is, as I have postulated on numerous other occasions, simply false one, created by parents who view their children as some property or quasi-property to be controlled and held away from the harshness of life, and it is these parents who are initiating force against their children and are the real criminals.

In your experience, a child fondling another child is a crime punishable by the harshest of sentences. In my experience, a child fondling another child, is only a crime if the one being fondled objects to such an act. Regardless of religious morality of the act.
Zeus

I don't think it's a matter of people believing they own their children. Most parents are not despots seeking to create slaves. They are the guardians of their children and thus they are concerned for their well-being.

I have no idea why, when asked "Why?", parents tend to answer "Because I said so!" instead of "Because it might kill you!" or "It's dangerous!" or some other more informative answer but until a child has enough knowledge and experience to make informed decisions for themselves, parents must often make choices on their behalf in order to protect and educate them.

Were parents not to do this (and there are plenty that don't) then they would be considered neglectful and rightly so.

The children of neglectful parents often wind up dead.
cyberdoo78

I think you are right in this regard it no one but parents can say for sure. As a parent, I do not treat my child like others might treat their children. I recognize that he is an adult and that there are certain things he must do, because he is my child and because I would be held responsible for his actions should he choose not to(which itself is yet another violation of my rights as human being).

I treat my child as a young adult. I explain things to him, rather then say things like, 'because I said so', or what have you. Rather then assume he doesn't understand I assume he does understand and ask questions if he doesn't. He is 5, if he wasn't a short child, my wife and I are both 5'4", he would be mistaken for a child older then that.

It is my opinion that if more parents would stop treating their children as children and prepare them rightfully for the world, instead as some do trying to protect them from the world thereby stunting their growth as human beings, then half the problems relating to arrant children would all but disappear.

Parents in Rome had motivation that by 7 years old the child would have the understanding of right and wrong, for the child would suffer as an adult for a crime that was committed. Today such motivations no longer exist. So child are condemned as second class human beings till they reach some mystical-magical ages.