Free Keene

Comment by Underhill

May 17, 2009 @ 10:47 am

There is no mention of the nine denials of writs of habeas corpus and the continued affirmation of Sam’s indefinite jailing. There is nothing in the article allowing Sam to speak in any meaningful way about his reasons for being in jail.

Without letting him tell his story, this article makes it legitimately sound like Sam merely wishes to waste money that’s not his and to stubbornly not cooperate with a wonderously fair and upright justice system.

It’s just not true: the devil is always in the details. The mainstream press like the Keene Sentinel has no reason to be committed to journalistic excellence and so does not do a thorough job of investigative journalism and tell Sam’s story truthfully. That’s why the freedom of information on the internet is so important and is used by independent videographers, like Sam Dodson. People like Sam are threatening to the popular support of the State’s unjust monopoly, and why newspapers are going out of style.

Comment by bile

May 17, 2009 @ 10:50 am

1. 116 from 180 is impressive and a little scary. I’m 5′8″ and 110lbs and that’s underweight.

2. I’m curious as to why they didn’t go into the name discrepancy. Changed because of divorce, adoption, trying to hide something? Usually people are concerned with those who do such a thing.

3. While the toilet and air conditioning thing are points to worry about and should be addressed quickly I do feel that some made a bigger deal out of it then necessary. Never the less I’d like to see Van Wickler further describe “absolutely deceptive.”

4. Thank you Phillip Bantz.

Comment by Markus

May 17, 2009 @ 11:58 am

I’d like to hear more about the jail conditions as I did’t think Sam was exaggerating.

Sam seems dug in on his stance as do the tyrants. I wonder what’s going to give.

Comment by u

May 17, 2009 @ 12:30 pm

who is sam miller…who is sam dodson…
deception???

Comment by Toby

May 17, 2009 @ 12:33 pm

Let’s get this story in front of more people:

http://digg.com/politics/Free_Stater_Jailed_Indefinitely_Without_Food_or_a_Trial

Comment by bile

May 17, 2009 @ 12:34 pm

u… that question was raised weeks ago. There are many reasons people change their name… it would have been nice if Bantz had asked about it.

Comment by severin

May 17, 2009 @ 12:35 pm

That picture says more than the article, it’s a scary sight.

I hope there is a lot of pressure on Burke to let him out, and when he is “tried” to just issue time served and get this whole thing over with. Jail should never have been an option, if they didn’t think he should have been filming in the courthouse the most that should have been done is to remove him from the courthouse (that should not have happened either, he should have been allowed to film). Then all that would have happened is a video of him standing outside of the courthouse describing the circumstances of his forceful eviction. Now as this story builds it gets worse and worse for the government, and whenever he is finally released, he will have much more to say than “they unjustly kicked me out of the courthouse”.

Comment by Justin

May 17, 2009 @ 12:37 pm

Tyrants: We recognize your right to remain silent

Peaceful Citizen: I choose to exercise that right

Tyrants: Until you give up that right you will be forced to stay in prison.

Peaceful Citizen: If I have the right to stay silent, you have no ability to make me speak my name, therefore you are illegally holding me, and you are my CAPTORS. I will not eat so long as I am in your possession.

Tyrants: Your fate is your hands, speak your name and you will be allowed to go to step 2 in our labyrinth of justice. We are not holding you, you are holding yourself by not cooperating with us.

Comment by u

May 17, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

so whats the explanaton for his name change?

Comment by oh and

May 17, 2009 @ 12:44 pm

“He aims to pave the way for other activists to refuse to hand over identification to the authorities”

This is going nowhere…

So essentialy in Sams dream world, a child molester, rapist or murderer would not be forced to submit their name either?

I just think he should be using this energy elsewhere

Comment by bile

May 17, 2009 @ 12:45 pm

No one knows that I’m aware of. Perhaps his father who has posted on here before could enlighten us or has said why in the past and I missed it.

This is why I said it would have been nice if the author of the article would have addressed it. It was poor journalism.

Comment by oh and

May 17, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

i’m sure there is a logical explanation…it can come off as suspicous though

Comment by bile

May 17, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

Oh And…. if someone is innocent until proved guilty, is not required by law to give up his name during booking and they have his name anyway… what’s the problem? They are the one’s making a big deal out of this. They have his finger prints. His Texas drivers license, etc. They are holding him simply so he will obey and say “My name is Sam A. Miller.”

Comment by bile

May 17, 2009 @ 12:51 pm

Looks like it was picked up by Fox 44

http://www.fox44.net/Global/story.asp?S=10376182

Edit: Actually by the AP

Comment by Sam's Dad

May 17, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

I did not realize there was much concern over Sam’s name. However, I will tell you what I know but you will eventually need to get it straight from Sam himself.

When Sam became an activist and began producing his documentaries on government injustice from his personal encounters and experiences he began receiving phone calls from well wishers and other activists offering their support and assistance in anyway they could. He quickly found himself spending most of his free time on the phone and very little time on his photography and activism as his phone number was readily available from the phone company and internet. He was not trying to escape his well wishers and volunteers, but he simply no longer had the time necessary to pursue his mission. I believe he also thought about most actors having a screen name in addition to their real names. So somewhere between the two issues he began using Sam Dodson for all of his video work and activision.

The Dodson name is his mothers maiden name. His grandfather Dodson passed away a number of years ago and his grandmother preceeded him by several years, so Sam may have decided to use Dodson out of love and respect for his grandparents. The more recent video he did about his big change and move to NH earlier this year, he shot it at the old Dodson family farm, you know the one where he is chasing a black cow. The farm was subdivided between his mother and her two sisters and a brother. His mother and her brother now reside on the old Dodson homestead in East Texas.

Only Sam knows why he began using a public name. Once he gets out of prison up there you will have to get him to tell you why made that decision in life. But I suspect it is from some combination of all of the above.

Sam has absolutely nothing to hide from anyone regarding his name. I hope this helps.

Sam’s Dad

Comment by Markus

May 17, 2009 @ 1:38 pm

For O and OH AND, to be concerned about his name change is like being concerned about what color underwear he was wearing when he was arrested. It doesn’t matter.

They have his name, they have his Driver’s License and P.O. Box number. If a murderer said he had a different name but you had his driver’s license, which name would you go by? You need to look at what he did, his actions, not at what he is or is not identying himself as.

He’s a member of the press. He was video taping in a District Courthouse, per the law. He was overtaken by men with guns who dragged him into a cage and are holding him there indefinately, for breaking no law.

Please don’t waste your time with concern about his name, as it’s not the real issue and I”m sure we’ll find out soon enough, thanks.

Comment by bile

May 17, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

Sam’s Dad… thank you for clarifying. I’ve been a supporter of Sam for a while and continue to do my part in getting his story out (http://sam.jailedactivist.info).

As you probably know PR is probably the most important component to activism of any sort and given many people tend to assume the worse of a person who’s been placed in jail I’ve wanted the whole name issue cleared up so people like “u” would have less ammunition against him.

Not that the explanation given won’t stop them from bad mouthing Sam or the FSP or the liberty movement… but it helps.

Thanks again.

Comment by Zeus

May 17, 2009 @ 2:26 pm

I’ve been going by “Zeus” both online and off for at least 18 years. I don’t think anything of that either.

Those whom I know on a personal level know what my birth name is but many still call me Zeus anyway. I use either for business depending on the circumstances.

Ian uses the name “Freeman”. Mark uses “Edge”. Samuel Clemens went by “Mark Twain”. Stephen King went by “Richard Bachman”. It’s not uncommon for people who work in creative jobs (especially film and radio) to go by another “stage name”.

Using a pseudonym doesn’t change your fingerprints or who you are as a person.

And I agree, Sam looks terrible in that pic. They really need to let him go so he can eat.

Comment by Paul

May 17, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

Oh and: No, the rapist or murderer should not have to submit their name either — they should be tried whether they give their name or not. You know, right to remain silent?

As a separate issue, are we sure the reporter got it right? Is Sam’s weight really 116? Because if that’s the case I am very worried. I remember him saying he was down to 160 — is it possible the reporter misheard?

Comment by Sam's Dad

May 17, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

Mark emailed me and confirmed it was a typo. He’s at 160 or maybe a few pounds less. A good thing because I was on the internet making reservations to get up there.

Comment by cyberdoo78

May 17, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

“OH”,

Murder and rape, and to some extent child molestation, are actual crimes, people have actually been harmed. In all of these cases, someone has been made to answer to them. A quick glance of State/County/City v Joe Doe cases will show this. Unlike an accused murder, accused rapist, or accused child molester, their right to a trial has not been stopped by simply refusing to say who they are, nor would it ever be stopped by refusing to give their name.

Under the law, your name isn\’t required. The only methods that are lawfully recognized to identify a person is photograph and finger prints. If a accused murderer, accused rapist, or accused child molester said a different name, do you think they would stop till he told him what their name is? No, the would move to trial with either the name that they have, or try him as John Doe.

What Sam did, he harmed no one. Today he is not harming no one, I would suggest that tomorrow he won’t harm anyone as well.

The question that ought to be ringing loud and clear here is, if a accused murder, accused rapist, accused child molester are taken to trial without them giving their name, why isn\’t Sam? What is it about not giving your name combined with not harming someone that allows them to hold you till you die? Why is saying your name so important to these people in the first place? Why are they appearing to violate the law by holding him because he refuses to say his name?

Comment by Puke

May 17, 2009 @ 8:11 pm

I thought that was a very good article.
Much better than the last one.

Comment by Jim Davidson

May 17, 2009 @ 8:18 pm

What Sam calls himself is Sam’s business, and Sam’s choice. This whole business of “identification” is silly. It makes the state look stupid, and I’m glad that Sam is persistent with it.

Sam is this guy you can find in the jail. If you want to verify his identity, as a friend if that’s the guy. This piece of paper issued by the state of Texas isn’t Sam, it is just a piece of paper issued by a government.

If you don’t trust Sam to tell you he’s Sam, then why should you trust the state of Texas to tell you he’s Sam? You’ve multiplied entities unnecessarily. If Sam can’t be trusted to tell YOU who he is, why do you think that he told TEXAS who he is? And who are these incompetent people in Texas who issued this document that has his name wrong? Are you friends with any of them? I lived in Texas for 20 years, and never trusted anyone who worked for the government there, with good reason.

Comment by Jim Davidson

May 17, 2009 @ 8:34 pm

Previously, I posted that Judge Edward Burke lives at 56 Chapman Rd in Keene, NH. I continue to believe that’s so. This point is confirmed with a post to NH Underground which shows up when one searches on his name and that address.

Why should he get to sleep? Seems like he wants to keep Sam in jail without charging him with any actual crime (mala in se) and even the trumped up mala prohibitum charges have evaporated.

Sam wasn’t in possession of property without a serial number, as everyone now knows (except the author of the above hit piece, perhaps). Rather, Sam, like any other video professional, masked the reflective materials on his camera to help control the lighting. There is no law against masking off the serial number with tape.

There is this assertion that an unsigned order against video recording appears in the lobby, but there is also a clear state law that says that it is legal to video even in the court rooms. But Judge Burke was embarrassed by what showed up on Youtube after Burke was mean and idiotic toward Ian Freeman. So, of course, we have an unsigned order taped to the wall of the lobby asserting an unnatural and idiotic mala prohibitum ruling.

So, go by his house and lean on the horn. Burke wants looking at, especially in the early hours of the morning.

Presumably, Keene police prosecutor D. Chris McLaughlin knows that he cannot prove a charge of disorderly conduct, and he also knows that Sam has spent far more time in jail than he would have to serve even if he were convicted of disorderly conduct. But, like an evil bureau-rat, McLaughlin wants to hurt Sam some more, and so he connives with Burke to issue a “criminal contempt of court” citation.

Cleverly, the system is rigged so no one ever has a chance to defend themselves against criminal contempt of court. So, they’ll keep Sam in prison until their system of government is voted out of office, or overthrown some other way, or so they imagine.

Comment by cyberdoo78

May 17, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

Jim, nice.

Comment by sasa

May 17, 2009 @ 10:02 pm

sam needs a wikipedia entry

Comment by Curt Springer

May 17, 2009 @ 10:10 pm

Jim,
I live in NH about 100 miles east of Keene.

One nice thing about NH is that officials are very accessible. It is rare for them to have unlisted numbers and such, even those higher up in the food chain.

Of course if people start harassing them as you propose, that will end. Leaving aside the possibility of criminal liability for such actions, I just don’t think it will help the image of FSP people in Keene, and it will make it harder to reach some sort of understanding with the court system about various policies and regulations.

Comment by charley hardman

May 17, 2009 @ 10:45 pm

There is no mention of the nine denials of writs of habeas corpus [...]

from the article:

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.

Mark uses “Edge”. [...] It’s not uncommon for people who work in creative jobs (especially film and radio) to go by another “stage name”.

nor is it uncommon for someone who assisted in murdering another to change his name in the interest of foiling google searches, etc.

mark’s inclusion in your example list is almost funny, whatever his reason(s) for going by “Edge”, none of which i know. i know, however, that he attempted to keep that part of his past a secret.

generally, using a pseudonym raises more questions than not, for sensible reasons. and no, illogical fools who may read this, i am not opposed to pseudonyms, nor arguing against them. however, strangers can hardly be expected to not be skeptical of them on the margin. the “well these guys used fake names” retort fails even harder when including in the list an admitted (after being outed) assistant murderer.

Comment by Zeus

May 17, 2009 @ 11:19 pm

nor is it uncommon for someone who assisted in murdering another to change his name in the interest of foiling google searches, etc.

Obviously a pointed barb at Mark as you reveal below. And even though you admit below you have no idea why he goes by Edge, you weave together a motive pulled directly out of your ass.

mark’s inclusion in your example list is almost funny, whatever his reason(s) for going by “Edge”, none of which i know.

Hmm. Could it possibly be that HE’S A RADIO SHOW HOST? Oh, you didn’t know that radio jocks use fake names all the time? Yeah, one guy I knew went by “Freak”. A guy in Chicago went by “Turd”. Mark previously went by “Manwich”. I go by “Zeus”. Maybe you should Google that before conjuring up evil motives for wanting some privacy?

i know, however, that he attempted to keep that part of his past a secret.

“Attempted” how? Did you two have a daring rooftop chase where he tried to silence you? Or did he just not bring it up in polite conversation like an old person bringing up their irritable bowel syndrome?

I once knew a guy who would tell me he was a witch. I think he wanted a reaction out of me. Eventually, I had to tell him, politely, that I heard him the first dozens times, didn’t give a flying rat’s ass and to kindly STFU.

the “well these guys used fake names” retort fails even harder when including in the list an admitted (after being outed) assistant murderer.

First of all, Mark didn’t murder anyone. He was a dumb teenager who got talked into doing a robbery by an older kid who ended up murdering his former boss. You already know this though and yet you still vindictively label him “assistant murderer”. Talk about a dick move.

Second, this “outed” shit is a bunch of nonsense.

Mark’s past would have come out anyway but some dipshit detective wanna-be decided to reveal it ahead of time so they could point fingers and cry “WITCH!” and burn him at the stake publicly.

The AMP section on the FTL website promises to reveal a handful of secrets about the hosts and add new features (like the studio cam) when the AMP donations reach certain amounts. See that $10,000 End Goal? “Commercial Time Reduction, And Secrets Revealed”. That was there long before Mark’s history was revealed and Ian has also already revealed something on air. Wanna know what it is? Google it. I’m not doing you any favors, ass.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, pal.

Comment by charley hardman

May 17, 2009 @ 11:44 pm

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, pal.

that should follow a refutation.

And even though you admit below you have no idea why he goes by Edge, you weave together a motive pulled directly out of your ass.

i told the truth, as usual. i do not know why mark used a pseudonym, nor if concealing his past had anything to do with it. however, neither do you know, unless you are he, that it wasn’t done to foil google searches. given that he kept it secret (more on that below), it remains a reasonable possibility to posit.

Hmm. Could it possibly be that HE’S A RADIO SHOW HOST?

yes. now back to you, smarmster: Hmm. Could it possibly be that HE ASSISTED IN A MURDER?

Oh, you didn’t know that radio jocks use fake names all the time?

that sort of inane fallacy spewing is precisely why i included a note for fools. will not repost.

“Attempted” how?

apparently, by not talking about it on a show where it was relevant as hell. if you really want to pretend it wasn’t intended as a secret, better to not provide as evidence the assertion that the information was intentionally withheld until a certain criterion was met.

I once knew a guy who would tell me he was a witch. I think he wanted a reaction out of me. Eventually, I had to tell him, politely, that I heard him the first dozens times, didn’t give a flying rat’s ass and to kindly STFU.

powerful stuff! powerfully irrelevant.

[...] and yet you still vindictively label him “assistant murderer”. Talk about a dick move.

since he assisted in the murder of ballapuran umakanthan. i call him, correctly, an assistant murderer. if one would prefer calling him assistant to the murderer, for example, that doesn’t describe accurately enough his close involvement in the murder. propose something more accurate than my term and i’ll use that instead. murder cleanup man? perhaps. let me know.

Second, this “outed” shit is a bunch of nonsense.

obviously, it is not. it was a secret. you acknowledge it. you also assert that it was revealed before the intended time. that, obfuscator, is being outed.

Comment by Jim Davidson

May 18, 2009 @ 12:30 am

Everyone has choices to take, Curt.

But, let me ask you, given this high level of accessibility, why won’t Burkee-baby allow video in his court room and in his lobby? It doesn’t seem like this particular judge is being especially accessible.

Will you lament Sam’s death in prison, or will you favor him being force fed through a tube in a hospital? Sam isn’t accessible to his friends. So, I’m not sure what the benefit of letting Burkee-baby get a good nights sleep would be. Who benefits?

What is the criminal liability for honking your horn? Are you saying that people don’t ever honk their horns in New Hampshire? Seems unlikely. Inconsistent with my many trips there. Are you saying that it is against the law to honk your horn at 03:30 in front of Burkee-baby’s home?

Perhaps the police of Keene would like to dedicate a squad car to sit in front of the judge’s house and charge “criminally” or with a civil ‘traffic ticket’ for honking their horns. Is there to be no resistance to Burkee-baby killing our friend Sam? Is there no price for patriots to pay, either?

But in that event, one could take an air horn on foot to a location around the corner, set it off, and run away. With a little care, one could set a boom box off by timer, or by remote control. Hide it up in a tree. Drive ‘em nuts.

Not to mention the many things one can do to a police cruiser that is just sitting there. Caltrops anyone?

Perhaps what you are thinking is that there are criminal penalties for me *proposing* acts of civil disobedience, which I do in my own name, of my own free will. In which case, by all means send your thugs around, let’s dance.

Comment by Lpviper

May 18, 2009 @ 12:37 am

Jim

Calm down dude

I suggested a picket party with camera coverage and media exposure during the day. Signs and such. That seems a bit more reasonable than caltrops. A hundred or so folks with signs being generally loud and chanting anti-tyranny slogans should suffice for now, don’t you think?

I can see why Paul and Zeus are concerned. Your rantings could be misconstrued to rub off on all. While I don’t specifically disagree with anything you are saying, caltrops excepted, why are you putting all this in a public forum? What is to be gained?

Comment by Zeus

May 18, 2009 @ 12:37 am

i told the truth, as usual. i do not know why mark used a pseudonym, nor if concealing his past had anything to do with it.

And yet you attributed his reasons for doing so as evil without actually knowing them.

however, neither do you know, unless you are he, that it wasn’t done to foil google searches. given that he kept it secret (more on that below), it remains a reasonable possibility to posit.

I talk to Mark every so often on the phone and IM him all the time. I do business with him and Ian from time to time. I’m sure Mark can answer this himself should he choose to, but I know Mark well enough to know that Google searches likely never crossed his mind. He is much closer to being a Luddite than an internet wizard.

yes. now back to you, smarmster: Hmm. Could it possibly be that HE ASSISTED IN A MURDER?

Again, this is a fallacy as you well know. He did not know a murder was going to take place. The actual murderer tricked a teenage Mark into coming with him, telling him it was a simple robbery. I’m not saying he was an angel, he obviously intended to be a thief that night, but he wasn’t a murderer. He had no intention of killing anyone, didn’t know it was going to happen and did not personally commit the act. He was a dumb teenager in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong person and he’s paid for that mistake and made something of what’s left of his life.

Mr. Umakanthan was strangled to death by the real murderer, a former employee. The real murderer did ten years in prison and went on to do more crimes when he got out. By the time he himself was murdered earlier this year, he was also a registered sex offender.

Of course, this is all meaningless to you because you’ve already made up your mind regardless of the facts. You’re hitman and you’re here to do a job. It’s only a question of motive. Is it your own or did someone else put you up to it?

that sort of inane fallacy spewing is precisely why i included a note for fools. will not repost.

I work in radio. Unless you can say the same, I think my years of experience in the industry trump your lack thereof.

apparently, by not talking about it on a show where it was relevant as hell. if you really want to pretend it wasn’t intended as a secret, better to not provide as evidence the assertion that the information was intentionally withheld until a certain criterion was met.

Whether it was or wasn’t, it was his to reveal when and if he chose to. Do you regularly go around telling strangers all your personal issues? If not, why are you keeping all that a secret? You should just go around telling everyone every last thing there is to know about you, especially the stuff you’d rather not be reminded of on a daily basis by a bunch of jackasses who want to twist it and rub your face in order to satiate their vindictive egos.

since he assisted in the murder of ballapuran umakanthan. i call him, correctly, an assistant murderer. if one would prefer calling him assistant to the murderer, for example, that doesn’t describe accurately enough his close involvement in the murder. propose something more accurate than my term and i’ll use that instead. murder cleanup man? perhaps. let me know.

“Dupe” or “Fall Guy” would both be appropriate titles.

obviously, it is not. it was a secret. you acknowledge it. you also assert that it was revealed before the intended time. that, obfuscator, is being outed.

No, it’s “jerks meddling in someone else’s business and slapping themselves on the back for damaging a person who already paid the price for being in the wrong place at the wrong time with a homicidal maniac who lied to them”.

Comment by Jim Davidson

May 18, 2009 @ 12:39 am

What difference does it make whether Ian or Mark or Zeus or Edge or Jane Roe or Cher or Bono use the names their parents gave them, or the names the state has assigned them on identification papers?

We aren’t talking about all those people on this thread, we’re talking about Sam. And to a significant extent about Burkee-baby in the context of “The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely…the law’s delay, the insolence of office and the spurns
that patient merit of the unworthy takes…”.

Or do they teach Shakespeare in your misbegotten pubic schools?

Comment by Lpviper

May 18, 2009 @ 12:42 am

I went to pubic school once

It was gay (no offense to the gay people, it’s an expression and I can’t give it up)

Comment by Jim Davidson

May 18, 2009 @ 12:50 am

“Calm down dude”

Why? You’ve been calm for 30 days now, while Sam has rotted in jail, without the opportunity to defend himself in court, without a meaningful charge against him, without a reasonable bail. Is infinite bail not sufficiently excessive to get you upset? Or are you not the type to get upset by injustice.

There can be no peace without justice.

“I suggested a picket party with camera coverage and media exposure during the day. Signs and such.”

Isn’t that sweet. What a pretty idea. You wouldn’t want to make your protest in a fashion that was unfashionable, and that failed to provide you with publicity, would you? Gosh.

There can be no justice without freedom.

“That seems a bit more reasonable than caltrops.”

And how reasonable is it for Sam to be in jail for 30 days without being charged with any actual crime? Without having an opportunity to defend himself in court? Without a reasonable bail for his release? What is this fixation with the identity state that you love better than caltrops?

There can be no freedom without weapons.

“A hundred or so folks with signs being generally loud and chanting anti-tyranny slogans should suffice for now, don’t you think?”

Me? I don’t agree at all. I don’t see why that would do any more good now than it ever has in the past. Were you thinking of stopping the war in Iraq that way? Maybe getting some of that peace dividend we were promised? How’s that been going for you?

“I can see why Paul and Zeus are concerned.”

Concerned about what?

“Your rantings could be misconstrued to rub off on all.”

Really? Well, isn’t that extraordinary. I’m using my own name and my words are my own. I defy you to claim them as yours, milquetoast. If there is anything wrong with vehemently objecting to Sam’s incarceration, perhaps you should tell me what is wrong about it. If you can.

You just don’t want to be as hostile toward oppression as I want to be. Because you want your chains to set lightly on your shoulders, and your manacles to be a little open. I want your chains to set heavily upon you, and your cuffs to chafe and bind. I want you to suffer under the oppression of the tyrants, and I want history to never recall that we were once fellow countrymen.

“While I don’t specifically disagree with anything you are saying, caltrops excepted, why are you putting all this in a public forum? What is to be gained?”

Why not? What’s to be lost?

What’s wrong with caltrops? What have I said about caltrops that is so offensive to you?

The price of freedom has always been the blood of tyrants. You don’t want to shed the blood of anyone.

So, what do you want to do? Sit idly by with your thumb firmly entrenched in your rectum while our friend Sam dies in jail?

Wouldn’t that tend to shed the blood of a patriot without ever troubling the tyrant for a night’s sleep?

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter.

Comment by Lpviper

May 18, 2009 @ 1:02 am

Hm. Indeed. Why don’t you discuss this with the man who has been wronged and see if he agrees with your approach?

Go to mail-to-jail.com and send him a note. I’m sure he will post a response here for your perusal.

I will not presume to guess at what he will say, but for myself I will stick by what I said above.

There may eventually be a time for your brand of activism, Jim, but now is not it. Even at the time of the Revolution in the 1770s, public approval for it was about 10 percent. The current liberty movement doesn’t have that. The brainwashing of the public at large is too extensive for that.

So we are left to spread the message, with love and understanding, and peaceful protest. And if it doesn’t work, then in time we will have the public support necessary to take firmer action.

Thanks

Comment by charley hardman

May 18, 2009 @ 1:30 am

And yet you attributed his reasons for doing so as evil without actually knowing them.

generally, i do not attempt to refute straw men. will not here.

Again, this is a fallacy as you well know.

had mark never known of the murder, i would be wrong in labeling him an assistant murderer. you are wrong to assert unconditionally that mark didn’t known he was going to participate in a murder, just as i would be to assert he did know. however, according to mark, he learned of the murder and then assisted the murderer in completing the act (an act you’ll insist was over when the victim died). frankly, i’m surprised anyone attempts to minimize mark’s involvement, since it only screws him in the long run by highlighting what he’s already admitted — a damned scoundrelly record.

, but he wasn’t a murderer.

if i knew he was a murderer, i’d have called him a murderer.

He had no intention of killing anyone, didn’t know it was going to happen [...]

you allege. you don’t know. i don’t know.

[...] he’s paid for that mistake [...]

you had to go and mention something you wisely edited out of your previous comment. as i wrote in my linked blog post, this is perhaps the most sickening part of his post-outing disclosure. ian touched on it recently, and i linked to mary ruwart’s book on the subject. discussion of the subject (restoration) during mark’s disclosure? far as i recall, not a syllable. it was all about his submission to the state on a subject roundly trounced routinely by voluntarists and even “libertarians”. this is as far as i recall. if i’m wrong, i need to correct my blog post. will not be listening again to that show without solid indication that i should.

By the time he himself was murdered earlier this year, he was also a registered sex offender.

Of course, this is all meaningless to you [...]

that part assuredly is.

[...] because you’ve already made up your mind regardless of the facts.

as demonstrated here, my mind regards the facts.

You’re hitman

i’m a hitman, but mark is not an assistant murderer. more almost funny material.

Is it your own or did someone else put you up to it?

i assume that’s only a rhetorical question.

I work in radio. Unless you can say the same, I think my years of experience in the industry trump your lack thereof.

LOL (literally). you have major reading/logic/reality problems.

Whether it was or wasn’t, it was his to reveal when and if he chose to.

false.

Do you regularly go around telling strangers all your personal issues?

that would be impossible, which i suppose is the reason you asked it. however, if someone talks about prison with me, i will likely ask if that person’s ever been imprisoned, while in the same sentence noting that i have. i know this because i’ve done exactly that many times. i can think of no action of mine — embarrassing, shameful, or otherwise — that i will not raise with a stranger or friend if a topic along those lines arises in conversation. in public, there are some things i will not discuss because they contain information potentially harmful to another. you have already asserted, by logical transfer, that this was not the case with mark and the murder with which he assisted.

“Dupe” or “Fall Guy” would both be appropriate titles.

perhaps appropriate, but not nearly so much as “murder cleanup guy”. suggest another if you like. i will switch to anything more accurate than my suggestion.

No, it’s “jerks meddling in someone else’s business [...]

knowing what mark did is wholly relevant to his ostensible position as a voluntarism exponent.

[...] who already paid the price [...]

far as i know, you’re wrong again. if otherwise, i’d like to know to amend my linked blog post.

[...] for being in the wrong place at the wrong time with a homicidal maniac who lied to them”.

just before he allegedly engaged body disposal & STFU mode. or did i get that wrong? let me know.

What difference does it make whether Ian or Mark or Zeus or Edge or Jane Roe or Cher or Bono use the names their parents gave them, or the names the state has assigned them on identification papers?

We aren’t talking about all those people on this thread, we’re talking about Sam.

threads are not confined to the original direct subject, nor should they be. you’re right to stress sam’s situation, as you are right to discuss the crimes against him without the fantasy brainwashing affecting so many supposed liberty advocates.

Comment by lost

May 18, 2009 @ 1:38 am

this “movement” has no unity or direction whatsoever

Comment by Paul

May 18, 2009 @ 1:40 am

Look, can we drop the whole Mark thing already?

No question, what he did that day was evil and rightfully criminal. He, unlike many who have done evil things, has managed to reform his life.

He now works to prevent people from commiting violence which is not in self defense.

Can you say the same?

P.S. Lost, it’s about working to end the initiation of force against people who have not harmed others. This is an open forum, so no doubt you will see some healthy debate

Comment by lost

May 18, 2009 @ 1:49 am

there is absolutely no structure and the only constant is conflict of views and objectives…

Comment by charley hardman

May 18, 2009 @ 1:57 am

this “movement” has no unity or direction whatsoever

the beauty of voluntarism is that no cooperation whatever is required to practice it. beware “unity”.

Can you say the same?

you just said, “Look, can we drop the whole Mark thing already?”, then you’re doing your usual fallacious dreck routine for me to compare myself to mark? listen closely, morons who infest the comments on this site: what only i do, have done, haven’t done, or do not do, is utterly — without exception — not necessarily relevant to a discussion of someone else — even if the subject is hypocrisy. such retorts may be internet forum fallacy #1, perhaps second only to throwing the T word at an opponent in a runaway maneuver apparently invisible only to the runner.

yes, this pains stupid people. it’s tough. they reach inevitably for the “must have intractable ephemeral dick-measuring contest” button. why? because it’s about as illogical (intentionally) as it gets. so far as i’ve seen on this board, it’s used here solely as a diversion tactic when a pet friend of the FK squad is discussed negatively. it’s used even to ignore valuable advice.

as i’ve said before, assume i’ve done nothing for liberty. assume i’m an average statist. relevance to what’s being discussed: none. for the purpose of this thread, assume i’m a murderer. relevance to mark’s behavior: none.

Comment by Paul

May 18, 2009 @ 2:19 am

You’re right, it’s irrelevant. I didn’t mean to impugn you. My intent was to note that it is unfair to judge a man by his past actions, which he has since reformed. Therefore, I wish we wouldn’t go round and round about Mark. I do not think anyone considers his actions as a teen moral or justified. I don’t think anyone believes he would commit those same actions today.

Comment by Jim Davidson

May 18, 2009 @ 2:30 am

“Why don’t you discuss this with the man who has been wronged and see if he agrees with your approach?”

I don’t because they aren’t his actions to take. They aren’t his words to choose. They are mine.

I choose how to respond to tyranny. If Sam doesn’t like it, let him say so. But that certainly won’t stop me.

I have only one way to guide my feet, and that is by the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the Keene judiciary or the United States government for the last few years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves.

Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.

Why has an entire combat brigade been stationed in the USA if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can one assign any other possible motive for it? Has the USA government any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of military power here? Nope.

They are meant for us. They can be meant for no other. They are here to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the government have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument?

Many of us have been trying that for the last sixteen years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain.

Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, deceive ourselves.

We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the seat of power, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the bureau-rats and politicians.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the seat of power!

In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

You tell us that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a police officer shall be stationed in every house?

Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.

Three hundred millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles with us. The battle is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.

Besides, we have no choice. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard in Keene! The war is inevitable–and let it come!

It is in vain to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!

Comment by charley hardman

May 18, 2009 @ 2:44 am

I choose how to respond to tyranny. If Sam doesn’t like it, let him say so. But that certainly won’t stop me.

this subject puzzles the hell out of me — how the prime message of voluntarism is precisely that the state is warranted no pass in its crimes, yet most voluntarists demand in so many ways that exactly such a double standard be enacted with regard to the state.

months ago i addressed this subject on this board, and was immediately pooh-poohed by ian as though it’s to be fantasized away; i was outta line!

these are violent career criminals we’re talking about, and yet they’re supposed to be treated as better than even one-off burglars — by the same folks who advocate open-carry for self defense. yeah? well they’re fucking up one of our own, and he’s being held hostage in a known location. why? because he won’t fucking say two words.

cowardice, and the thirst for physical survival — despite mental death — should be addressed openly. same with insanity and psychosis. so much of the treatment of these felons reminds me of that guy who sang to grizzly bears, figuring that would cut it.

for the record, i’m first in line admitting cowardice and fear for my skin.

Comment by John Delano

May 18, 2009 @ 3:15 am

Charlie, my understanding is that Mark assisted in moving the body after the fact. Yes it was wrong, but is that murder? Is it assisting a murder? Assisting a murderer is not assisting a murder if it is done after the fact, even if it was an attempt to cover up. I am not making excuses for what he actually did. Maybe he did know more about what he was walking into. Maybe he actually did more than what he said. I don’t know that we can just assume he did. The state of Florida may call that “murder”, but I think we should avoid using statist definitions, meaning avoid using “murderer” if the above scenario is actually what happened.

If my understanding of the story is wrong, feel free to correct me.

Comment by charley hardman

May 18, 2009 @ 3:34 am

Charlie, my understanding is that Mark assisted in moving the body after the fact. Yes it was wrong, but is that murder? Is it assisting a murder?

complete the story as known, objectively, then let’s talk. let it all out. it’s already been mentioned by someone else here, so it won’t be difficult for you to review and include. i want to hear you assert it.

Assisting a murderer is not assisting a murder if it is done after the fact, even if it was an attempt to cover up. I am not making excuses for what he actually did.

by leaving out what he did, you are.

I don’t know that we can just assume he did.

of course, we should not.

, but I think we should avoid using statist definitions,

i agree — only one reason i didn’t swing for the easy getaway-car “murder” angle dodge, and won’t.

according to mark he was, at least, an assistant to the murderer. however, that label leaves room for space/time dissociation, which is why i don’t favor it. for the same reason i also do not favor “murder cleanup guy”, though it’s more accurate.

the hurdles leaped to paint the event favorable to mark are perhaps the scariest part. i was appalled when i listened to that 29 jan 2007 FTL episode — not because mark did such a thing, but because without question it was obvious that the most important aspect of the incident was how it was messing up mark’s situation and, indirectly, ian’s. IMO that indicates the same narcissism which drove the original incident and, yes, mark’s very presence at it and later action.

Comment by Paco

May 18, 2009 @ 8:00 am

I hope Sam can keep it up, though it’s terrible that he has to. If only there were more of us who would adopt the “never negotiate with terrorists” policy, this systematic violation could not be maintained.

Comment by Lpviper

May 18, 2009 @ 9:40 am

Why not now? Why wait to use violence to overthrow the government? It boils down to the simple difference between being labelled by the public at large as kooks or as heroes. One helps your cause, the other does not. The major battle right now is to destroy the aura of legitimacy that surrounds the government, not to physically fight them, which is more likely to get us killed or indefinitely imprisoned at this point than anything else. When they look like fools and we look like heroes, then we’ll be getting there.

I say this not out of cowardice, though I am indeed afraid of the tyrants. I say it because it makes sense. 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. ‘Be the change you want to see in the world’ is a common expression. And I, for one, do not want to see a world full of violence, hatred and strife.

Do I want to pry Sam loose from the tyrants by force. YES. Do I know better? YES.

Thanks

Comment by Mike

May 18, 2009 @ 11:58 am

I think Ivy should consider suing the Paper for Libel. They insulted her,by calling her an “attorney” how dare they attack her character in this fashion.

Comment by Paul

May 18, 2009 @ 12:51 pm

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

Comment by Andrew

May 18, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

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.

Comment by zonsb

May 18, 2009 @ 2:57 pm

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.

Comment by bile

May 18, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

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 ?

Comment by to some extent?

May 18, 2009 @ 4:46 pm

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?

Comment by Paul

May 18, 2009 @ 5:21 pm

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.

Comment by Jim Davidson

May 18, 2009 @ 10:00 pm

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.

Comment by Curt Springer

May 18, 2009 @ 10:27 pm

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.

Comment by Lpviper

May 18, 2009 @ 10:58 pm

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.

Comment by charley hardman

May 19, 2009 @ 12:53 am

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.

Comment by Zeus

May 19, 2009 @ 4:36 am

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)

Comment by Lpviper

May 19, 2009 @ 8:20 am

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

Comment by charley hardman

May 19, 2009 @ 9:01 am

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.

Comment by Lpviper

May 19, 2009 @ 9:56 am

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

Comment by charley hardman

May 19, 2009 @ 10:06 am

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).

Comment by Lpviper

May 19, 2009 @ 10:17 am

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.

Comment by cyberdoo78

May 19, 2009 @ 12:00 pm

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.

Comment by paul

May 19, 2009 @ 7:12 pm

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.

Comment by cyberdoo78

May 20, 2009 @ 5:36 pm

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.

Comment by Zeus

May 20, 2009 @ 8:00 pm

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.

Comment by Paul

May 20, 2009 @ 8:10 pm

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.

Comment by Zeus

May 20, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

Please explain how consentual prostitution and the taking of drugs is immoral, Paul.

Comment by Paul

May 20, 2009 @ 8:28 pm

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

Comment by Zeus

May 20, 2009 @ 9:50 pm

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.

Comment by Paul

May 22, 2009 @ 10:48 am

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.

Comment by Zeus

May 22, 2009 @ 8:23 pm

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.

Comment by paul

May 23, 2009 @ 9:03 pm

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?

Comment by Zeus

May 23, 2009 @ 9:21 pm

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.

Comment by paul

May 23, 2009 @ 10:23 pm

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?

Comment by Zeus

May 24, 2009 @ 9:52 pm

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.

Comment by Zeus

May 24, 2009 @ 10:13 pm

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.

Comment by cyberdoo78

May 25, 2009 @ 6:29 am

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.

Comment by Zeus

May 25, 2009 @ 10:18 am

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.

Comment by cyberdoo78

May 26, 2009 @ 12:46 am

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.