Just in case he tries to come to Keene
You should know that Ryan Marvin is a lowly thief:
Comments
34 Comments on Just in case he tries to come to Keene
hey, my first FreeKeene video! i helped on some others, but i rocked this one solo.
anywho, i thought i’d add to the subject matter of this film in a comment:
after this ‘rant’ at soapbox idol, andy and brinck discovered that ryan had done more than just pocket the money they had been paying him for the bills. around the time the power went out, a ton of andy’s property went missing. a few days ago, he found it at a pawn shop, and the broker’s records confirmed that ryan had sold it there. he also took off on a $2000+ back rent bill he owed ron helwig, and doesn’t seem to have any intentions of paying it*** also, to get the power turned back on, he “borrowed” $900 from monica granger, and she is coming to realize she’ll never see that money again.
the worst part is, apart from the theft, the continuous lies to cover his arse, and all around shady behavior, is the fact that (anyone who has ever talked to ryan will confirm this) he lectures and belittles people, even those who agree with him, cause he believes he alone knows what ‘the principles of freedom’ are.
well, actually, he thinks he alone knows everything, and he will treat you like crap if you try to disagree. what a hypocrite.
***i would like to note here that i am fully aware of a remaining balance i owe another free stater, and i have no intention in trying to evade payment. i have spoken with him personally about the matter, and i could not live with myself if i decide to bail on my responsibilities. but people like ryan ruin reputations for everyone, so please know, i’m not like that.
Sucks for him. Those are some serious accusations being levied against him. You’d think that living with a community of people who will shun and turn you into a social outcast if a member of that community is harmed would be enough to ward off this type of behavior. At least it let’s everyone else outside of NH know that you can’t just move to NH and scam people without any consequences. Hopefully he’ll make those that he defrauded whole.
\”\”\”\”the worst part is, apart from the theft, the continuous lies to cover his arse, and all around shady behavior, is the fact that (anyone who has ever talked to ryan will confirm this) he lectures and belittles people, even those who agree with him, cause he believes he alone knows what ‘the principles of freedom’ are.\”\”\”\”
———————————————-
I can attest to this. He loves to argue with people.
I knew Ryan as Rev. Ryan on the web and did some favors for him design wise. I thought he was an OK guy and never really thought to much about him asking me to do little design projects every once and a while; never offering any compensation.
Now it all makes sense.
I guess folks should be wary of strangers regardless of what they call themselves; be it libertarian or friend.
why no vid like this for ivy? she gets a pass because she bilked masses?
The question is does Ivy still (assuming that she ever did) behave in this fashion? Or has she embraced a different ideology now? I, for one, used to be a massive statist, but I, like many in this movement, have learned and changed and modified my behavior to be consistent with my beliefs.
So as you condemn Ivy for having once “fallen” for propaganda, please include me for taking money when I was younger and dumber. I’m forever guilty. I would consider it a badge of honor for you to include me in that catagory…. Publicly!
Peace
I applaud you, Jim, too bad it’s so hard to make the Chuck Hardass standard.
The question is does Ivy still (assuming that she ever did) behave in this fashion?
okay. when does ryan’s rep get reset?
i don’t know ivy. i do know, however, that writers on this site routinely hold two radically different standards, with a massive and regular pass handed to those who run their crimes via the state. seems like more of the same. i don’t know, however, and i ask the questions: why the difference, and when does ryan get this special forgiveness?
Charley,
I guess Ryan will need to show he’s willing to “change his ways”. That is only accomplished by DOING. You have to demonstrate why you should be accepted/trusted again. I do like the fact that your tone is one of asking the question now. Look, we may never accept Ryan again, but that’s the breaks of ostracism. Used to be a man’s word was his bond, you break that, you’ve betrayed yourself and should expect the worst. I’m rambling, Ryan will need to make restitution to those he has harmed to their individual satisfaction. And also go beyond that for trust to return.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention that whatever Ivy may have taken from the state, I’m willing to bet she paid way more in over the years in bs taxes. I sure don’t think I would offer the state any restitution since I know they owe me WAAAAAAAY more than I ever used. It’s different if you actually steal from your roomy (who never stole from you)
, Ryan will need to make restitution to those he has harmed to their individual satisfaction.
back to exactly what i noted here, and have noted before regarding the alleged restitution of mark edgington for his youthful criminal idiocy (which i raise here only as reference, not to restart that argument). re ivy and similar, restitution becomes conveniently nigh-impossible when the victims were a mass victimized by many others, for larger wealth, during the period.
if one must make restitution to the victims, how is this done?
please don’t say “community service”.
do you note the dual standard, or do you assume i’m speaking gibberish?
i just read your later comment, and assert that things are not so clear as “tax” in/out accounting, but that gets into areas for too complex for this evening.
I think Ivy is paying her restitution the best way she can, by defending liberty for everyone with her activism.
When is it enough when the damage has been so convoluted by the state as to make it unquantifiable?
It’s tough, and I think everyone will find the answers to these things in their own hearts.
I choose forgiveness and understanding, for my own part
I choose forgiveness and understanding, for my own part
oh my.
Charley,
As I explained the “state” owes me more than I ever took. How would you suggest that they pay ME back? Please don’t use that tired old phrase “community service”. I looked and they’re nice enough to remind me, that I’ve paid into “their” system enough to retire to Mexico. Charley, you should know that the system is rigged. The “house” rules. Anything you can do to get something back from your “submission” you certainly should. I’ll make an exception here: until you wake up. Once you know it’s wrong support the force that is government from stealing from your neighbors, you must stop.
lp, thanks for your input.
You’re awesome!
And what is the “crime” Ivy committed for which she is/should be making restitution?
I choose forgiveness and understanding, for my own part
oh my
Charley, I don’t understand why the above quote from LP bothers you. What is wrong with an individual choosing a code of ethics that doesn’t harm anyone? I find LP’s stance very consistent with a non collectivist view. MLK said he envisioned a world where his kids would be judged not, on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character. The appropriate way to redemption (in the eyes of your peers) is as different as each individual. What you seem to fail to grasp, is it is up to you, LP and me to decide for ourselves individually whether Ivy has accomplished that. If you feel she hasn’t, continue the ostracism. However, you said you don’t know her, so to be consistent you should at least try to know her so you can make an informed decision. You yourself have to weigh whether presenting a constant contrary point of view for the apparent sake of it, that you may become ostracized yourself. Ivy has proven to me that she is on the right track. What little she may have inadvertently stolen from me in the past is forgiven as I hope others forgive me my past taking of money from the state.
I do appreciate the conversation.
Hi Ann,
From what I gather, Ivy has been charged with some sort of welfare fraud in Rhode Island. I have not heard any details, nor have I heard Ivy’s side of the story, so it’s hard to judge anything about it.
Jim,
That’s just Charley being Charley. You’ll notice he did not directly contradict my position. That’s his bait to try to get me to accuse him of disagreeing with me so he can insult me some more. You’ll notice I didn’t bite
As I explained the “state” owes me more than I ever took. How would you suggest that they pay ME back?
not with wealth stolen from new victims.
I’ll make an exception here: until you wake up. Once you know it’s wrong support the force that is government from stealing from your neighbors, you must stop.
that’s an “exception”? WTF.
Charley, I don’t understand why the above quote from LP bothers you. What is wrong with an individual choosing a code of ethics that doesn’t harm anyone?
your problem, like most here, is one of assumption. check the supposed link between the two sentences quoted.
I find LP’s stance very consistent with a non collectivist view. MLK said [...]
i’m, frankly, baffled by your invocation of a rat socialist, and the apparent total irrelevancy of the quote. don’t give a flying fuck what martin king said, especially when it it contains useless poser fluff such as “content of their character”.
What you seem to fail to grasp, is it is up to you, LP and me to decide for ourselves individually whether Ivy has accomplished that.
more non sequitur hash, which you of course follow with this cultspeak collectivist tripe:
You yourself have to weigh whether presenting a constant contrary point of view for the apparent sake of it, that you may become ostracized yourself.
try truth, asshole. wake up.
you get quickly enough to the core of it though, however mistaken the intention. the ostracism you assert is purely individual in source usually devolves into the collectivist “community” horse shit this vid borders.
This video looked like an out-take from some sort of bizarre, back-woods “Wayne’s World” enthusiast’s convention. After viewing it, it’s hard for me to decide who should be most humiliated by it: the participants? The producer? The poster? Hell, I feel embarrassed just from WATCHING the thing. And it really is a government bureaucrat’s wet-dream: “click on this link and see what Free-Staters are like”. Absolutely amazing.
for the comment above:
this was a clip from the “soapbox idol” event at porcfest (like american idol, but for ranting instead of singing). the guys were second to last and at that point, everyone was a bit drunk…
especially one of the judges*
*rolls eyes*
I find it interesting that even Ivy’s defenders have essentially marked her as “guilty”. It was my understanding that a few years ago, she escaped an abusive spouse or bf, ended up living on her own with a kid or two and went on some kind of state assistance program (a bad choice to be sure).
She tried starting some kind of business that went nowhere, mentioned it to some pain in the ass bureaucrat caseworker whose head she had to go over a few times and the vengeful caseworker decided to use the statement against her e.g. “Oh, you been workin’ elsewhere and didn’t report that? Ohh, you in for it now!”.
Eventually, she said screw it and left the state for NH where she became the Ivy everyone knows. Unbeknownst to her (or maybe it was), she missed some court date and has had a warrant out for her ever since.
I haven’t heard anything about her “bilking the masses” and no one has proved her guilty of a single thing. All we have is the word of the state enforcers who have no first-hand knowledge of the situation. They’re just following orders. “Hmm, this warrant says she needs to be arrested so let’s get her!”.
My point is, whatever your personal hangups with her may be, she has no direct accusers as in the case of Ryan Marvin. Just the state (which doesn’t know it’s elbow from it’s ass). There isn’t even a damaged individual making the allegations let alone proof of her being guilty of anything.
So let’s keep that in mind before branding her with the “guilty” stick.
I find it interesting that even Ivy’s defenders have essentially marked her as “guilty”.
remove the quotes and it’s the same as you’ve marked her:
went on some kind of state assistance program (a bad choice to be sure).
to be sure? get your head out of your ass. you’re confusing the state’s bullshit definition of guilt with the real one.
I haven’t heard anything about her “bilking the masses”
un. fucking. real.
Once again, Charley, your raging verbal diarrhea is incoherent as usual. I will attempt to decipher it, however.
Obviously, Ivy using “state assistance” i.e. accepting stolen money from the state thugs is not a pro-liberty action nor do I condone it. The fact is, she accepted it and later learned about the Free State Project and the philosophy of liberty and came to NH to make a change.
Her acceptance of the money is irrelevant to whether or not she is guilty of defrauding those very same thugs out of their stolen money.
As far as I understand it, her caseworker was a lazy, vengeful bureaucrat whose head Ivy had to go over on several occasions. During one meeting she casually mentioned that she had been operating a side business and had not paid taxes. She did not clarify the business had failed and that she didn’t make enough from it to pay taxes.
The vengeful bureaucrat then reported her for welfare fraud.
And that’s why she’s in trouble. Because she’s been accused of violating the rules the thugs attached to giving her the money.
If you want to be scornful of her acceptance of the money three years ago and ignore the last three years of her life and her activism, that’s your prerogative.
I will reserve my judgment and assume she is innocent of the charges until she’s had the opportunity to respond to the accusations and evidence is presented one way or the other.
And Charley, if you know so damn much, then prove it instead of hanging around here and acting like an ass. Go do something actually useful and show us (rather than telling us) that your way (whatever that is) is the right one.
This video looked like an out-take from some sort of bizarre, back-woods “Wayne’s World” enthusiast’s convention.
Excellent! As a Wayne’s World enthusiast, I’m brought great pleasure by your complement. Party on, dude!
Charley– several of us (myself included) used to actually work for the most brutal arm of the State, the military. We accepted blood money, engaged in inhuman and morally reprehensible acts, and ultimately violated everything it means to be a decent human being.
Would you qualify us as criminals as well, even though we’ve seen the errors that we committed and strived to rectify our actions?
One thing I find extremely curious about this site is the tendency for posters to lapse into childish pissing matches about who is most ideologically “pure” (and I use the term “childish” because some of the developmental hallmarks of children are 1) a narcissistic inability to see possibilities beyond their own experience; 2) “black and white” thinking; 3) a need for absolutes). If you simply want to argue, it would be the easiest thing in the world to prove that every person posting on this site has behaved and continues to behave in ways that are contrary to the belief system they espouse. The mere use of this web site, which exists on an entity (i.e. the Internet) that was created primarily by the military wing of the US government with billions of tax dollars “confiscated” from citizens, makes you complicit in the State’s process for building infrastructure and the belief system that informs it. Since using the internet is not a life or death necessity (somehow, millions of people around the world survive without being online), it is absolutely possible to act on the belief that the creation of the Internet was immoral because it was accomplished with “stolen” funds, and simply not use it. People do it all the time with material entities; for instance (and there are many), they decide not to wear fur because it is obtained by what they perceive to be cruelty.
My point is that if you are going to demand purity, don’t hold your breath (come to think of it, that’s something little kids do when throwing a tantrum) expecting it to actually appear. I’ve never encountered anyone whose life wasn’t marked to an extent by provable contradictions and (to use a less diplomatic term) hypocrisies, both small and not-so-small. And the history books are certainly replete with examples of such. But that doesn’t necessarily invalidate their lives and works.
In terms of Charley’s original question, I do think there is a human tendency to apply different standards of behavior to people we “like” as opposed to those we “don’t like” (for whatever reason). I don’t know if that’s the case in this discussion regarding the actions of Ryan versus Ivy’s, but it’s a notion to at least consider, for objectivity’s sake. The tribalistic impulse is a strong one.
Cheers,
Ann
In response to Ann,
‘One thing I find extremely curious about this site is the tendency for posters to lapse into childish pissing matches about who is most ideologically “pure”’
Agreed… there are tremendous ideological battles to be fought if we want to -actually- achieve more liberty in our lifetimes. It’s unfortunate that many of the best soldiers are caught up arguing over whose armor is shiniest.
Principles are important, but so are results. We should never sacrifice the entirety of one for the sake of the other.
I speak only for myself, Ann, but I don’t care how the internet was created, and I don’t care about the sordid details of everyone’s past. I try to look at the person I’m looking at, not the person that person was some years ago. As far as your definition of childishness, I think the world would be a better place if there were more of that ‘(2) “black and white” thinking; 3) a need for absolutes)’.
The ‘tendency of posters not to be able to see possibilities past their own experience’ thing is an opinion, and is grouping people. I don’t agree with that.
Most of my experience in this world is as a nationalistic, bigoted, white supremacist border closing nut. I decided I wanted more for myself than that and I discovered Free Talk Live. Now I am here. If I couldnt ‘see past my own experience’, I would still be a scumbag homophobic bigot. But I’m not any of that. I use my brain to process what goes on around me. MY brain, not some hive mind or automatic response like the government people would like.
This site is not an ‘entity’, it is electrons zooming through wires and such.
Do you really think the free market could never have invented the internet without the government? Or could it be that the brain drain that has been siphoned off into government for so many years means that the best scientists we had were paid by the government, because they have no competition?
Why should I sit on my high horse and not use this internet because of the way it was paid for? I didn’t have any say in that, and refuse to be punished for what others have done.
Why don’t we follow your line of reasoning all the way back and give the whole continent back to the native americans? Or at least the parts that were stolen, not purchased.
The evils of the past cannot all be solved by boycotting their results in the present.
“I do think there is a human tendency to apply different standards of behavior to people we “like” as opposed to those we “don’t like” (for whatever reason). I don’t know if that’s the case in this discussion regarding the actions of Ryan versus Ivy’s, but it’s a notion to at least consider, for objectivity’s sake. The tribalistic impulse is a strong one.”
Here’s my take. Don’t know either of these people. So, I don’t ‘like’ either of them. Now, one is a dirtbag who steals directly from his friends. The other is a person who signed up for a welfare program because she most likely didn’t know any better. I know I didn’t. So there is no ‘tribalsim’ from my seat, Ann. Simply a different set of circumstances for each person, and I am certain that those individual merits weigh more heavily than any sort of ‘tribalism’. If the dude whose dishonesty inspired the creation of this post paid back everybody he owed, apologized, and didn’t do it any more, then he’d be fine. At the very least the public ostracism would stop.
You know, to an outsider, most of the above posts really do seem like a lot of pointless, irrelevant, confusing, contradictory, silly, stupid arguing. Do any of you people *REALLY* *KNOW* *WHAT*, & *WHY* you’re arguing about it?….How important is it? How do we “outsiders” view it? How should we see this arguing over trivialities?…It’s like arguing over whether or not it is truly helpful to give blankets and cardboard boxes to homeless, people in hopes of them becoming not homeless….huh?…
Dear LP,
I appreciate your post. I’ll briefly point out that not only was the Internet created primarily by the U.S. Government with funds taken via tax collection, said Government is still significantly involved in its administration (ICANN being one example). And millions of dollars of tax money fund that activity. There are all sorts of things we might consider truly awful that are on the Internet, and their online distribution is facilitated with money “taken” from us. Why would any of us participate in such a circumstance (i.e. “theft” of personal money to pay for things we actually don’t want to fund) by continuing to use the Internet? And of course this is just one example of many. This is why I find many of these arguments about ideological purity to be a bit silly; it’s often no more than ego-puffery, a sort of rhetorical cock-waving exercise that actually betrays a certain inner fear and insecurity.
I agree that principles and beliefs are potentially wonderful and necessary; I just think that because the human animal’s capacity for self-delusion is so vast, it’s helpful to consistently examine those concepts we hold dear. It not only helps keep us honest (and hopefully modest), it’s a process that can lead to growth and evolution.
That’s how I see it; thanks again for your post.
Cheers,
Ann
‘a sort of rhetorical cock-waving exercise that actually betrays a certain inner fear and insecurity.’
It would almost have to do that. There are many aspects of the current paradigm that principled people are uncomfortable with. Roads, welfare, Social Security, ‘law’ enforcement, are all funded coercively, and the current mentality of the populace is not ideal for a major shift toward individualism or whatever name you’d like to assign to it.
Nearly all of us are pragmatists to a certain extent, if for no other reason than to make our own existences tolerable or even pleasurable.
It’s hard for me to find fault with that. I think people should be happy and have the things they have earned. And that’s why I speak out against collectivism and its best friend government.
Each person should be free to make their own choices in their lives about the disposition of their justly acquired property. In the absence of this ideal, we just kind of have to wing it, and educate people about logic and real common sense.
Elkheart;
I understand if you find a lot of this discussion irrelevant to your own existence. However, there are websites that have discussion forums about everything from diapers to Cuisinart to raisins to song bird mating calls. I find most of that stuff irrelevant to my daily life as well. What is it, precisely, that you would wish to see discussed here? Have you considered creating a blog about things that you find important? I know I have. Sometimes this stuff gets a bit long winded even for me. But at other times I have an opinion about something that is presented here and I appreciate the open forum to discuss my ideas with a circle of folks who tend to use logic a bit more liberally than an average Yahoo! chat.
thanks
Ann, I think you’re being incredibly disingenuous in saying that by having inner-debate within the movement reveals a lack in conviction– to me, the opposite would seem to be true, in that any debate internally would indicate a movement towards self-correction. These “petty debates” are extensions of the larger debates being argued by the intellectual forebearers and flagstaffs of our movement.
Moreover, if what you say is true, than all of statism must be afflicted with this malady of inner-debate, rending it from the seams. Don’t we often see the black, crushing boot of Big Brother and the loving, benevolent hand of the World Leader vying over who gets to destroy our face.
Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- Keene City Council Contact Info February 8, 2012
- Pledged Free-stater heading to "The Shire" later this year February 8, 2012
- FBI is watching February 7, 2012
- New February 7, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Keene City Council Contact Info February 9, 2012
- Re: What I wrote to the Chief of Police in town of Weare February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam and New angle on trolling? Hmm. February 8, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 8, 2012
- Re: Keene City Council Contact Info February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam and New angle on trolling? Hmm. February 8, 2012