Topless Charge Dropped!
Filed under: Issues, National, News, Personal Freedom, Police, Update, Video
Word just came in through Porc 411 that Cassidy Nicosia’s “Indecent Exposure” charge has been dropped by KPD’s prosecutor, Eli Rivera. Does this mean the KPD is liable for false arrest, kidnapping, or official oppression? I don’t know, but I forgive them for what they’ve done and would encourage them to leave peaceful people alone in the future. Thankfully, now Cassidy doesn’t need to be concerned about being deemed a “sex offender” for acting as free as her male counterparts.
Some liberty ladies had scheduled another topless event in advance of Cassidy’s arraignment, so will that event occur or be rescheduled? I’ll let you know.
Also, here was the Ridley Report’s coverage of the topless outreach event arrest, which did not get pulled from Youtube as our original footage did:
Comments
74 Comments on Topless Charge Dropped!
Fantastic news! Are women indeed equal to men under the law in Keene? Can they now appear in public without a shirt *and* without being harassed and assaulted by government agents? Or will government agents still arrest, charge, and jail a peaceful, topless woman if they have an actual complainant (i.e., will they still harm a peaceful person when there is not a victim, but only someone who’s offended)?
I have a feeling that the lawyers (or as I like to call them liars) figured that this could be taken to higher courts to show the gender discrimination of the laws just like it was shown in other states.
If they do not prosecute the case then the defendants cannot take the discriminatory ruling to a higher court. Maybe I am just a little cynical but I do not see this as Mr. Rivera being nice he is just protecting the system that he and the rest of the LEO’s use to put slaves with limited freedom in to Chattel slavery.
Only the beginning. Until we can all go fully nude, we clearly don’t even have the same basic rights afforded to babies – BABIES! 
I’m teasing ’cause it’s funny, but I’m also serious. “indecency” is not a crime – it’s a minimum requirement for any good party.
OH man! We all KNEW this would happen! The liberty movement is so dead and Cassidy killed it! The Free State Project has failed, government has been vindicated, and the individual will be reduced to abject serfdom… Its all over! All b/c of boobs in public. How could we all let this happen?
–
D
I agree with Slim. By dropping the charges, this does not get an official ruling (which they knew would go against them), so they can keep harassing and arresting innocent women.
Hopefully, Cassidy will seek redress of grievances, and obtain a ruling that explicitly states that walking around without a covered chest is not indecent exposure, regardless of the gender of the individual doing it.
Great news. All they have to do is say there’s no likely chance of conviction or a few other things, if they say anything at all.
False arrest is rather hard to prove, and unlikely to succeed here. I’d concentrate on furthering this victory.
More later . . .
I loved the line in the video, “Even the anarchist’s are voting.”
Good luck proving false arrest.
There seems to be 2 approaches you could take.
1. try proving false arrest.
2. try changing the law/statute that allows the police to arrest individuals for indecent exposure….(this might be the better one to pursue)
Ryan,
I don’t think ‘changing the law’ is the right approach since ‘discretionary’ law enforcement makes despotism obvious, deteriorates the divine authority of the legislator, thereby turning the state against itself and enable an officer to realize the problems with their employer, and potentially become a real friend to libertarians
Is there some sort of a “gender profiling” complaint or charge that can be levied against the thugs in this case?
Much like “gender profiling” stuff we hear about.
If they constantly pick on just girls in a group of shirtless folks, and haul them away in cuffs; that alone appears “discriminatory”.
Does anyone really think they will stop harassing and entrapping others they can get a rise out of? Sorry to be so pessimistic but come on now… they are dishing up, creating, imagining, all kinds of crap on people who drive, video record, and stand and such… I hope they get all those standers!
Ryan: changing the law won’t work, because what she did doesn’t violate the current law. Breasts are not genitals. The issue is not that there’s a discriminatory law, since the law is quite clearly gender-neutral. The issue is that the officer arrested her for something that did not violate the law.
Well, I do hope Cassidy will petition the government for grievances of re-dress . . .
Ian, you’re always carping–justifiably–that police, bureaucrats, and other public officials can get away with anything they do, knowing they can expect no consequences from their actions. But I think this ostentatious “forgiveness” you indiscriminately mete out is part of the exact same mindset. I don’t think they should be forgiven until they demonstrate compliance with the “three Rs” of atonement: Recognition of their culpability; Resolution to atone for it; and Restitution to those harmed. Without that, forgiveness is just obsequious Resignation.
Interesting point Sam…I wonder if they laugh everytime they hear they’re “forgiven.” Seems the only thing they understand is doing whatever they want, whenever they want and always feeling quite confident the system will protect their actions/crimes.
I think the only thing they do understand is financial penality/accountability.
All the gunvernment understands is aggression/force/fraud.
Their method is to squeeze as many folks as possible to get every last drop of blood that they can.
When the gravy-train goes off the rails and the loot and booty become non-existent, then the riots and burning of the cities will begin in earnest.
Read Starving The Monkeys today!
The looter monkeys are already shrieking about this book and they want it banned!
Sincerely,
John and Dagny Galt
http://www.starvingthemonkeys.com/
http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.php
Atlas Shrugged, Owner’s Manual For The Universe!(tm)
I note that the letter to Cassidy isn’t signed. That may be a problem. I’m waiting to see or hear proof that it’s real, independently of that detail . . .
@Galt
The use of force by the government is a legitimate function as long as the force is RETALIATORY. In a civil society the individual delegates the retaliatory use of force (excluding imminent harm self defense) to a specified entity that acts on their behalf. This is usually called a government. This government is intended to act as an objective third party in the resolution of disputes. It is only when the government INITIATES the use of force that individual liberty is violated. You might want to reread Atlas and I would also recommend “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” since you don’t seem to have grasped Rands concepts very well.
I don’t know, but I forgive them for what they’ve done [...]
leave that to cassidy, narcissist. your inflating jesus/gandhi routine blows on all counts. the correct response, at minimum, is outrage that a peaceful woman was kidnapped under your nose. keep “forgiving” that sickness and the sick fucks will flourish even more.
resistance. the kidnappers are not your pals. they do not deserve a pass because they assert nonexistent rights. the legs-splayed approach is no strength.
You might want to reread Atlas and I would also recommend “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” since you don’t seem to have grasped Rands concepts very well.
you should learn to read, then you can try logic after that hurdle.
i guess the timing was wrong for aristotle to classify a fallacy specifically for randroids. funny stuff:
In a civil society the individual delegates the retaliatory use of force (excluding imminent harm self defense) to a specified entity that acts on their behalf. This is usually called a government. This government is intended to act as an objective third party in the resolution of disputes.
The Randian Paradox
The use of force by the government is a legitimate function as long as the force is RETALIATORY.
That’s not correct, IceTrey. You could argue that retaliatory aggression is morally acceptable (as opposed to initiated aggression), but only by the person aggressed against or an agent they voluntary contract with. The government is not voluntarily contracted with by anyone. Even people who *want* the government to exist and to protect them are not able to voluntarily contract with the government to do so, because the government takes their money and does what it wants *anyway*.
@IAN wrote:
“I don’t know, but I forgive them for what they’ve done”
I’m sure this will be a great relief to “them’.
Clinical.
@Hardman
“you should learn to read, then you can try logic after that hurdle.”
I have no idea what you mean by that in relation to what I wrote.
@Mike
Since we were referencing Rand I was talking about government as an ideal, not any specific government and certainly not the one we have now. The reason after the fact retaliatory force is unacceptable by individuals is because the aggressed is not neutral or objective concerning their plight. As for everyone voluntarily contracting for police services, who polices the police? You hire company A and I hire company B. You accuse me of stealing your tv. Company A comes and takes me into custody. Then my company B comes and tries to free me because I say I’m innocent. See the problem. It’s just gangs fighting one another.
I have no idea what you mean by that in relation to what I wrote.
oh, let me help; i meant that what you wrote is bullshit.
Congrats on the ‘nobody-wins’ decision.This is a strange story-I was working in LA when the arrest happened,i hadn’t been on the FreeKeene site in a few days,then I got an e-mail and link to the story with the original Youtube video from a friend,he is a cop in Phoenix! So the story had gotten that far.It also showed up on a site with some gun guys out there,Arizona takes the right to bear arms seriously.They are also very leary of any government intervention and are also in favor of women wearing guns but not shirts!The weather there is more favorable for both.
What was surprising to me was when i Googled the story,there wasn’t much there.Then when I came back earlier this week and commented to some local folks,they had no idea what I was talking about! Obviously not readers here,there seemed to be a dearth of info in the local print.Funny how it was out across the country,but it wasn’t real news here.I think there may be an effort to minimize the groups activities by lack of coverage,which is not censorship,but just letting the story starve naturally.
With a 3 day news cycle,it isn’t long before a story ‘didn’t really happen’.After all,if it did ,I would have read about it it my local paper!Maybe with the weather getting better,there is still time for another topless protest.As I write,I am showing soliditary by not wearing a shirt. —bil
The story is covered in a minimal but I hope useful way on http://www.topfree.ca. That site is the prime resource for this topic, partly because it’s been around for twelve years.
None of the political bickering is there, because it’s a distraction in the context of that site. The gun stuff isn’t an issue, nor is the organization many of you seem part of.
One thing one learns early in this is that clouding issues with what are perceived as irrelevancies (I’m not saying they always are) is a sure way not to get anywhere. Neither the news media nor the courts can handle complexity.
changing the law won’t work, because what she did doesn’t violate the current law. Breasts are not genitals. The issue is not that there’s a discriminatory law, since the law is quite clearly gender-neutral. The issue is that the officer arrested her for something that did not violate the law.
Yes, and no. As much as we expect the officers to be well versed in the laws they uphold, the law books are absurdly long and nobody has their entirety committed to memory. The law commonly labeled as ‘indecent exposure’ has a certain connotation to it just by its name, and an officer can misapply it and not be held liable for that misapplication because they were acting in good faith. (granting them the benefit of the doubt here, I know) Our system of justice is set up such that the mere arrest, unless it is particularly egregious, isn’t a big deal.
An officer not understanding that a nipple isn’t legally genitalia is something where the court will turn to the officer, say “so you know, a nipple isn’t legally considered genitalia” and call it a day. Changing the law to something like “display of the penis or vulva” instead of “genitals” could help.
Of course, I still have yet to see the justification for making a display of the penis or vulva illegal, unless we’re talking about walking up to a kid and waving it in their face, which should be something you can handle under a sexual harassment law anyways. Or am I just showing the California half of my roots?
As much as we expect the officers to be well versed in the laws they uphold, the law books are absurdly long and nobody has their entirety committed to memory.
[...]
acting in good faith
[...]
benefit of the doubt
[...]
Our system of justice [...]
the “i know what i’m writing is idiotic” notice is missing from your comment.
Ioldanach, you speak sense. The main thing you omit is that the law is almost always applied with a political subtext. Person complains, officer shows he cares by arresting someone, at the same time playing to what he thinks is the constituency that supports him.
Elected judges do this often. Is this notably different?
Then there are the massive body phobia and sex negativity America is famous for, with all the neurotic obsessions and hypocritical manipulations that go with those. Don’t get me started.
Wait, you already did. It’s your fault!
Person complains,
before the kidnap stage (euphemism: “arrest”), badged criminals routinely practice “legislation by phone call”, using an alleged phone call as pretext to “investigate” something “suspicious” with more perceived weight than the usual overt fuck-with-the-ruled shimmy. first words normally, “you have any ID on you?”
in this example the badged criminals broke even more “law” to play the phone-legislation scam, calling in “a false tip to an anonymous driving under the influence (DUI) hotline”.
@IceTrey: I think the “gangs fighting another” argument is a common one. But just like today, where the “gangs” of any given industry don’t fight each other but work together to establish standards and smooth customer experiences, so would they in a free society where there were competing security agencies.
For example, different telecommunication companies compete against each other now, yet they agree on standards so that their customers can easily call the customers of their competitors (they even allow their customers to keep their phone numbers when switching to their competitors!). Different computer companies compete directly with each other, yet they agree on standards that allow even more third-party developers to create software that works across multiple platforms, so the customer has the best experience possible. Et cetera.
For example, different telecommunication companies compete against each other now, yet they agree on standards so that their customers can easily call the customers of their competitors (they even allow their customers to keep their phone numbers when switching to their competitors!). Different computer companies compete directly with each other, yet they agree on standards that allow even more third-party developers to create software that works across multiple platforms, so the customer has the best experience possible. Et cetera.
As much as I dislike controls on free commerce, I think your observations are mistaken. Telecom companies such as mobile phone companies in this country do everything in their power to use separate and distinct types of systems to lock the customer into their product. The only common standards are those which are absolutely required to interconnect, but even then each company tries to implement methods that encourage customers to all be on their network (such as free calls to and from customers on their network). Number portability (keeping your phone number) is a recent thing and has been resisted by every company forced to implement it by federal regulation.
I’m not even going to get into the issues with multi-platform software.
There are arguments to be made for freely competing agencies, but I don’t think this is one of them.
@Hardman
Well thanks for putting forth that well reasoned and logical counter argument. You’ve completely won me over to your side. NOT!!!!!
well reasoned and logical counter argument
like most dogma-spewing stupid people, you pretend a comment on your ludicrousness is an attempted argument. i made no argument; none required. that i made no argument supports nothing of your absurd assertions. you stated, “I have no idea what you mean by that in relation to what I wrote.” i cleared it up in direct and full answer of your alleged perplexity in that regard.
yours is a pathetically prevalent fallacy, the posture that engaging your horse shit is somehow expected for intellectual integrity. you have no idea what you’re talking about. randroid spewing randroid dreck.
to thwart early your next likely wank-off, i doubleplus admire ayn rand. randroids? eh, not so much.
@CHARLEY HARDMAN
“i made no argument; none required.”
You don’t need an argument when you have nothing say but hate filled whining.
I forgive you for all the mean things you say. In hopes that you can add something other than hate to the discussion some day.
Maybe you will find peace with liberty like others here on this forum and let go of your hate.
Live and let live.
try truth, asshole. truth. think truth, and the liberty follows.
I got Ron Paul’s new book, Charley. I know how you love the good Doctor but seriously, great. The book needs to be #1 on the best seller list, the exposure of Ron’s monetary ideas is a very good thing.
My sister-in-law wants to read it so she went to the library to get it. In the 7 library system there is one copy of the book and she went on the waiting list. 213th in line. Those tax fed libraries sure do respond well to market signals, don’t they?
Anyway, I stuck this in here cuz Charley loves Ron Paul he told me so.
lol
The book needs to be #1 on the best seller list, the exposure of Ron’s monetary ideas is a very good thing.
foolishness. ron paul doesn’t say a damned thing that hasn’t been said better and more often by far better writers. he’s lew’s golden boy and the idol of people like you because he’s a traitor to his professed principle of non-aggression. few would give a fuck what RP said if he weren’t a fedgoon. his popularity is a scourge against liberty, intellectually and practically — product of fedgoon worship in the guise of fedgoon scorn.
don’t buy into lew rockwell’s manipulative populist crap. he knows exactly how he’s messing with people like you. he’s also been the driver behind publishing much of the material that blows away RP’s mediocre fluff. i almost couldn’t believe how sucky RP’s “manifesto” was in relation to the hype, given that lew, a strong writer, is pulling the strings. if you’re serious about understanding the fundamental crimes of the “federal reserve”, here it is at no charge (.PDF). and more.
BTW, the federal reserve is a problem that will, comparatively shortly, solve itself (with help from myriad bozo fedgoon “programs“).
IOLDANACH:
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. We’re expected to know and obey every trivial detail of their laws, without assistance or education. They are trained and can use those radios they have to call in for professional opinions on matters, before kidnapping innocent people. If they can’t be bothered, they should be treated like the kidnappers they are. NH laws are pretty strict on kidnapping and the like, and should be enforced against those who profess to support them, as appropriate.
While much of what you say is factually correct (excluding the ‘idol’ part, I’ve grown past that, and I cringe whenever I hear Ron talk about a ‘border fence’), the fact remains that as of right now, Ron is a means to a good end. He is the most public face of the anti-fed movement right now, and these ideas are ideas that need to get into people’s eyes and ears.
You could give Ron a little credit, Charley. He’s been out there beating the bankscam drum for a good long time, and his name recognition is helping the cause of liberty, not hurting it.
Besides, even if his writing is ‘mediocre fluff’ (subjective), it seems that lots of people can get into writing like that, and while I’m personally not a fan of the relentless name-dropping that pervades the book, the simplicity of the presentation of concepts is useful for introducing people to the biggest scam of the last 100 years.
BTW I know Ron doesn’t believe in ‘illegal people’, I looked at his positions in his 1988 presidential run and I doubt he has changed much. Considering the ‘ideological’ position of the drooling masses on the immigration topic, I can understand why he backed off of the correct libertarian position on that issue. You can call that selling out or deride him in whatever manner you wish, but this is one of the only cases where I can say that I personally believe that Ron has the liberty and prosperity of the people toward the top of his list of priorities.
He’s been out there beating the bankscam drum for a good long time,
2008$3M bandit of “peace”. he’s a career parasite, and there isn’t a damned thing you can say to change that truth.
a career parasite good for liberty? up your ass. you know better even now.
Fine, fine. Who else is down there beating the individual liberty drum in Congress?
No-fucking-body, that’s who.
I wanted a Rolls but drove a Pinto because I had to get to work, you know?
How better can we maximize the spread of the bankscam message?
I understand the principle behind what you’re saying, but where is the better alternative to get these ideas out to the people? Most good liberty media is still stuck in obscurity.
ron paul is spreading the message of statism, not liberty. his net influence for liberty: negative. a bunch of constitution-slurping sheep who needed a career parasite to steer them toward a liberty message does dick for liberty, despite the noise. ron paul has helped spread the idiotic notion that all the state needs is the “right people” aiming the guns. sickening to watch the spread of this anti-liberty idolatry.
“audit the fed”. BFD. it’s lew rockwell making an ass of you and many others.
getting “these ideas out to the people” is best accomplished by keeping the idea intact and abandoning the precept that mobs are essential to liberty.
For what it’s worth, I was a libertarianish leaning neocon before RP, a constitutionalist for a while, and now a voluntaryist, and I know there are quite a few like me.
*Cue snarky hardman comment
Charley, I can keep my Catalina ‘intact’ by locking it in the garage and never taking it out. But who’s gonna see it?
Like Paul, before RP I was a neocon Repub type. Unlike Paul, I was also a howling bigot. Ron Paul and his message, whether you appreciate it or not, steered me toward the consensualist ideas that I embrace today. And I’m sure there are many more like myself and Paul.
Would I like the institution of government eliminated? Is a frog’s ass watertight?
Can I see the value in steering the sheep in the right direction? YES.
I have Ron Paul to thank for steering me away from hate and toward tolerance of my neighbors, no matter what they look like or what they are doing.
For the record, I have Free Talk Live to thank for finishing the job and turning me away from the myth of minarchism.
Ron Paul: Perfectly principled? Obviously not. A good path toward liberty for the completely indoctrinated? I think so.
For what it’s worth, I was a libertarianish leaning neocon before RP, a constitutionalist for a while, and now a voluntaryist, and I know there are quite a few like me.
read what i wrote. nothing i’ve written here or elsewhere regarding ron paul disavows the possibility that the RP PR machine influences some toward liberty. however, anyone who needed ron paul to steer them toward liberty probably isn’t worth a fuck for it. even at LRC those neocon/socialist roots die a damned slow death. similarly, the socialist leanings of many on this site are obvious.
i’ve argued with hundreds of paulists, and most of them are as bad as randroids in the disconnect between the rhetoric of their heroes and relevant understanding/intelligence.
Charley, I can keep my Catalina ‘intact’ by locking it in the garage and never taking it out.
straw man. again. the part about never taking it out is a convenient POS you fabricated to pretend i said it or something even remotely close. shameful.
I have Ron Paul to thank for steering me away from hate and toward tolerance of my neighbors, no matter what they look like or what they are doing.
now you may describe how that matters materially.
No, fuck that, YOU can tell ME how we get the Catalina out of the garage and show it off.
‘now you may describe how that matters materially.’
In what context?
No, fuck that, YOU can tell ME how we get the Catalina out of the garage and show it off.
i’m going to answer that in this comment, but first i’ll address the usual noob act of demanding of a “liberty advocate” critic a mythical solution.
listen closely: there is no mythical solution. it’s the holy grail of all liberty circles, and the first step is recognizing that it doesn’t exist. so if you’re expecting me to offer some easy answer that advertises like a widget the message of liberty to even a hundredth of those exposed to ron paul’s self-canceling swill, forget it. most of those morons are drawn to ron paul under the delusion that they can halt tyranny by pulling a voting lever and installing a benign dictator against the wishes of the controlling mob. horrendous.
however, there is an answer to the “what to do” question, and it is individual. live as a voluntarist. resist crime in whatever way you can while — if possible — surviving physically. share truth with others you meet. confront their crimes. risk losing business relationships and friends because you require integrity.
doesn’t mow quite the volume swath of the hypocrite bullshitter ron paul, but often the “quantity has a quality all its own” mantra fails when core quality’s required from the start and throughout.
In what context?
life.
In what context?
life.
Whose life?
‘however, there is an answer to the “what to do” question, and it is individual. live as a voluntarist. resist crime in whatever way you can while — if possible — surviving physically. share truth with others you meet. confront their crimes. risk losing business relationships and friends because you require integrity.’
Fuck, man, that’s hard. I can’t really raise my children in that environment of abject hostility toward all authority based everything. i can teach them about the wrongs of government and I do. But it’s not just about me, you know? Little people I made are counting on me to feed them and keep them out of the hands of the state. Do you have children, Charley? Do you live the true voluntarist life with them?
I know you’re not wrong, but the tyranny has expanded to the degree that full rejection of the whole societal bent is oppressive to one’s own happiness, which seems to me contrary to the point of existing.
I do disobey where I can, but am unable to live as a free man because I am not a free man.
How would this route of action educate the masses about liberty? How would it get people excited about liberty? What is exciting or alluring about constant harassment by ‘authorities’? How do we make it the kind of thing ‘everybody’s doing’?
Whose life?
explain to me what material difference ron paul made in your interactions with others. kept you from shooting a river-crossing mexican? you were probably like most neocon pussies, doing little or no direct initiated violence. i highly doubt that ron paul transformed you from someone fucking people over to someone not. the external change, in other words, was probably immaterial. not even a blip. and you’re among the best of the paulists.
I can’t really raise my children in that environment of abject hostility toward all authority based everything.
you can begin by correcting your language, however. authority? c’mon.
Little people I made are counting on me to feed them and keep them out of the hands of the state.
naming perhaps the biggest impediment to the increase of liberty in this world: fear for children. frankly, i don’t see how anyone with young kids can move toward liberty strenuously unless the kids are written off as “collateral damage”. do not mistake this for approval of that situation. however, the state prevails largely on the fear of parents.
Do you have children, Charley? Do you live the true voluntarist life with them?
i have no young children. only kid is nearly 20 and not dependent on my “freedom”. however, had i been a voluntarist during her childhood it would’ve been impossible to resist as i have since.
full rejection of the whole societal bent is oppressive to one’s own happiness, which seems to me contrary to the point of existing.
i refer to valerie in V for Vendetta for that one. i cannot be happy associating with criminals.
I do disobey where I can, but am unable to live as a free man because I am not a free man.
it isn’t like i’m not being raped by “sales tax” and the like, despite major life changes to minimize that shit. it’s all curves.
How would this route of action educate the masses about liberty?
false implied premise, in at least two ways. first, i disfavor the term “educate” in this regard, because it’s essentially de-brainwashing — a far more difficult problem. after that, who made one man liable for correcting masses? you’re lucky if you correct even one criminal toward voluntarism. the beauty of voluntarism, of course, is that it may be practiced without the cooperation of anyone else. doing that even alone is huge. ron paul will die having failed on that one, by miles.
How would it get people excited about liberty?
more false premises. generally, you cannot “get” people excited about liberty. if you think ron paul’s getting people excited about liberty, wake up.
What is exciting or alluring about constant harassment by ‘authorities’? How do we make it the kind of thing ‘everybody’s doing’?
dude, we will leave this world physical slaves. you haven’t figured that out yet? the only freedom in our lives is mental, and that takes decades for one above-average person to get together under a favorable setting. the notion of mass binary liberty conversion is ludicrous. a bunch of drone fucks shouting “ron paul” needs to be refuted? almost funny. that douche sold his soul to the devil decades ago, and multiple times on the “campaign trail”. what a dummkopf pussy, and millions bought it. IMO ron paul’s net influence is more destructive of liberty than schlobama’s.
‘explain to me what material difference ron paul made in your interactions with others.’
From his own words/deeds? Not much.
BUT:
He opened the gateway into the whole world of media that I enjoy and learn from, like this website, FTL, Gard Goldsmith, etc. From that I changed my perspective on people from one of groups to one of individuals. I have been generally more tolerant of people, I have learned to respect the non aggressive choices of others, and I have erased considerations of appearance (among other superficialities[is that a word?]) from my judgements of and interactions with my fellow humans.
‘you can begin by correcting your language, however. authority?’
Corrected, with the caveat that authority is real when tyrants are enforcing it upon others. It is a struggle to teach children voluntarist principles without it spilling into everything. The government thinks my kids have ‘Oppositional Defiant Disorder’ when in truth all they have is me for a father. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about.
‘generally, you cannot “get” people excited about liberty.’
Generally I cannot ‘get’ a hard-on in ice water either. But when the prize is so great, I think I’ll try anyway.
‘IMO ron paul’s net influence is more destructive of liberty than schlobama’s.’
By what explanation do you hold that the man who is currently enacting the monopoly’s tyrannies upon is is less destructive of liberty than the one man on the inside of the gang who is preaching (some) free market principles and attempting to restrain the beast?
In my mind I am already beginning to form the answer of that last question. Is it ‘He’s encouraging people to use government as the answer to the government problem, thereby justifying and extending the existence of government, which is bad on principle’?
If so, is there not a place for such activity in the current paradigm? Is not every bit of real freedom restored to the people going to encourage them to want more? Do we really want to villify RP for trying to make lemonade out of lemons? What is to be gained by it?
He opened the gateway into the whole world of media that I enjoy and learn from,
plenty of others to do that, and they don’t confiscate 2008$3M for it while preaching the sanctity of “non-aggression”.
the caveat that authority is real when tyrants are enforcing it upon others.
too much distortion. something wrong with “crime” or the like? i’ve been surprised even at this site how language is used, often subtly, to excuse the worst oppressors.
Generally I cannot ‘get’ a hard-on in ice water either. But when the prize is so great, I think I’ll try anyway.
nah, i think you misunderstood me there. too long to explain if so. not in the mood.
By what explanation do you hold that the man who is currently enacting the monopoly’s tyrannies upon is is less destructive of liberty than the one man on the inside of the gang who is preaching (some) free market principles and attempting to restrain the beast?
i read your later comment. without getting into it too much right now, simply ask which has encouraged the most real resistance to the official crime syndicate. twenty years, and ron paul won’t end the confiscatory career? fuck him. obama’s done more in twelve months, orienting people correctly to the role of the state. of course, RP isn’t president of the fedgoon machine, but consider if he were. disaster.
i do not advocate intentional tyranny for the purpose of waking sleeping liberty instincts. however, i do advocate always treating the state as what it is and always will be: the enemy. ron paul attempts to fuck this all away, and he’s done well enough at it. obama’s helped straighten out that fuckup.
‘…orienting people correctly…’
Can you elaborate a bit on that?
The letter should be photocopies or scanned into the computer and sent to the Union Leader, WMUR, Concord Monitor and the other news media outlets so everyone can see what has been accomplished.
Can you elaborate a bit on that?
ron paul, while profiting from plunder (well over 2008$3,000,000, career), asserts that his version of the state is where it’s at. the constitution will save you. his “restraint” will save you. while “government” (i.e., official crime syndicate) has been perverted, the precepts are sound. oh, and he founds this on non-aggression… a laughable crock of shit from a pussified indirect thief. he trains the compliant horde to have faith in his version of the state.
schlobama, on the other hand, avows no major principle beyond his natural superiority and clear parental vision for how you should be fucked for the greater good and love it. this, correctly, inspires revulsion in even some stupider aspects of the lemming masses — not necessarily because he’s a power-mad psycho (which he is), but because they happen to disagree with that version of a power-mad psycho — one unleashed, of course, by perversions of their hero bush II and his predecessors. however it turns out, he encourages mass resistance to the state, whereas ron paul encourages clinging to a fantastic version of the state that never has nor never will exist. ron paul has a remedy, and that remedy is the state — the non-existent restrained state.
between those two evils, i’ll take schlobama in a heartbeat. the only correct relation to the state is one of aware and total opposition, for by definition the state is tyrannical. despite near total delusion in this regard, it is never simply in need of the right masters. “good government” is a despicable lie, and — naturally — the first course in brainwashing applied to most children in the goonited states. ron paul continues it with adults as though a virtue.
BTW, to counter this wonderful development, schlobama is likely lining up to turn to the “war presidency” gimmick to save his stupid psycho ass. prepare for some manufactured disaster over our heads, à la mencken.
Yep
Makes me think though; if Ron were president we (US govt.) would likely not wage aggressive war.
That seems better
@Hardman
You’re such a retard you don’t even recognize sarcasm when you see it you douche.
Makes me think though; if Ron were president we (US govt.) would likely not wage aggressive war.
we? WTF.
as i’ve written in detail on my site, there’s plenty of evidence that reality would be the opposite (e.g., one “terrorist” attack and the generally insane american population would wank off straight to congress, which RP repeatedly swore to obey as a blind rat, as if that’s a virtue). of course, that gets straight back to the ludicrous proposition that ron paul would be president anyway. the spineless dipshit couldn’t even assert himself on a goddamned debate panel advertised as free-form. when hit by his first full MSM smear (newsletter debacle), he was dishonest as a snake and instantly beaten down. ron paul is a joke even if you ignore his unprincipled position. he is best remembered by the crowds of fools shouting his name as elixir.
You’re such a retard you don’t even recognize sarcasm when you see it you douche.
since it’s obvious that my reply was addressing precisely your evading sarcasm, i’ll not discuss generally the waste of much written sarcasm among strangers, @sign sheep. you’re talking evasion gibberish.
Charley’s agenda is transparent. I see no point in engaging his sort and would hope others tune him out.
TITS OR GTFO
Charley has no agenda.
He insists that if I imagine some good could come of supporting Ron Paul, his warts and all, I must be a sheep, easily led by a charlatan.
But Charley, he’s no charlatan, he must be the ONE.
My boy, relax and realize that someone, possibly as smart as you, thinks it’s no big deal supporting Ron Paul.
Keep linking to your blog. You look pathetic.
watching “libertarian” and “voluntarist” paulists confront hard truths about their idol is similar in proportion to the death grip conventional statists hold on their false notion of the state. paulists are statists by definition, of course, for ron paul advocates — and is — the state. it’s almost silly to note the deep cultist indignation (twitches of the brainwashed) when one highlights essential ron paul details, but replies here indicate it’s necessary:
- ron paul asserts that his guiding principle is non-aggression.
- he’s a career plunderer, with underestimated goon career takings exceeding $3,000,000 in 2008 dollars. yet paulists croon for him to increase this personal plunder by rising to the office of fedgoon emperor. this list disregards the folly of what he’d accomplish in the position he’s no right to hold — wrongly assumed by paulist fantasists to be only a possible net positive, dwarfing the discussion of $millions per individual thief.
- ron paul says nothing that hasn’t been said before, better, by thousands who are not hindered with the ludicrous position of a career engaging in behavior directly violating principles for which he’s supposedly supported. he is a cult figure because he violates his asserted principles. he is a cult figure to those enthralled by fedgoon celebrity and the idiocy of advocating liberty via the organization most fundamentally opposed to it. he’s the rotting carcass of “founder/framer” idolatry.
these and other core details are “warts” in the same way jeff dahmer’s resume indicates “he’s not ideally suited to a position as head babysitter”. when nailed on these “warts” (i.e., complete disintegration), supposedly non-deluded paulists assert that ron paul is useful for cheap publicity of a message his actions belie. record of accomplishment for liberty through this corruption: zip.
between the assertion of practical paulist political advancement of liberty and discussing the rightness of it, all that matters is the ideological argument, for the fedgoon machine long ago passed the point of remedy through other than self-destruction.
instead of linking more to my blog in this comment, i refer paulists to explanatory articles vigorously endorsed by ron paul’s former chief of staff and now head cheerleader.
Did you read Dr. Paul’s book, Charley? The whole thing is a rather stinging rebuke of statism. I don’t really consider my self a Paul worshipper or anything but I think you are a bit overboard here. RP has been railing against the bank scam for over 30 years now, in Congress and in public, but you can’t seem to get past the fact that he’s getting paid to be a Congressman. This automatically makes him evil. Well I don’t buy it. And to address your earlier assertion that any number of people could have guided me to the liberty movement; you are right. But they didn’t. Ron Paul did. Because he’s out there in public talking about freedom and personal responsibility. So really, Charley, why don’t you attack somebody who is doing evil upon others right now, like that madman Obama?
What is to be gained by attacking Ron Paul? And don’t give me the ‘at least Obama is honest about tyranny’ shit. I don’t WANT to live in tyranny, I want out! I don’t think your approach is helping. But if you think it is, feel free to elucidate
I hate evil bastards like Ron Paul who only agree with me on 99% of issues.
Only those who agree with me on 100% of issues, and are willing to change their minds when I do, are not evil.
Did you read Dr. Paul’s book, Charley? The whole thing is a rather stinging rebuke of statism.
you and most other paulists are apparently hopelessly confused regarding the definition of “statist”, and it’s laughable that you do the usual routine of paulist scrambling, calling him “Dr.” for effect, in the same paragraph implying he isn’t a statist. ron paul asserts that the state is a requirement for social interaction. << read that again. if reading again doesn't help, merely consider that he's made a career of being a state parasite. you, like lew rockwell, have a psycho double standard whereby the identical behavior criticized in others as parasitism becomes holy writ when emanating from the 2008$3M bandit of “peace”.
“Dr.” is an absurd coercive-guild title infused up the ass with statism. note the word “is”, indicating present tense.
I don’t really consider my self a Paul worshipper or anything [...]
hold that thought.
[...] you can’t seem to get past the fact that he’s getting paid to be a Congressman.
said the paulbot who cannot accept rationally (i.e., objectively) that he’s “getting paid to be a Congressman”. sounds almost quaint when viewed through a socialistic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington brainwash fog, but more than a bit of a sticker when it’s done by a fuck whose avowed principle is non-aggression. explain to me how that plunder’s in line with the principle you espouse. name one other person on the earth, cultist, who’s embraced over 2008$3M in plunder and gets such a pass.
This automatically makes him evil. Well I don’t buy it.
now back to you being a cultist. thievery is evil.
Charley, why don’t you attack somebody who is doing evil upon others right now, like that madman Obama?
the usual FK false dilemma horse shit from the very person who in this thread inserted ron paul into the discussion with the explicit assertion, “Anyway, I stuck this in here cuz Charley loves Ron Paul he told me so.”
i didn’t bring him up, you fucking disingenuous retard.
I don’t think your approach is helping. But if you think it is, feel free to elucidate
a stance that might rise above snot-nosedness were ron paul’s “approach” helping on net, or were the pro-liberty aspect of his actions limited to those who embrace the state for decades. you and the other cultists assert/imply this, at the very time you notify the world that things are rapidly getting worse than ever and you ignore writers/speakers far superior to your plastic jesus. lemmings.
I hate evil bastards like Ron Paul who only agree with me on 99% of issues.
when the only issue is the non-aggression principle (as with ron paul), your numbers are reversed and off. takes a cultist to not notice this glaring detail.
salvation via the state? yes, or no. ron paul shouts, “yes”.
That’s not what I’ve heard Ron say in all his addresses to Congress and to colleges and to other crowds. What I’ve heard him say is ‘let the people decide for themselves’ and ‘let’s try freedom for a change’ and things like that. His new book doesn’t propose any solutions to economic problems that don’t involve reducing the government or eliminating parts of it entirely. You’re painting with too broad a brush here, Charley. I get that you’re mad that Ron wound his campaign up with a surplus of money. I get it. I get your whole ‘bandit of peace’ spiel. But what is the point? If someone like you has a baby fit every time somebody in this movement deviates from principle even a little, people are just gonna be like, well, fuck this, I can’t make these people happy and still live my life, so fuck ‘em. You know? I think your attitude could be a net loss for liberty just as much as Ron’s ‘endorsement’ of statism.
Lpviper, here’s your entrance to this thread:
Anyway, I stuck this in here cuz Charley loves Ron Paul he told me so.
nobody was talking about ron paul. when i reply as you know i’m going to (because nothing has changed), you whine, “What is to be gained by attacking Ron Paul?”
don’t fucking bring him up to me if you don’t want an honest discussion, asshole. you’re now going to write to me, seriously, that a career statist parasite isn’t espousing salvation via the state? fuck off.
Charley. I get that you’re mad that Ron wound his campaign up with a surplus of money. I get it.
making shit up, your usual fallback routine.
deviates from principle even a little
more straw man tripe. three goddamned million 2008 dollars in plunder (i link once again, since obviously you never check to see WTF i’m referring to) is not “deviates from principle even a little”. you’re insane. and that’s before RP’s premise that the state is essential.
stop talking your retard filth addressed specifically to me. you’re a disingenuous jerk and cultist. me? i live and support according to the ethics of liberty i espouse — something your idol cannot assert honestly, even if isolated to his campaign rhetoric. that, snot-nosed bastard, is a material win for liberty.
No, sir, that is one asshole with a MONSTER chip on his shoulder. Nobody’s getting off on you but you, dude.
Later
Besides I like fucking with you because you hate RP so much. “Obama’s better”, he says. LOL
You kill me dude
“Obama’s better”, he says.
straw man. shocker.
And BTW I went to your damn website and read your damn post. AGAIN. And it’s still the same as it was the last time I read it. And what I have to say to it is, yes, Ron is taking stolen money to be a member of Congress. Every one of the Congressmen does it. Now tell me, who would you rather have in Congress, a man who preaches principle on almost every issue, or a neocon asshole who votes the party line because the boss told him to?
Again, technically you are correct, Charley. But what good are you doing with your stuck up libertine attitude toward Ron Paul?
I’m a disingenuous jerk? Maybe. Cultist? No, not so much. I’m just learning my way through this stuff bit by bit, and while I understand the wrong within what Ron Paul does, I don’t see how he can advocate for liberty in the Congress if he doesn’t at least make a living. He doesnt go on junkets, he doesn’t take their health insurance or their pension. So basically you are philosophically bashing the man who is the best of a very very bad lot.
It must make you feel like a big big man Charley. I don’t know why you even take the time to read my ‘retard filth’. Obviously you would be better served by going in the bathroom and jerking it while you have a mental debate with Mises or something.
Cheers
And nice slapping around the one guy in the fed gang who wants 1976 dollars to be the same as 2008 dollars. That’s helping.
The fight to take back money and again make it a commodity like any other in the market is the fight of our time. Publicly bashing the one ‘fedgoon’ who is on the right side of the issue seems like kicking yourself in the dick.
Never mind, I’m sure you barter or pay gold for everything, right? Great. Guess it’s just too bad for the rest of us suckers who are still stuck on the plantation, right?
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Supporters of
Recent Forum Topics- NH: Gandhi expert warns against in-system activism September 2, 2010
- Video on nonviolence that I liked, fairly fact driven September 1, 2010
- Hi everybody! September 1, 2010
- KPD/Staties to setup checkpoints September 1, 2010
- 5th Live Free Or Die Rally photo's links September 1, 2010
- consciencious objection... August 31, 2010
- Department of Justice Lists Constitutionalists in Extremism Guide August 31, 2010
- The end of silver price manipulation? August 31, 2010
- shire silver mentioned in an article I found August 31, 2010
- hi keene! just a thought. August 30, 2010
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Catherine Bleish trial? September 2, 2010
- Re: Catherine Bleish trial? September 2, 2010
- Re: Video on nonviolence that I liked, fairly fact driven September 2, 2010
- Re: Video on nonviolence that I liked, fairly fact driven September 2, 2010
- Video on nonviolence that I liked, fairly fact driven September 1, 2010
- Re: KPD/Staties to setup checkpoints September 1, 2010
- Re: Hi everybody! September 1, 2010
- Re: KPD/Staties to setup checkpoints September 1, 2010
- Re: Hi everybody! September 1, 2010
- Re: Catherine Bleish trial? September 1, 2010