No one is in charge.
I’d just like to clarify something. As activists were leaving after gathering in front of Eli Rivera’s home as part of a candlelight vigil for the man Rivera attacked, Kurt Hoffman, other Keene police officers showed up and engaged us in conversation. During said conversation, one of them, Matt Griffin suggested that I was the “leader” of the activists.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
There are no designated leaders. I understand Matt’s confusion – after all, his organization is structured from the top down with very distinct roles of who’s-in-charge. It’s only natural for him to presume we are structured similarly, however we are not. This is a decentralized movement. No one is in charge. Each activist decides what interests him or her and does it. Other activists that agree will join in.
Is my voice a little more prominent because I have a radio program? Sure, but I’ve never told anyone what to do. They don’t follow my orders, and I wouldn’t give orders in the first place. It wasn’t I who put together the cannabis celebrations and candlelight vigils in front of Rivera’s and Burke’s homes. Those were other people. I merely supported these events.
Hope that makes it clear. Each activist is his or her own leader, and none is in charge of another.
Comments
99 Comments on No one is in charge.
Harrassing officers at home is a bold move isnt it?
If you call standing on the sidewalk with candles “harassment”. Seems the police are the ones who make a career of harassing people at their homes.
Police enforce the law, if you break it you go to jail, seems simple to me. Do these officers case your home in large numbers? The guy is off-duty and has a family. I understand that Mr. Hoffman has a family also, however he broke the law. Eli didnt
If Eli violates any of the individual rights of any person, he is breaking his oath to the Constitution and breaking the law.
The evidence is that he has done this repeatedly and flagrantly.
So what are you even talking about?
“I understand that Mr. Hoffman has a family also, however he broke the law. Eli didnt”
The jews broke the law in nazi Jermany. I guess they deserved what they got.
So “the law” is the almighty decider of what’s right and wrong? It was “the law” that alcohol was not to be consumed, that black people sit in the back of the bus, and Jews get thrown in ovens.
Mr. Hoffman may have broken “the law”, but it’s clear that Burk and Rivera are the criminals. Please take a minute to think just a wee bit outside the government indoctrination center brainwashing box for a second and think for yourself.
I will not think outside any indoctrination, we have decided as a nation to have laws. If we decide that these laws are not fair and need to be changed or removed we have a democratic process. It is no tmy fault nor the majority of Americans feel these laws are good, and for the most part just. Like I have said that is the way the country operates, change it through the process or leave pretty simple.
As for thinking for myself I have, and I choose to side with “the man” amazing that somebody would freely chose to do as such.
Your choice is rooted in fear.
I am not a ‘nation’ and have not agreed to any of the rules you hold so dear.
I agree with the natural law, not this flagrant perversion of it.
Your advocacy of the perversion of law is what is destroying any chance of a real society of men.
Read Fredric Bastiat’s ‘The Law’ for further enlightenment
Such denials are a waste of time. “Decentralized movement” doesn’t compute with statists whose lives revolve around hierarchy, blame and control. You will be singled out and targeted, period.
Never mind I figured it out
If I’m targeted, they’ll learn the truth of my statement. More activism will blossom anytime they target ANY peaceful liberty activist. They should know this by now.
Matt’s Reaction: “I think THAT guy’s in charge.”
Ian’s Reaction: “I’m not in charge. No one’s in charge.”
Their Reaction: “He’s denying it. He must be in charge.”
Ian’s Reaction: “No, really. It doesn’t work that way. There is no leader. Everyone is a sovereign individual who does whatever they think is best. Think of cats instead of sheep and you’ll get the picture.”
Their Reaction: “You almost had us with the cats thing but the idea of there being no leader doesn’t compute. In the end, it doesn’t matter if you’re the leader or not. We’ll target you, knock you down to scare off the others and see if that works. We have endless resources and time — thanks to the taxpaying cattle — to figure out how to make you all disappear, one way or another.”
Imaginary conversations are fun, yes?
And yes, I know that and you know that Ian, but their masters will eventually get impatient which will inevitably result in carelessness and next thing you know, somebody’s lost an eye.
That’s how bumbling bureaucracies work.
My choice is not rooted in fear. I am comfortable and do as I choose. If I feel like not claiming income, or smoking a joint, or rolling through a stop sign I am aware of the ramifications. I will accept punishment as it is given to me, and I have. Maybe you are the ones with the wool over there eyes?
The laws were changed in regards to alchohol, and the blacks. The world stood up against the tyranny of Nazi Facism and halted the extermination of the Jews. Through process wrongs are righted,things change.
Zeus is right continued harrasment of people will cause you to be singled out and targeted. Alot of us so called “statists” follow you free loaders enough to pick you out of a crowd.
Will the tax-eaters stage a demonstration in support of their heroes E.Rivera & E.Burke, I wonder..
Statists are not widely known for originality of thought, Ian
“You can’t win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.”
Yes, Zeus is right, thus we have candlelight vigils taking place in front of the homes of tyrants.
It works both ways End Game. The difference is the ones with the candles are not tax-feeding tyrants. They just want to be free.
No way a starwars quote. Nice one frodo
Zeus is right continued harrasment of people will cause you to be singled out and targeted.
Zeus said no such thing. The only harassment is typically with bureaucrats and busybodies hassling Free Staters. Anyone who chooses freedom (or anything else outside the mainstream) is always targeted, just for being different if nothing else.
I’m only pointing out that Ian’s denial is moot. Statists will target him regardless just like they targeted that one guy who co-started the 420 event and arrested him despite a majority of the activists there being Keene residents and having nothing to do with the liberty movement.
“free loaders?” Somebody is not a “free loader” as long as they do something for a living and pay for things they need. Those needs don’t include government.
Thanks a lot that frodo crack made me spit Mountain Dew on my key board
Seriously, End Game, Read Bastiat’s ‘The Law’. It’s really a great discussion of why your concept of the purpose and execution of ‘law’ is so flawed.
Here is a small quote from it to get you interested:
‘It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty,
and property exist beforehand, that men make laws.
What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.’
–Fredric Bastiat, ‘The Law’, 1850
LPVIPER I probably wont read it, I wont lie.
Ian is a leader by example he should be flattered. It usually happens to the one with the loudest voice.
Stop pushing the envelope, follow the normal process and change things internally. You do not hack a brain that has cancer, you surgically remove tumors and treat it with radiation. To hack it out would cause death.
People are not happy with the current course of events, and instead of you activism blossoming, it will potentially be eradicated due to popular opinion. Free Speech or not, 6 month in jail can seriously screw-up ones life….. For a traffic violation,
If you will not read about the nature of law, how can you qualify yourself to support it so fully?
Another snippet:
But the law is made, generally, by one man, or by one class of
men. And as law cannot exist without the sanction and the support
of a preponderant force, it must finally place this force in the
hands of those who legislate.
This inevitable phenomenon, combined with the fatal tendency
that, we have said, exists in the heart of man, explains the
almost universal perversion of law. It is easy to conceive that,
instead of being a check upon injustice, it becomes its most invincible
instrument.
It is easy to conceive that, according to the power of the legislator,
it destroys for its own profit, and in different degrees
amongst the rest of the community, personal independence by
slavery, liberty by oppression, and property by plunder.
Stop pushing the envelope, follow the normal process and change things internally. You do not hack a brain that has cancer, you surgically remove tumors and treat it with radiation. To hack it out would cause death.
That’s not going to happen. The system and its processes are broken and beyond repair, hence more and more people are looking for alternative ways to be heard and to stop having so much of their lives controlled by bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists and busybodies. The system has been tried and tried again for decades. It doesn’t work. It’s like betting at a mobbed up casino and expecting to play a fair game.
People are not happy with the current course of events, and instead of you activism blossoming, it will potentially be eradicated due to popular opinion.
Not without proving to the public at large that the state is little more than a violent gang instead of this rhetoric about it being “for the people, by the people”.
Free Speech or not, 6 month in jail can seriously screw-up ones life….. For a traffic violation,
And many people will be more than willing to take whatever is dished out in order to inspire others to join the movement as Ian said. Knock one down, ten more sprout up in his place.
LPVIPER I get what the man is saying,and it makes sense. I support it to a point.
That being said the antics of the keene crowd, and associated 420 gang. have soured the legitimacy of any activism the general population may have sided with.
What you agents of the free state movement have failed to do is study your demographics. You failed to understand the people of the monadnock region. We are already feircly independent, however we have a strong sense of civic duty. We support our Police and Fire departmendts passionately. We trust in the process, we believe in town hall meetings and majority rule. Alot of us are 3rd generation or more and hold what our parents taught us to be gospel. We enjoy our public schools and take pride in them, we also enjoy our scholastic sports. Most of us all know at the previous occupants of all the store fronts in Keene. We enjoy our talk radio and do not appreciate it being flooded with people from Iowa or Texas calling to chime in, screw Iowa, and Texas (especially).
To have a group of outsiders invade our community and protest their rhetoric is going to cause people to push back. We have never had people walk down main street topless, and armed…..It is stupid, so what if you can do it. We have never had anybody make a garden in the common, to push buttons….It is stupid. We all can name people who grow dope or smoke it. but it is none of our business….to flaunt it is stupid.
This is the insight of a 4th generation keene resident, who understands the though process of residents. I believe it is a tactic of occupying forces to win the hearts and minds of a populace. THis is were the movement has failed.
If I had a libertarian leaning bone in my body, the utter lack of respect for the community culture, and heritage would have turned me communist.
Bastiat was really smart. Here’s more:
It is in the nature of men to rise against the injustice of which
they are the victims. When, therefore, plunder is organized by
law, for the profit of those who perpetrate it, all the plundered
classes tend, either by peaceful or revolutionary means, to enter
in some way into the manufacturing of laws. These classes,
according to the degree of enlightenment at which they have
arrived, may propose to themselves two very different ends, when
they thus attempt the attainment of their political rights; either
they may wish to put an end to lawful plunder, or they may desire
to take part in it.
Woe to the nation where this latter thought prevails amongst
the masses, at the moment when they, in their turn, seize upon the
legislative power!
Up to that time, lawful plunder has been exercised by the few
upon the many, as is the case in countries where the right of legislating
is confined to a few hands. But now it has become universal,
and the equilibrium is sought in universal plunder. The injustice
that society contains, instead of being rooted out of it, is
generalized. As soon as the injured classes have recovered their
political rights, their first thought is not to abolish plunder (this
would suppose them to possess enlightenment, which they cannot
have), but to organize against the other classes, and to their own
detriment, a system of reprisals—as if it was necessary, before the
reign of justice arrives, that all should undergo a cruel retribution—
some for their iniquity and some for their ignorance.
It would be impossible, therefore, to introduce into society a
greater change and a greater evil than this—the conversion of the
law into an instrument of plunder.
What would be the consequences of such a perversion? It
would require volumes to describe them all. We must content
ourselves with pointing out the most striking.
In the first place, it would efface from everybody’s conscience
the distinction between justice and injustice. No society can exist
unless the laws are respected to a certain degree, but the safest
way to make them respected is to make them respectable. When
law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen
finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral
sense, or of losing his respect for the law—two evils of equal magnitude,
between which it would be difficult to choose.
It is so much in the nature of law to support justice that in the
minds of the masses they are one and the same. There is in all of
us a strong disposition to regard what is lawful as legitimate, so
much so that many falsely derive all justice from law. It is sufficient,
then, for the law to order and sanction plunder, that it may
appear to many consciences just and sacred. Slavery, protection,
and monopoly find defenders, not only in those who profit by
them, but in those who suffer by them. If you suggest a doubt as
to the morality of these institutions, it is said directly—“You are
a dangerous experimenter, a utopian, a theorist, a despiser of the
laws; you would shake the basis upon which society rests.”
Sound familiar, end game? You can get a pdf of this book free at mises.org.
End Game – I don’t see a cancer that needs to be removed. I see people with a different perspective, who fail to understand the harm their actions cause in the world.
I have no interest in changing anyone, only sharing my ideas, expanding their knowledge and perspectives which will open new possibilities in their lives.
Oh End Game – In the time it took me to type the last response – tell me, how did you personally gain the authority to speak for the individuals in the Monadnock region?
LV seems pretty open to interpertation doesnt it. Who determines when the law is being abused…..you,me? I dont think it is, but you do. Quite the quandry.
A little more and then I’m done…I really feel that understanding what Law should be (how it is defined in the first quote I posted) and what Law actually has become is vital to the understanding of society as it was meant to be, not this grouping of individuals that perverted law endlessly perpetuates…
This plunder may be only an exceptional blemish in the legislation
of a people, and in this case, the best thing that can be done
is, without so many speeches and lamentations, to do away with
it as soon as possible, notwithstanding the clamors of interested
parties. But how is it to be distinguished? Very easily. See whether
the law takes from some persons that which belongs to them, to
give to others what does not belong to them. See whether the law
performs, for the profit of one citizen, and, to the injury of others,
an act that this citizen cannot perform without committing a crime. Abolish this law without delay; it is not merely an iniquity—
it is a fertile source of iniquities, for it invites reprisals; and
if you do not take care, the exceptional case will extend, multiply,
and become systematic. No doubt the party benefited will exclaim
loudly; he will assert his acquired rights. He will say that the State
is bound to protect and encourage his industry; he will plead that
it is a good thing for the State to be enriched, that it may spend
the more, and thus shower down salaries upon the poor workmen.
Take care not to listen to this sophistry, for it is just by the
systematizing of these arguments that legal plunder becomes systematized.
Green Eggs and Ham
I am not, just offering insight based on my upbrining, social circles, and love of the area. I will not pretend to speak for all Monadnockers as we are all individuals.
Why do you feel it neccesary to speak on a bullhorn to a congregation of pot smokers?
I am not even sure why I did… I have been suprised by friends who dont have a angry bone in their body become incensed by the “movements” shennanigans. I have actually been shocked to hear what they say about you guys.
You misunderstand, end game. To pick the best part out:
See whether
the law takes from some persons that which belongs to them, to
give to others what does not belong to them. See whether the law
performs, for the profit of one citizen, and, to the injury of others,
an act that this citizen cannot perform without committing a crime. Abolish this law without delay; it is not merely an iniquity—
it is a fertile source of iniquities, for it invites reprisals; and
if you do not take care, the exceptional case will extend, multiply,
and become systematic.
The Law should be an extension of human rights, which is to say, the rights of individuals. The law is obviously far perverted from this end, and most of it should be immediately eliminated.
All that should remain is the part that manifests itself as an organized protector of INDIVIDUAL rights.
End Game, I suppose you also oppose the efforts of Rosa Parks, MLK, Susan B Anthony, Gandhi, etc, because they intentionally broke immoral laws in order to effect change, right? After all, the law’s the law, even if it’s immoral, and if you don’t like it, you must work within the system …
End,
I understand where you’re coming from. Its very easy to assume that Free Staters are invading your community and looking to change everything you do. But I have a secret to tell you.
It isn’t true.
Its just statist “us vs them” rhetoric designed to alienate and demonize Free Staters and ignore what exactly it is most Free Staters are seeking to achieve. This isn’t about changing what you and your community do insomuch as its about ending the violence and coercion your system uses on those who aren’t interested in participating.
They put the man in a wheelchair, they break his neck and cage him for half-a-year, and for which terrible sins of his? A rolling stop?
Those monsters’ve got no heart, but just a block of ice.
Damn fools defending them are just pathetic.
OK, now I’m tired of hearing about Rosa Parks, too. Nobody is listening to that stuff, Paul, I’m sorry, but it’s true.
People need to be taught the nature and purpose of Law, that they might understand what has been done to it and why it works toward the opposite of its intended goal.
Educate and enlighten. Stop implying that people of today don’t sympathize with those long ago causes, because they do, and they think that justifies the Law.
What needs to be understood is that if the Law condones any action undertaken by government that would be illegal or immoral if done by one man, then that Law is wrong, and majority rule does not make it right.
LV- In order to function taxes must be paid. I wont waver on this. Roads, Police, Fire, water sewer. as well as in my opinion Healthcare,Electricity and Phone are essential goverment services.So to take from one by law to pay for these would be unjust?
Paul
Really……Rosa Parks, MLK Fighting hundreds of years of racial oppresion vs your supposed erosion of liberty. Nobody has been lynched (yet) because they are a free stater, you dont have seperate sinks. COme on weak.
They same could be said for Lenin, or Hitler, or Castro.
End Game, on the “who decides” question, I think we must each do what we believe to be right — each person has an obligation to their own conscience. Of course, moral action requires not only the courage to do what one believes is right, but right beliefs as well.
When considering whether the current situation is moral, start from basic principles about right and wrong, and see if the government is living up to those principles.
Here’s a thought experiment that might help get you started thinking about these things:
Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. My first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.
Do you believe this scenario is any different, or more moral, than common theft?
Zeus,
You may want to convey that to the populace. I will forever be at odds with the movement it is my nature as a “statist”. I do however believe in the process, and if we ever end up with a goverment based on your principles that is what it is.
End game, I am not saying that the current situation is exactly the same as that of Rosa Parks, I am saying that your logic in opposing the current civil disobedience would also apply to Rosa Parks.
If civil disobedience is never acceptable, it logically follows that you oppose the efforts of all the people I described.
Or, do you believe civil disobedience is sometimes acceptable, and other times not? What do you believe is the distinction?
Paul
While unfortunate it is survival of the fit. The above scenario is unfortunate, but regardless one person will lose out in the end. Whether govt gang, or privatley organized.
End Game,
every single service you quoted above was in years past provided by market operators with no government involvement, and all have been coopted. History shows that government is not necessary to provide these things. But who am I anyway to assert so?
More from the inimitable Mr. Bastiat:
‘It is absolutely necessary that this question of legal plunder
should be determined, and there are only three solutions of it:
1. When the few plunder the many.
2. When everybody plunders everybody else.
3. When nobody plunders anybody.
Partial plunder, universal plunder, absence of plunder,
amongst these we have to make our choice. The law can only produce
one of these results.
Partial plunder. This is the system that prevailed so long as the
elective privilege was partial; a system that is resorted to, to avoid
the invasion of socialism.
Universal plunder. We have been threatened by this system
when the elective privilege has become universal; the masses having
conceived the idea of making law, on the principle of legislators
who had preceded them.
Absence of plunder. This is the principle of justice, peace,
order, stability, conciliation, and of good sense, which I shall proclaim
with all the force of my lungs (which is very inadequate,
alas!) till the day of my death.
And, in all sincerity, can anything more be required at the
hands of the law? Can the law, whose necessary sanction is force,
be reasonably employed upon anything beyond securing to every
one his right? I defy anyone to remove it from this circle without
perverting it, and consequently turning force against right. And as
this is the most fatal, the most illogical social perversion that can
possibly be imagined, it must be admitted that the true solution, so much sought after, of the social problem, is contained in these
simple words—LAW IS ORGANIZED JUSTICE.
Now it is important to remark, that to organize justice by law,
that is to say by force, excludes the idea of organizing by law, or
by force any manifestation whatever of human activity—labor,
charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, instruction, the fine arts,
or religion; for any one of these organizings would inevitably
destroy the essential organization. How, in fact, can we imagine
force encroaching upon the liberty of citizens without infringing
upon justice, and so acting against its proper aim?
Here I am taking on the most popular prejudice of our time.
It is not considered enough that law should be just, it must be
philanthropic. It is not sufficient that it should guarantee to every
citizen the free and inoffensive exercise of his faculties, applied to
his physical, intellectual, and moral development; it is required to
extend well-being, instruction, and morality, directly over the
nation. This is the fascinating side of socialism.
But, I repeat it, these two missions of the law contradict each
other. We have to choose between them. A citizen cannot at the
same time be free and not free.’
Your comment?
In order to function taxes must be paid.
By who? By those who use those services or by “everyone” whether the like it or not? And what will happen to them if they refuse?
I wont waver on this.
Waver on what? Using violence and coercion to force people to pay up for services they don’t use so that the “majority” can benefit from the labor of others? Isn’t that what slavery was about? “We don’t have enough people to work the fields and whatnot, aren’t willing or able to pay a wage and thus we need to enslave people to make it function”?
Roads, Police, Fire, water sewer. as well as in my opinion Healthcare,Electricity and Phone are essential goverment services.
If a product or a service is truly valuable, people will pay for it voluntarily. There’s no need to rob people via taxation to fund things they may or may not use or find valuable.
So to take from one by law to pay for these would be unjust?
Yes. Just because a bunch of people decide something is needed doesn’t give them a just, moral claim to shakedown others and expect them to pay for it.
End,
I will not pretend to speak for all Monadnockers as we are all individuals.
How silly of me, must have been my imagination:
You failed to understand the people of the monadnock region. We are already feircly independent, however we have a strong sense of civic duty. We support . . . passionately. We trust in . . ., we believe . . .
Why do you feel it neccesary to speak on a bullhorn to a congregation of pot smokers?
When did you hear me say I felt it was necessary, or were you hoping to apply your judgments and viewpoints to my response?
I share my thoughts when I feel compelled to do so, in a way I feel compelled to do so as guided by the divine within me.
Civil disobeidence is fine, however the degree of oppresion that a group is recieving (I understand it is subjective) should determine the civil disobedience.
The oppressed southern blacks were largley supported by the american north. (You should probably mention keene native Jonathan Daniels in you comparision) Where as you and your ilk are not supported by a huge demographic, due to the fact that people generally do feel oppressed.
Civil Disobediance is fine, start dragging down our public places, and defacing our monuments. That causes ire
If I recall correctly, the most disagreeable of the 420 people weren’t Free Staters at all but rather young liberals or conservatives who just happened to be pro-marijuana. At least two-thirds of the crowd was composed of people who had nothing to do with the Free Staters.
If you have evidence that a Free Stater defaced the monument or some other real crime (i.e. vandalism, murder, assault, rape, kidnapping, slavery, fraud or theft), by all means, present it here for consideration.
Sam
You want to dance pal…….. I have been engaging and chatting with folks here for an hour or so….and they are generally friendly. I dont agree with them, but they are good to talk to
You really piss me off with your arrogance, there is nothing more I would like to do that stuff that HD Camera up your ass.You put up a good facade bub, but no one is without a personal agenda. Divine within my ass.
I never felt it was neccesary to speak for my fellow monadnockers, maybe it was my own internal divinity
End Game, you are justifying perverted law by saying it’s ‘not that bad’.
Again, I reiterate that perversion of Law perpetuated by goevrnment is the problem, not the fact that the oppressed seek to restore the balance that true justice represents.
Law is either organized justice, or organized plunder. It cannot be both. When law sanctions plunder, it disorganizes justice for the benefit of those who receive the plunder.
Do you see what I mean?
zeus
Placing a upside down flag in the monuments hand constitutes defacing to me. Not to mention the free sam sign
LV maybe the definition of Plunder could be subjective?
What if everybody has the opportunity to receive the plunder(municple leaf pick up)they just refuse it. Or the plunder is for the advancement of society(public education) not all who are plundered use it, but all eventually reap its benefits at one time.
You will be plundered it is who you want to be plundered by.
When I look at a monument like that, I always think about how it was paid for. And the answer almost always is, through taxation.
Thus, a monument like that is always a symbol of plunder, for there are always those who were forced to pay for it that did not wish to do so.
This is a perversion of law, and a disorganization of justice.
What does the monument symbolize for you, End Game? For me it represents injustice, unless it was constructed entirely through voluntary donation.
But then the monument is placed upon the ‘public’ land, which is a misnomer, for all cannot possibly make use of the land without a confict of rights. What of the members of the public who did not wish for a monument to be placed upon ‘their’ land?
Justice, for them, has miscarried. And the perversion of Law is manifest.
Perhaps that’s because I pose questions that cut right to the core of your arrogance?
Perhaps your belief that government is a necessary evil rests on your assumption that everyone else agrees and believes as you do. That might makes right.
Perhaps that’s what creates such anger and animosity within you.
Hate only hurts the hater, not the hated. ~Peace Pilgrim
Think about that End Game. There’s really no reason to go on suffering. It’s okay if what you believed in was destroying lives. I forgive you and hope you find peace within.
The monument to me represents the sacrifice that forefathers made for the sanctity of the union. That is all, and to decorate it in propoganda is dishonorable. I believe that the majoruty of funds for war memorials were donations, however I would state it as fact.
“I will not think outside any indoctrination, we have decided as a nation to have laws.”
What a good little slave; now go back to your stable to bleat to the other sheep….
The plunder came from violence (theft) which is wrong; what you use it for is irrelevant.
But please, keep trying to desperately justify your insane, violent system so that the rational people who read this can see how irrational it really is to support this violence.
Thanks Sam for pointing out my short comings. I am well aware that people do not believe the same as I and I am ok with that. I think you have misread me….I just dont like you.
and I am sure your OK with that
Again we return to Bastiat, for he knew you would ask about plunder…
When a portion of wealth passes out of the
hands of him who has acquired it, without his consent,
and without compensation, to him who has not created it,
whether by force or by artifice, I say that property is violated,
that plunder is perpetrated. I say that this is exactly
what the law ought to repress always and everywhere. If
the law itself performs the action it ought to repress, I say
that plunder is still perpetrated, and even, in a social point
of view, under aggravated circumstances. In this case, however, he who profits from the plunder is not responsible
for it; it is the law, the lawgiver, society itself, and
this is where the political danger lies.’
Dig?
Razor wire, I was more of a fan of snowball. or the horse.
Does it matter when the only ones with power were the pigs?
‘The monument to me represents the sacrifice that forefathers made for the sanctity of the union.’
Your representation of the monument is based on a false premise.
A reading of the Federalist Papers reveals clearly that the Founders did not believe in the sanctity of the ‘union’ at all. They strongly believed in the sovereignty of individuals and the States (I personally disagree with them on the ‘sovereignty’ of a ‘state’) as a check against the general government.
Abraham Lincoln changed all that and destroyed the true nature of the Union by force in the 1860s. That is what your ‘civil’ war monument represents to me.
LV
I dig………however if you pay a property tax, you are receiving the right to live in the community. If you dont like it change the law. We can do cirles all night, we are on oppostie ends. I respect your opinion, and you despise mine. I am really OK with that.
whether false pretenses or not it was unkown to the soldiers that died. It is and effigy to those who served.
I wouldnt deface a monument dedicated to killed liberty activists out of respect of their sacrifice. I wouldnt be right…
Razor….either way snowball or not the pigs would have power. Govt or not the strong will have power. It is just how you choose your poison
No, End Game, we have the rights, and the government is created to protect them. The government does not create rights. It does not and cannot create anything. That is the major flaw inwhat you are saying.
I don’t ‘despise’ your opinion, I’m just trying to explain with logic why it is flawed. This, to me, is the calling of our time, and it means a lot to me. I am happy to try to convince you, as every man I convince is one fewer to enact tyranny on my vhildren and their children.
It really is that important.
LV- Everyone has rights, but who sets them? What you are saying is that their are no formal rights. What if I believe my rights are different or more important than your rights. Who determines?
if you pay a property tax, you are receiving the right to live in the community.
No one can give you rights. You already have them and they are unalienable.
If paying taxes bestows some sort of privilege I wouldn’t otherwise have, that’s another story. If the only privilege is that I won’t be thrown in a cage, assaulted or robbed, that’s not much of a privilege for a free man.
If you dont like it change the law.
There’s no need to beg the state masters for the right to live as free men and women. We just need to live our lives and go about our business as such. Begging or bribing the state into letting us exercise our right to life, liberty and property is a fool’s game.
There is no way for you to know what the soldiers did or did not know. Histories have recorded fierce opposition by many Northerners to war against their countrymen for no other purpose than to guard a protective tariff and prevent the rightful secession of those states.
Most of this opposition was quashed by Lincoln, who was one of the most feared and despotic dictators in history. He shut down hundreds of (Northern) opposition newspapers, suspended the Writs of Habeas Corpus without Congressional approval, deported his most vocal opponent (a Representative from Ohio), and issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Many did not want to fight for this man. All knew what would happen if they did not. Add to this the crimes of the disgusting Ulysses S. Grant, and that should give you an idea of what I think of that monument
Everyone has rights, but who sets them? What you are saying is that their are no formal rights. What if I believe my rights are different or more important than your rights. Who determines?
Logic and reason. Many philosophers have fortunately already traveled this road, End, and figured out how to tell which rights you have, and which you don’t. I would highly recommend reading the works of Lysander Spooner but, so as not to bore you, perhaps you should start with the basics:
Rights are negative. Basically it amounts to you have the right not to be aggressed against, so long as you do no harm to others.
Any perceived rights that conflict with this axiom are not rights, but excuses for aggression, tyranny, or plunder.
End Game, I am going to quote you here, because a number of posts have passed in the mean time:
“Paul
While unfortunate it is survival of the fit. The above scenario is unfortunate, but regardless one person will lose out in the end. Whether govt gang, or privatley organized.”
I wasn’t asking about whether they could steal the person’s property — they absolutely have the power to do so. I was asking whether it is morally right.
You are right that one person against any gang looking to steal from them will lose out. You’re right to note that government is only one way we can have tyranny. Private gangs can be tyrannical too. What I’m proposing is that the “one persons” stand together and oppose the gangs. All of the “one persons”, taken together, are far more powerful than any gang, because there are far more people who only want to be left alone than there are people that want to go mug their neighbors.
In a free society, individuals could join together for their common defense. They could also subscribe to services which provide protection from gangs and common criminals. Their combined economic power blows away anything a street gang could put together. It would be not much different than some aspects of police work now — except that it would be funded voluntarily, open to competition, focused on crimes with real victims (their subscribers!), and probably focused on restitution more than jail time.
I gotta hit the hay, folks. This is one of the better discussions I can remember having. I recommend we all go back and re-read it and try to absorb all the points of view contained within, and use them to further our understanding of our fellows.
Thanks for listening, End Game. Maybe I didn’t convert you tonight, but remember that I care whether or not I do. I think every person is so important, and I want you to be free, just as I want to be free.
Take Care All
Wow! 70 comments so far.
Seems people are confused by this “There is no leader” thing.
eli rivera is a good man and you freestaters just need to leave him and his family alone. end of story. oh, and thanks for deleting my post on the anti-pot rally blog. i didnt swear once and it got deleted because you guys can’t accept another opinion. i didnt know that grown men act so immature about things.
Eli Rivera is a manifestation of the perversion of law. I understand the temptation to lick the boot that kicks you. It helps avoid another kick. Problem is, that won’t remove the problem of bad law enforced by men who don’t understand what law should be, if it is to be codified at all.
eli rivera is a good man and you freestaters just need to leave him and his family alone. end of story.
You know, we keep giving Eli The Neckbreaker the benefit of the doubt, thinking perhaps we’ve misunderstood him and his intentions and that maybe he’s not so bad after all, and yet he keeps disappointing us not only with his violence time and time again, but his revelry in it (i.e. “Louder, LOUDER! They can’t hear you [cry out in pain].”).
oh, and thanks for deleting my post on the anti-pot rally blog. i didnt swear once and it got deleted because you guys can’t accept another opinion. i didnt know that grown men act so immature about things.
I find it more likely that a person unable to master simple capitalization screwed up their own post rather than someone deleting it.
When you hear the kind of fictions your irrational opponents attribute to you, it’s a sobering look into their own psyches. More often than not, they assume everyone is like them and thus attribute to you the kind of wickedness and malfeasance they would perpetrate themselves.
Seeing how difficult it is for such violent people to deal with peaceful people, it sometimes makes me think this whole “peaceful evolution” thing just might work after all… assuming the bloodthirsty, pitchfork-wielding mobs of Keene busybodies, blowhards and bureaucrats don’t murder us all first.
I don’t know about that, Zeus. People want to be free deep down. Problem is, the temptation to take the easy money is very great, rooted as it is in the human nature of avoiding pain. Working for one’s sustenance is a pain, and government in its current form offers people gain without pain. It is immoral, but people take it anyway.
Our job is to make plunder more of a pain than real gain by real labor. It is the challenge of our lifetime, and I doubt that there are many in Keene who genuinely feel inclined to do violence on liberty minded folk. They just haven’t wrapped their head around the reasons why there is no such thing as a free lunch. People want to be free. Giving them an understanding of what that really means is our calling. A part of that is teaching people about the nature of law and how moral law protects the liberty of all.
Vipe, the longer I live the more I notice that people in general have no principles at all let alone consistent ones. That’s why this country is where it is despite having unparalleled historical advantages that should have ended in a society of free and prosperous individuals instead of an illusion of such.
Not only do you have the uphill battle of convincing the statist masses their line of thinking is illogical, immoral and unreasoned but then educate them on the philosophy of liberty, non-aggression principle and so on.
In many cases the reaction is thus:
“Me Krom no like what you say. Krom SMASH!”
We’re a long ways away from true liberty but it inevitably has to come just due to the sheer ineptitude of the bureaucrats and politicians screwing up the country beyond repair.
The ‘country’, to me, is just a concept, Zeus, and imaginary lines drawn on pictures of the world.
Real freedom will not be geopolitical. It will be a choice that each makes for himself.
When it begins to happen in earnest, geopolitical motivations will become moot, because people will put those fictitious considerations behind the implications that governmental action have for their own liberties.
The biggest part of that, imho, is the understanding of mutual liberty. One cannot be free if he also wants to abridge the freedoms of others.
Progress is being made in this regard. I myself had no clue about it as recently as two years ago. How many others besides me have picked up on it in that short span of time? It’s only a matter of time before the liberty concept goes viral, and then, things will get very interesting as the state lashes out to protect its monopoly on violence.
But by then, it will be too late, for the people will understand and will ignore the tyrants and their bleatings about the ‘common good’ and their vision of a ‘civilized society’.
The perceived legitimacy of the state and its perverted law is on the clock. It would be best for them to acknowledge their error and step back, but unfortunately, they are too accustomed to having their way, so it will linger for a while before it finally atrophies into irrelevance.
Don’t believe the whole leaderless thing…
Mr. Big is really Puke and his monkey minions!
Ian, don’t lie, you love that you lead this group of monkeys. You’re the one with sound bites and the one with all of the face time. Your the leader of the pot cult. Way to be. You’re really going places.
You have your own sort of law within your group and you Ian, are the government.
Ian, don’t lie,
Ian has no need to lie. He isn’t running for election.
you love that you lead this group of monkeys.
What Ian loves is seeing people stand up for themselves and letting the state bureaucrats and the busybodies know that what a person does with their own body (be it drink alcohol, be a vegetarian, eat greasy hamburgers or smoke a plant) is no one else’s business but their own so long as it doesn’t harm someone else or their property.
You’re the one with sound bites and the one with all of the face time.
By that logic, Ronald McDonald must be the CEO of McDonald’s.
Your the leader of the pot cult. Way to be. You’re really going places.
A “pot cult”? I can’t imagine how there could be such a thing considering you’re not going to do much “culting” once you’re stoned and getting the munchies.
You have your own sort of law within your group and you Ian, are the government.
Now you’re just being obtuse. The only law we recognize is the same law the Founding Fathers did i.e. “natural law”. Look it up on Wikipedia. The names Locke, Bastiat and Spooner might also be useful in your research.
As for Ian being the government, I’m not aware of him forcing people to give him a portion of their wealth in return for not kidnapping them and putting them in a cage. I’m also not aware of him getting together with others and invading foreign lands in order to steal their wealth and kill their people.
That government is a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, Ian most certainly doesn’t meet that definition so I think you’re mistaken on all fronts.
The only honest thing you could possibly say about Ian is that he’s very skinny, determined and vocal, none of which are bad things let alone crimes.
“Look it up on Wikipedia.”
That explains alot. Wikipedia is not a credible source. Think what you want but Ian runs the show.
He has just brainwashed you into believing that what you say and do is your own idea. He is very manipulative and eventually it will burn you. You’ll see.
Wikipedia is more credible that the nightly news which does indeed brainwash people into being scared and obedient tax cattle.
As for Ian brainwashing me, I wasn’t aware what a Svengali he was. Is he a mutant, an alien or did he acquire his hypnotic powers from a scientific accident/meteor shower?
Don’t click here.
Officer Rivera and his family should be afraid. They should be very afraid. They represent brutality and violence. They should be afraid of the people in their neighborhood. The people in government, and their families, should be afraid of the people generally, the people outside government especially.
It is not right for Rivera to smash the face of Hoffman and get away with it. It is not right for Rivera to pepper spray anyone and get away with it. It is not right for Rivera to smash cameras, or put finger prints on lenses, and get away with it.
New Englanders used to tar and feather scum like Judge Burke and Officer Rivera, strip them of their offices, and ride them out of town on rails. New Englanders, in a more festive time, used to shoot redcoats and other authoritarians from behind trees. The bloody trail from Lexington and Concord back to Boston was littered with the dead and wounded British imperial troops who were in Concord to disarm the militia.
So, yes, Rivera’s wife’s reaction to a crowd on her street obviously upset with her vicious, brutal, nasty, lying husband was a sensible reaction. She sensed that these people had come to her home because of the filthy, evil, horrid things her husband does to peaceful people. And perhaps some of them were armed.
People should be armed. Police should be afraid of them. That’s the natural order of things. There are far more people than police, and police are lazy, fat, and stupid. So there is no way for police to protect anyone. Therefore people have to be armed to protect themselves.
On this occasion, the people were having a vigil and carrying candles. On another occasion, other people might be having vigilance and carrying guns and torches. The people who showed up to object to the violent, brutal, unrestrained torturing of their friend by Rivera were, in this case, peaceful, sensitive, and restrained in their protest.
But it need not be that way. Police who live in wood houses should not inspire Molotov cocktails. Sic semper tyrannis.
YO! END GAME! &all you other knee-jerks, Eli Rivera *tresspassed* on my property, *IN MY HOME*, without lagal authority to do so, threatened me, hurt my elderly widowed mother(caused her exteme emotional distress…), and caused a bogus “Trespass Notice” to be delivered to me, (the little shit slipped it under my back door…), then, after his Lt., Jay DuGuay voided the bogus notice, Rivera & Randy Tefft conspired w/John Arnold to deliver an equally fraudulent *EX PARTE* “Stalking Temporary Order*(“STO…), after *STALKING **ME** to deliver it…, then, Tefft & Rivera *CONSPIRED* to fraudulently arrest me on Christmas Eve 2005…No, assholes, a peaceful, candle-light vigil at Eli’s & Burkes’ homes is ***EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE ASKED FOR, & DESERVE***!!!…the feces are hitting the fan, & we’ve got a near unlimited supply of both fans & feces…We shall never give up in pursuit of justice & Liberty…
Harrassing officers at home is a bold move isnt it?
I would not call that harassment. Compare what happened to Eli Rivera to what happened to Rich Paul. He was kidnapped. Or what happened to Kurt Hoffman. Who was truly, in the most objective and moral sense, being harassed?
The law and the democratic process are not my god. I do not worship them. I do not view them as infallible. I do not believe anyone should act unjustly to a fellow child of God for its sake. We are all responsible for our own actions and will be held accountable, if not in this life then in the next.
Freddie, I was a voluntaryist long before I’d ever heard of Ian.
A few years ago I was a conservative. As I seriously considered the long term negative impact of our aggressive foreign policy, and recognized that the vast majority of domestic federal government action greatly overreaches it’s original intent, I became a constitutionalist.
I still think a government that obeyed the Constitution would be many, many times better than what we have now, but I also recognize that the constitution does not fully protect natural rights, and does permit the use of aggressive force — most notably for taxes, but also eminent domain, and in other cases.
Ultimately, there is no logical justification for the idea that a government can morally commit acts that would be immoral for any other person or group. There is no magic to the name “government” which places men above the moral law. It is an organization, like any other.
People cannot delegate authority to representatives that they themselves do not have. If I cannot morally steal from you, it does not become moral if my representative does so on my behalf.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong, immoral and aggressive behavior does not magically become ok because it is supported by a great number of people, or it is perpetrated by someone wearing a fancy hat, costume, or claiming a title.
Slavery was immoral even when it was supported by the majority, and enshrined in the constitution. Slavery would have been immoral even if every person in the country supported it, except for the one slave. It was immoral because it was a use of aggressive force on an innocent person in order to violate their liberty, and in order to steal from them.
Taxation is not as bad as slavery, but it is fundamentally immoral for the same reasons.
It may be hard to believe, but there was a time when slavery was as popular as taxes are today, and the reaction to abolitionists was as vociferous. It’s also interesting to note that the arguments made at that time in support of slavery were remarkably similar to the ones made today in support of taxes.
For example, here’s one from apologist William Harper, in 1852:
“The institution of domestic slavery exists over far the greater portion of the inhabited earth. Until within a very few centuries, it may be said to have existed over the whole earth —at least in all those portions of it which had made any advances towards civilization. We might safely conclude then, that it is deeply founded in the nature of man and the exigencies of human society.”
Replace slavery with taxes, and reduce the quality of the grammar, and you’ve got the same exact argument I’ve heard a hundred times in support of statism.
Jim, I get why you’re angry, but I suggest that a peaceful way is better. Your rhetoric sounds violent to me – it’s the natural human reaction to injustice, but I think we must choose to put that aside, and look more to Gandhi as an example than the American Revolutionaries. I do not want a war, now or ever, and I do believe we can gain freedom by peaceful means.
Besides, most of these people (ok, perhaps not Rivera), are well meaning, well indoctrinated people, who just don’t know better. It is a very hard thing to stop, honestly reconsider your viewpoint, and decide to change.
Although Rivera certainly has anger issues, he probably also does not fully realize that what he is doing is wrong. I think it’s likely he finds himself angry because the ideas that are being presented to him clash with, and expose the injustice of his little cozy paradigm, which he does not want to reconsider.
This is no excuse, of course, for his actions. But now is the time to peacefully stand for and present what we believe in, not run for the tar and feathers.
Inspired by Sam and a few others, I put together my own little poem:
Cry Me a River, Rivera
You pretended pain and shock
When you saw us on your block.
This one last avenue remained
To address your many scandals.
We mock a brute who whines he’s pained
From seeing a few lousy candles.
No one believes that you’re afraid–
This happened because you displayed
A pre-pubescent bully’s personality.
Cry me a river, Rivera.
You brought this on yourself with your brutality.
The truth, it’s often noted, hurts–
But your pain’s nothing close to Kurt’s.
When you feebly tried to make
Us seem like crooks, then you of course meant
To conceal the rules you break
In your lawless law enforcement.
Unlike you, we have hearts, and this is
Why you tried to cite the Mrs.
Hoping to give heartstrings just a tug.
Cry me a river, Rivera.
She needs to know she’s married to a thug.
The world now jeers at what you did–
It’s captured in a YouTube vid:
Foaming at the mouth, complaining,
Set to take things all too far.
Your colleagues interfered, restraining
You, just like the beast you are.
Your cruel, routine abominations
Demand more peaceful demonstrations.
Wait and see what else we have in store . . .
Cry me a river, Rivera.
Cry louder! louder! so they hear you more!
That explains alot. Wikipedia is not a credible source.”
No, it just explains that you’re an imbecile and a poor excuse for a troll. By your logic, Locke, Bastiat, and Spooner must be fictitious characters since they’re mentioned in the oh-so-not-credible Wiki. Right, dolt? ‘Cause if it’s in the Wiki, it must be erroneous! Nevermind reading about those people from other sources; research requires time and thought which is a waste of time! Who’d want to do that when we can rely on the effortless regurgitation of insults, found in a state of blissful mental surrender, and read from only a few lines out of Goebbels’ play book.
He has just brainwashed you into believing that what you say and do is your own idea. He is very manipulative and eventually it will burn you. You’ll see.
Oh, how quaint! Ian the Brainwasher Extraordinaire! Beware, he’s out to get you! Don’t mistake the gentle demeanor and his objection to violence fool you! His demonic horde of pot cultists might go on a Reefer Madness rampage and… gasp… raid your fridge! Quick! Hide your non-perishables! lol
If I was the US Attorney in Concord I’d be looking at prosecuting the Free State movement as an ongoing criminal enterprise and adding a “kingpin” sentencing enhancement for Ian. Oh shoot, Ian said he wasn’t the leader in a blog post so I guess that won’t work, ha ha.
Ian, I’ve just decoded your latest dispatch and will be passing it down through all the proper “unofficial” channels so everyone gets a copy. As always, we will those orders to a T and then wait for your next command. In the name of more Liberty, to our Commander and Cheif, our leader, Ian Freeman.
******
But seriously, this is a dream scenario for me to shamelessly promote my parady video (as well as other activists) via “Homeland Security Visits Burning Porcupine” as it was an effort to find this person.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AnarchyInYourHead#p/a/f/2/tmwqdjngJOI
Dear Ian the thin, supreme ruler of all libertydom, I have sorted all the M&Ms by color, and acquired the shiatsu. Awaiting further orders.
Edit: Oh noes, I posted this in public view! Abort!! Abort!!
Kingpin as in you are trying to pin him as a king?
King of what? The anarchists? LOL. That’s rich.
For our leader,
I’ve almost completed the organzatioanal power chart that will inform everyone of their positions and what they can and cannot do per your orders.
I know everyone’s excited about attending the underground evening bonfire (secret training) to be held at the eyes only location in Grafton, Nov. 5th.
PS: We just got a truck load of “Jiffy Popcorn” in and need to know who to sort it.
You’re supposed to encrypt these messages with the new secret decoder rings per the orders of our Glorious Leader, Peace. If they haven’t arrived yet, send a carrier pigeon to the usual location.
And remember: ETAOIN SHRDLU CMFGYP WBVKXJ QZ!
Tell no one.
the codebook says use template 1 if Bastiat is quoted
2 if Gandhi is referenced
and 77 if wikipedia is going to be our law for the event
Endgame, please keep it up you’re really cracking me up.
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- What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 3, 2012
- Pet Doctor February 3, 2012
- Free Minds TV February 3, 2012 - EP 239 [S7E04] February 3, 2012
- The wind cries.....Greetings one and all February 3, 2012
- Merrimack Valley Porcupines Monthly Meeting For February 2012 February 2, 2012
- Hello February 2, 2012
- Border Patrol in White Mountains? February 2, 2012
- Hello February 1, 2012
- More Polished Video Later (mistake) February 1, 2012
- Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! January 31, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 3, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 3, 2012
- What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 3, 2012
- Re: Pet Doctor February 3, 2012
- Pet Doctor February 3, 2012
- Free Minds TV February 3, 2012 - EP 239 [S7E04] February 3, 2012
- Re: The wind cries.....Greetings one and all February 3, 2012
- The wind cries.....Greetings one and all February 3, 2012
- Re: Hello February 3, 2012
- Re: Ridley's NOT GUILTY verdict in Nashua February 3, 2012