Letter #8 from Kurt in Jail
[Transcribed from Kurt's "Mail From Jail" letter, which can be found here. Be sure to visit Mail-to-Jail to write letters to Kurt in jail.]
Saturday, October 24, 2009 A.D. Day 23
The Roof
It’s coming down pretty heavy out there and there is a chill in the air. There is the sound of an occasional snore, a television with the volume on low, but low enough that you know it’s some mindless form of distraction, as it almost always is. The inmates beg for direct responses from the “corrections” officers and receive the all too familiar vague answers only people hired not to think or feel can give. There is the echo of the speakers blaring from the task masters “Mister Banker, Mister Durall, Mr. Coll, get ready for work detail!” They are headed out to see “the girls” and milk them and shovel their poop into machines… I guess the cows and the humans are on the same level… slaves of the state, or in this instance, the county as well. An “inmate” which I choose to call “Terry” (that is after all his human name, not “inmate”) says thank you to me for coming over to him with a roll of tissue to blow his nose and dry his tears he is dripping all over the letter he is writing in response to the pictures and letter he just received from his wife and his 18 month old beautiful little girl, he won’t see for at least a month… There is much more to hist story, too, more that the thugs calling themselves “everyone’s government” who dares enter this land. Terry thanks me for the stamp and envelope that I shared with him, knowing that just doing this gets me a “write up” and possibly sent to solitary confinement in East Block.
On the 21st I received mail from my wife that was postmarked on the 12th… that is all too typical. Tim, who has been here numerous times, surely due to the all too insane and dysfunctional “probation system” that is established as a tool to KEEP people coming back and the earnings and profit they steal from you at the point of a gun if you choose not to support it’s violence, again is frustrated that he too gets his mail sometimes the next day, sometimes in a week or so, stands by the door in an attempt to see his family member (I won’t say who) as he keeps asking someone to get her so he can see her through the tiny glass window on the cell door. A glimpse would change his spirit for hours, maybe even the rest of the day. He ends up feeling the same… forgotten. It’s easy to do here, no matter what. Call me a pessimist or a cynic, but I know, that is the design and the desire of the system, and that is the sign to them… that they own you.
There is some good news in all of this. One Massachusetts guy just got converted after reading “Atlas Shrugged”… it’s a small, but honest start… after all he is still from the bad place below. New Hampshirites know it as “Hell,” others know it as “Massachusetts.”
I notice a drip, drip, drip. It’s the second or third I’ve heard today. The puddle forms just below one of the three empty bed support looking things… I think they call them “beds” but I sure don’t, nor does my sore back and neck.
The miracle happens in the midst of it all. A guard comes in with mail for a “Mister Hoffman” and I resist (for maybe the third time since I’ve been here) telling him “that’s not me” and then going through the whole explanation with his government educated mind. That’s getting old and they still don’t seem to get it… do you? Anyway, the resounding drumming on the roof is now a pitter patter yet still dripping on the bunks and other places the building was supposed to prevent… it’s news from Torrin, and second card from SendOutCards.com/jasontorres with pictures of my wife and people the guards don’t even bother to mention, outside with signs and rain-coats… How did this happen? All my life I tricked people and made large sums of currency and played along to get along and I was alone in my thoughts and mind and heart… now, with my big mouth and nothing resembling those days, except for the silver S500 that needs an oil change 200 miles ago (parked outside the jail in the photo, thanks Torrin) I see that I should have opened my big mouth long ago. Public Opinion, a thing the local courts state in their words as their guiding principles, is on my side, or should I say, I am now on the right side. Yes, my mouth is still too big but at least it has said things that the “public opinion” identifies with… another TINY brick is out of the wall, the black dress is not seen as a reminder of something even remotely resembling “justice,” I still see Terry wiping his tears, I still can not provide for my wife, or anyone, there is still no victim… drip… drip… drip…
Comments
87 Comments on Letter #8 from Kurt in Jail
Oh enough already…get over yourself!
IHAVEHADENOUGH:
What did Kurt do wrong? Is Judge Burke’s ego SO fragile that saying “a please would be nice” (or however Kurt worded it) damages Burke-the-Jerk’s psyche SO MUCH that it justifies locking him up for 6 months? If you feel this way, would you please explain your logic?
errrrrrrhhhhh!!
I’ve had enough of your logic pulsehead! report to jail immediately!
IHAVEHADENOUGH:
Get over yourself?!?!?!?!?
You try being imprisoned unjustly for six months while the general public views you as an “extremist” for requesting that Burke say please.
You disgust me.
No victim but you, Kurt.
what does it cost to get these letter published in the news (with his consent of course)?
is there somewhere i can read the background of this? why is kurt in jail?
To: THOMSTELE: To see the whole story on Kurt, look at the category list to the right. Click “Thuggery”. All Kurts’ previous letters, plus *SOME* video, can be found there. Note: There’s 2 pages worth, don’t forget page 2! As to why, *WHY* Kurt’s in jail, well, flexing his judge-dick muscle is the only exercise Burke-the-Jerk gets!…(unless his dog takes him for a walk!…)*grin*…
Basically how I understand it: he got sent to trial for not showing a cop his ID and when the trial started he didn’t want to ‘rise’ for the judge and he asked the judge to say please; he was immediately sentenced, without continuing the trial, to 6 months in jail for ‘contempt of court’. They also kicked everyone out of the court and took him into the back room where Rivera assaulted him and put him in a wheelchair because he got up to hug his wife goodbye.
Wait why was he interacting with the cops in the first place?
Rolling through a stop sign seems like a logical ticketable offense.
Slowly rolling through a stop sign does not constitute harm, or threat of immediate harm to others. It’s about revenue generation, plain and simple. They have no right to write down whatever reams of arbitrary rules for people’s lives they care to think up, and then extort money from people when they break them — any more than I would have a right to do it to you.
Violence, or the threat of it, is only justifiable when it is used as a defense against the aggressive violence of others — it is not a valid as a means to enforce the arbitrary diktats of bureaucrats and politicians. Kurt did not harm or threaten anyone.
And if it were a real crime with a victim, thom, the money should be going to the victim, not to the state.
Paul…you are such an ignorant moron. Do you have any idea of people kileld or injured by people ignoring traffic control devices…
Wait! I shouldnt ask thoise questions here… I will just be immediatly assualted by those demanding I provide statisitics and numbers to bake up any common sense statemnent. Then if you provided numbers generated perhaps by a DOT they will say they are just a pawn of a violent government creating numbers to justify their stealing and kidnapping….Ahh! – the merry delusions of freestaters…
Maybe we could organize something where we all “roll slowly” through stop signs all around Keene and refuse to pay any tickets we may receive. Stop signs appear benign, but they are just the first step in government intrusion on our freedoms. (Since I know that we won’t get into any accidents, of course, there won’t be any victims.)
IHaveHadEnough,
Did Kurt kill or injure anyone? No! In fact, it was gov’t that injured him.
This Keene native fully supports the Free State Project and it’s participants. It’s about time someone stood up.
I hope you all do organize some rolling violation like that. Do it 3 times and get enough moving violation points so they pull your license and take the lot of you off to jail when you drive under suspension. That would be one way to clean up the streets and roads of southwest NH. Please do it Please!!!
P.S….you are all fucking nuts!
Ihavehad,
Then those people who actually harmed others should be forced to pay restitution to those actual victims.
You could make your statement about anything. What if I outlawed all cars, period? I could then say, “do you know how many accidents are caused by people who ignore my rule against driving cars?” Or, I could outlaw anything that could be used as a weapon — rolling pins, steak knives, etc, and say, “do you know how much harm is committed by people who disobeyed my rule against dangerous items?”
That would not justify me extorting money from everyone who owns a steak knife, a rolling pin, or a car. I would be only justified in going after those people who actually DID harm others, because only those people can owe restitution. And if I go after them, the money wouldn’t go to me (what claim would I have on the money? – I wasn’t harmed), but to the victim.
If there’s no victim, there’s no crime.
I know this may come as a foreign thought to you, but the fact that someone slowly rolls through a stop sign in a rural area with no one around does not imply they are about to fly through a red light into traffic at 40 miles per hour.
Ignoring some traffic devices and rules in some situations constitutes reckless endangerment. Others are completely arbitrary, and just about rote obedience and money generation. No rational person can say that rolling through a stop sign at five miles per hour with not a car in sight constitutes reckless endangerment of others, but if it did, the actual victims should be compensated. The state produces no victim, nor does it claim anyone was harmed, nor does it try to obtain restitution for that victim. It only demands money because one of their rules was broken.
Then there’s always the problem of tyrant burke, who, in true mobster/ganster style, uses violence against anyone who doesn’t pay him respect.
Neither of these “crimes” regard acts of harm against other people, or obtaining restitution for those victims: They’re about our masters demanding obedience to their every whim. If you don’t bootlick, they lock you away, whether there was a victim or not.
So genius…how does an actual victim get compensated?
Your idea of a free society must not include any kind of insurance, does it? Do you, or some self appointed enforceer go to the alleged criminals house and sieze property to pay damages to some victim? Exactly how would your system work if even 1 person in your midst had a selfish, greedy or fraudulant thought….It cant!! Your “system” or lack of a system would dissolve into mayhem and violence between people very shortly. As has any other attempt at such a “free” society has over thousands of years. Society needs rules and guidelines. Simple enough except for those of you who think you should be above the law. You are no different than the actual jerks in power who think they are above the law. You just havent played in the system long enough to generate the money and power needed to be “free”
So genius…how does an actual victim get compensated?
We have civil suits now, do we not? If a person harms another, they should be stopped by police, and a court date should be scheduled. If the ruling goes against the defendant, a plan for appropriate restitution to the victim will be made, which may include money, labor, property, or some combination therof. I don’t think jail is necessary except in dealing with true psychopaths who are going to be a continuing threat to others — and even in those cases, they should be working in jail to compensate their victim(s). Jail doesn’t help anyone — it doesn’t help the victim, who is forced to pay for it, and it doesn’t help the perpetrator, who, statistics show, far from being rehabilitated, is likely to get worse. I think this would be the most appropriate method in the current context, where government justice is a monopoly paid for by taxes.
Of course, taxation certainly constitutes a violation of property rights, so a longer term question would be, “how could such a system work without taxation, in society which largely abides by the Non Aggression Principle?”
In this circumstance, I think that people would subscribe to protection agencies, which would serve many of the functions police do now. A series of courts of arbitration could be designated for disputes between these agencies. If a person harms another, the victim’s protection agency will take the perpetrator’s to the designated court of arbitration, and appropriate restitution will be determined.
For more on justice in a free society, I’d check out this: http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf. Feel free to skip to chapters that cover topics that interest you.
We know that monopolies, especially forced ones, usually become abusive and inefficient. It’s only worse when they obtain funding not by voluntary subscription or contribution, but by force. Not only would a freer system respect people’s property rights, but it could be held far more accountable by the people — as they could simply withdraw funding from corrupt, inefficient, or abusive organizations.
Your idea of a free society must not include any kind of insurance, does it?
Certainly it does. In fact, the protection agencies described above might act as a sort of insurance provider as well – they’d provide immediate compensation to the victim, and then go after the perpetrator for damages.
Do you, or some self appointed enforceer go to the alleged criminals house and sieze property to pay damages to some victim?
If a person were to act as a vigilante, they’d have to be darn certain that they were doing the right thing, because if they acted against the wrong person, or inappropriately against the right person, they would be opening themselves up to liability.
The normal method would be for a court designated for disputes between the dependent and plaintiff to rule on the matter, with appeal possible to other arbiters.
Exactly how would your system work if even 1 person in your midst had a selfish, greedy or fraudulant thought….It cant!! Your “system” or lack of a system would dissolve into mayhem and violence between people very shortly.
It would deal with those people the same way they are dealt with now — they would be prosecuted for their actions, although I think they would be made to make restitution to the victims, rather than being sent to jail.
As has any other attempt at such a “free” society has over thousands of years.
Actually, there are many examples of free societies that have worked remarkably well. Apart from slavery, our country was largely free (at least 95% freer than what it is now), at its founding. Roads were mostly private, we had no central bank, no standing armies, no welfare, no social security, no medicare/medicaid, no mandated public schools, no income tax, no property tax, no sales tax, etc.
It is a fallacy to suppose that government restrains the evil impulses of the populace. In reality, the most power hungry and corrupt among us are attracted to government. To whatever extent the people are evil or corrupt, the government will be more so.
Creating an organization with the supposed right to use aggressive force without consequence, and a monopoly on that use of force, only enables the potential tyrants and thieves among us.
Society needs rules and guidelines.
I absolutely agree. I just don’t think those rules should be whatever arbitrary diktats a bureaucrat or politician feels like writing down. They should be based firmly on natural law. These are the rules for a free society, which should be enforced: 1. Do not harm another by using aggressive force against them or their property. 2. Obey the rules and conditions others place on the use of their property.
We have a constitution (not that anyone in government pays attention to it anymore), in the defense of which the last bulwark is the people themselves. I only suggest that we replace the constitution with the non-aggression principle, as it defends, rather than violates, natural rights (and has less loopholes) — I suggest that we the people become the bulwark in defense of that principle.
Of course, if you gave me the option, I’d take the constitution over what we have now in a heartbeat …
Simple enough except for those of you who think you should be above the law.
No one is above natural law, but every free person is above the arbitrary diktats of politicians and bureaucrats. If our lives, finances, and basic rights are subject to their every whim, then we are not free people.
You are no different than the actual jerks in power who think they are above the law.
They continually violate the God given rights of others. Whether these violations also comply with the rules they have written down or not, is irrelevant.
You just havent played in the system long enough to generate the money and power needed to be “free”
This is exactly how it works, unfortunately, and how it always works when one organization is given absolute power. Not only does power corrupt, but the corrupt seek power. These unaccountable men and women break natural law as well as their own law, and are not held accountable, but we are expected to obey their every command, no matter how absurd, arduous, or abusive.
We should all be free to do with our lives and finances as we choose, as long as we don’t harm others.
Where I said dependent I of course meant defendant, sorry about that folks 
.
Paul: Thank you for your fine work answering those questions by Ihavehad.
I dont have time to read everything that came after my last post. But i will say this.
Do you wait for a victim? Rolling through a stopsign is 99% harmless. BUT that 1% can ALWAYS be avoided by just stopping, which is comepletly easy to do. You ever seen someone get hit by a car just rolling through? I’ve had a family member get hit by a car that was rolling through a stop sign. And a good friend of mine get killed.
I have no problem with the state “generating revenue” by ticketing offenses.
Its easy to do the right thing and stop.
There should be no victims, and therefor no compensation for them.
“Do you wait for a victim?”
I used to feel the same way, but by that logic then they should throw everyone in padded cells. Why wait for a victim?
Razor,
I have no idea what your point was just now.
Thom,
Ultimately, the solution is private property rights. If these roads were obtained honestly and freely, the owner would have a right to make whatever rules for their use that he or she wanted to, including stop signs if they like.
Unfortunately, we’re stuck with the current situation, where the roads are owned by everyone and no one, because they are funded by taxes (i.e. theft). In this current circumstance, there is no owner, and we must all abide by common rules for decent behavior, most importantly, that initiating violence is wrong.
Thus, the key question is this: Was Kurt initiating violence by slowly rolling through a stop sign with no one around? I think the answer is clearly no.
I’m sorry to hear about your friend. If your friend was killed, however, they were not hit by someone “rolling slowly” through anything. Furthermore, one should be careful when pedestrians are around. A few years ago, I was ticketed by a very bored cop for coming to an almost but not quite totally complete stop in a completely abandoned area, with a clear view of traffic and pedestrians in all directions, neither of which existed. By no stretch of anyone’s imagination could my act be construed as violent. The fact is, if there didn’t happen to be a stop sign at that particular intersection, no one would have considered the behavior anything other than what it was: safe driving. I’ve even heard about people getting ticketed for rolling through a stop sign at honest to goodness CORNERS, before the cross street was even built. The reality is, it’s not about common sense prevention of harm to others, it’s about enforcing regulations.
You could make that 99% statement about anything — deer hunting, flying a plane, driving a car in the first place, bringing a propane tank on a camping trip, serving sushi, etc.
This is why it’s important that crimes be tied directly to actual victims — not the possibility that there might eventually be a victim in certain circumstances. On the basis of “could eventually cause harm”, I could completely control the lives of my neighbors. Why, having a fireplace could maybe cause a fire someday, which could harm others, so fires are prohibited. If you eat fatty foods, you might have a heart attack, which might be while you’re driving, which might harm others, so fatty foods are prohibited.
The fact is, you have a right to build a fire, but you’d better be careful, because if you harm others you will be held responsible. You can eat fatty foods and drive, but if you become a very high risk for heart attacks, you’d better be careful about your driving practices, because if you harm others you will be held responsible. This is the necessary motivation. I cannot force everyone to avoid harming others in exactly the same way I would.
It’s really a trade-off. We could make ourselves completely safe by locking ourselves in padded rooms, and wearing football helmets all day. There are benefits to free living which make some degree of risk acceptable. If we are going to live meaningful and free lives, we cannot completely eliminate risk.
This is why restitution is so important. If, as the perpetrator, you harm someone else, you’re going to have to compensate them for the full damages you have incurred. If the harm is serious, the restitution could be very serious indeed. This transfers the risk from the potential victims to the potential perpetrator, and allows people to judge the relative benefits and risks of a given behavior.
If me building a fire, for example, incurs a one in a hundred thousand chance of me accidentally setting fire to a neighbor’s house, I must reckon: what is their house worth? Say, it’s worth 200K. Then, the cost of my fire really includes $2 worth of risk. If that’s too much, perhaps I should buy some sort of grate or other fire safety system, which would reduce the risk to one in a million, and the cost to 20 cents.
Of course, most of us won’t be doing these calculations explicitly, but it’s the kind of risk/reward equation we should all be considering when we make choices.
Sorry man, but basically the logic your brain just farted at me makes no sense.
The fact of the matter is, there is NO problem with stopping. Its an easy rule to follow, and the person that killed my friend was going under five miles an hour. pretty slow if you ask me.
This is not a law that caters to outliers, there have been enough accidents of this nature to warrant the rule.
Most of the people that roll through stop signs consider themselves posing no risk. They’re accidents for a reason.
Think about it; you’re saying that although nobody was actually hurt that people should be punished for doing something that POTENTIALLY hurts someone – thus, basically everything you could possibly do can be tied into POTENTIALLY hurting someone.
The ‘potential victim = victim’ argument is tired and failed.
do you understand probabilities? Did you miss what i said about Outliers?
Predicted answers: No, Yes. (in that order)
Thom,
Again, if this were a privately owned road, they would have a right to make whatever rules they like. As it is, the only appropriate reason for them, or anyone, to use violence is in response to violence. No one owns the roads, so we are all equal in that context.
Do you consider slowly rolling through a stop sign, when no one is around, a violent act? Do you support violence being used against persons who roll through stop signs, even when it is clear that no one was endangered, such as in the example of the corner stop sign I gave?
Suppose there were no such thing as stop signs. Do you think it would be moral if you personally, then, started setting up stop sings, extorting money from any person who rolls through any intersection without stopping — and keeping all the money for yourself? If it would not be moral for you, why is it moral for the state?
Don’t you think a cop could use discretion, and realize that there are circumstances in which disobedience to a particular rule does not constitute a threat of imminent harm against a victim, as well as circumstances in which obedience to rules does – such as driving the speed limit on black ice?
I hope that person who hurt your friend is working to pay restitution to his or her family, and to a lesser extent his or her friends. I think if killing someone implied effectively a lifetime of paying restitution, which is what a life is worth, that would certainly make people safer drivers.
So unless there is a cop at every stopsign (or intersection) how does he use discretion?
Whataver your wishes are, the roads are owned by the state, and they have rules. They’re incredibly easy to follow also, i just dont see the issue. Why not air on the side of caution.
Think about this: Suppose I steal your money, and force you to give me your land. I then use your money and land to build a road. In order to use that road, I then require you to get a license from me, and I require you to obey my rules for the use of that road. Don’t you think that would be unjust? Don’t you think you could rightfully claim to use that road however you saw fit, as long as you don’t harm others, because in reality it’s YOUR road?
If you owned a road I’d be happy to drive on it and obey your rules. Heck, I even agree with the use of stop signs in certain circumstances, and would probably use them if I owned one. The problem is, they don’t own it — Kurt owns it far more than they do. So, he can legitimately argue that they have no right to force him to obey their rules for the use of his property.
If you were truly in the act of harming another person, I would have the right to stop you — even if we were on your land. This use of force is legitimate. However, I would have no right to make up my own rules for the use of your land — even safety rules.
Of course, the main injustice in this case was Burke’s behavior, and had nothing to do with the stop.
The state stole land from you and used it to build a road?
Your claim on “probabilities” and such is completely arbitrary. So it’s all about how probable something is then?
Criminal punishment exists to deter crimes; if you understand that by hurting someone you will be forced to provide compensation then you will be deterred from violating their rights. You will weigh the risks appropriately and determine if a particular action is worth risking having to compensate someone. THAT is how it works. Punishing people for not actually hurting anyone sets a dangerous precedent for running peoples lives.
Xrazor you have been disqualified. Thanks for playing.
Are you straightedge? and into hardcore?
Yes, thom, that’s exactly what they did. They used and continue to use eminent domain to obtain property, and they then pay for the projects with taxes.
Heck, after Kelo, it doesn’t even need to be for “public” works. They can steal land and give it away to their buddies in private development companies.
Thats… not how you get your point across, buddy.
You’re a sycophant. Oh.. I win now… (wtf?)
And yes, I was straightedge from when I started highschool to when I graduated college, since you asked. I also enjoy listening to music like Champion and Sick of it All. Not sure how it’s relevant to defending your logical fallacies.
Razor, of course i’ve heard of eminent domain, (and no i didnt just run to wiki like you most likely did about outliers).
Paul:
I meant you personally.
Has it happened to you personally?
Are you from keene?
Hey Thom, your snark valve is leaking. Might want to fix that before anyone else reads your posts and realizes how much of a condescending twat you’re being…
or is that your goal?…
They take my money to pay for road projects all the time. They spread the victimization out, by taking other people’s money and using it to compensate the owners they take the property from.
Tell me, in the situation above, if you had a neighbor who lived next to you, and I took your land by force, but then compensated you with money I had stolen from your neighbor, would that make the situation any more moral? Would the land, and road, be any less yours, and your neighbor’s?
Each of us has had money and/or property stolen from them to construct these roads, so each of us has the right to use it. It is our property, not theirs. If they want to own a road, require people to get their licenses and and obey their own chosen rules for its use, let them get real jobs, earn money, and buy it.
I am from Keene — Surry actually, although I’ve been away for a few years.
Snark Valve? Dude, get real. That really brightend my evening. Haha. Condescending?
“how is it relavant to defending your logical fallacies?” (Blablabla) Run to wiki again and look up condescending.
Quick, I’ll time you.
you guys are right, state of nature for the win.
Aw, c’mon X, we all have snark valves that leak from time to time . He called what I thought was a thoughtful post a brain fart, and I sometimes call some of his points absurd or illogical. It’s all good — part of a vibrant discussion 
.
I completely agree Paul, but the last few posts by this guy pretty much admit that he’s just here to stir things up and isn’t interested in developing a discussion….
I usually stick around for these to participate in the poo flinging for a little while though, so I’m just as guilty, but I’m wiling to defend myself if he has any more arguments to make….
I’ll stick by my charge that Thom’s a sycophant for now.
Hi Thom,
Go look at the studies done in places where traffic controls are not used, or in instances where controls are lessened. The data invariably back up the wisdom of letting people make their own choices. And no, I don’t have the website right in front of me, I did the research months ago when somebody brought it up, and you can go look now.
Your position is simply not based in reality. I know for my own part that I would be looking where the hell I’m going much more carefully if I wasn’t confident that people would be stopping for some metal stamped command or other.
Go read up, dude, information is whatever you want it to be, but you just can’t pull facts out of your backside. Your assertion that traffic controls make people safer is a falsehood encouraged by the very people that steal money from you to fund all the sign and light making that goes on, not to mention the people who make the signs and lights. And believe me, that’s a huuuuuuuuuge logroll, dude, in my state there is only ONE sign company and ONE traffic light company. How do you suppose that came about?
So what’s your solution a road auction? After that is their ANY government regulation of what an owner can and can’t do with his/her road?
I think the best thing to do might be an auction of highways, but just ceding rural roads back to local property owners. I would be concerned about auctioning rural roads, because there would be a danger of one developer buying up a person’s only way to get out of their house, and charging exorbitant fees.
There would be no regulation on what a person can/can’t do with their road — or any of their property — other than of course that they still can’t harm others or the property of others. The fact that a person is on my land doesn’t give me the right to mug them, for example.
If someone bought a road, and wanted to put stop signs up every ten feet, that’d be their right. I don’t think they’d get many customers, though, and eventually others would build roads that make theirs irrelevant.
It may sound foreign, but believe it or not, it’s the way things used to work in this country.
Thom, you’d be shocked at how quickly and efficiently the private road market would organize just as soon as the bullies got out of the way
Listen guys i’m not a big government superfan, I think there is a lot wrong with the current system. I stated that Stop Signs are logical, and you guys twisted it into an “extortion” and imminent domain scenario.
Its not. They are two different subjects entirely.
As of right now, the vast majority of roads here in keene, are built, and owned by the state. They are paid for with tax dollars, and regulated, and those regulations are enforeced in a way that 1, sends a message, and 2 generates some revenue. And there is literally nothing you can do about that right now, as your buddy Kurt is learning the hard way. He’s now martyr he’s a made a stupid mistake at the wrong time, and he pushed when he didn’t have the power. Ever read Sun Tzu? There needs to be more strategy with you guys than just throwing yourself at the opposition without a plan.
The road system is really the LEAST of our problems in this country, THE LEAST. Stop signs are such a non-issue that i really can’t believe you guys would argue the other side.
how about this, you guys just stop at the stop signs, stop wasting time on the matter, and do something about our absurd compulsory education laws and the current school system.
So i buy court st, washington st, west st, the keene section of 101, and 9.. There is NO regulation on what i’m allowed to do with them? I could just let them go huh? I could charge rediculous tolls, have no maintenence and use arms to protect myself from anyone tresspassing?
Thom, I’m going to copy here a couple of posts I wrote a few months ago, in response to one “Geo”, on the issue of roads. Feel free to read however much you’re interested in.
I don’t think road privatization is something that will probably happen in the near future — there are much more important fish to fry. That said, I think a good approach would be to start with rural, residential roads, and turn them over to a neighborhood association, or perhaps give everyone on the street a share. I do think that these roads would be maintained. Suppose I have a road repair business, and I notice one of these rural streets is in bad shape. I could get a clipboard, and go door to door along the street collecting pledges towards the road repair. No one pays unless there are enough pledges collected to get the work done — so that no one is afraid of being stuck holding the bag. If it’s important to the people along the street to improve the road, I am sure that the pledge goal could be met. So, I fix the road, and move on to another. Neighborhood associations could even take the initiative in collecting pledges to hire road repair, or improvement. Perhaps a few particularly industrious neighborhoods would do it themselves. Also, why not try this out gradually? We could choose a rural road, with willing participants, exempt them from any taxes related to road building or maintanance, and turn over to them the management of their road. We could see how well it works, so we could learn useful lessons before attempting this on a larger scale.
Larger, busier roads would probably be better off auctioned off. There are many ways the owner of a road could recover the costs of repairs and improvements. Advertising is one. Tolls are another — and automatic scanners these days mean tolls don’t need to slow you down. Also, you certainly don’t need to be rich — it does no good for owners to price their customers out of the market, and examples of private expressways that exist today, usually charge no more than a couple bucks per trip — far less than we pay for roads now. Check out this, for some examples of basic public services that are being offered more sucessfully privately, including water, air traffic control, emergency services, etc. Roads are briefly covered at 5:45: http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=john%20stossel%20air%20traffic%20road&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#.
Here’s more on private roads — I encourage you to watch the rest of this six part series as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtwdVInR1GwExamine what happens in sparsely populated areas in this country already: Farmers, or loggers, etc, clear dirt roads connecting their property to a local town or highway. These roads are often quite long — providing plenty of new rural areas with road access, and locations for new houses, for those who want to live in the country.
Furthermore, did you know that private turnpikes made up much of our early road system? In fact, as a percentage of GDP, the amount invested in these roads from 1790 to 1830 was greater than the total amount invested by all levels of government in the interstate highway system between 1956 and 1995. These investments produced at least 40,000 to 50,000 miles of road, and built many of the covered bridges we see today, without any government involvement. In fact, in New Hampshire, there were 51 turnpike incorporations, representing more than 1/6 of all incorporations at the time. The very first connected Portsmouth to Concord, and formed the basis of what is now route 4.
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), visiting the country at the time, noted that,
“If it is a question of taking a road past his property, [a man] sees at once that this small public matter has a bearing on his greatest private interests, and there is no need to point out to him the close connection between his private profit and the general interest. . . . Local liberties, then, which induce a great number of citizens to value the affection of their kindred and neighbors, bring men constantly into contact, despite the instincts which separate them, and force them to help one another. . . . The free institutions of the United States and the political rights enjoyed there provide a thousand continual reminders to every citizen that he lives in society. . . . Having no particular reason to hate others, since he is neither their slave nor their master, the American’s heart easily inclines toward benevolence. At first it is of necessity that men attend to the public interest, afterward by choice. What had been calculation becomes instinct. By dint of working for the good of his fellow citizens, he in the end acquires a habit and taste for serving them. . . . I maintain that there is only one effective remedy against the evils which equality may cause, and that is political liberty. (Alexis de Tocqueville, pp. 511-13, Lawrence/Mayer edition)
You see, people can help each other out of benevolence, both for their own sakes, and the sakes of others, rather than because of government force, and accomplish real, and significant good.
I think, Geo, it’s hard to imagine it simply because we haven’t experienced it. Suppose all TV and Radio were run by government, and we had never experienced anything else. No doubt we would say, “Of course TV and radio can never be private — how on earth could anyone make any money providing a service that anyone can tune into for free any time?” But, we would not have imagined the possibilities of ads, or of satellite radio and TV, which can operate by subscription. Suppose all food were provided by government. We would surely say, “Of course food distribution can never be privatized — only the rich would eat!!” but, we would not have imagined the possibility of the food kitchen, or the homeless shelter, or church based and secular charities — or the greater efficiencies in food production that we have because of competition. Any idea how much a McDonald’s hamburger would cost, if government produced it, and people were forced to buy them, no matter what? A lot more than a dollar, I can tell you that. If we lived in such a world, as in the soviet system, it would be difficult to even imagine the food options we have available today, just as we have difficulty imagining the possibilities of private roads. That’s really the point, and the reason central planning doesn’t work — people being free produces things we could not otherwise imagine, at prices we would not have believed possible. You may not be able to sit in soviet Russia and imagine a modern supermarket — but someone will, and will build it, given the chance. We may not be able to sit here and imagine all the advantages of a private road system, but someone will, and will build it.
Many of the things we take for granted as being run by government in this country were run very successfully privately, in the past. We only assume government must do it today, because we haven’t seen the potential of the alternatives — we haven’t seen the food kitchens, the WKBKs, and the one dollar hamburgers.
The problem is in this country, whenever there is a problem, we look to more government to solve it — despite the fact if we dig just a little, it’s usually government that caused the problem in the first place. Do we like the way the country has headed, based on this policy, with ever increasing Government in all aspects of our lives, and ever increasing debt? Has it helped our economy? Has it helped our foreign policy? Are our civil liberties more or less protected? Do we have more or less freedom, and wealth, in our finances? Do we have more or less choice in our lives?
Let’s try the alternative, if only in certain ways, and if only in certain areas. Let’s not keep doing the same thing, hoping for a different solution.
Maybe freedom works after all
Traffic control devices and traffic laws attempt to remove from individual drivers the judgement to choose whether to go through an intersection, travel at a prudent and reasonable speed, or do other things. The individual driver in control of his particular vehicle is more informed about current conditions and is the only person capable of judging what to do at any given time. The idea that a legislature or city council can judge for everyone else what to do in a given situation is idiotic, and anyone who prefers that a few choose for the many is a moron. Those who enforce such laws are doing so entirely to enhance revenues and not at all to enhance safety.
Criminal punishments do not deter crime. There is ample evidence of this every year when crimes take place. Punishments, including the death penalty, are slow to arrive. The perceived potential benefits of crime are immediate. Most criminals are capable of seeing the disadvantage of committing a crime when a police officer is obviously nearby, but not capable of seeing the disadvantage of committing a crime otherwise. Also, most criminals who commit violent crimes, such as armed robbery, are stupid. If they looked at the statistics, they would write bad checks – the benefits are realised much more often and the percentage of such crimes actually prosecuted is tiny. Whereas robbing banks is about 98% likely to get you thrown in prison.
What is it about the visible presence of the law enforcement officer that deters crime? It is the fact that there is a guy with a gun, right there. The fact that he has a badge is not very much more of a deterrent. So, in fact, the meaningful deterrent to crime is armed people.
A woman who has a gun is much less likely to be targeted by a rapist. So women should carry guns openly. A man who has a gun is much less likely to be mugged. So men should carry guns openly.
Given intelligent people who are exercising their freedom to keep and bear arms, the need for “police” to interfere with the free flow of trade and commerce, to enforce “laws” against topless women, smoking pot, or selling sexual services is non-existent. And the need for such persons to “protect” us from crime is also zero.
The police were a bad idea by some British aristocrats who wanted to make trouble for prostitutes in London. The American way is to keep and bear arms and mind your own business.
The free market is not based on the idea that people will always be fair, or benevolent. It is based on the idea that a business or organization competing for customers in price and quality is far more accountable to the people than a bureaucrat who will get money no matter how incompetent he is, because he prohibits alternatives.
The advantage is threefold, at least:
1. Road maintenance would be cheaper. Currently, government wastes a great deal of money on bureaucracy, administration, and other inefficiencies, which would be eliminated by someone with skin in the game.2. Competition would encourage innovation. Which aspects of our economy are most stagnant? That’s right, the government provided ones. Schools have deteriorated, if anything, over the years, road technology is decades old, etc. Meanwhile, autos, computers, etc, improve all the time. The government has no motivation to innovate, because it is guaranteed business no matter what — not so a private company, competing by rate and quality.
3. People’s freedom would be respected. Roads would no longer be run by a forced monopoly. Instead, people would be free to use or not use any road they chose, based on the quality and price of the service.
I have no problem with revenue being generated by people driving recklessly.
Punishments dont have to deter crime. They Punish. Stop signs to reduce accidents though, which is why parts of the autobahn are even regulated.
As far as the private roads though.. like i said, what would stop someone with a ton of money from bringing keene to a standstill?
People would NOT necessarily be free to use any road they chose. That is complete BULLSHIT! it is! It would be entirely entirely possible for someone to take control of the local road system. ENTIRELY.
Though i do agree with the school system, and that there needs to be major reform with how states go about maintaining roads.
Listen guys i’m not a big government superfan, I think there is a lot wrong with the current system. I stated that Stop Signs are logical, and you guys twisted it into an “extortion” and imminent domain scenario.
Its not. They are two different subjects entirely.
I’ve got no problem with the idea of stop signs, but the enforcement of these rules, when you get down to it, is based on the assumption that the government owns the roads, which it does not. That’s why the more fundamental issues came up.
As of right now, the vast majority of roads here in keene, are built, and owned by the state. They are paid for with tax dollars, and regulated, and those regulations are enforeced in a way that 1, sends a message, and 2 generates some revenue. And there is literally nothing you can do about that right now, as your buddy Kurt is learning the hard way. He’s now martyr he’s a made a stupid mistake at the wrong time, and he pushed when he didn’t have the power.
Civil disobedience is always done by those who don’t have the power.
Ever read Sun Tzu? There needs to be more strategy with you guys than just throwing yourself at the opposition without a plan.
I think right now, many people have just decided they are fed up, and they’re going to act like free people, and let the chips fall where they may. I think this can send a powerful message — but certainly suggestions for effective plans would be welcome .
What do you think the best approach would be?
The road system is really the LEAST of our problems in this country, THE LEAST. Stop signs are such a non-issue that i really can’t believe you guys would argue the other side.
I think conceding principle is a path towards long term failure. For example, suppose your opponent argues for a 10% income tax in NH, and you believe you cannot stop the income tax entirely, so you propose a 5% tax. Even if you “win”, and the tax is five percent, you’ve really lost the principle of the issue. You’ve presented people with the misconception that everyone agrees an income tax is a good idea — give it a few years, and it will be 10%, or 20%. This has been our path to tyranny over the last 200 some odd years. The principles of freedom are continually compromised for short term political gain.
We must stand on principle.
I agree that roads aren’t our biggest issue, but that’s what Kurt got taken to court for, and so that’s where he decided to take a stand.
how about this, you guys just stop at the stop signs, stop wasting time on the matter, and do something about our absurd compulsory education laws and the current school system.
I do absolutely agree with this — I do think this is one of the most vital issues facing us, and far more important than roads. What do you think the most effective civil disobedience, or other activism, would be on this issue?
Stop paying property tax. That’s most effective by far. It has been far too long since there was a good tax protest in this country. Read the history of them, it’s quite interesting!
So i buy court st, washington st, west st, the keene section of 101, and 9.. There is NO regulation on what i’m allowed to do with them? I could just let them go huh? I could charge rediculous tolls, have no maintenence and use arms to protect myself from anyone tresspassing?
Court street and Washington street would be “rural” in my categorization — they’re not highways. If a large number of homes or businesses exist on a street, I don’t think that street should be auctioned off, for just the reasons you describe.
Also, I think it would make sense, when first selling roads, that care be taken not to sell too many to the same individual or organization. There needs to be competition. Also, there could be a caveat that any resident on a road which is auctioned, is automatically ceded the right to use that road.
Once the free market gets off and running, I think these issues will take care of themselves. Abusive road owners will be driven out of business as people choose, or build, alternative routes.
We’ve developed under the assumption of public roads, which has led to different development patterns that would have occurred in a free market, so care needs to be taken in the transition, so as to minimize disruptions.
Organize an effective and well thought out mission statement.
Consolidate your talking points and back them up with at hand statistics, no more of “this study says this, i found these stats months ago when i researched.” Get it down. Acknowledge the flaw’s in your endgame.
Educate, people want to hear the opposition MORE than ever right now. Stop making yourselfs look like hooligans and take charge.
When Fransisco D’anconia (sp?) decided to lash out and act free, he had a big enough roll in the area where it made a difference. So i dont think this is the approach for the free keeners yet.
Canvas the areas. Host events that are lawful, new comers will be intimidated by the idea of breaking the law, and most aren’t ready to take that step. Spend more time showing up in force to hearing at concord, demanding your right to speak. Like hundreds of people associated with CHENH did not to long ago.
Prioritize, stop fighting for weed rights and start big anti Obamacare reform pickets. all i see recently is a couple of kids that want to get high, and then a bunch of people that want the state to take over our HEALTH. That should be high priority not weed.
Education needs to be HIGH HIGH HIGH priority. Parents are forced to report to the state and prove they are educating properly? get out of here state! are you kidding? I’ll pay a $60 fine for running a stop sign, but to be not allowed to let my son drop out of school to learn a trade when he’s obviously not gonna get anything out of some bullshit, competition-free applied algebra course?
People are truly afraid of the state now, more than ever (in my lifetime anyway). Don’t make them afraid of you guys too! When someone see’s a good actor, musician et cetera, they want to hear what they have to say, when they see firebreathers, they are momentarily captivated but no one wants to participate.
Get people into the system, into the beauracracy legally and transform it from the inside out.
The time is now guys. seriously consider changing up your gameplan.
People would NOT necessarily be free to use any road they chose. That is complete BULLSHIT! it is! It would be entirely entirely possible for someone to take control of the local road system. ENTIRELY.
I think there is also an issue of freedom to access one’s property. Were I sitting on a court of arbitration ruling on a situation where a person could not leave their property without passing through the property of another, which was charging abusive fees, I would probably rule the second person had to allow the first access to their property.
I think community organizations maintaining roads may in many cases be a superior model, rather than for profit companies. For profit companies would more likely work well for large highways, to be used for long distance travel, where a number of alternative routes could be chosen.
I like my idea better. Stop paying property tax. If everybody did it, what could they do? Go away is what
Well they could crack down in a horrible and martial law sort of way. And you’ll never get enough people to just stop paying that they’ll even have to get to that point. The ammount of people that you’d be able to convince could easily be rounded up and sent to the ‘cages’. (like how i incorperated some of your limbo.)
I understand idealism. Realism works better no?
Yes, I understand fully, realistically you are cowering in fear of your masters.
How does it feel? And believe me, I cower too so don’t feel insulted.
Now, tell me what it would feel like to be free and not have to cower anymore
Organize an effective and well thought out mission statement.
In the current model, there is no top down control. There is no “leader”. There are obviously benefits as well as drawbacks to this approach — I do think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
I think producing a list of basic goals, however, can still work. It would just need to be presented by each person who supports it as their own view (“e.g: yes, I support the xyz list”), rather than an official policy of any organization.
Consolidate your talking points and back them up with at hand statistics, no more of “this study says this, i found these stats months ago when i researched.” Get it down. Acknowledge the flaw’s in your endgame.
Hmm. Perhaps a sort of booklet that could compile the arguments and statistics on each given topic would be useful.
Educate, people want to hear the opposition MORE than ever right now. Stop making yourselfs look like hooligans and take charge.
What’s an example of an inadvisable behavior you would call, “looking like hooligans”?
When Fransisco D’anconia (sp?) decided to lash out and act free, he had a big enough roll in the area where it made a difference. So i dont think this is the approach for the free keeners yet.
Yes, currently “acting free” is not done with the idea that we’ll actually be left alone, as D’anconia could. It is civil disobedience, with the full expectation that they will come down like a ton of bricks. The occasions where they do actually leave people alone are nice, however .
Canvas the areas. Host events that are lawful, new comers will be intimidated by the idea of breaking the law, and most aren’t ready to take that step.
The two big events in NH, attendance of which is in the thousands and hundreds, respectively, are the Liberty Forum: http://freestateproject.org/libertyforum, and the Porc Fest: http://freestateproject.org/festival/2009/homepage. You should come to one or both btw .
There’s also the free keene fest, attendance of which is certainly legal, although some of the activities there (e.g. penny poker, illegal hot dogs) are not. In addition, activists meet for dinner every Sunday at 5, at Armadillo’s, and all are welcome.
What kind of additional events would you like to see?
Spend more time showing up in force to hearing at concord, demanding your right to speak.
I agree, although some here aren’t too keen on political activity, either because they consider it the wrong way to change things, or because they’ve been politicos for a while, and found it ineffective.
I’d check out nhliberty.org — a LOT of people are working in Concord, and some from Keene help too. I do agree though, and hope I can convince more Keeniacs to spend some of their time on political activity.
Like hundreds of people associated with CHENH did not to long ago.
That WAS awesome 
. BTW, I was a member of CHENH — and was home-schooled all the way through HS.
Prioritize, stop fighting for weed rights and start big anti Obamacare reform pickets.
The thing is, this is a national issue, and one which a major party is already behind. I feel that our voices would be lost in the wash on this issue.
Frankly, I think the drug war is a MAJOR issue, if you examine its far reaching effects on this country, from gang violence, to incarceration rates. Civil disobedience is a powerful statement. If your suggestion is to abandon that strategy, I don’t think many will do so. Although there are a lot of other things going on, it really is a fundamental strategy of the Keene movement.
Now, I really would love to hear suggestions for kinds of civil disobedience which you think would be most effective. For example, what about homeschooling, but refusing to comply with the state’s requirements? That would be a particularly risky approach, however, as there would be a danger of them coming after your kid.
The fundamental issue in many of these cases is taxation, but again, not paying property taxes is a particularly risky form of disobedience.
all i see recently is a couple of kids that want to get high, and then a bunch of people that want the state to take over our HEALTH. That should be high priority not weed.
I am sure there are a few people who go to the 420 events just because they like pot, but I think most of us care about this issue for much deeper reasons. The drug war has a HUGE negative impact on this country, as I say, from funding violent gangs, to loss of civil liberties and militarization of police, to incarceration rates, and broken families.
Education needs to be HIGH HIGH HIGH priority. Parents are forced to report to the state and prove they are educating properly? get out of here state! are you kidding? I’ll pay a $60 fine for running a stop sign, but to be not allowed to let my son drop out of school to learn a trade when he’s obviously not gonna get anything out of some bullshit, competition-free applied algebra course?
I’m with you there. What do you think an effective approach would be on this issue? I have to say, many people have spend many years attempting to effect change on this issue through purely political means, and they have not gotten far.
People are truly afraid of the state now, more than ever (in my lifetime anyway). Don’t make them afraid of you guys too! When someone see’s a good actor, musician et cetera, they want to hear what they have to say, when they see firebreathers, they are momentarily captivated but no one wants to participate.
I do think the demeanor of some who participated in the 420 events could be improved — I think it is best to emulate Gandhi when doing civil disobedience, and refrain from exhibiting a great deal of anger. Is this your major concern, or what other ways can we be “doctors” or “musicians” in your analogy, without also becoming ineffective and ignored?
Get people into the system, into the beauracracy legally and transform it from the inside out.
Liberty activists have tried this for decades, and it doesn’t work — at least by itself. All we get is more tyranny. It is very easy to spin your wheels politically for years, and realize that before you’ve gotten any traction, the big government types have pushed you back miles. I really am convinced that it is the natural tendency of government to grow. If we are to stop it, it will not be tinkering with the levers of the state, it will be by creating a groundswell among the populace that cannot be ignored.
The time is now guys. seriously consider changing up your gameplan.
The Keene activists are not going to become mainly politicos, they’re just not — those activists are in Concord, Manchester, or elsewhere. However, I think strategy on how best to apply civil disobedience, and how best to get the word out, is vital.
With the knowledge that civil disobedience, and other outside the government types of activism (agorism, etc), are probably going to be the main approach — what do you think would be the best way to apply this activism?
If you could design the perfect civil disobedience, for example, to demonstrate the immorality of a particularly egregious law, what would it be?
Or, what product or service, either legal or not, do you think would best help promote alternatives to the state on a particular issue?
Civil disobedience is hard, it works best with A LOT A LOT A LOT of people. It’s hard with a small group, which is why i think education and recruitment should be current process.
i dunno, really i have a hard time thinking this way.
I think charisma drive’s movements more than civil disobediance. I mean King and Ghandi.. were charismatic powerhouses, and they were able to sweet talk and impress people ineto joining into their movements, and when they had a good portion of followers, they let hell lose.
I can’t help but think that’s the ultimate plan.
though i do think ghandi and King had an advantage, their movement was way more accessible. And they were simply gifted.
I’ll think about this more.
Also: i think a leader is key. Movements have a face. or a couple faces that people can get behind.
Lp,
i really believe you sensationalize everything to much. don’t get so dramatic, it’s silly.
That is a non response. Try harder
For the record….you guys are all wrong, both sides, about the ownership status of roads. As a legal authority and expert witness, usually for landowners, I am very knowledgable in this. Rural roads and most urban – think subdivision- roads are almost 100 % owned by the property owners abutting them to the center of said road. Very well established case law. The public has the right to use a right of way over the road for travel and installing utilities and such. Unless the deed to the land expressely excludes the fee ownership in the road…it is legally presumed to extend to the centerline. Even towns that claim to “own” the road are over turned in court because any deed or conveyance to the town must occur before the sale of any new lot or other ownership change in the surrounding land. Ask Hudson! In town and city centers this question is very complex because the land records are lengthy and complex to research but the case law stands unless there is a clear conveyance of the actual road to the town. It is still owned by the abutting deed holder!
More major roads say like Rte. 101 and the intersates are taken, or obtained by whatever means – right or wrong – by the soverign. The towns and authorities have, by whatever means that developed, set standards and rules/laws for the use and development of the roads and that leaves us at the current debate. So, think about this guys. You really do own the road in front of your house, probably to the center, depending on the original shape of the large tract your land came out of. You or another private citizen actually owns the land under where that stop sign is erected. All those ditches, signs, and other improvements are on private property that the soverign has a “right” to use, improve and regulate for our “benefit”??!! This may require a re-think of your road ownership schemes guys. If you seriously want legal reference I will supply, but I am not in my library on Saturday. If you need or want more info. discuss this with any land surveyor or good property attorney and they will set most peoples thoughts about the road system on a spiral. This is new england…lots of real old school and complex property and land laws here.
Interesting info Ihave, thanks! I think I’d heard something like that before. In most cases, then, there’s no need to redraw any lines — just let people really have the property that’s theirs already.
I love NE history — I can’t wait to get back to a part of the country where everything wasn’t built after 1947.
I think having a “leader” in this movement is a very bad idea.
Civil disobedience is hard, it works best with A LOT A LOT A LOT of people.
THOMSTELE,
i really believe you sensationalize everything to much. don’t get so dramatic, it’s silly.
Paul,
If interested…and if I rememebr I will post the case law reference for the common NH cases if anyone wants to have it for reference. This thread may be getting long by then…but I will put it here.
Yea…we will always agree on one thing…new england, and especially NH is just a great place with all kinds of wonderful history. Especially of rebellion, anarchy and freedom.
“…This thread may be getting long by then..”..*PEOPLE*! this isn’t the Forum. There’s no “threads” here…boatloads of idiots arguing pointlessly…How are *ANY* of you going to get the state to stop doing what it’s doing?…besides civil disobediance, I mean???…*I* think, that if only Kurt had stopped fully at the sign, or acted differently toward the cop, he prolly wouldn’t have gotten a ticket, or be in jail. But, as he was most likely *TARGETED*, it was going to be something sooner or later, right???..I’m still sorry he’s in jail. That sucks.
Of course there is a thread here, sweetheart. Every string of comments forms a thread.
No, this is not the forum, but there are *rules* on the forum, and moron authoritarian anti-freedom pacifists who demand that no one is allowed to express any general view about defensive and retaliatory force. So fuck the forum.
When the people fear the pigs, there is tyranny. When the pigs fear the people, there is freedom.
BTW, I don’t mention Kurt by name, but I did mention Keene in my recent FPP essay.
Sorry, Jim, I can’t agree with you, or let that rhetoric go unchallenged. I want to live in a world where the “pigs” don’t fear the people, and the people don’t fear the pigs. That’s not the world we’ve got now, for sure! And, here’s a little secret. THE PIGS ARE SCARED!…all that threatening & intimidation tactics on the cops’ part is the result of *FEAR*. YUP, the cops are afraid. Paranoid. They know that “in every encounter w/a civilian, there is always a firearm present. Yours.”…Of course, w/a “freestater”, *they* might have a gun too, which really REALLY ratchets up the cops’ fear level. Remember that old line about “all we have to fear is fear itself”?…What can we do to be less afraid? What can we do to make *THEM* less afraid. Now that’s *WORK*!…///”sweetheart”???WTF!?…/// 11at40 “currently unavailable”, as of 6:15PM, 11/01/09
You seem to be living in a dream world, Theking. (Are you thinking of Keen and spelling badly?)
You want to live in an orderly world where a group of disorderly people in uniforms with badges are running around imposing fear, brutality, torture, rape, and murder. That isn’t possible. What the pigs generate is not order, but what Alvin and Heidi Toffler call “surplus order” which doesn’t benefit the shop keeper who wants to be able to sell his stuff without having it stolen. Surplus order only benefits those who run the state, like that scum sucking jerk judge and his cronies.
I don’t want to live in a society where people and pigs “get along.” I want to live in a society where the pigs quit their jobs, or are fired, and not replaced. I don’t want anything from a pig except that he or she quit.
Why can’t we all get along? Because pigs beat up activists. Because pigs arrest non-violent people for non-crimes like possessing pot. Because pigs arrest non-violent people for non-crimes like going topless.
The rest of the people get along fine without pigs. Pigs are parasites who take money from taxpayers, often by directly attacking their freedom or imposing on them in their vehicles. Pigs add nothing to society. Free people look out for each other and prevent crime by themselves.
As you point out, the free staters are already armed. Anyone in NH is free to be armed. So where is the need for all these pigs?
my note on the whole “stop sign” topic:
have you ever been in a residential neighborhood, come to a 4 way crossing where either a) there were no signs at all -or- b) the power was out, so the traffic lights weren’t working? what did you do?
now, what would you do in that situation if you had a clear view and there were no cars or people around?
when ‘rules’ are not written out on giant sheets of metal, it is up to you to protect yourself. this pushes the responsibility of driving back onto yourself, and creates better driving practices.
and on the occasions where i have driven up to a “4 way crossing without a stop sign” and another car approached as well, i have always made eye contact with the other driver, and a friendly smile of ‘go ahead’ or ‘thank you for letting me go first’.
the “rules” remove all humanity’s simple interactions from driving, and puts you in a mindset that you are alone on the road with machines, not people.
Mostly off topic:
That reminded me of the time when I was at a large multi-lane intersection with turn arrows and I was in the left turn lane with a red arrow; I suddenly felt compelled to turn regardless of the fact it was red and that the traffic conditions somehow, during that brief moment when everyone’s got a red and nobodies moving, were suitable for me to make it. I spontaneously just ‘felt compelled’ and ran the light and made it through fine.
I looked back after I realized what I did to check and see if there were any cops that saw me do that just in time to witness the guy that was behind me get rear ended, hardcore.
Crazy story.
theKINGofKEENE. K*E*E*N*E*, King of, ////…”Keen”???WTF???..////.Thanks for the Toffler quote. “Surplus order”. I like that idea. Yes, I can agree with much of what you say, but not all of it. Sure, I’ll call a cop a pig, but I wouldn’t call a pig a cop. Why call them “pigs”???…Why call them *ALL* pigs???…Only some are pigs.////…we’re supposed to have civilian control of the military in America. Aren’t we supposed to have civillian control of the police, too???…Activists get beat up because they are challenging a corrupt status quo. They arrest people for pot, because they get a buzz from playing bully-with-a-badge. They arrest topless women because they are *SCARED*! You really don’t get it, do you, Jim? Or do you think that crimes don’t occur? “When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” When all you are is angry, you can only call them “pigs”…You’re welcome to your opinion, but don’t expect me to *AGREE* with it, OK?///and your link/website 11at40, is down, you know that?…
Great point smeg. Excessive rulemaking leads to excessive mechanization. Instead of neighbors creatively working together to solve conflicts, as they used to, now there is only one rule for behavior: comply.
For example, neighbors used to work together to build roads — as noted in the Alex de Tocqueville quote I’ve posted a number of times here. Friends, family, and neighbors used to work together to help the poor and infirm. Youth used to do all kinds of odd jobs around the neighborhood. Schools used to be truly neighborhood affairs, with parents in charge. Communities used to get together to accomplish common goals on a regular basis.
Now, excessive regulation, wealth distribution, and central planning from afar has replaced community. We needn’t discuss with our neighbors the best curricula, teaching methods, and teachers for the local school — it will be mandated from thousands of miles away. We needn’t figure out how to share the costs of constructing or maintaining a road with our neighbors — we’ll just send our money and property rights off to some unseen bureaucrat who will make the decisions for us. We needn’t come together to help grandma — we’ll just let her sign up for some federal aid program.
We have replaced the peace officer, who is beholden to the community, who above all cares about the well being of his neighbors, with the law enforcement officer, who is beholden to the politicians, and above all cares about blindly enforcing whatever law happens to be on the books — peace, common sense, the well being of others, and his own conscience be damned.
We have allowed ourselves to become mechanized, reliant on rules and programs, not people and relationships. If you want to know where community went in this country, that’s where. It went to washington DC, where unaccountable politicos and bureaucrats now fashion one size fits all solutions to the problems that used to be resolved on the back porches, side fences, and local meeting halls of this country.
We have become the mindless cogs in a machine of our own making. Uniqueness, Conscience, Discretion, Principles, Courage, and the Questioning of Assumptions are welcome in a community. In a machine, unquestioning obedience and conformity are above all.
Can you hear it? The machine demands that we be cogs, and the other cogs demand it too: “Use the system to change the system”, “I don’t make the rules I just enforce them”, “There is a process for that”, etc.
Will you be a cog?
Oh, I also disagree with anger, the use of fear, or calling cops pigs. Peace is the way forward. Most police are as much victims as I — many have been indoctrinated from a young age to believe all kinds of baloney — especially the bit of baloney where they are not real, free people, who enjoy the right to freely choose their own actions, and carry the full burden of responsibility for those actions – the lie that they, and we, must only be apparatchiks blindly obeying orders.
Road ownership….
Standard case Duchesnaye v. Silva 118 N.H. 728 (1978) “…ownership extends to the centerline of road excepting “a clear and unequivocal declaration of contrary intent…” also see Gagnon v. Moreau, 1967 and Luneau v. Macdonald 1961 “It is familiar law that where lots sold by reference to a record plan showing existing or proposed streets which constitute boundaries of the lots, a conveyance ordinarily operates to convey the fee simple to land underlying adjoining streets and rights of way to the center line thereof…” -fee simple- means basically unfettered ownership of the dirt.
SO, wether its a 20 acre farm described as “by the road to the center of town”…or if its “Lot 20 in the new village estates of 2009″…the road is yours people. Subject of course to the rights of the public to travel on it
But, not really, right Ihave? I mean, I’m pretty sure that if I decided I wanted to rip up the road and plant pumpkins, it wouldn’t go so well for me .
Or, even, say, deem that the particular stop sign on my property is a suggestion for safe driving, but that fines will not be collected unless there is a victim.
Theking – I’ll call ‘em as I please.
The pigs are evil and hateful, arrogant, filthy, authoritarian jackboots. They can quit. Or they can be barbecued in their own homes. At this point, I don’t really give a fuck what happens to any of them.
Surely there is a moderation policy for the comments here as well as on the forum. Calling police pigs is one thing, threatening them and their homes is another. The anger is understandable — I am angry about what is happening in this country as well, but violent rhetoric is counterproductive and damaging.
Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- Keene City Council Contact Info February 8, 2012
- Pledged Free-stater heading to "The Shire" later this year February 8, 2012
- FBI is watching February 7, 2012
- New February 7, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Unlawful Arrest Question February 8, 2012
- Re: Pete and Ademo February 8, 2012
- Re: NHNovella.com........writers, take heed!! February 8, 2012
- Re: Victimless Crime bill February 8, 2012
- Re: FBI is watching February 8, 2012
- Re: Avoiding Federal Cell Phone Tax February 8, 2012
- Re: Avoiding Federal Cell Phone Tax February 8, 2012
- Keene City Council Contact Info February 8, 2012
- Re: FBI is watching February 8, 2012
- Re: Avoiding Federal Cell Phone Tax February 8, 2012