Free Keene

Comment by Abbie

January 4, 2010 @ 3:48 pm

*Sigh* thats just wrong.

Comment by GM

January 4, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

Not as wrong as the persecutors behaviour….He was giddy with the outcome…even rushing over to the cop who wrote the ticket and asking him if he wanted to be the one to take custody and transport Josh to jail.
It was a disgusting morning of watching them playing “lets make a deal” Today seemed to be the half price sale….Plead guilty and they cut the fine in half. Fight it? Well we know how that went…

Comment by Puke

January 4, 2010 @ 7:38 pm

Such a menace to society!
The roads are so safe now.

Comment by dalebert

January 4, 2010 @ 7:45 pm

You can write to Josh in jail at the following address. Some mail would probably help him out.

Josh Kern
99 North Rd
Brentwood, NH 03833

Comment by thinkliberty

January 4, 2010 @ 8:38 pm

Just another example of your government sending poor people to prison while rich people buy their way out.

Your government is more unjust than the communist one that fell in Russia.

Comment by michael Garcia

January 4, 2010 @ 8:42 pm

fucking scumbags

Comment by JamesButabi

January 4, 2010 @ 11:55 pm

I applaud the young man for not paying the fine.

Comment by Paul

January 5, 2010 @ 2:10 am

Wow, thank goodness this person is off the streets. That wrong number on the back of his car was clearly an immediate threat to others, which could only be prevented by demanding money from him on threat of jail.

Bravo to our brave extortionists in blue uniforms, black robes, and tacky suits. What would we do without them.

Comment by Criminal8

January 6, 2010 @ 12:25 am

Will anyone else be available to give me my unlicensed haircut at the state house or mindlessly chasing policemen around asking for badge numbers? Meet me at the community smoke @ 4:20 and let me know. Thanks!

Comment by thinkliberty

January 6, 2010 @ 11:37 am

Cute.

A typical intellectually dishonest straw-man argument from a member of the violent cult of statism.

Comment by Criminal8

January 6, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

“A typical intellectually dishonest straw-man argument from a member of the violent cult of statism.”

Interesting that you paint me into whatever picture you want me to fit into. Is this the ideal of a ‘Free Stater’? Hmmm.

I was serious…..is anyone giving unlicensed haircuts? My bangs are out of control. Please meet me at the ’smoke show’ today @ 4:20. In the mean time, I will be changing my license plates up to fight ‘the violent cult of statism’.

You can’t make this stuff up. To be completly honest, I thought this site was like The Onion. Then I realized that its not satire and you fools actually get behind this kind of crap.

Comment by thinkliberty

January 6, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

I don’t understand how people can get behind violence.

Things like Mandatory taxation, forcing people to pay for wars and keeping people in prison for victimless crimes.

You can say that I am a fool for “actually getting behind” non-violence and that it’s ‘crap’ but that does not convince me.

Comment by Thomstele

January 6, 2010 @ 3:19 pm

I’m posting this here because I just want to let you know. Even though it was marked inexpedient to legislate coming out of the commitee. The house has decided to pass hb368 which imposes many ridiculous restrictions on homeschoolers. This is the sort of inansity that could unite all of us. Please research the bill and get angry!!

Comment by Ian

January 6, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

Thom,

Homeschoolers should just ignore the govt’s rules. We need more noncooperation in this area. Usually they just get angry and obey. Perhaps they should stop obeying now…

Comment by thinkliberty

January 6, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

“The house” has passed horrible laws like hb368 for over 200 years, they are not going to stop anytime soon.

Now that you are angry about what they have done, what are you going to do about it?

What do you recommend that people do after they get angry about it like you suggested thomstele?

Comment by Curt Springer

January 6, 2010 @ 7:23 pm

I would be surprised if HB368 were to pass.

My understanding is that no bill can be killed in committee. Every bill has to be voted on by the full 400-member house. But each bill is first reviewed and possibly amended by the relevant committee, in this case education. If the committee votes “inexpedient to legislate,” that is a strong recommendation to the full house to vote down the bill.

From the docket it is clear that the education committee voted “inexpedient to legislate”, and I think from my reading that it will be voted on by the full house, and probably killed, at the next convenient session.

That said, it seems innocuous to me. It doesn’t impose any additional requirements for the content or conduct of home schooling. It simply requires the parent to certify in writing that the program is in compliance with the requirements that have been in place for some time.

You could argue about the requirements and whether their should be any or which ones make sense. But whatever your POV on that, this bill doesn’t make anything worse.

Or maybe I’m missing something.

Comment by Lpviper

January 6, 2010 @ 8:53 pm

‘To be completly honest, I thought this site was like The Onion.’

To be more honest than you seem, I think you’re a douchebag.

Crap, the name-calling. I ALWAYS forget when there’s retards and douchers around.

Sorry

Comment by iawai

January 7, 2010 @ 1:01 am

At first I thought this story was like the Onion, where some men in funny costumes had thrown a peaceful person in jail for using the wrong symbols on his own property, and offered to let him off if he paid them some of his legitimately earned consumer tickets, totally undermining the original ‘goal’ of public safety.

But it was real! I can’t believe people get behind this crap, and even insist that others pay tribute to these ridiculous actors!

Comment by iawai

January 7, 2010 @ 1:06 am

It simply requires the parent to certify in writing that the program is in compliance with the requirements that have been in place for some time.

So because the compliance is cheap, it makes it okay that the state effectively claims ownership of all families’ education decisions?

Everytime you wish to fornicate both parties should have to email your legislature, to make sure its consensual. After all, it’s just to make sure that you are acting in compliance with the prohibition on rape.

Comment by thinkliberty

January 7, 2010 @ 7:05 am

That’s right iawai, this law makes you prove to the government that you are following it’s “roles”

You are guilty, unless you prove you are innocent, by filling out “required” forms.

Comment by Sam A. Robrin

January 7, 2010 @ 2:35 pm

Comment by Criminal8

Interesting that you paint me into whatever picture you want me to fit into. Is this the ideal of a ‘Free Stater’? Hmmm.

No one had to paint you as anything–your own words provided us a full-color 8 x 10 glossy mugshot.
Your belligerence and name-calling serve to show that you can’t address the issue–or won’t, because you know it’ll reveal the intellectual paucity of your desire to control, or have agents authorized by you control, the behavior of peaceable people who have no desire to belong to the same club you do.

Comment by Chex

January 10, 2010 @ 2:46 am

Wow, is it really that difficult to grok the law that says you shall not operate a motor vehicle on public streets that does not have the proper registered plate affixed to the vehicle? This law has been around for 50 years, it is not hard to follow and deal with, and has MANY good reasons for its existence.

There are many many fights with beaurucracy that need battling.. vehicle registration (especially in the state of Cow Hampster, which is VERY cheap and easy to deal with ) is not one of them. I’ll be at the hearing supporting the States actions against this idiot.

– Chex in Montreal, (nanny-state Quebéc)

Comment by Chris

January 10, 2010 @ 9:59 am

Vehicle registration is not cheap. When I bought my Subaru, it cost something to the effect of $500 to register it the first year. It’s a sliding scale, based loosely on the vehicle’s value. It doesn’t take into account your vehicle’s condition or the number of miles on it, however. It assumes best case scenario for your vehicle’s condition base upon year and model. So it’s definitely slanted in the state’s favor.

So in regard to the characterization that vehicle registration here is cheap, that’s blatantly false.

Also, if you have a job, compliance with bureaucrat hours isn’t necessarily the easiest thing in the world. They have banker’s hours for heaven’s sake. They’re open like 3 hours/day on even days and for 2 hours on odd days. And if your small town bureaucrat can’t make it that day, tough shit. You can go to jail.

Easy? Not so much. And that’s without mention of the Nazi state safety inspection.

I’d also like to hear many of the ‘good’ reasons for it’s existence.

Comment by Paul

January 10, 2010 @ 6:02 pm

Chex,

The roads are paid for with money extorted from innocent people, including Josh. The land for the roads is obtained by force, using eminent domain. The government does not legitimately own the roads, nor do they have a right to dictate that everyone who uses them must pay them fees, or jump through their hoops.

Josh owns the roads far more than the government does, and he has a right to use his property as he sees fit, as long as he does not harm others.

The real solution is, of course, returning ownership of roads, as it used to be, to private individuals and organizations — ones who obtain the property by voluntary trade, nor extortion and evictions. Then, they would have the right to set whatever rules they want for the use of their property — including licence plates — and you’d have the right to use or not use the road.

Comment by bil

January 11, 2010 @ 12:38 am

That would be fair,and a lot easier.The road that runs in front of my house would be co-owned by me and the guy across the street,but just that section.We could each make our own set of rules and fees for each side.We could then extort money ourselves,instead of having it done for us.The neighbors could all do the same.To get to town,I would have to deal with everyone along the road,each with their own set of rules and fees,changable at will.I could also restrict who used my section of road,and get my own armed thugs to enforce my rules.[In my case,I would like to do that part myself].
Then I could contract with whomever I wanted to repair and pave my section,as long as the others let them across their section.
OR– we could keep a slightly corrupt system where everyone owns a share of all roads,but have to all follow the same rules,drive cars that have been checked for safety,have insurance,and the drivers all have at least rudimentary instruction on proper driving skills.With plates that can be used to make sure you are not driving my car without permission.[you aren't,are you??]All for an arbitrary price,but not out of the reach of the masses.
Either way works for me,but I have a hard time feeling bad for some dumbass that puts the wrong plates on his car and can’t even talk his way out of it.If you are going to break the rules,learn to do it right,and don’t whine when you get caught!
Yes,I know what I am talking about,I switch plates,have for years,and will continue to do so.Use the rules to your favor,it is much more fun. —bil

Comment by Paul

January 11, 2010 @ 2:04 am

Bil, I am sure that you and your neighbors would quickly form a road association agreement, by which you all get to use the road in exchange for dues funding its maintenance.

It’s how things used to work in this country — really. Route 4, for example, as well as most of the first major routes in NH were build by private individuals and businesses. They were not taken over by government until later.

Comment by Josh

January 11, 2010 @ 10:26 am

from Bil:
but I have a hard time feeling bad for some dumbass that puts the wrong plates on his car and can’t even talk his way out of it.

It was for a few days until I had the money to register the other car properly. I talked them into NOT STEALING MY CAR. You actually believe they would miss the opportunity to steal $300 from somebody?

Thanks for the unwarranted insults, those who hurled them. What does that tell you about desperation when jail time was the most expedient option for me? Rather than confront the real issue that we live in a “free country” where a man’s freedom can be ripped away over the most insignificant “transgressions”, you mock me. Did I face a firing squad or some dungeon in Sierra Leone? No, but I stood my ground against blatant tyranny more than most would. They are all cowards, and so are you because you delight in the suffering and misfortunes of others.

It is only because of the great support of the people I’ve met via the Liberty Movement in NH that this was a publicized event. Under normal conditions, it would have been business as usual. How many friends would make room in their lives to support you making a stand for your own property and common sense? This wasn’t a protest against registration and on the stand I articulated why I considered registration a useful concept. What I protest is the disproportionate response to a momentary lapse of complete obedience. I regret to inform you that a good amount of people have had enough.

You cheer men that dressed up as Indians and destroyed a shipment of tea, and then deride as childish the man that simply refuses to be extorted for peaceably going about his life. The disconnect is stunning.

Comment by bil

January 11, 2010 @ 2:21 pm

I agree-the disconnect is stunning.I am glad that your car was not taken,and I certainly am not delighted by your misfortune.However,the fine system is in place to generate revenue,and to encourage your following the law.You admit that the registration concept is useful,yet because of your circumstances chose to take the chance for a few days,and got caught.I do feel bad that you felt jail was the only option,but if you admit the registration law is valid,your only stance is the price of the violation.With the other side of the registration comes the money raising aspect,the state and towns are looking to collect as much as possible,and at 300 bucks,while it may sound high,it is not much compared to what they might have charged.Again,no delight in your having to spend time in jail for a traffic charge.I have done it,no fun.Be glad it wasn’t Bridgport,Conn.
On to Paul-the original colonial concept of turnpikes was fairly successful,various men with capitol petitioned the governor for a charter for a turnpike,the land for which belonged to someone else.The turnpike was built as a money-raising business,and if you couldn’t pay,no turnpike for you.There were gatehouses every so often,and you paid according to how far and with what you traveled.There also existed ’shunpikes’which were illicit shortcuts around the tollhouses,showing that even then there were people willing to use someone elses efforts without paying.
Now for modern times,it was only a few years ago that the bridge between Vt and NH was still charging a toll.We have to pay tolls to drive on such as the Mass. Pike.Someone had to give up their land for these semi-public roads,I am sure not voluntarily.
There are many private roads in smaller housing developements,with the roads held in common,and covenants in place to provide funding from all therein.I know of several near me,none of them work as conceived.There is always someone that refuses to pay for repair and plowing,misuse the road ,and to hell with any that complain.It is a certain portion of the human race,and will not change.Do you think that on any given stretch of road these isn’t at least one that won’t pay,one that won’t want you crossing their property,one that will want to profit excessively?In a dream world,certainly not this one.You give too much credit to your fellow man. —bil

Comment by Neil

January 11, 2010 @ 10:15 pm

Bill,
We have a unaleinable right to travel freely without being questioned by the “state”

To submit-means to abandon
to apply- means to beg
to register-means to give up title ownership of

When sign for your drivers license you are giving up your unaleinable rights to travel and getting a privalege from the government to drive. This is unconstitutional. There is no where in the constitution that allows government to have this power, to grant privilages.

If we want to drive we must enter into a unilateral contract with a corporation, the State. Our constitution allows us to contract with anyone we want to. To be a legally binding contract it must be entered into by two humans with wet signatures, equal consideration, terms and conditons, and full disclosure. These contracts by the state do not fulfull these requirements and are fraud. Unlawful.

The “dollar” is a federal reserve debt note based on the credit of the UNITED STATES government. It has no value it is monitized debt. So you really don’t pay for things you are given the privelege of the govenment to discharge these debts and the gov’t uses its force to make vendors take this valueless debt notes as payment.

The bankers create debt notes out thin air with the promise of our government to pay interest. The bankers do not create the money to pay off the interest, so balancing the budget is impossible!

What this means is that we are broke and owned by the bankers and we are indebted to them for interest which we the people pay for with taxes fines and fee’s. The roads you drive on, you don’t pay for, what you are paying is the interest on all of the debt that are gov’t is accumulating. You cannot pay the priciple, it doesn’t exist!!! Why should the government use you as a slave to pay for their debt???
What claim to they have on your labor??? In my opinion NONE

I hope everyone had found this informative but don’t take my word for it do your own due dilligence.

Comment by bil

January 12, 2010 @ 3:19 pm

I fully agree with all of your statements,however,you don’t go far enough in explaining hoe the Federal Reserve works,one could get the impression that is your ‘revolutionary’ opinion,when in fact it is a scarier fact.The entire system of funding this whole mess is a carefuly thought out scheme to steal the wealth of nations and place it under the control of an elite few.Recently I left a bunch of pamphlets at a local coffee shop/store explaining the workings of the Fed.Almost everyone that read them had no idea that it wasn’t a part of the govt,that it was for a profit,and that the US is borrowing make-believe ‘money’ that is just printed as needed with nothing to back it.
Those in power have just about bled the country dry with these tactics,and they have even figured out how to steal the labors and rewards from future generation,today.So my grandson will be expected to pay the interest for what has been spent,and for no benefit to himself.This follows for future generations unborn.Their money and labor are being pulled out of the future and being squandered for the present.It is an evil,corrupt system,and if enough people get educated about it,and get mad enough about it,then they will either revolt or roll over and accept it.I am praying and preparing for option number 1.It is already too late to expect any change through the voting system,but still worth trying. —bil

Comment by theKINGodfKEENE

January 14, 2010 @ 12:12 am

YO! Josh! I’m really very sorry that you got jailed. Hope it wasn’t too bad. I *ALMOST* got swayed by bil’s argument that you need to learn to use (break) the rules to your own benefit…He’s right, but that’s irrelevant…Nobody else pointed out that there were several points in this proceeding where the cops, prosecutors and other “officials” *COULD* have chosen a different course of action, that wouldn’t have required jailing you. You’re a better man than they are, Josh. They are just retarded douchebag cunts, so says THIS NIGGER!…as for you BRAIN-fucked idiots, who insist that this is about the “state” “”generating revenue”, explain how a $300. fine pays for 5 days in jail, @$80/day…maybe the judge is a *VOLUNTEER*???…No, this is just more “SYSTEM MAINTENANCE”… sad, sad, sad. How can something so pathetic be an object of hatred, Paul???…

Comment by theKINGodfKEENE

January 14, 2010 @ 12:17 am

TO BE CLEAR: I’m not making the generalization that Josh didn’t have to go to jail over this, I’m specifically saying that there were/are several places in this sad story where *DISCRETION* comes into play…at each point, the individual bureaucrap chose to move the proceedings towards jail…*THAT* is what *I* call “official oppression”…

Comment by bil

January 14, 2010 @ 11:51 am

The 300 dollar fine is to raise revenue.Plain and simple.Why else would a simple misuse of plates cost so much??It is not to raise money to pay for the courts.The fact that Josh didn’t/couldn’t PAY the fine was the reason for the 5 days.Of course,there were places in the proceedings where other solutions could have been found,but THAT IS NOT THE POINT!!!How else would Josh learn the lesson?? How else would others see the consequences of not accepting the ‘game’?? What if everyone decided the fines were just to extort more revenue?Someone has to become the lesson to all,and Josh was standing right there.
The lesson is simple-pay what we decide,or go to jail.I am sorry Josh had to go to jail,but is it better he went to jail as an example of resistance,or if he went to jail as just an example of what happens when you don’t have the money?? —bil

Comment by theKINGofKEENE

January 14, 2010 @ 12:39 pm

I disagree, bil. The cop who originated this whole action *COULD* have taken the few minutes necessary to *ASSIST* Josh in correcting the situation with the plates. The cop chose to initiate further (quasi-)legal action. Just as did all other “officials” here involved. The “legal system” *IS NOT* self-supporting through fines, etc. If it *WERE* self-supporting financially, there would be no need to impose “fines”. The system would be easily self-supporting through taxes that most people would (at least eventually!…) voluntarily pay. But that’s not the case. As noted above in the posts Re: The Federal Reserve, basically, the World is an ongoing racket. A scam. An ultimately *UNSUSTAINABLE* Wizard of Oz *GAME* Try this scenario: You’re driving down the road. You see blue lights in your mirror. You roll down the window, give a one-finger salute to the cop. You don’t stop. The cop flashes his lights at you, but that’s all…Later, you get a letter at the address your car is registered at. With a bill. You ignore it. Eventually, your name is posted on the “Scofflaw List”. The State takes no further action against you. If you can live with your name on the Scofflaw List, OK for you. If not, too bad. No need for guns, Courts, Judges, Lawyers, etc…OOH! Doesn’t *THAT* make the Administrative Office of the Courts’ bowels go all watery!!!…So, bil, please stop saying that this has *ANYTHING* to do with “raising revenue”, OK???…It is *ALL ABOUT* maintaining control over the *POWER OF MONEY*, and the *MONEY OF POWER*…The rich have the *money of power*, bureaucraps & politicians have the *power of money*…No easy answers here, but please lets all stop falling back on error & delusion. No, bil, I *DO NOT* see the lesson here that you do. This is just a bunch of dick-muscle flexing. Ask Eli Rivera. He knows *ALL ABOUT* macho dick-muscle flexing and my personal thoughts thereof, doncha, Rivera, you fucking piece of shit???…As for you, Meola, your “troops” and myself are both safest with the current status-quo *TRUCE*. You know, everybody has a breaking point. I don’t want to find yours, so please don’t look for mine. Remember, I no longer have a Mother, or house, to lose. That makes me both *MORE*, and *LESS* dangerous. Verbal annoyance, gratuitous name-calling, random mudslinging, words, words, words…I’m still a nigger, and I still support the imminent military coup…

Comment by Keene'sKing'sScribe

January 14, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

where’s the hatred in *THAT*???…

Comment by bil

January 14, 2010 @ 10:00 pm

It comes from too much misuse of asteriks,the ‘quote’ key must be broken,leading to unbridled frustration.
Any hint of sarcasm is also misconstrued.
I find it hard to have a sensible discussion with someone that wonders why it might cause trouble to flip off a cop with his lights going and not stop.That is bound to piss off someone.I am not any sort of cop,but try it with me and see what it gets you.Deep inside I am a resentful,violent person,looking at my response to the posts.I am not a nigger,but I do support some sort of upcoming coup. —bil

Comment by Paul

January 15, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

I attempted to make a rather lengthy post here, which appears to have been autodumped. If it could be retrieved, I’d appreciate it. If it is in fact too long, let me know what length is acceptable, and I will try to pare it down.

Comment by Ian

January 15, 2010 @ 2:10 pm

It was spammed due to too many links, but it looks like you used way too many nested quotes.

Comment by Paul

January 15, 2010 @ 2:13 pm

Whoops. Ok, delete that please (the edit option has timed out apparently). I’ll fix it and re post. Thanks for the help.

Comment by Paul

January 15, 2010 @ 2:16 pm

the original colonial concept of turnpikes was fairly successful,various men with capitol petitioned the governor for a charter for a turnpike

Actually, you mischaracterize the nature of the kinds of people who came together to back these projects — they were much more community oriented, and middle class, than wealthy investors. EH.net (Economic History), for example, says this:

Although the states of Pennsylvania, Virginia and Ohio subsidized privately-operated turnpike companies, most turnpikes were financed solely by private stock subscription and structured to pay dividends. This was a significant achievement, considering the large construction costs (averaging around $1,500 to $2,000 per mile) and the typical length (15 to 40 miles). But the achievement was most striking because, as New England historian Edward Kirkland (1948, 45) put it, “the turnpikes did not make money. As a whole this was true; as a rule it was clear from the beginning.” Organizers and “investors” generally regarded the initial proceeds from sale of stock as a fund from which to build the facility, which would then earn enough in toll receipts to cover operating expenses. One might hope for dividend payments as well, but “it seems to have been generally known long before the rush of construction subsided that turnpike stock was worthless” (Wood 1919, 63).3

Turnpikes promised little in the way of direct dividends and profits, but they offered potentially large indirect benefits. Because turnpikes facilitated movement and trade, nearby merchants, farmers, land owners, and ordinary residents would benefit from a turnpike. Gazetteer Thomas F. Gordon aptly summarized the relationship between these “indirect benefits” and investment in turnpikes: “None have yielded profitable returns to the stockholders, but everyone feels that he has been repaid for his expenditures in the improved value of his lands, and the economy of business” (quoted in Majewski 2000, 49). Gordon’s statement raises an important question. If one could not be excluded from benefiting from a turnpike, and if dividends were not in the offing, what incentive would anyone have to help finance turnpike construction? The turnpike communities faced a serious free-rider problem.

Nevertheless, hundreds of communities overcame the free-rider problem, mostly through a civic-minded culture that encouraged investment for long-term community gain. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that, excepting those of the South, Americans were infused with a spirit of public-mindedness. Their strong sense of community spirit resulted in the funding of schools, libraries, hospitals, churches, canals, dredging companies, wharves, and water companies, as well as turnpikes (Goodrich 1948). Vibrant community and cooperation sprung, according to Tocqueville, from the fertile ground of liberty:

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, 511-13, Lawrence/Mayer edition).

Tocqueville’s testimonial is broad and general, but its accuracy is seen in the archival records and local histories of the turnpike communities. Stockholder’s lists reveal a web of neighbors, kin, and locally prominent figures voluntarily contributing to what they saw as an important community improvement. Appeals made in newspapers, local speeches, town meetings, door-to-door solicitations, correspondence, and negotiations in assembling the route stressed the importance of community improvement rather than dividends.4 Furthermore, many toll road projects involved the effort to build a monument and symbol of the community. Participating in a company by donating cash or giving moral support was a relatively rewarding way of establishing public services; it was pursued at least in part for the sake of community romance and adventure as ends in themselves (Brown 1973, 68). It should be noted that turnpikes were not entirely exceptional enterprises in the early nineteenth century. In many fields, the corporate form had a public-service ethos, aimed not primarily at paying dividends, but at serving the community (Handlin and Handlin 1945, 22, Goodrich 1948, 306, Hurst 1970, 15).

Given the importance of community activism and long-term gains, most “investors” tended to be not outside speculators, but locals positioned to enjoy the turnpikes’ indirect benefits. “But with a few exceptions, the vast majority of the stockholders in turnpike were farmers, land speculators, merchants or individuals and firms interested in commerce” (Durrenberger 1931, 104). A large number of ordinary households held turnpike stock. Pennsylvania compiled the most complete set of investment records, which show that more than 24,000 individuals purchased turnpike or toll bridge stock between 1800 and 1821. The average holding was $250 worth of stock, and the median was less than $150 (Majewski 2001). Such sums indicate that most turnpike investors were wealthier than the average citizen, but hardly part of the urban elite that dominated larger corporations such as the Bank of the United States. County-level studies indicate that most turnpike investment came from farmers and artisans, as opposed to the merchants and professionals more usually associated with early corporations (Majewski 2000, 49-53).

I also recommend the rest of this article, which may be found here: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/klein.majewski.turnpikes

the land for which belonged to someone else.

Some of these projects did use eminent domain, but there are also many examples of major projects requiring large plots of land which have been completed successfully without using eminent domain.

The turnpike was built as a money-raising business

Wrong, as noted above.

,and if you couldn’t pay,no turnpike for you.

Of course. How else do you suggest these kinds of projects be paid for, Bil? By theft? If you want roads that will be free to users, I suggest you donate your money and organize others to do the same. I’d support it, especially if it were a road I would use, or if it would be particularly helpful to people in difficult circumstances. Or, you could finance it with advertisements. Or, you could take subscriptions or tolls, but specify that those showing they have incomes under a certain amount get the fees waived.

Theft is not an appropriate way to fund magnanimity.

There were gatehouses every so often,and you paid according to how far and with what you traveled.There also existed ’shunpikes’which were illicit shortcuts around the tollhouses,showing that even then there were people willing to use someone elses efforts without paying.

Sure, cheaters will always exist. People shoplift too, does that mean we need government running K-mart? And modern technology — such as electronic tolls, can further mitigate these problems.

Now for modern times,it was only a few years ago that the bridge between Vt and NH was still charging a toll.We have to pay tolls to drive on such as the Mass. Pike.Someone had to give up their land for these semi-public roads,I am sure not voluntarily.

Yes, it’s unfortunate.

There are many private roads in smaller housing developements,with the roads held in common,and covenants in place to provide funding from all therein.I know of several near me,none of them work as conceived.There is always someone that refuses to pay for repair and plowing,misuse the road ,and to hell with any that complain.

If he/she continues to use the property of others without their permission, she should be taken to court, and restitution obtained.

It is a certain portion of the human race,and will not change.Do you think that on any given stretch of road these isn’t at least one that won’t pay,one that won’t want you crossing their property,one that will want to profit excessively?

If that one person won’t let others cross his/her property, his/her neighbors won’t let him/her cross their property either. The damage to the difficult person will be much greater — the neighbors can use another route, or even construct a sort of “shunpike” of their own, finding a way around the property. The difficult individual may have no way to access their property by car.

There are many ways for those constructing roads to avoid the problem of the holdout – as Walter Block points out in an essay on the topic,

“But the private road developer is not without defenses, all of which will tend to lower the price he must pay. First, there is no necessity for an absolutely straight road, nor even for one that follows the natural contours of the land. Although one may prefer, on technical grounds, path A, it is usually possible to utilize paths B to Z, all at variously higher costs. If so, then the cheapest of these alternatives provides an upper limit to what the owners along path A may charge for their properties. For example, it maybe cheaper to blast through an uninhabited mountain rather than pay the exorbitant price of the farmer in the valley; this fact tends to put a limit upon the asking price of the valley farmer.Second, the road developer, knowing that he will be satisfied with any of five trajectories, can purchase options to buy the land along each site. If a recalcitrant holdout materializes on any one route, he can shift to his second, third, fourth or fifth choice. The competition between owners along each of these passageways will tend to keep the price down. Third, in the rare case of a holdout who possesses an absolutely essential plot, it is always possible to build a bridge over this land or to tunnel underneath. Ownership of land does not consist of property rights up to the sky or down to the core of the earth; the owner cannot forbid planes from passing overhead,nor can he prohibit a bridge over his land, as long as it does not interfere with the use of his land. Although vastly more expensive than a surface road, these options again put an upper bound on the price the holdout can insist upon.”

Block later completed a book on the topic, which can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=jmLzWJ3qRNEC&pg=PT7&dq=privatizing+roads&lr=&cd=2#v=onepage&q=privatizing%20roads&f=false

Don Boudreaux noted in the WSJ, in a discussion on the Kelo decision,

“It’s true that privately built housing communities depend upon road and sewer systems, which typically are built by government. But this observation doesn’t address my argument that eminent domain is unnecessary. The fact that housing developers routinely acquire large contiguous plots of land without eminent domain — that is, by buying individual plots from private owners — suggests that government doesn’t need eminent domain to build roads and to do whatever else it does.

Unlike David, I trust democratic mechanisms much less than I trust the rules of private property. If the city of New London, for example, can confiscate private property without the owners’ consent, government officials have too little incentive to bargain in good faith with property owners to find out if mutually advantageous deals are possible. Government will confiscate property rather than pay market prices for it. And politicians will pander to special-interest groups eager to gain at the public expense.

The fact that government is democratically elected might put some restraint on use of this power — or it might not. If a majority of voters in New London perceive that they can gain by directing the city fathers to confiscate private property owned by voters in the minority, why should we trust that the city will seize private property only if doing so yields significant benefits to the public at large?

By obliging all persons — including government officials — to pay voluntarily agreed upon prices for any properties acquired, we best ensure that worthwhile transfers of property rights occur and that transfers that aren’t worthwhile are avoided.”

And later,

“You raise an interesting point — usually called the “hold-up problem” — in which a single property owner can hold a project hostage and extract maximum gain. But in reality, because there is almost always more than one way to build a road or to site a large development, there usually isn’t any one property owner who can hold the project hostage. This is one reason why private developers commonly succeed in assembling large parcels without using eminent domain.

Moreover, ingenious strategies exist to avoid the hold-up problem. For example, a buyer can negotiate sales contracts contingent upon the buyer acquiring all necessary parcels of land. With such contracts, no one landowner is ever in a position to hold-out strategically for the full value of the project.”

In a dream world,certainly not this one.You give too much credit to your fellow man. —bil

Large projects succeed all the time, requiring the willing participation of many individuals and organizations. Do you really suppose that transportation can only be provided by stealing people’s property?

Here’s another book I recommend checking out, called “Street Smart”: http://books.google.com/books?id=sYAxKrpSjOsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=street+smart&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

And here’s an interesting essay by the mayor of Annaheim, entitled “Development Without Eminent Domain”. The methods are clearly not all entirely voluntary, but it is interesting to note some alternatives, in situations where eminent domain is often used: http://www.anaheim.net/administration/PIO/Perspectives-Pringlev4sm.pdf

Comment by Paul

January 15, 2010 @ 3:00 pm

Also, FYE, here’s a Stossel video touching upon some recent examples of private roads: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtwdVInR1Gw

Comment by bil

January 15, 2010 @ 4:30 pm

Thanks,Paul-I am glad you could get the post mack up-I can always stand some more education!!
DeTocqueville wrote of a differant time,when the country was still new,and I believe people had more of a sense of community. now most people don’t even know their neighbors,and it is also a time of the religion of money.Remember that it wasn’t too long after DeTocqvilles tour that the railroads became a power,and ‘the public be damned’ the watchword of the railroad barons.I don’t advocate the stealing of anyones property,even for the ‘public good’.But I think that the profit motive rather that community spirit is the tone of the times.The stock markets were originally designed as a way for business ventures to raise capital,now it has become a way to build personal riches at the eventual cost to the company,as quarterly thinking to appease stockholders has surplanted decisions based on the continued health of the company.Again,thanks for the input,I have some more reading to do. —bil

Comment by Paul

January 15, 2010 @ 6:00 pm

You make a good point, Bil, about the the loss of community in our culture — I find it really sad — perhaps every bit as sad as the loss of liberty itself.

I don’t want to be a one note singer here, but I think a good deal of this is due to over reliance on government. Why help your neighbor with a barn raising, when there’s Freddie and Fannie — and when you need thousands of dollars in licenses before you can pick up a hammer? Why help poor aunt Matilda with the bills, when there’s welfare, unemployment, and disability? Why work together to build or maintain a road, when the state and federal government do it? Why come together as a community to discuss what your kids will learn at the local school, when the federal government determines curriculum? Why take a homeless person in, or buy them food, when the government provides homeless shelters?

Coming together as a community is inconvenient — it’s easier to simply send cash off to the government, and get decisions handed down, then to actually have to deal with your nasty neighbor across the street when planning a community project.

One by one, we’ve stripped away the reasons we were forced to deal with our neighbors, and to come to an understanding, for the benefit of all — the process that Tocqueville observed. I think this, to a large degree, has destroyed our sense of community.

Someday, I think I’d like to see streets worth of neighbors getting together to work out how they will fund road maintenance, and the snow plow. To try to convince Mrs. Anderson to cut her grass, or not choose puse siding, rather than just calling the cops. It might be inconvenient, but I think it’d do us good.

Comment by theKINGofKEENE

January 15, 2010 @ 9:05 pm

YO! bil! You have completely misunderstood my post above. In the “flipping the cop the bird” post above, I was presenting just one possible future scenario of how a less-violent and coercive system *COULD* function. It was just a sketch, not a full portrait. A little rough. Re-read it. I think you’ll get it this time. As for the asterisks & quotations, etc., well, there is no provision on here for either bold-faced or italics. The asterisks and other idiosyncratic punctuation are part of my personal style as a writer. You don’t like my style? Too fucking bad for you, huh? I don’t give a shit whether you like my style or not. I, for one, am deeply saddened that ***MOST*** of the people who post on the ‘net, & not only on Freekeene, appear to be at best semi-literate. I’m not talking typos here, kids. I’m talking flat-out ignorance & stupidity. Some comments posted on youtube, for example, are almost unreadable. I find that appalling. As a result of one of my medical conditions – iatrogenic neurolepsis, I am a retard. But, I exercise my brain. I wonder if you’re older – if you grew up analog. There’s a new communication technology, called computers and the internet. Like all new forms of communication technology, we will shape and inform the new technology. The new technology will in turn shape and inform us. We, and our styles of communication, will change. My creative use of punctuation is part of that. If you can’t see that, if you can’t *GROK*, too bad for you. Sarcasms’ twin is irony. Two bad four ewe. Now, back to that darn Paul, and the Civil Engineering in 18th & 19th Century America symposium which he has posted for us. (Yes, I never have, and never will, write *DOWN* to my audience. If you can’t climb up the rope ladder of my words to my verbal treehouse, either you’re a little kid who shouldn’t be up here for safety reasons, or else you’re a muggle. Either way…”*”…*”*…->::<-*"*"*"…CIAo!…

Comment by Neil

January 16, 2010 @ 12:32 pm

If we contine to ack like children, the government will have the moral obligation to treat us as such and impose their will upon us to keep the “peace”.

Even though we may disagree from time to time shouldn’t we be civil towards each other? Is it too much to ask that we treat our oppressors, or for that matter, each other with respect so we have the moral high ground??

Comment by bil

January 21, 2010 @ 4:29 pm

Not germaine to the thread,but it seems that once a story moves off the front page here,it gets neglected.Next one to read this post and test my theory.Thanks. —bil

Comment by Paul

January 21, 2010 @ 6:42 pm

For my part, I read the most recent comments, rather than just the front page — if someone comments on an old story, I notice it.

Comment by bil

January 22, 2010 @ 1:37 am

Thanks ,Paul.Glad to be proven wrong! —bil