Stopping Free Keene Activism in Central Square

Over the last year activists associated with the Free Keene website have engaged in civil disobedience in Keene’s  Central Square. The City of Keene has made several efforts to stop this activism, using the only tool they have available, arrests. So far this tactic has utterly failed to stop any activism, at best displacing it to a different park. I would like to present an alternative method that the City of Keene can use that provides the greatest chance of ending the 420 celebrations, the nightcaps, the vigils, and all other activism in Central Square.

The first step to solving any problem is recognizing its cause. Why is it that activists have chosen Central Square for their civil disobedience? Certainly its location makes it great for attention, and the high traffic makes outreach easy, but that is not the only reason. The biggest reason Central Square is used for activism is the fact that it is public property, i.e. owned by everyone, even the activists. This ownership is the result of the City of Keene paying for the purchase and upkeep of the park with tax money, which is taken under threat from all residents of the area they claim jurisdiction over.  The ownership is incomplete, however, as a resident of Keene, who does not use the  park or wish to pay for its upkeep has no means to dispose of his ownership of what he views as a liability. The solution to this is simple, Central Square must be made private property.

Well, perhaps it’s not so simple as that, after all how does one fairly distribute the ownership of public property? The city could sell the property at auction, but that would deprive the current owners — the residents of Keene — without compensating them for the property. A group of individuals could homestead the property, establish security, make improvements, and develop a business model, then claim ownership, but that wouldn’t solve the compensation issue either. What I propose is the creation of “The Central Square Company”, an unincorporated joint-stock company which owns Central Square. The ownership of this company is given to the people of Keene in the form of stock, which can be bought, sold, traded, or gifted, in any voluntary transaction. Each resident inside the city limits would receive exactly one share at the creation of the company. The City of Keene then has nothing to do with “The Central Square Company”, thus making the park private property.

I’d like to make it clear that I’m proposing “The Central Square Company”, not “The Central Square Corporation”. This is an important distinction. A corporation has limited liability by government fiat, a joint stock company does not. In the event that The Central Square Company incurs debts it is unable to pay, the debtors can pursue the individual shareholders for a portion of the debt equal to the portion of the total stock they own. This is different from the taxation method, in that any individual owner of stock can buy or sell stock, to own as much or as little as they wish, and thus have as much or as little, even zero, liability for the debts of The Central Square Company. The park would then only be funded by those who chose to fund it, either by taking a direct ownership, and the associated risks, or through whatever means the owners come up with to generate revenue.

Of course as private property, the owners of the park, whomever they might end up being, gain the right to exclude any person from the park, for whatever reason they wish. This means that if the owners are opposed to Free Keene activism they can restrict activists from entering the park, or from engaging in activism in the park. Conversely, if the owners do not wish for a police presence in the park, they can exclude Keene Police Department, and provide for security in whatever manner seems best to them.

In order to be truly private, the company must not receive any special subsidy, tax break, or special rules from the city, now or ever. Such a special status grants central square rights not possessed by other private enterprises. Yes, as hard as it is for me to say this, if the park is privatized, the city should tax the property the same as it would any other similar property. The owners can then either pay, or not pay, the tax as they chose, in accordance with the risk they are willing to take. If the park is subsidized, then people who are non-owners, and don’t wish to voluntarily fund the park are forced to, which is no different than the current situation.

While privatizing Central Square won’t guarantee an end to activism there, it is the greatest chance. I believe that other Free Keene activists would respect whatever rules the private owners of the park were to create. If the rules of the park, created by the private owners, were to forbid activism, I believe that Free Keene activists would support the arrest for trespassing of anybody who broke that rule and conducted activism on private property against the wishes of the owners.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


54 comments
theKINGofKEENE
theKINGofKEENE

...BTW: how many of you posting here about this non-issue have actually gone to the fountain & read the plaque???...Well, what year was it built???...See, you all want to argue about stupid bullshit, go ahead. I'll keep making stupid comments, too, OK???...works for me...

theKINGofKEENE
theKINGofKEENE

What makes the fact that I was born here, and can tell YOU what to do when you're here, either "Nativism", or "political ideology"???...It's just my cantanckerous old Yankee-self...(btw, I thought that I freed all my serfs LAST year???wtf???...~tKoK.

Just a Serf
Just a Serf

I'm not even an Anarchist but the arguments the non-Anarchists are making are laughable. "Oh my god i've been in this geographical region since 1985 so I can tell others what to do." Seriously? I didn't know Nativism was still a political ideology.

JW
JW

Yeah, because that whole privatizing a commons thing worked great for others. Right, Chile?

theKINGofKEENE
theKINGofKEENE

"...and after that, creating diversions, conflicts, and other seemingly important, but ultimately trivial controversies. The insurrectionists' plans are usually very tactical, but usually hold little, if any, strategic consistency. Given the strategic inconsistency, they, (and their plans), are ripe for infiltrating, and subverting, or converting to Allies' MOCKBA."...from: "The CIA Manual for Abolishing Freedom("CMAF", pronounced: "sea-maff"..."I AM the ONGOING military coup"...~tKoK.

Kurt
Kurt

I'm with Chaz Munro and everyone else but Dennis for the most part. Dennis seems to not really know anything about his history while many of you folks know a great deal. Thank you for your most understandable passion. Dennis can go move back to mAss. I've been here since 85 and you guys are more than welcome to tell him to get packing. I'm what New Hampshire is all about, so are most of you.

Sofa King
Sofa King

Having an argument on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever read; can I have the last 5 mins of my life back?

I love how the anarchists think they have it all figured out.

Zeus
Zeus

MY tax dollars are paying for Central Square and I can’t use it.

So you're being robbed just like the rest of us. Congratulations. You reap what you sow. But what's this? You can't use the square? Why, pray tell not? It's owned by EVERYONE!

Because a lot of burn-outs and drunken breast painters are using it, and I do not want to be associated with this lot.

No one is preventing you from using it. You choose not to use it because you don't anyone to confuse you for someone who prefers peaceful interaction over coercion and aggression. Well, you're going to have to live with the consequences of your choice. Such is the problem with EVERYONE supposedly owning something.

You all assume because you are paying taxes, you can clog up Central Square for your own purposes, not letting ‘ the other tax-payers’ (that want nothing to do with your lot,) to enjoy what Keene has provided.

We don't assume anything. Your government tells us that they steal our money at the threat of violence so that they can fund the square and in return EVERYONE gets to own it ("public property").

Of course, if you try doing something they don't like in the square you supposedly somehow co-own with EVERYONE, they harass, intimidate, or kidnap you.

Maybe you should write the City of Keene gang a letter and request that they stop calling it "public property" and stop stealing from the community to maintain it? Let it be funded voluntarily.

You already have a forum, as comedic as it is, right here.

Yes, everyone, let us stay here in our "Free Speech Zone"...

Dennis
Dennis

david, non caps david, COUNTY or COUNTRY?

"itsa free county!"

Dennis
Dennis

It doesn't surprize me this is all about money (taxes).

Get real jobs for christ sake.

Dennis
Dennis

Knock yerself out, capitals david.

Dennis
Dennis

MY tax dollars are paying for Central Square and I can't use it.

Because a lot of burn-outs and drunken breast painters are using it, and I do not want to be associated with this lot.

You all assume because you are paying taxes, you can clog up Central Square for your own purposes, not letting ' the other tax-payers' (that want nothing to do with your lot,) to enjoy what Keene has provided.

You already have a forum, as comedic as it is, right here.

david
david

Hey, cartoons! Learnding is fun! I like Freekeene. Thanks Zeus!

david
david

I SAY WE CREATE TRAGEDY!

iM COMMITTED TO CREATING TRAGEDY ON THE COMMONS

Zeus
Zeus

You might want to watch this video, then come back and discuss what you have learned: http://is.gd/fh0nn

Interesting
Interesting

Julia hit the nail on the head. Before those that promote private property and privatizing police and other government services is the best way, you might want to take a little history lesson on feudalism. Then come back and discuss what you have learned.

"those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

freemichaeldm
freemichaeldm

@julia

Who pays for the maintenence?

Will I be forced to pay for the maintenence if I choose not to use the square?

Will I be thrown off the property if I choose to use the square and don't want to pay? If not, why would anybody pay if there is no penalty?

freemichaeldm
freemichaeldm

@david

I do not want to own a central square. Therefore why should I have to contribute to the maintenance? If the square was privately owned and the owner(s) did not want me on it or wanted me to pay maintenance, I wouldn't use it. That's perfectly fine with me.

I however would not appreciate paying maintenance on a piece of land I didn't own, which is what the city corporation is making thousands of people do right now.

@holy

If by public property you mean government property, then yes, I do want it eliminated. The reason isn't because I have an issue with a group of people owning property, as I don't really care what groups of people do as long as it's peaceful and voluntary.

My problem lies with the government. Any property the government owns is an indication that it still owes a victim retribution. Let me explain:

The only way that the government makes money is through use of force or fraud.

They send out bills to everyone they deem a customer or "citizen," and expect them to pay up or get thrown in jail. But, since I did not voluntarily agree to do business with them, they are essentially threatening me with violence.

The income that they derive from this type of extortion is used for various things, including buying properties that they label "public."

Sure, they're nice and let me use these properties, but the fact remains is they took my money without my consent and have therefore committed a crime.

The government has to pay me back what is took for me in order for there to be justice. Now because it has no legitimate way of making money, it is my right to seize and sell it's properties in order to get back what has been stolen from me.

Now any property owned by the government is owned as a result of criminal acts perpetrated against others. Meaning that every last foot of government land is liable for seizure from the governments victims.

Therefore from my point of view any government land still in possession of the government is in a state of injustice, as its still evidence of a crime being unpunished.

I cannot speak for other activists, but I would presume that they hold the protests on public land for multiple reasons, the simplest being because it has a higher chance of getting people's attention (moreso than somebody's yard) and they're allowed to be there.

Zeus
Zeus

Aren’t most of the demonstrations Free Keene holds on public property?

Yep.

You realize that if every square inch of property was privately owned by someone, there is a *very* high likelihood that the rules those people would make would not include letting people stand and protest, or drink alcohol, or smoke pot.

Exactly. But it would also not be called "public property" anymore and we'd no longer be lied to about "everyone" supposedly owning it.

Eliminating public property is also eliminating the rights you enjoy when on that public property.

Yep.

For example, say I owned the square downtown. I could easily say that I would not allow alcohol consumption there. Now, that *is* currently a law for public spaces, and Free Keene people have contested it on the grounds that you should be able to enjoy alcohol in public spaces, correct?

If they're going to call it a public space and tell us "everyone owns it", then yes, people should be able to use the area as they each see fit. It either IS "owned by everyone" -- which is ludicrous -- or the money for it was robbed from everyone and its really owned through force by the gang calling itself the City of Keene.

It cannot be both.

Well if I own it, it is no longer a public space, so what would the open container law argument rest on now?

It wouldn't. It'd be your property, you'd spend your own money instead of ours to maintain it and so you get to make the rules. The activists will just have to go to another location if you restrict them from being there.

The key here is that we don't want to be robbed to pay for parks, libraries, schools and other stuff we don't want or use. If we want those things, we'll donate the money of our own free will (probably to non-government alternatives).

holy_canole
holy_canole

Julia,

I definitely agree with your response, and your solution at the end (though I'm not sure I completely agree with it, logistically) is definitely more along the lines of what I suspect the Free Keene people would like to see happen to public spaces, rather than have them all privately owned.

david
david

How much of the sidewalk can I own? Can I keep people from walking down the sidewalk, handing out their bullshit pamphlets? What if the prison was privately owned. Would I not be allowed to visit my liberty activist friends who are there, to find out their status? Or hold a protest on the property? Could I, as the property owner of the Town Square restrict access to people for any reason? Doesn't sound much like a town square.

holy_canole
holy_canole

Yeah, in keeping with what is generally being said here, I find it strange that Free Keene people essentially wish to eliminate public properties.

Aren't most of the demonstrations Free Keene holds on public property? You realize that if every square inch of property was privately owned by someone, there is a *very* high likelihood that the rules those people would make would not include letting people stand and protest, or drink alcohol, or smoke pot.

Eliminating public property is also eliminating the rights you enjoy when on that public property.

For example, say I owned the square downtown. I could easily say that I would not allow alcohol consumption there. Now, that *is* currently a law for public spaces, and Free Keene people have contested it on the grounds that you should be able to enjoy alcohol in public spaces, correct? Well if I own it, it is no longer a public space, so what would the open container law argument rest on now?

david
david

@freemichaeldm

How much would you be willing to contribute to the "maintenence issues" (sic)? Judging by the whopping totals for the FK Advertising Campaign and the Buy a Piece of Meg Tattoo fund, I'm betting that people from your group won't be major contributors. What a ridiculous scheme. Total hogwash.

freemichaeldm
freemichaeldm

@Bil

I'm making the assumption that the city keeps tax records of some kind. I'm also assuming that when individuals go to make their claim against the city they will have some sort of proof in the form of receipts and the like to prove their damages. The money will obviously go to those who can prove the city has commited a grevience against them.

@Thinkliberty

It wouldn't be "public" property if the "public" (Individuals who were taxed in order to pay for the property) were made full restitution. So you wouldn't have the right to the property anyway if the city government paid you back what it stole.

@david

All the maintenence issues would be up to the private owner(s). If the free keene activists decided to trepass against on the property of the owner he/she/they would fully be within their rights to use a reasonable amount of force to evict the activists.

david
david

How would you propose to pay for insurance, taxes, upkeep, water, snow removal? Would you post signs 'Private Property'?

And you say "I believe that other Free Keene activists would respect whatever rules the private owners of the park were to create." Why in the world would anyone believe that. You have never respected any of the rules that are there now.

Just another bullshit idea. Why in the fuck should anyone listen to any idea you propose in the first place? Bring it up at the next town council meeting, see how far it goes.

I know Ian, why don't you buy the park with 1 dollar bills? Then it would be your property, and you could be there after 6pm. Or wait, why don't you use that big pot of money you have from the 'FK Advertising Campaign'? That $232.00 has been sitting there for a long time now. Break it out!

david
david

I like the way you think, thinkliberty.

thinkliberty
thinkliberty

Zeus,

You want to restrict my access to public property? You want to sell my right to use public property? --The sales of the property will always benefit the political class. The people with the most money got it from government granted monopolies, they can out bid anyone who does not have a government handout.

I like public property, because the people who want to control it are the control freaks that want to control everyone else.

You want to sell the property, so the owner can use violence on anyone who uses the square in a manner that you don't like. You want to sell my right to use the park to "stop free keene activism". You are just as bad as the violent politicos in the city of Keene.

I will make you a deal if you won't sell my property (public and private) I won't sell your property. If you aren't going to respect my rights to property (public and private) then why should I respect yours?

You want to sell my freedom use downtown to the highest bidding control freak. -- No thanks.

bil
bil

I can't believe I read all of this drivel about the square,no-one knows who owns it or even how it came into being,nor have they tried to find out.(I have) To think it will actually be sold and somehow all the stolen money 'returned' is ludicris.Do those of you from out of town want some of the proceeds/ What about dead people-should their heirs get their share? Would the volunteers be reimbursed for the work they have done? Does anyone really think anything will actually come of this diatribe? ---bil

david
david

hey!

we can create a "tragedy on the commons " just like everyone else!

itsa free county!

Zeus
Zeus

The whole thing sounds way too complicated to me. I'd prefer the city sell the square on the auction block and the owner, whomever it is, be solely responsible for the upkeep and maintenance on it and the sole arbiter regarding whatever restrictions they wish on the property.

Then it's out of the city's hands, the "public property" charade is over, and any demands the city may have regarding the property can be answered or ignored as the new owner sees fit.

freemichaeldm
freemichaeldm

CyberDoo

That's exactly what I was trying to propose, thank you for elaborating further.

Unfortunately Thinkliberty, I am also pressed for time, but I'll try to answer your last comment.

How is the central square your right exactly? To me its just a plot of land the city corporation has sunk money into. That does not make it yours, it makes it property of the city corporation. The city however, did take money from you, and therefore owes you back that money. Because it does not have any money, that makes its assets liable for siezure. Therefore it's your right to take the central square in order to sell it to obtain your money back.

Thinkliberty
Thinkliberty

Cyberdoo,

If you are going sell my rights to the highest bidder, does that give me the right to sell your rights for monetary profit? Or do you believe that you are the only one that gets to sell other peoples rights?

If I had no choice to forgive the people in the government, I would sell the personal property that government workers bought with money that was stolen via taxation, if they couldn't repay the people who's money was stolen....

I am using my cell phone, so I am short on details...

You don't have the right to sell my rights to common property.

CyberDoo
CyberDoo

The City of Keene no longer has the ability to give back all the money it has stolen over the years, even if it sold every 'asset' it 'owns', it would never equal the amount of money it has stolen.

Since full restitution is not possible for the crimes committed by the 'City of Keene', and some type of solution must be made, with the understanding that no solution will be equitable in the eyes of the victims of these crimes, as it ought to be. It is suggested that, with the understanding that full restitution isn't possible, the City of Keene be placed into receivership by a mutually agreed upon neutral third party. That is a human being that is not a member of 'The City of Keene', that is not a member of the 'people of city of Keene', and has no ties to either party, specifically socially or economically.

All assets will be sold at fair market price by public auction as determined by the receiver. Those monies collected by the receiver will be paid back to every individual who has registered with the receiver. The registered will with each claim include proof of claim, such documents may include, but are not limited, bills of sale, bills of receipt, tax bills, rental agreements, and fines issued. Further the receiver will attempt to find every individual that 'The City of Keene' has ever taken monies from to be included into the pool of the registered, including direct descendants of said individuals as taken from 'The City of Keene' own records.

Monies will be distributed to the registered based on the total percentage of monies taken from the same as a percentage of monies received from auction. For clarity, the monies claimed by the registered will be totaled up, and broken down to percentages of the over all total. Those percentages shall be paid out from the monies received at auction.

All costs to the receiver will be paid from the proceeds of the auction.

TL, before you object, I require you give at least one alternative solution that would be acceptable to you, other then total dissolution of 'The City of Keene'. Failure to present a solution will show you are just here to dissent to any solution provided for whatever you reasoning may be, which most people may consider you an annoyance.

thinkliberty
thinkliberty

You can have your agent sell your right to the land, but your agent can't sell my right to use the land.

Make sure your agent doesn't sell my right to use the land to the people he sells your right to use the land... If he does, you, your agent and your buyer will be brought to trial. --Since you will have gained your profits illegitimately.

freemichaeldm
freemichaeldm

Thinkliberty

Have the property repossessed by an agent of the taxpayers. It can of course be in the agent's contract to sell only to an individual or group of goodstanding.

Or this process can again be repeated when the NH Liquor Commission is brought to trial. Since it gained it's profits illegitimately the property will once again be sold to cover the restitution of the damaged caused by the NH Liquor Commission.

freemichaeldm
freemichaeldm

thinkliberty

The city stole xxx of value from the taxpayers.

It invested xxx worth of value into an unowned plot of land. It needs to reimburse the taxpayers what it stole. It can either be in the form of one or more of the city's assets equal to xxx value, or (and this is my preference, as it is most precise and fair) the xxx value can be returned in the same form in which it was taken, which would be FRN's.

So it's either the city owes you nothing, and you get a portion of a city square, or the city owes you money and you don't get a city square. Since there are people out there that do not want a portion of a city square and yet still want to be reimbursed, I think it is only fair that they have the option of getting reimbursed in FRN's, which, since the city is unable to legitimately make FRN's, would require the forfeiture and sale of its assets.

You aren't losing anything. You are merely recovering that which you have lost, and nothing else. On the flip side you aren't gaining anything either. You didn't own a city square before the city stole your money, and you won't own one now.

Jeremy Couch
Jeremy Couch

Thank you for writing this article. It's good to see someone striking the root. Didn't Varrin have a similar idea in an article awhile back?

Is it the perfect or even best solution for the transferring of government property into private ownership? I have no idea. I'll leave that to those who've studied the issue more in-depth.

Anyone have a good book or article recommendation on this issue? There has to be someone who's tackled this on Mises, right? What about the roads?!?!

thinkliberty
thinkliberty

freemichaeldm,

If the city used stolen money to invest in the property, -- they don't own the property.

If I steal your money and buy your property with it, I don't own your property, I can't pay you back by selling your property, to repay you the money I stole from you.

I agree with you partially.

The city of corporation should pay back the individuals they stole from, but the city corporation does not have the right to steal common property to pay back their private debts.

Because then I lose my money first and then my common property second.

The city will sell central square to someone they've given an advantage to in the market through legalities. They could sell central sq to the NH liquor commission for half a billion dollars, to repay taxpayers. It's easy to make half a billion dollars when you hold a violent monopoly on hard liquor.

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=...

freemichaeldm
freemichaeldm

Prove to me that central square is owned by EVERY individual in the city and not the city corporation itself please.

Ownership is determined by mixing labor with an unowned resource. The city corporation has invested money into the plot of unowned land, therefore making it the city corporation's. Unfortunately for the city corporation, it did so with stolen money, therefore the individuals stolen from have every right to force them to sell it and reclaim their money.

thinkliberty
thinkliberty

Paul,

You suggest that you should be able to deny me use of the park, because I don't give you what you want so I can use the park?

You say it's for "upkeep" but that's just an excuse to abuse people who don't give you what you want.

If you feel like people aren't giving you what you want for your "upkeep" of the park, stop spending your money on the "upkeep", you said it yourself:

You have the right to withdraw your participation and funding

You do not have the right to demand people participate and fund the things that YOU want.

thinkliberty
thinkliberty

freemichaeldm,

So you want them to steal central square now, because they stole money from people and used it to put some things on central square?

The city government doesn't own central square, the people do.

You can sell your personal rights to use central square, but you can't sell another persons rights to central square.

Paul
Paul

TL, so you suggest that you should be able to use the park despite not contributing in any way to its upkeep.

The square has effectively been homsteaded by everyone in the city of keene, with the purpose of the land being a well maintained park. You have the right to withdraw your participation and funding, if you do not like the way in which the park is being run, but you have no right to demand to be able to use the park once you have done so.

I don't intend to get into a long debate, but I do agree that if the park is ceded back to the people, in this way, or similar, that for those to refuse to participate and contribute to insist on using the park anyway would be tresspass.

All of the government roads and buildings and parks being subject to the tragedy of the commons forever is not a practical or just alternative, and those who would demand that none of these properties ever be returned to the market, or owned by voluntary organizations, are inhibiting a move towards a freer, less coercive society.

freemichaeldm
freemichaeldm

Thinkliberty

What is owed to the taxpayers is not a central square. Nobody came to your house and demanded at a point of a gun that you give them a piece of central square. What they did steal, on the other hand, is FRNs.

Therefore, since they stole FRNs, they must provide restitution and return you the FRN's they stole.

Since they took your money and invested it in a central square, I only see it as natural to force them to sell it in order to recoup your losses.

thinkliberty
thinkliberty

Brodie,

You don't care if you can't use central square, so you don't care who they sell the park to.

freemichaeldm,

The city government doesn't own central sq. They can't sell something that does not belong to them.

Should the city government sell the park for FRNs? Or how about glass beads, I think the glass beads are more valuable. -- it's a bad idea.

The city government should end their violent ways and apologize to the people who live in Keene.

Selling/Giving the park to another coercive organization is not a solution.

Brodie
Brodie

The city government should just sell it. That is the easiest way to do it. It may not be the fairest, but I myself would not care, even if I lived there. If the city government I live under decided to sell all of the property it currently claims to own, fine with me.

freemichaeldm
freemichaeldm

The way I see it, the taxpayers are owed the money stolen from them, not a share in a company that manages central square.

So instead of this funky complicated solution, why not just sell the central square for its fair market value and reimburse the taxpayers?

Or, if some of the taxpayers want to own the square to ensure it's access to the public, why not offer the group the fair market value minus the portion owed to them? Then all proceeds can be distributed to the taxpayers who don't want to ownership in the square.

Chaz Munro
Chaz Munro

If the City of Keene still exists after the sale of Central Sq then you can count on them soon afterwards just going and stealing it back at their whim, no matter how much is paid for it. They will twist the language to make it appear as though it was the "right" thing to do as well as make those poor schmucks who lost out on the deal, look like even bigger schmucks.

If you make a deal with the devil, no matter how good it looks like on paper, it is still a deal with the devil and he will find a way to screw you while always getting his. As soon as I saw your post it brought to mind the Cubans nationalizing (gooberment stealing, really) private businesses once their foul revolution took hold of that land.

I appreciate your input on this, I really do. You just can't expect to deal with thieves in good faith expecting any measurable degree of honesty from them in return. Personally, I prefer to instead just end the state by chipping away at it's legitimacy bit-by-bit so they'll never see it coming once enough people totally lose their faith in it.

thinkliberty
thinkliberty

I don't think you are the same page as everyone else here Morning Glory.

“The Central Square Company”, an unincorporated joint-stock company which owns Central Square. The ownership of this company is given to the people of Keene in the form of stock.

You aren't giving me the option to buy stock. -- there is no heart, soul or free market in the plan you are proposing.

I am waiting to hear a few good ways around the problem. You haven't given me one.

MorningGlory
MorningGlory

If there are many ways around the problem I am suggesting, I’d like to hear a few good ways. You should have no problem giving me a few good ways around it.

I know! Don't buy stock. Then you won't have to worry about any of it. That, my friend, is the heart and soul of the free market.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!