Gang Members Threaten Grafton Activists

September 26, 2010 by Ian
Filed under: Economic Freedom

FreeGrafton.com reports that activists at Grafton Gulch have been threatened for selling food without asking master’s permission! Details at FreeGrafton.com. Who do those Graftonites think they are? Free people? Get back in line, slaves – bow to master and beg permission before you are allowed to help feed hungry people! Uppity slaves…

Kevin Freeheart

We're pretty damn uppity!

'specially when we're hungry!
http://propagandalalaland.blogspot.com/ Julia

For a second there I thought the Graftonites were being targeted by the FBI the many socialist activists are.
Kevin Freeheart

There's a ton of socialists in Grafton, but I don't know a single one who is a member of the Free State Project or the liberty community.
SocialistSleepover

It is pretty disingenuous to suggest that they're "helping feed hungry people" when it is merely a social club looking to feed paying members of said club. Not that I necessarily disagree with the concept, but trying to paint it as something almost akin to mutual aid is in poor form, and poorly represents what is actually happening as per the article you linked.
Paul

I think by "feed hungry people" he meant just that — not feeding "the hungry" aka, the poor.

I had the same initial assumption as you about that phrase btw. It's a bit confusing, perhaps it could be edited for clarity. Taking the word "hungry" out would probably do it.

Looks like this is a case where the colloquialism took over the original english meaning … kind of like how the word gay isn't often used as a synonym for happy anymore.
http://www.dooms-day-device.com Puke

"It is pretty disingenuous to suggest that they’re “helping feed hungry people”… "

——————————————

What do you think restaurants do? Feed hungry people!

Just because a person is hungry doesn't mean they deserve a handout.

There is nothing disingenuous in that paragraph.
http://talley.tv TalleyTV

On Thursday I was hungry so I stopped by the Gulch and purchased a double bacon cheese burger. That should be enough proof that they feed the hungry, so Ian would be correct.

Now if you're interested in what Free Grafton is doing to feed the poor, the Peaceful Assembly Church accepts and distributes donated canned goods to those in need. The priority goes to needy Graftonites who don't accept coercive charity (like what the government provides).
SocialistSleepover

Puke: Yes, go ahead, remove my quote from context so you can easily strawman my overall point. The implication that the post seems to make is that the club had a specific aim of "helping" feed other people (as in, working in solidarity as a community to help ameliorate a specific social problem), not SERVING people who PAID to be fed– which is the actual aim of the club.

Again, I don't have any objections to this this sort of service, but I do object to a service that is not actually aimed at helping being characterized as something it isn't.
http://www.abc.com Observer

The article uses a fair amount of what many people would consider hyberbole. While that can make writing fun, I would argue that it would be more interesting to use the "news article" style that I have seen in a few other cases. That is, write the piece as if it were any other "objective" news article from the main stream media, using their typical format, language, etc. The times that I have done this with friends, in discussing news stories or other issues, I have had a bigger impact because they relax their biases and momentarily are able to consider a different point of view.
Luthor

I have to agree with Puke. I didn't for once think he meant that they were feeding the poor. When I'm hungry, which I often get several times a day, I eat food. Just because I'm not poor doesn't mean I can't get hungry too. And when I am hungry, I hope someone like the Gultch will be there to feed me.
Paul

Lol, it's crazy how there's this major debate over a minor difference in meaning.

I absolutely love the gulch btw, I think what they're doing is fantastic. And I liked the article too — especially the bit about being able to serve food to members without a license — it's been happening for months!
http://www.dooms-day-device.com Puke

"The implication that the post seems to make is that the club had a specific aim of “helping” feed other people (as in, working in solidarity as a community to help ameliorate a specific social problem)…"

__________________________________

If that's how you read it, okay.

That doesn't mean you are correct. It doesn't appear others think it's a disingenuous paragraph either.
david

It's all spin. "Gang Members Threaten", "selling food without asking master’s permission!", "allowed to help feed hungry people!" translates to : "City Officials", "Selling food with out a business license or food handler's permit", "Sell food".

So the blog entry should have read:

City Officials cite Grafton Activists

FreeGrafton.com reports that activists at Grafton Gulch have been cited for selling food without a business license or food handler's permit. Details at FreeGrafton.com. Who do those Graftonites think they are? Free people? Go get a business license and a food handler's permit before you start selling food to the public…

See, no spin. You can still disagree about whether or not a license is needed, or if people are still free, but drop the spin and it is a lot less "threatening".
Rensorg

Sorry, I put this on the wrong thread before.

It's all spin. "Gang Members Threaten", "selling food without asking master’s permission!", "allowed to help feed hungry people!" translates to : "City Officials", "Selling food with out a business license or food handler's permit", "Sell food".

So the blog entry should have read:

City Officials cite Grafton Activists

FreeGrafton.com reports that activists at Grafton Gulch have been cited for selling food with out a business license or food handler's permit. Details at FreeGrafton.com. Who do those Graftonites think they are? Free people? Go get a business license and a food handler's permit before you start selling food to the public…

See, no spin. You can still disagree about whether or not a license is needed, or if people are still free, but drop the spin and it is a lot less "threatening".
Paul

Rensorg, I get what you're saying, but I'd argue a lot of the spin is actually on the other end. They train us to use words like "draft" instead of "enslave", "tax" instead of "steal", "imprison" instead of "cage", "cite" instead of "threaten", "eliminate" or "collateral damage" instead of "murder".

But that's exactly what they are. A lot of what sounds like spin is actually stripping euphemisms away. Really, this is a gang of folks who think they have a right to threaten and demand money of anyone who sells food without their permission.

Euphemisms aside, that's what's happening. I know it might not be comfortable for people to hear, but they need to stop lying to themselves to make themselves feel good.
Rensorg

Use whatever words you want to form your position. I've owned a food business for almost 20 years, so you don't need to tell me about permits. I probably know as much or more than the local food inspector. Do they make everything safe? No, nothing could do that. But what would it be like if they weren't there? Chaos. My recourse for getting sick somewhere else would be zilch, and the possibility would be much greater.

You mentioned in another thread 'unlicensed manicurists'. Well I know two women who got severe infections from that. One ended up i'n the hospital with a drug resistant staph infection. She is 74, and it was very serious. Did she have any recourse? No. She could have sued, but for what? No insurance, no assets, what would she have received? Nada.
Paul

I’ve owned a food business for almost 20 years

Congratulations

the possibility would be much greater

If you feel that way, I suggest you only patronize businesses which advertise that they have received an inspection from the government, or from another organization whose standards you respect.

Inspections are fine — I just have a problem with government monopolizing the market, and forcing everyone to use their service, on threat of jail.

If I want to take the risk, with my body, that's my business. To take this example, I trust these folks, and if the place looks clean to me, I'd happily eat there. That's my choice.

My recourse for getting sick somewhere else would be zilch

I think you should be entitled to compensation for damages. If the person has no insurance and no assets (a scenario you mentioned), future wages should be garnished.
Rensorg

Good luck with that. Who would enforce garnishing the wages? If the person works for themselves, there may not be any wages. I'm stuck paying the bill for someone else's screw up.

The current system is far from perfect, but the scenario you propose would be total chaos.
http://www.abc.com Observer

@Rensorg: if you knew that you could get an infection from a service and you knew that the business could not compensate you if that happened (no insurance, no assets, etc.) then would you really still go there? If so, you assume those risks. Since many people would not, then the business would either go out of business or get insurance.
Paul

Who would enforce garnishing the wages?

In the near term, probably government. In the long term, arbitration.

If the person works for themselves, there may not be any wages.

There's always asset seizure.

The bottom line is that if you don't trust businesses who haven't gotten a government inspection, or who don't have insurance, don't do business there.
Rensorg

So who would my mom have sued for being in the hospital for 3 days? No assets, no insurance? And arbitration? Again, who enforces it with no assets. Or what if all the assets are hidden or in someone else's name? Sounds way too easy to avoid any responsibility. The system isn't in place for when all is working perfectly. Security systems only keep honest people honest. Those who want to scam the system still try, and under your plan it would be open season. No thanks.
Rensorg

Observer- I don't think anyone assumes they will end up in the hospita for 3 days for a manicure.
Paul

No assets, no insurance? And arbitration? Again, who enforces it with no assets. Or what if all the assets are hidden or in someone else’s name? Sounds way too easy to avoid any responsibility.

All of those problems exist with the current system — although I think means of acquiring compensation could be made more robust than they currently are.

Often, a serious effort isn't even made – the perpetrator just goes to jail, which helps nobody, when they could at least be put to work benefiting the victim.

Those who want to scam the system still try, and under your plan it would be open season.

What "scam" are you talking about?

Observer- I don’t think anyone assumes they will end up in the hospita for 3 days for a manicure.

Once again, if you believe you're significantly more safe at businesses which have received a government inspection, I recommend you patronize those businesses. Businesses who've received a particular inspection can put a sign or sticker on the front window showing that, and you can look for that sticker.

If I believe an alternative third party inspection is better, or I'd like to risk patronizing a place with no third party inspection, that's my business. You have no right to force everyone to conform to your preferences.
Zeus

Now now, everybody. We have to be practical! People are dumb! So we must nanny them so they don't hurt themselves or others! By restricting or banning every possible thing that might possibly cause harm, we can relieve all these dumb people of the burden of responsibility for their chosen actions! If some guy eats dirt and glass, we've got to make the dirt and glass owner responsible for that by making them pay us money for inspections and licenses and whatnot! Not only can we relieve them of responsibility but we can also take away a portion of their hard-earned money (it'll just get them into more trouble anyway) and put that to good use (i.e. whatever we want to spend it on). It's Win/Win/Win!
http://talley.tv TalleyTV

Here's a video of the Grafton Gulch crew discussing the threats made by a New Hampshire State busybody: http://youtube.com/watch?v=37AZHHacRMs
http://FreeTownProject.com Zack Bass

I see this "The guy can't pay restitution" crap all the time. But almost everyone has some skill or possession of value, if it's only a kidney or a blow job. First time the Court throws someone in the Organ Banks you'll see them begin to come up with the cash – or stop misbehaving.
bil

Not to mention where they would be thrown for the blow job option! Yikes!

If there were no regulations for sanitary conditions,eventually people would develope a tolerance for the bad food,folks in third world countries eat stuff trhat would make most of us sick,yet they are immune to most of it. Lack of assets would be a problem,what would you do if you just wanted to stop at a vendors hot dog cart,ask for a financial statement? Just another problem to be figured out. —bil
Paul

Probably a certification service would be useful — the hotdog vendor could put a sicker on their cart that would indicate that they meet the standards of xyz organization, or have certain insurance coverage.

Cautious folks can look for the sticker before they buy anything.
Zeus

Paul:

So basically, have organizations that do all the things in this area that government currently deals with (inspections, guarantees, certifications, etc.) but put that power into the hands of competing agencies instead of government?

But how will government run if it doesn't have its hand in just about everything? It will lose all those nice fees and associated taxes! There'd be no money to go do wonderful things for Americans — like sending them overseas to "Fight For Freedom" (die) at the behest (whim) of Our Genius, Saint-Like Leaders (politicians)!

And what a shame that would be.
Paul

It would be truly tragic. Just think of all the morgue workers overseas that would be put out of business, when they can no longer count on the US government to bomb or invade from time to time, or at least send guns and money to the local two bit dictator, or guerrillas. Think of the folks at home, who make those bombs, now out of work. They might have to actually create real wealth.

Not to mention the loss of money for the department of education. Without the federal government (that bastion of intelligence and wisdom in our age) telling us how to educate our children, they might never learn to pledge allegiance to the politicians, or learn how the government is the solution to all societal problems. They might even learn to think for themselves.

Plus, think of those unfortunate billionaire investment bankers! Who will they get handouts from? I shudder to think of their poor children, forced to subsist on substandard caviar or champagne and find shelter in only three or four townhouses.
http://www.abc.com Observer

@Rensorg: "Observer- I don’t think anyone assumes they will end up in the hospita for 3 days for a manicure."

You must be a man. Ask any woman who does her nails and she will tell you that she is aware of infection risks from manicures. Some bring their own tools or ask to see how the tools are cleaned.
peacemaker

What if Mike and Evan pick up a couple Beagles (dogs) and called the food part "Illegal Beagles?"
Anton Lee

government licensing has not kept one person safe from food poisoning or being harmed by a manicure or haircut.

what keeps people safe is good business practices. I've been thinking of making my own version of 'servsafe' where food safety standards put out by professionals in the food industry and scientists with a good knowledge of harmful food practices are put to use.

I don't go see a politician if I want information on how to keep food safe. The only thing the government is good at is stealing money, and even that is up for debate.