Numbers Matter

July 19, 2011 by Ian
Filed under: Living Free, Personal Freedom

This is why I moved to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project. I was sure that getting activists together would be the key to advancing liberty. Now I’m certain. Today was historic.

Pete and Ademo have been found not guilty by a jury. It’s the first time this has happened. In addition, they defended themselves and did not pour thousands of dollars into attorneys. They did a great job at it too (the video is coming – stay tuned), but what role did the audience play?

There were more than 50 people there on the first day and more than 30 there today. They were all supporters. They applauded Pete and Ademo multiple times. They laughed at the aggressors’ absurdities multiple times. They provided moral support for the guys. They protested. But also worth mentioning – they took time out of their busy schedules to support their fellow noncooperative liberty-lovers.

It’s tough to get turn-outs like this in other areas. Clearly, moving people who love liberty together is the best solution for maximizing liberty in our lifetime. It’s working in politics, (with a dozen free staters elected, laws repealed, the budget cut) noncooperation in court (with Pete and Ademo’s success and Weeda Claus’ partial win), and media (with the new FKTV and others).

Come be with others who are standing for liberty. Stand together with us. The time of the idea of “the state” is coming to a close. It’s the beginning of the end for this decrepit idea. Help accelerate its demise. Please join the Free State Project and move to NH. Be sure to consider Keene as a destination, as there is much more work to be done.

http://lazymoose.wordpress.com/ holy_canole

Mackler, if you dislike the government so much, why don't you move to Western Sahara? You could be doing a lot better than New Hampshire if living without government is something you're wanting to do.
Jasper

http://www.education.nh.gov/data/documents/cost_p…
Jasper

Can't I be a responsible human being by helping people on a voluntarily and actually interacting with the people in my community face to face while choosing for myself which people need the most help, as opposed to sending my money to some monolith corporation thousands of miles away to an insulated, elitist suit in an office deciding from on high who should receive the help.

Charity and responsibility do not start or end in Washington or Concord.

You keep trying to insinuate that I somehow abhor social responsibility and helping others when it's not the case. By attempting to force me into this box you are being completely dishonest and that may be why you don't get a fair shake here. After all, I've asserted my willingness to help explicitly, several times and I've been willing to accept your word as I have nothing else to go on but would expect the same courtesy and respect in return. It's not worth having a conversation with someone that's dishonest and disrespectful, agreed?
http://lazymoose.wordpress.com/ holy_canole

Jasper,

Ok, your link gives information about public schools, but you haven't answered any of my questions about the private schools or your comparison between the two…

So how much does it cost at the private school for "operating, tuition,

transportation, equipment, construction, interest and non-K-12 expenditures"? Because if you don't have that figure than you're not comparing the same numbers.

And as for calling me dishonest…I'm not trying to be dishonest, in fact quite the opposite, I'm telling you what I believe–if you you read insinuations of abhorring social responsibility, then that's what you read, not what I said.

I have never discredited your claim that you like to help people, I have merely stated that I believe people have a responsibility to help others even if they don't explicitly like to, you seem to disagree given your assertion that you should only have to have to help if it is completely voluntary. I see no dishonesty there.
Jasper

Isn't it possible to help people without be forced into it? Do you really want help from a person that has to have a gun held to his/her head in order to agree to it?

My daughter's school does not have an endowment fund. Meals are not included but can be purchased (like public school) and I'm not privy to the teacher's retirement plans or salary as it's not a public institution. Of course, they have computers but each kid doesn't have his/her own laptop or anything. Clearly the model is different, that's kind of the point. It can be done for a mere 30% of the cost. Besides how do you even begin to explain or make excuses for a school system that's funded at that level and can't gain accreditation from it's own system?

"See, that’s where you and I differ. I believe that being a responsible, social being, it is only right for me to realize that I should care for others, even if caring for them doesn’t necessarily directly benefit me. In other words, I believe paying into society, and then allowing for that money to be redistributed to services I may not actually use is acceptable, because everyone is doing the same thing, which means somehow the services I DO need will be funded."

Insinuating that you and I differ here is what I find outrageous. We don't until you start forcing people that believe otherwise to participate which you made no mention of in this paragraph. It looks an awful lot like straw man to me. And to say that we differ in this area is dishonest, IMO.
Jasper

What I outlined in my last point is why I think people are less than willing to give you a fair shake. You assumed you and I differed in this area without bothering to find out or you intentionally left out the part that you and I actually don't agree on. Either way, I'm growing less willing hold this conversation by the moment.
Jasper

Also, does one's contribution need to be monetary? If so, why?

I believe that a volunteer youth soccer/baseball/pick your sport coach is much more valuable to society than say, a narcotics detective.
mackler

So, right after Canole got done gushing about how much happier she would be if she had permission to pay 80% taxes, I asked a very reasonable question of her, why does she choose to live somewhere that doesn't have the highest taxes, rather than the specific country she mentioned: Denmark. She brought up Denmark, I didn't. She even claimed she would be happier living there as a consequence of the high tax rate.

In standard Canole form she avoided the question, to which, like so many questions put to her, her brain could not conjure a plausible response.

Mackler, if you dislike the government so much, why don’t you move to Western Sahara? You could be doing a lot better than New Hampshire if living without government is something you’re wanting to do.

Note that I have never, until this very post, even typed the words Western Sahara, much less claimed I would be happy living there. But that didn't stop Canole from running through her paces. So let's follow the steps of her attempted deception:

1) Bring up a subject

2) Receive a question on the subject

3) Ignore the question, and change the subject to another subject of her own choosing, and

4) Pretend as if the new subject was raised by her interlocutor, rather than by herself as a distraction from the corner she just painted herself into.

And don't forget the last step, "hope nobody has noticed that I once again lived up to me reputation as someone who is unwilling and unable to answer a direct question."

Fail much, Canole? This is why Canole has me on ignore where she can. As she pointed out earlier, the truth is bitter to her, and I the fact that I occasionally bother to take the two seconds necessary to disassemble so devastatingly her laughable attempts at reasoning are the bitterest truth she has tasted.

Now she can get back to yanking Jasper's chain. We'll see how long it takes him to come to the same conclusion about her as everyone other than her sock puppets already has.
iawai

digging back a bit but had to reply to this great logic from h-c:

"So do I think taxation is theft? No. Because I think theft is wrong and I do not think taxation is wrong."

Do you think squares are rectangles? "No, because I think squares are pretty, and I don't think rectangles are pretty."

H-C: Taxation IS wrong. You contribute to "society" by engaging in trade, by donating your resources to worthy endeavors, by RESISTING the thugs that demand tribute because you live near them. Taxation CANNOT be collected without the threat of force, and if monies were collected peacefully, they would not be "taxes" but instead "donations".

If you think a taxation scheme can work without the threat of violence, what happens when someone peacefully resists? Do you let them not pay?

Bradley Jardis

If you think a taxation scheme can work without the threat of violence, what happens when someone peacefully resists? Do you let them not pay?

According to her, yes.

She has said that she does not believe violence should be used at her behest to fund the government. This makes her a voluntaryist.

http://lazymoose.wordpress.com/ holy_canole

"Isn’t it possible to help people without be forced into it? Do you really want help from a person that has to have a gun held to his/her head in order to agree to it?"

You obviously haven't been following the conversation: I have stated multiple times that I don't think it is necessary to use violent force (such as holding guns to heads) to get taxes.

And of course it is possible to help people without being forced into it. My point here is that you should contribute to society even if you don't really truly want to because you should realize that life isn't all about getting just what you want….as I have said, compromise.

"My daughter’s school does not have an endowment fund. Meals are not included but can be purchased (like public school) and I’m not privy to the teacher’s retirement plans or salary as it’s not a public institution. Of course, they have computers but each kid doesn’t have his/her own laptop or anything. Clearly the model is different, that’s kind of the point. It can be done for a mere 30% of the cost. Besides how do you even begin to explain or make excuses for a school system that’s funded at that level and can’t gain accreditation from it’s own system?"

You still haven't provided the appropriate numbers for comparison.

And I'm not making excuses for an unaccredited school, I'm just talking about public versus private schools in general.

"Insinuating that you and I differ here is what I find outrageous. We don’t until you start forcing people that believe otherwise to participate which you made no mention of in this paragraph. It looks an awful lot like straw man to me. And to say that we differ in this area is dishonest, IMO."

How do we not differ? You claim that you should only contribute to something if you 100% volunteer to do so, I believe that you should be required to contribute even if you don't volunteer to do so.

That is two different sets of beliefs, I don't know why you think they're the same.

"Also, does one’s contribution need to be monetary? If so, why?"

No, but it should partially be, because money is a necessity for many things in our modern world.

Bradley Jardis

You claim that you should only contribute to something if you 100% volunteer to do so, I believe that you should be required to contribute even if you don’t volunteer to do so.

See, your ignoring reality is why people (me) accuse you of being cagey.

In one breath you say you oppose the use of violence to fund the government. In the very next breath you say it is alright.

The government doesn't ostracize people who fail to do what it requires them to do. It escalates violence up to and including shooting them.

An armed robber on the street won't blast someone who they demand money from. They will if the victim tries to defend themselves.

No matter how much pretzel logic you get wrapped in, at the end of the day you support armed robbery.

http://lazymoose.wordpress.com/ holy_canole

Mackler,

My response to you was meant to be facetious, because as I mentioned before, I know you have no real intention of discussing anything with me, but would rather attack my character in long, drawn out posts, as you have just exemplified.

If you truly want an answer: I do not have enough money to move to Denmark, additionally I have too much invested here at this point in my life–perhaps I will consider it in the future. However, I never claimed that I would like to necessarily pay more taxes, nor did I claim that *I*, personally, would necessarily be happier living in Denmark, I merely stated a statistic. But regardless of your misinformation, there is your response.

I never pretended you brought up Western Sahara, but you HAVE claimed to have dislike for the government, so I would appreciate if you answered my question.

As I said before, Mackler, I would be happy to engage in actual conversations with you, but you seem to have no interest in discussing pertinent issues when you can instead take a jab at me. Which is fine…like I said, it's more a reflection of you than of me, and it certainly doesn't make me cry myself to sleep or anything because you don't like me, so I really don't see what you have to gain in this situation.
http://lazymoose.wordpress.com/ holy_canole

"Do you think squares are rectangles? “No, because I think squares are pretty, and I don’t think rectangles are pretty.”"

Sorry, but that doesn't line up. Squares and rectangles are objective, previously defined constants, where as the definition of 'theft' is one which involves moral subjectivity.

"H-C: Taxation IS wrong. You contribute to “society” by engaging in trade, by donating your resources to worthy endeavors, by RESISTING the thugs that demand tribute because you live near them. Taxation CANNOT be collected without the threat of force, and if monies were collected peacefully, they would not be “taxes” but instead “donations”."

I disagree, I don't think taxation is wrong. Of course you can contribute to society in other ways as well, but I think taxation should be one fo the ways.

And taxation can absolutely be collected without the threat of force. I don't think I know many people who, when asked, would say "I pay taxes because I'm scared of getting my head blown off"….many people besides people here, obviously.

"If you think a taxation scheme can work without the threat of violence, what happens when someone peacefully resists? Do you let them not pay?"

Sure, they can not pay as long as they don't use any services taxes provide for. Meaning if they do something like start driving down a government-funded road they will be expected to pay.
http://lazymoose.wordpress.com/ holy_canole

Bradley,

Sorry, you are conflating two things which I have never claimed to be the same.

Do I believe violence should be used to get people to pay taxes? No.

Do I believe people should be required to pay taxes if they are using things taxes fund? Yes.

Just because the way government currently works is to sometimes use threats of violence doesn't mean that's how I think it should work.

And Bradley, I believe you have a lot of unanswered questions to get to…
Bradley Jardis

Sure, they can not pay as long as they don’t use any services taxes provide for.

But since you're forced to use the "services" without an alternative, you really don't have the choice to opt out.
http://lazymoose.wordpress.com/ holy_canole

"But since you’re forced to use the “services” without an alternative, you really don’t have the choice to opt out."

Sooo they should pay for the services they use or develop alternatives. That's pretty much how any exchange of services works.

Bradley Jardis

Sooo they should pay for the services they use or develop alternatives. That’s pretty much how any exchange of services works.

Since you can't…….. you're forced to pay for the "services."

Perhaps some day you will realize the violence you support.

Bradley, you’re being unfair to Canole. She doesn’t support all the bad things the government does. She only supports the good things she wishes it would do.

My bad

Jasper

I guess I fail to understand how you require someone to participate that simply flat out refuses to participate without force. It would seem to me that if someone is required to participate there would have to be a consequence for refraining to do so, otherwise 'required' would be the wrong term.

If you don't believe in forcing people against their wills then you and I are on the same page.
mackler

Bradley, you're being unfair to Canole. She doesn't support all the bad things the government does. She only supports the good things she wishes it would do.
http://lazymoose.wordpress.com/ holy_canole

"I guess I fail to understand how you require someone to participate that simply flat out refuses to participate without force. It would seem to me that if someone is required to participate there would have to be a consequence for refraining to do so, otherwise ‘required’ would be the wrong term."

There are plenty of ways to get people to agree to do something without hurting them. Additionally, if they continue to use services and refuse to pay for them, then they are essentially using what is not theirs and could therefore be reprimanded for doing so–have services refused, taken away, or have legal action taken against them.

"If you don’t believe in forcing people against their wills then you and I are on the same page."

No, we still don't seem to be on the same page, so let me clarify….do you think taxes should be in place as long as people are never harmed in order to get them to pay? You seem to not like the idea of taxes altogether because they are requiring people to pay for things they don't wish to pay for.
Jasper

Legal action sounds like force. How do you get someone to court that refuses to oblige?

I have no problem with voluntary taxes. If you want gov't for yourself and have found an organization to provide that to you, it's completely up to you if you want to cut that check (think HOA). It's the force I have a problem with. That's all, that's it.
http://lazymoose.wordpress.com/ holy_canole

"Since you can’t…….. you’re forced to pay for the “services.”"

What services are there for which you cannot develop alternatives?

And Bradley, I find it incredibly disheartening that you started this entire conversation accusing me of not answering questions, while there are at least 3 (probably more) questions which have been directed at you now which you have completely ignored.
theEINSTEINofKEENE

Fuck all your *ALL*YOUR* god damned little piss-ant Q.?'s….A square is a rectangle with 4 equal length sides, and a rectangle is a square with 2 pairs of equal length sides, which means that a square and a rectangle are exactly the same thing. Except a triangle only has 3….But, 4 triangles equals 3 rectangles -OR- 3 squares, so that proves rectangles and squares are the same, because 3 of either equals 4 triangles…..got that?….~tEoK.
theEINSTEINofKEENE

Simple. Replace "Mandatory Taxation" with "Voluntary Donation"…..Most of us would still pay most of our taxes, anyway, and we'd have the moral high ground to laugh at the assessers. Persons who fail to pay the voluntary taxes would simply have their name and tax-paying status publicized. The rich would be fighting to see who could pay the MOST taxes, because THAT would be the new Social Status indicator….How come you guys didn't think of that?…as for the few, very few folks who just couldn't get with the program, fuck 'em……who cares???…What, *ME* worry???…~tEoK.
Pingback: Pete and Ademo Trial Highlights - Free Keene