Undercover Narcotics Officer Exposed: Det. Charles I. Newton

Charles I. NewtonThanks first to Bob “Weeda Claus” Constantine for having the courage to take his cannabis growing case to trial. Bob’s courage made what happened today possible. Because Bob took his case to trial, the state had to call its undercover agents to the stand and despite their desperate efforts to keep them away from cameras, they were still all seen personally by those of us in the courtroom. The first to testify against Bob was NH Drug Task Force detective Charles I. Newton, the most undercover-looking of them all. He looks like a pretty cool guy and if only he weren’t engaging in deception for the purposes of caging peaceful people, maybe he would be. We were unable to get a decent picture of him on the day of Bob’s trial. However, here’s what happened today:

We were going to breakfast in Newport after attending a fellow activist’s speeding ticket trial, when I noticed two cars parked drivers’ side-window-to-window in the parking lot of the Country Kitchen restaurant. The driver of the black late model Nissan Altima (we think it’s plate number 297 7758 – the 297 is for sure, not sure about the last four) looked a lot like Charles I. Newton, so I asked Ademo from Liberty on Tour if he thought that was him. He confirmed it and shouted out Charles’ name. Then Charles high-tailed it (complete with screeching tires) out of the parking lot. We consulted the young man in the red car and informed him that he’d been talking to an undercover cop. At least in this instance, we saved the man from going to prison. Newton had already given the young man cash in order to allegedly purchase narcotics, so the deal was almost done when we managed to intervene.

Now, if I’m recalling correctly, Newton testified during Bob’s trial that he lives in Cheshire county. Undercover officers tend to live in one place and work in others so there is a lower chance of them being recognized by locals. Thus far, we know that Newton works in Grafton and Sullivan counties, and maybe elsewhere. If it’s true that Newton lives in Cheshire county, that means there’s a chance you know him. Perhaps you grew up with him? Please post your comments below or send a private message via the Forum or via email copblock at gmail.com

I should have started recording sooner, zoomed the camera, and done better to focus on Newton’s exit, but hindsight is always 20-20. At least we were able to intervene, expose this deception artist, and save a young man from being caged. Special thanks to Pete, Ademo, and Beau from Liberty on Tour for springing into action! Don’t expect him to continue driving the same undercover vehicle, but here’s the brief video from today, for what it’s worth:

Also, here’s a court case where Newton plays a major role in a drug bust, just to give you confirmation of who he is and how he operates. Newton’s middle initial was found in a Keene Sentinel article. What do you know about Charles I. Newton?

UPDATE: Here’s the number for the NH Drug Task Force if you’d like to leave them or Charles a message: 603-271-3291

UPDATE: Here’s a pic of what may be the same Charles Newton from his high school yearbook.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


60 Comments

  1. Not sure how I feel about this yet but the end result, afaict, could be one of two things:

    1. He quits his job and finds an honest living (doubtful).
    2. He aggresses against others somewhere else (probable).

    Can't say either of those options are all that terrible for peaceful people living within the boundaries of his current hunting grounds.

  2. In a 'free society' people would be allowed to surveil others undercover for whatever reason they wished, no?

  3. And freemen would be allowed to "out" them,

    In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.

    In the Big Rock Candy Mountains,

    The jails are made of tin.

    And you can walk right out again,

    As soon as you are in.

  4. Sure you'd be allowed to 'out' them….but my point is, if you don't like being surveilled for arbitrary reasons, moving to a completely voluntary society isn't going to solve that…

  5. i am anti capitalst i support drugs but dont get yor libertarian thing business has to be destroyed along imperialism and war ontl in anarchy will freedom be achieved all you want is to protect youre stupid private propety DESTROY PROPERTY RIGHTS

  6. wow

  7. Oh, and great job guys! Good head's up Ian.

    I can't imagine making a living intentionally destroying peoples lives. It simply boggles my mind.

  8. Sure you’d be allowed to ‘out’ them….but my point is, if you don’t like being surveilled for arbitrary reasons, moving to a completely voluntary society isn’t going to solve that…

    You're right, Holy. What a completely voluntary society *will* solve, however, is a problem of much greater severity than unwanted surveillance: It will serve to dissuade or eliminate supremacist busybodies from inflicting their viewpoints on others using coercion and violence.

    In a society where rational discourse and peaceful persuasion are the prime methods for convincing others to behave or think the way you believe is best, those who attempt to dominate the wills of others via aggressive methods (e.g. kidnapping, robbery, assault, etc.) would not be tolerated.

    In such a society, people are free to exercise their inherent rights to life, body, labor, and property so long as they do not aggress against those same rights held by others.

  9. Now that you've got me thinking about it, I can't imagine why anyone would want to live in it's opposite: an involuntary society. Why would someone want to be part of a group that forces them to participate and labor for goals they have no vested interest in or enthusiasm for?

    People working together to accomplish things they have a vested interest in and are enthused about certainly sounds like a pretty good society to me.

    And for those whom it does not, they're free to engage in whatever s&m they want so long as they keep it to themselves.

  10. Having gauged ears makes someone look cool?

    That isn't usually the first though that comes into my head when I see someone with gauged ears.

    How was this guy involved in Bob “Weeda Claus” Constantine's case?

  11. Great job, guys. That was awesome. You know something, that pig looks very familiar to me. I don't mean that I have seen him in person (I live in Miami Florida). But his face I believe I seen it on t.v. Perhaps on some news report on some cable news channel or on some video on the internet. I have spent the whole day searching on the internet, typing all types of words that might perhaps connect me to some website where I might find a video or anything on this pig, but I haven't found anything yet. I just know that I have seen his face before. I hardly ever forget a face.

  12. Some people might, blackie. He was the first cop to testify in the case and was brought in wearing a balaclava.

  13. "You’re right, Holy. What a completely voluntary society *will* solve, however, is a problem of much greater severity than unwanted surveillance: It will serve to dissuade or eliminate supremacist busybodies from inflicting their viewpoints on others using coercion and violence."

    No, it won't solve that either, it will just change the ways they go about inflicting the coercion and violence.

    "In a society where rational discourse and peaceful persuasion are the prime methods for convincing others to behave or think the way you believe is best, those who attempt to dominate the wills of others via aggressive methods (e.g. kidnapping, robbery, assault, etc.) would not be tolerated."

    Just because they 'would not be tolerated' does not mean they would not still exist, and also does not mean that they would not even become dominant. Just look at countries which do not have a stable government already formed: the majority of those countries are ruled by coercion and violence. How can you then presume that this type of rule would not come into play in our own country if current practices were completely dissolved? There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

    "Now that you’ve got me thinking about it, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to live in it’s opposite: an involuntary society. Why would someone want to be part of a group that forces them to participate and labor for goals they have no vested interest in or enthusiasm for?"

    Just because I don't think a 100% voluntary society is plausible, doesn't mean I think society must be 100% involuntary. Rather, I think society should be cooperative: meaning that people make sacrifices and compromises even if they don't really want to for the sake of the greater good.

    The difference here being: you believe people must always absolutely volunteer to help others, and that they *will* do so. I, on the other hand, believe that there are always going to be inequalities and biases which exist within society, and that people are selfish, lazy, apathetic, uninformed, etc; therefore, leaving helping people up to completely voluntary actions versus compromises will never be effective in making sure everyone gets a fair shot at life.

    "People working together to accomplish things they have a vested interest in and are enthused about certainly sounds like a pretty good society to me."

    Of course it does, because you are only looking at the absolute surface level idealist version of what your 'voluntary society' really implies. Our current government could be diluted to such a level by saying 'People who have faith in community leaders, who participate in the direction of their daily lives, and who are vested in ensuring their well being and the well being of all those around them sounds like a pretty good society to me' but I'm sure you'd agree that this is *not* the reality of the situation–just as I would say your statement does not reflect the reality of what a voluntary society would look like.

  14. @Ian

    So this undercover cop WAS part of the operation to bust Bob Constantine? As I understood the story Bob was peacefully growing a few plants on his own property. How did that attract the attention of these anti-drug warriors?

    For the record, I don’t think growing and enjoying this wonderful herb should be a crime. In fact it was less of an issue before that prick Nixon noticed the people that hated him also got high and he declared all out war on marijuana.

    Is there a connection?

  15. Charles I. Newton was the first to testify in Bob's case. We are not sure how he attracted their attention – rumor is the neighbor snitched, but that is unconfirmed.

  16. I like the story, but I don't like what you're encouraging people to do.

    Encouraging people to harass a cop doesn't put us (the people against the drug war) in a good light.

    I feel bad for Charles's family too cause I'm thinking they might feel as though they're in danger now

  17. holy_canole on Fri, 3rd Jun 2011 10:07 am said:
    "Just look at countries which do not have a stable government already formed: the majority of those countries are ruled by coercion and violence. How can you then presume that this type of rule would not come into play in our own country if current practices were completely dissolved? There is no evidence to suggest otherwise."

    Back to the drawing board canoli. Your argument holds water like a sieve.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/18/belgi

  18. Floppy, why does everyone (yourself included) feel a reflexive sympathy for the cop and his family, yet they apparently don't feel this same sympathy for the victims of the Drug War this man willfully pursues? The fact is, he is an aggressor, he has chosen to initiate that aggression against others. Peaceful people, who have harmed no one. He is using deception to do so. He is violating the very most fundamental precepts of the libertarian moral order, by choosing force AND fraud as a means of violating people's property rights and depriving them of their liberty. He aims to hurt people, to lock them in cages.

    Thus, his family, if they are afraid of anything, are victims of this man's choices. But, then again, I see NO ONE threatening him here, folks are just trying to make it clear who he is and what he intends to do. If there is a threat of violence in any drug transaction, he can take some of the credit (or blame), since violence is a feature of the black market, a byproduct of the prohibition he enforces.

  19. you've got to be kidding me. A guy that goes out on a daily basis and harms others and I'm supposed to be worried about his kids' safety?

    Hello? Any harm that would ever come to those children because of the actions of their father would be 1) heinous and 2) Inflicted by those who seek retribution for the harms that this person has caused them and THEIR families?

    What about the kids of the guy who tries to get a bag of weed and now daddy has to spend time in a cell because he chooses a safer drug than alcohol to enjoy?

    I know the statist response: "well the man can just have a 40oz and not be arrested for breaking the laws of the land". . . . well. . . then. . . .

    this animal police detective can spare any harm that may come to his children by immediately quitting his job of lying and assaulting people because of the items they choose to possess.

  20. Dylboz

    I feel like the government is who we should focus our attention on.

    This guy is a product of what the government has taught us about drugs. Until the government stops it's drug crusade then there will be more cops to take his place.

    It's my opinion that our attention be focused on the government

  21. @Floppy

    Good luck on influencing the people calling themselves government. The war on drugs has only been enriching and empowering the politicians, correctional workers, police and military for oooohhh some 60 years now? What possible incentive could you give these people to stop their violent actions that hasn't been proposed? These people are willing to look the other way when sick people are being thrown in cages, when families are destroyed, and people are murdered because for each and every one of these cases, they make more money and get more power.

    In fact the system itself incentivizes all the actors to crack down more and more. Without arresting more people the jails won't have a reason for their bloated budget, the cops won't be able to afford their new toys, they won't be able to pull people over and assert their "authority" over people because of a substance. The prosecutors will have 75% of their schedules cleared, judges and bailiffs will have their hours severely cut because the courts are no longer packed with victim-less drug crimes, or the violent ones that crop up because of the war on drugs. And at the top the politicians would have to answer to all the public sector unions who's 'jobs' are being lost because people are no longer being thrown in cages! And every politician (minus 1 Ron Paul) I know of would rather throw 10,000 people into a cage and another 10,000 into a grave than risk losing re-election because they don't have the support of the public sector unions.

  22. Floppymcprplhat on Fri, 3rd Jun 2011 1:59 pm said:
    "This guy is a product of what the government has taught us about drugs. Until the government stops it’s drug crusade then there will be more cops to take his place."

    The experience of those who have faced tyranny, even in relatively modern times, would seem to argue the converse.

    "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
    — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  23. @mauiguy,

    Apparently you don't read too well. Try reading your own article before you say there is no government in Belgium. Just because there is no central government, doesn't mean there is no government.

    "The absence of a central government has been mitigated by the fact that power is heavily decentralised in Belgium. Local and regional government now enjoy greater legitimacy than the federal government in Brussels and they continue to function."

    Back to the drawing board, mauiguy.

  24. I realize you are just quoting Solzhenitsyn, mauiguy, but violence is not the answer.

  25. I'm thinking, next time, just yell "Hi Officer (whatever)! What're you up to these days??"

    If the buyers are stupid enough to stay around after that deserve to pay a price. However, the price should never be spending their lives in cages.

  26. @ Charlie?

    What 'price should be paid' for people voluntarily providing products and services in the market place?

  27. @ David

    What I took away from the article is that a large scale, intrusive, violent, central government is not necessary.

    If one were to extrapolate that out, I contend that a smaller scale, intrusive, violent government is no more necessary than the large one.

  28. @ Ian,

    Although I'm an advocate of nonviolence, I do believe that defending one's self or one's property from a violent aggressor is justified.

    The agents that Solzhenitsyn was referring to systematically loaded masses of people onto trains and sent them to gulags where millions were worked, frozen and starved to death. There was no due process or forum to defend one's self in that particular situation, thereby justifying force at the point of aggression.

    I don't advocate the use of force against government agents in our situation because we do have a system of due process, as flawed as it might be, where one can make one's case. If it were commonplace for one to be hauled out of his home, knelt in his front yard and have a bullet put in the back of his head, it would be justifiable to fight back at the point of aggression.

    On the other hand, I do support the actions that were taken against Charles Newton. It's the same thing Solzhenitsyn was saying just without the weapons.

    "The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

  29. mauiguy,

    How does that article you posted prove a counterpoint to my argument at all? The people quoted are not happy about the situation, first of all. Secondly…250 days without a government is hardly an example of sustainability…especially with regards to all of the issues which have piled up in those mere 250 days.

    Additionally, as David pointed out, Belgium still has localized government, it's just the federal government which is currently on hiatus.

    What was that you were saying about arguments holding water like a sieve?

  30. @ canoli

    The only people in the article not happy with the way things are seems to be the statists. But what else would you expect from a bunch of statists.

    Everyone else seems to having a grand old time.

    We don't need coercion to have a society based on voluntary exchange and mutual respect.

  31. Mauiguy,

    "The only people in the article not happy with the way things are seems to be the statists. But what else would you expect from a bunch of statists."

    So? There are still a lot of unhappy people in the society…again, I don't see how this counters my argument.

    "Everyone else seems to having a grand old time."

    'Everyone else' being the people streaking on the streets? How does that prove that the society is functioning flawlessly? There are multiple lists of the things which are going wrong…saying that people are streaking proves the society is actually functioning well on a long term, sustainable level is simply foolish.

    If you take a look at countries which *actually* exist/have existed with no effective government for any decent amount of time, I'm sure you will find quite a different story. And the article you posted seems to indicate the same fate for Belgium, judging by the scores of things which are already malfunctioning in this relatively short period of time without just a *federal* government….not even no government at all.

    "We don’t need coercion to have a society based on voluntary exchange and mutual respect.""

    Where did I say we do? I only said that resorting to a purely voluntary society will only result in people taking advantage of the system, therefore quite possibly creating *more* violence and coercion, as we have seen in multiple countries throughout the world.

  32. @ canoli

    Freedom is messy. What can I tell you?

  33. "Freedom is messy. What can I tell you?"

    That's all well and good….just don't act like you're proving any sort of point when you're not.

  34. @mauiguy,

    It's great that what you take away from the article is that "large scale, intrusive, violent, central government is not necessary." What I take away is that the sky is green in Belgium. But unfortunately the article says neither of those things. What it says is “The absence of a central government has been mitigated by the fact that power is heavily decentralised in Belgium. Local and regional government now enjoy greater legitimacy than the federal government in Brussels and they continue to function.” Government still exists. And can you quote for me where they used the term 'statist', and how they are "The only people in the article not happy with the way things are…"? I must have missed that. Seems to me you take a lot away from an article which isn't really there. Maybe you should read it. For a second time. That is, if you ever read it before.

  35. Holy:

    No, it won’t solve that either, it will just change the ways they go about inflicting the coercion and violence

    How would people choosing to participate in a voluntary society — that abhors the initation of force — go about inflicting coercion and violence (for more than a brief few minutes) let alone find new ways of inflicting it? Do you have any examples to support this statement?

    Just because they ‘would not be tolerated’ does not mean they would not still exist, and also does not mean that they would not even become dominant.

    What is it that convinces you such people would a) want to particpate in a voluntary society where there is no centralization of power or control over others and b) how they would perpetrate their violence and coercion on those who have the right to defend themselves from such aggression?

    Just look at countries which do not have a stable government already formed: the majority of those countries are ruled by coercion and violence.

    The countries in which this happens are generally victims of a previous regime based on coercion and violence. Naturally, since nature abhors a vaccum, violent, coercive people will fill the roles of the previous regime and continue business as usual.

    How can you then presume that this type of rule would not come into play in our own country if current practices were completely dissolved? There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

    Well, I believe that kind of rule is already pervasive in this country and getting worse day by day at an ever-increasing rate. The death of a thousand papercuts. And I don't expect current practices to be dissolved in a day as many people have become dependent (and purposely so) on what currently exists just to survive. I'm just saying that people should be free to opt out of the current system, be it entirely or piecemeal by taking responsibility for themselves issue by issue.

    Would you not agree that if people can come up with alternative solutions to problems that do not require government intervention, that they should be free to act upon them?

    Just because I don’t think a 100% voluntary society is plausible, doesn’t mean I think society must be 100% involuntary. Rather, I think society should be cooperative:

    A voluntary society *is* cooperative by its very nature. It is the epitomy of cooperation. It is people choosing, of their own free will, to abide by a very specific set of rules and to act together to achieve their goals so long as they don't harm others. I'm not saying you'll see 100% of everyone in such a society working toward a specific goal, but you certainly don't see that now either. It is. however, more possible (depending on the goal) in a voluntary society than an involuntary one.

    …meaning that people make sacrifices and compromises even if they don’t really want to for the sake of the greater good.

    And who decides what that greater good is? In a voluntary society, people will vote with their coin and their actions on an individual basis. To sacrifice lives, freedoms, and principles to achieve a worthy goal is to negate good itself.

    The difference here being: you believe people must always absolutely volunteer to help others, and that they *will* do so.

    Not at all. If people *must absolutely* volunteer then they're not volunteering at all. To volunteer is to make a choice, to decide what you do or do not support and believe and to put your own life, liberty, labor, or property on the line to do so. If you must or have to do something, then it is a requirement, not a choice.

    I, on the other hand, believe that there are always going to be inequalities and biases which exist within society, and that people are selfish, lazy, apathetic, uninformed, etc; therefore, leaving helping people up to completely voluntary actions versus compromises will never be effective in making sure everyone gets a fair shot at life.

    I understand your negative view on humanity. Clearly, people who are trained to accept the initiation of force and dominate others tend to act on that training.

    This is why a system that attracts, empowers, and rewards such people — who pretend to help some people by harming others — is dangerous and unacceptable? That it will not, can not, and has not ever, in the history of mankind, "given everyone a fair shot at life"?

    "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have…" – Gerald Ford, 1974

    Of course it does, because you are only looking at the absolute surface level idealist version of what your ‘voluntary society’ really implies. Our current government could be diluted to such a level by saying ‘People who have faith in community leaders, who participate in the direction of their daily lives, and who are vested in ensuring their well being and the well being of all those around them sounds like a pretty good society to me’ but I’m sure you’d agree that this is *not* the reality of the situation–just as I would say your statement does not reflect the reality of what a voluntary society would look like.

    I think from your statements above that there is still some confusion for you as to what a voluntary society is meant to function and how it would offer more people a level of equality and a quality of life that surpasses anything that could ever be offered by a society that focuses on the domination of others (for good or ill).

    "…all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." – Thomas Jefferson, 1776

  36. Exactly, David. And furthermore, I could post multiple articles which would counter mauiguy's assertion that countries without a stable form of government are less prone to coercion or violence…

  37. @ David
    "We're making a joke but it's no laughing matter," said Veronika, a Ghent social worker. "It's really very serious. We might be partying. But we've had enough. I want a government. It's urgent. There are too many problems to be solved."

    That sounded pretty statist to me.

    I believe that the answers to society's ills lie in the free market.

    Bottom line is that anyone who advocates for a coercive government is guilty of aggression against his neighbors.

  38. What colour Is the sky on your world, mauiguy?

  39. "How would people choosing to participate in a voluntary society — that abhors the initation of force — go about inflicting coercion and violence (for more than a brief few minutes) let alone find new ways of inflicting it? Do you have any examples to support this statement?"

    You're asking for examples of people who are able to successfully use force and coercion to control people who don't want to be controlled? I recommend looking at Libya, Uganda, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Western Sahara, Guatemala, the Philippines….need I go on? Whether or not the rest of the society is 'voluntary' is, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, counterproductive. In all of the countries I listed–excluding Western Sahara–there is/was at least a façade of structured governments, yet people have still been able to easily rise to tyranny. If this governmental structure were removed, so too would many of the safety nets it provides (even though it also sometimes provides supportive structures). Just because the rest of the members of society 'abhor the initiation of force' doesn't necessarily preclude its formation.
    I just don't see where you're getting your logic here–why does getting rid of government also get rid of people who are power hungry and prone to violent, coercive measures?

    "What is it that convinces you such people would a) want to particpate in a voluntary society where there is no centralization of power or control over others and b) how they would perpetrate their violence and coercion on those who have the right to defend themselves from such aggression?"

    a) people may see such disorganization as an opportunity structure–a sort of power vacuum–through which they can easily take control. This has historically been the case multiple times. The term 'power vacuum' wasn't developed arbitrarily, after all.
    b) if you can't fathom how people can inflict violence and coercion upon those who 'have the right' to defend themselves, I don't think I can really help you. You should try paying attention to some of the humanitarian crises around the world–especially those involving guerilla warfare.

    "The countries in which this happens are generally victims of a previous regime based on coercion and violence. Naturally, since nature abhors a vaccum, violent, coercive people will fill the roles of the previous regime and continue business as usual."

    Exactly. So how can you make this statement, and then honestly suggest that removing our current governmental structures is a plausible option? Don't you–and most people here–believe that our system is currently one based on coercion and violence? So how would removing this system be any different than removing the systems in the other countries I alluded too? You pretty much just proved my point…

    "Would you not agree that if people can come up with alternative solutions to problems that do not require government intervention, that they should be free to act upon them?"

    That depends…can you give me an example?

    "A voluntary society *is* cooperative by its very nature. It is the epitomy of cooperation. It is people choosing, of their own free will, to abide by a very specific set of rules and to act together to achieve their goals so long as they don’t harm others. I’m not saying you’ll see 100% of everyone in such a society working toward a specific goal, but you certainly don’t see that now either. It is. however, more possible (depending on the goal) in a voluntary society than an involuntary one."

    No, a voluntary society has the *potential* to be cooperative, it also has a great potential for huge factions of society to opt out of participating. I believe we would see MUCH great racial and class divides, for instance. And why is it more possible in a voluntary society than in the kind I am describing–aka, one in which people are required to contribute, whether or not they would chose to do so completely of their own free will?

    "And who decides what that greater good is?"

    The people.

    "Not at all. If people *must absolutely* volunteer then they’re not volunteering at all."

    Sorry, that was strange wording on my part. I didn't mean that you believe that they must necessarily volunteer, I meant that you believe that if people are going to participate in helping the greater good, the only way they should do so is if they volunteer completely to do so. I think that would be great….but I don't think that will happen, and I think it's more important to equally inconvenience people in order to equally advantage them, than to leave it completely up to how how generous those who are privileged are feeling on any given day.

    "I understand your negative view on humanity. Clearly, people who are trained to accept the initiation of force and dominate others tend to act on that training."

    Oh please, you know nothing of my 'training' and I hardly accept REAL force or violence as being ok–I just think some people need to take a step back and consider how 'bad' their life *really* is. I don't think you know anything about what it truly means to live in fear of violence or coercion in your daily life, and if you claim living in New Hampshire instills this type of fear in you, you clearly have no basis of comparison.
    If you would like to gain some perspective, you are welcome to come live in an IDP camp with me in Northern Uganda for three months. I leave September 5th.

    "I think from your statements above that there is still some confusion for you as to what a voluntary society is meant to function and how it would offer more people a level of equality and a quality of life that surpasses anything that could ever be offered by a society that focuses on the domination of others (for good or ill)."

    I understand what how it is *supposed* to function, in the realm of ideology and idealism…I just have yet to be shown any indication that it would ever happen as it is supposed to.

  40. "What colour Is the sky on your world, mauiguy?"

    Ok, we're done.

    *color FTFY

  41. People never fail to resort to haughty, petty, insignificant jabs when they can no longer back up their real arguments.

    And 'colour' is perfectly correct, mauiguy.

  42. Color/colour, liter/litre, center/centre… No need to fix anything for me, mauiguy.

  43. "People never fail to resort to haughty, petty, insignificant jabs when they can no longer back up their real arguments."

    Agreed. That's exactly what I'd call this:

    “What colour Is the sky on your world, mauiguy?”

    Um, that's a little awkward, isn't it?
    And while we're about it,

    "And ‘colour’ is perfectly correct, mauiguy." -and-
    "Color/colour, liter/litre, center/centre… No need to fix anything for me, mauiguy."

    Wrong.
    It's only perfectly correct if you're living in Victorian England.
    You would have been disqualified from your 7th grade spelling bee for that misspelling.

    From the Wiki:
    "Webster's 1828 dictionary featured only -or and is generally given much of the credit for the adoption of this form in the United States."

    I think you guys would argue with a sign post. Not the most enlightened trait…

    Aloha

  44. Boy could I tell you some stories about the NH DTF and the DA but I don't no that it would be safe for me to write any information that I have on Charlie or Mike and the rest of them lying scum bags, they will do what they have to do to get what they want. They don't care about your family why should anyone care about theirs. They scare the hell out of me so I don't dare say what I really no about them just that even when they tell you they are on your side to help you out its just a lie to get what they want. If they don't screw you over they will get one of your family members even if you haven't done anything illegal and thats the truth believe me. I will probably pay just for saying this little bit. But NEVER EVER TRUST THEM EVER!!! I wish I could tell you what I no but fear for what they can do to me or my family. How do you no they can't get your information? How do you no one of them aren't reading everything written here on this page. I wish you luck and I wish they would all be shown on UTube and shown how it feels the bastards

  45. mauiguy,

    The fact that you spent your entire last post focused solely on grammar rather than the actual debate at hand only further proves my point (and you sourced wiki, no less.)

    It's funny that you accuse us of willing to argue with a sign post, yet you are the one who brought up the petty grammar issue, and steered the conversation away from the substantive conversation.

  46. Oh by the way, has anyone else besides me also noticed that there are way too many police dramas and so called reality t.v. shows about some police detectives or some S.W.A.T. team? Where they make all these people look like heroes while we got these criminals with badges lurking around and destroying innocent people's lives. And don't forget about the jail and prison shows. All this propaganda crap is all over t.v. and cable t.v. Has anyone also seen all the different commercials where they have actors dressed in police officer or S.W.A.T. or bomb unit uniforms? I have, and I'm not just talking about the infamous one from Direct T.V. promoting police brutality. It's almost like they are trying to condition us into accepting a police state. If that is the case, then what's next? Commercials that show and promote torture? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

  47. You’re asking for examples of people who are able to successfully use force and coercion to control people who don’t want to be controlled? I recommend looking at Libya, Uganda, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Western Sahara, Guatemala, the Philippines….need I go on?

    My question was how, in a society where one must willfully choose to participate, and which has a simple set of rules which one must embrace (or at least give lipservice to), and for which there is no nexus of control over others, will people rise up to exert dominance, violence, coercion, etc. upon the rest? What will be their stepping stones to power?

    Could someone suddenly go on a murdering, assaulting or raping spree? Sure. Unlike the society we live in, however, people in a voluntary society have a right to defend themselves from initiated aggression and those who initiate force would be held accountable for their actions. I would expect the majority of participants in said society will be armed and are far more likely to intervene in such incidents.

    With no one for lobbyists, unions, and corporations to bribe for political favors, and no one to take the money and property of one group of people and give it to others, how will one in such a society rise in power over others?

    I certainly understand the fear of aggression by outsiders who are not part of that society but, in a society where members are empowered to defend themselves and others, I find it less of a worry than purposely sending vast armadas to invade and occupy foreign lands. In such initiations of aggression, there is always catastrophic collateral damage of innocent lives and the hatred of survivors and the loved ones of those who died will grow and fester, resulting in a vicious cycle of violent blowback.

    Whether or not the rest of the society is ‘voluntary’ is, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, counterproductive. In all of the countries I listed–excluding Western Sahara–there is/was at least a façade of structured governments, yet people have still been able to easily rise to tyranny. If this governmental structure were removed, so too would many of the safety nets it provides (even though it also sometimes provides supportive structures).

    The answer lies within the question: "…at least a facade of structured governments".

    "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." – George Washington (allegedly)

    Throughout history, the very basis of government has been a monopoly on the initiation of force. "We have all the power so we dictate behavior in all things… or else." From cavemen who clubbed each other in the head, to Kings and Popes who claimed divinity and tribute, to today's bought and paid for congressmen, government in all its forms has been about one group of persons declaring their will on all things to legitimately trump the wills of others — particularly regarding lives, liberty, labor, and property not their own and for which they have no just claim.

    Just because the rest of the members of society ‘abhor the initiation of force’ doesn’t necessarily preclude its formation.

    And a spark of fire *might* ignite at the bottom of the ocean, but such conditions tend to quench it with great expediency.

    I just don’t see where you’re getting your logic here–why does getting rid of government also get rid of people who are power hungry and prone to violent, coercive measures?

    Ahhh! Perhaps this is where the disconnect lies? It's not about just getting rid of government, Holy. It's about replacing its various aggressive functions with non-violent, non-coercive, voluntary solutions.

    People acting in a free-market and voting with their coin will determine which functions are useful and necessary, not by diktat or decree but by the law of supply and demand (held in check by the non-aggression principle and the right of self-defense). Necessity is the mother of invention. Competition is its rival sibling.

    a) people may see such disorganization as an opportunity structure–a sort of power vacuum–through which they can easily take control. This has historically been the case multiple times. The term ‘power vacuum’ wasn’t developed arbitrarily, after all.

    Again, this example ignores the non-aggression principle, the right to life, liberty, labor, and property, etc. as a foundation for the voluntary society and ignores that it is voluntary to begin with, that those who wish to participate recognize and embrace this foundation or be shunned and/or cast out (or worse should they initiate aggression).

    b) if you can’t fathom how people can inflict violence and coercion upon those who ‘have the right’ to defend themselves, I don’t think I can really help you. You should try paying attention to some of the humanitarian crises around the world–especially those involving guerilla warfare.

    Well, the right is nought without the means and the will.

    "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." – Frank Herbert's Dune.

    Exactly. So how can you make this statement, and then honestly suggest that removing our current governmental structures is a plausible option? Don’t you–and most people here–believe that our system is currently one based on coercion and violence? So how would removing this system be any different than removing the systems in the other countries I alluded too? You pretty much just proved my point…

    I haven't suggested removing this system. Sooner or later, that will happen of its own accord. What I've suggested is that people be free to opt out of it, entirely or issue by issue. If New Hampshire were to become the heart of a voluntary society, I care not what happens in California or Illinois so long as people are free to escape it.

    When the only option is "to love it or leave it" and there is nowhere else to go, it isn't an option. it is a demand for acquiescence. Like a neighborhood where each house is the home of a rapist and the victim is "free" to move into any house she wants, this is a call for a house without a rapist.

    That depends…can you give me an example?

    Sure. How about allowing people to opt out of the Social Security system and use competitive, free-market alternatives to prepare them for retirement? This currently exists only for three Texas counties that were able to opt out about 30 years ago and has been extraordinarily successful.
    http://is.gd/fKhulK

    No, a voluntary society has the *potential* to be cooperative, it also has a great potential for huge factions of society to opt out of participating. I believe we would see MUCH great racial and class divides, for instance.

    And I believe that such a society would consist of people who, being more prosperous by default merely by being able to keep the money they've earned and dispose of it as they best see fit, would find and participate in more worthy projects and causes, that they would tend to be more generous and amiable, and that the Philosophy of Liberty and rational-thinking would guide them away from racial and class divisions.

    I don't know that it would ever be a Utopia, but it couldn't be worse than what we have now (which already has racial and class divisions) and it just might even be a lot better.

    And why is it more possible in a voluntary society than in the kind I am describing–aka, one in which people are required to contribute, whether or not they would chose to do so completely of their own free will?

    "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." – Thomas Jefferson

    "Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism." – Thomas Jefferson

    "I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master." – Thomas Jefferson

    The people.

    And by this do you mean a majority of people who bother to vote in an oppressive and involuntary society forcing their will down the throats of others? Or do you mean by the people who gather en masse in Washington, fat with bribes, to make decrees over the lives of men, women, and children (many yet unborn)?

    Sorry, that was strange wording on my part. I didn’t mean that you believe that they must necessarily volunteer, I meant that you believe that if people are going to participate in helping the greater good, the only way they should do so is if they volunteer completely to do so. I think that would be great….but I don’t think that will happen, and I think it’s more important to equally inconvenience people in order to equally advantage them, than to leave it completely up to how how generous those who are privileged are feeling on any given day.

    And again, I find it immoral for one person or group to force their collective will on another person or group by force or the threat thereof. Particularly in regards to (yep, you guessed it): the life, liberty, labor, and property that does not belong to them.

    To say that one man (or woman) or group of men (or women) can dictate what another man or woman can or must do with their own lives, liberty, labor, and property is, in my opinion, to endorse slavery. As an abolitionist, I cannot condone nor abide slavery in any of its forms.

    Oh please, you know nothing of my ‘training’ and I hardly accept REAL force or violence as being ok–I just think some people need to take a step back and consider how ‘bad’ their life *really* is.

    Well, if you were trained in public schools, watched television, and lived in America during the latter half of the 20th century/beginning of the 21st, then yes, I have a good idea of the kind of 'training' and propaganda you received because I received it as well. I was just fortunate that it didn't take and I was eventually able to see it for what it was: brainwashing.

    I don’t think you know anything about what it truly means to live in fear of violence or coercion in your daily life, and if you claim living in New Hampshire instills this type of fear in you, you clearly have no basis of comparison. If you would like to gain some perspective, you are welcome to come live in an IDP camp with me in Northern Uganda for three months. I leave September 5th.

    This is that old chestnut, the "You ain't got it as bad as the worst of us, so stop your crying." argument. Like old war veterans or sailors comparing their battle scars, each one successively worse than the last. Like the grandfather who tells the story about how "When I was a kid, we crawled 40 miles to school and back… on our bellies… through chicken wire and broken glass!".

    Certainly, I do not have to fear for my life every day nor wonder where or if I will be able to eat that day, or that someone will put a bullet in me any second, or where I will sleep and if I can gather enough materials to keep warm or cool each night, or if the blood in my urine is a bad omen, etc. In comparison to someone who does, I've got it pretty good.

    That's the problem with comparing apples and oranges. One tends to miss the point that they're both fruit… and rot tends to spread.

    I understand what how it is *supposed* to function, in the realm of ideology and idealism…I just have yet to be shown any indication that it would ever happen as it is supposed to.

    Well, then consider yourself fortunate. With the collapse of this system not far off and more people embracing the moral guidelines in the Philosophy of Liberty, you may just see it in your lifetime.

    Compared to the alternative, one can only hope so.

  48. "Could someone suddenly go on a murdering, assaulting or raping spree? Sure. Unlike the society we live in, however, people in a voluntary society have a right to defend themselves from initiated aggression and those who initiate force would be held accountable for their actions. I would expect the majority of participants in said society will be armed and are far more likely to intervene in such incidents."

    How is this different than how society is structured today? People certainly still have the right to self defense. And in New Hampshire at least people are easily able to 'be armed.'
    So what's the difference?

    "And a spark of fire *might* ignite at the bottom of the ocean, but such conditions tend to quench it with great expediency."

    You have yet to give examples of how voluntary societies 'quench with great expediency' violent, coercive behaviors.

    "Ahhh! Perhaps this is where the disconnect lies? It’s not about just getting rid of government, Holy. It’s about replacing its various aggressive functions with non-violent, non-coercive, voluntary solutions.
    People acting in a free-market and voting with their coin will determine which functions are useful and necessary, not by diktat or decree but by the law of supply and demand (held in check by the non-aggression principle and the right of self-defense). Necessity is the mother of invention. Competition is its rival sibling."

    No, there's no disconnect here. I understand your logic–despite you having not given any examples to back it up yet. However, you didn't answer my question: you claimed perviously that getting rid of a violent regime will only result in a power vacuum which will eventually be filled by another form of violence or coercion. You have yet to explain how replacing the current government with a completely voluntary society would be effective in avoiding that power vacuum…seeing as the voluntary society you are describing seems to fit the parameters of a power vacuum quite well.

    "Again, this example ignores the non-aggression principle, the right to life, liberty, labor, and property, etc. as a foundation for the voluntary society and ignores that it is voluntary to begin with, that those who wish to participate recognize and embrace this foundation or be shunned and/or cast out (or worse should they initiate aggression)."

    I never said it didn't ignore the non-aggression principle, at its core at least. I think there are plenty of ways to avoid aggression while still getting people to participate in something which they wouldn't necessarily participate in, were it left completely up to volunteering, however.

    "I haven’t suggested removing this system. Sooner or later, that will happen of its own accord. What I’ve suggested is that people be free to opt out of it, entirely or issue by issue. If New Hampshire were to become the heart of a voluntary society, I care not what happens in California or Illinois so long as people are free to escape it."

    So why is it then fair for you to say that people who wish to live in this voluntary society get to completely overtake the ways of life for people who already live in New Hampshire? The majority of people in New Hampshire don't wish to opt out of the system entirely…how is it operating under the non-aggression principle for Free Staters to then move into the state and try to overturn the wishes of the majority of people who live here?

    "I don’t know that it would ever be a Utopia, but it couldn’t be worse than what we have now (which already has racial and class divisions) and it just might even be a lot better."

    Oh really? It couldn't be worse? Again, I suggest you take a look at the broader world around you.

    "“Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.” – Thomas Jefferson
    “Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.” – Thomas Jefferson
    “I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master.” – Thomas Jefferson"

    Please answer my question in your own words…not decontextualized quotes (from someone who qualifies as a statist through your criteria, no less).

    "And by this do you mean a majority of people who bother to vote in an oppressive and involuntary society forcing their will down the throats of others? Or do you mean by the people who gather en masse in Washington, fat with bribes, to make decrees over the lives of men, women, and children (many yet unborn)?"

    How is my saying 'the people' any different than you saying 'the people who vote with their dollar'? Free markets still leave room for bribery and HUGELY disproportionate power balances. Just because you use pretty language for your scenario doesn't mean it's really any different.

    "And again, I find it immoral for one person or group to force their collective will on another person or group by force or the threat thereof. Particularly in regards to (yep, you guessed it): the life, liberty, labor, and property that does not belong to them."

    Alright, then as I said earlier….why do you deem it moral for groups of people to move to New Hampshire and claim it should be the breeding grounds for this new, voluntary society when the majority of New Hampshire is resistant to such a revolution?

    "Well, if you were trained in public schools, watched television, and lived in America during the latter half of the 20th century/beginning of the 21st, then yes, I have a good idea of the kind of ‘training’ and propaganda you received because I received it as well. I was just fortunate that it didn’t take and I was eventually able to see it for what it was: brainwashing."

    Ah, so you clearly DO know nothing of my 'training'–as I suspected.
    I have spent the VAST majority of my years in private schools, I have never had cable television at my house (which means NO television when you live in Keene, New Hampshire) until this past year–the majority of which I spent at college where I had no television either anyways–and I grew up in New Hampshire, which seems to have been deemed the most liberty-minded place I could have grown up by those who are a part of this movement, no?
    So please, in the future, don't assume to know anything about my 'training.'

    And just because you have since formed different opinions from what your public school, cable television upbringing taught you, doesn't mean that everyone who went through the same process and DIDN'T come to the same conclusions you have has been brainwashed. That's an incredibly haughty stance to take.

    "Certainly, I do not have to fear for my life every day nor wonder where or if I will be able to eat that day, or that someone will put a bullet in me any second, or where I will sleep and if I can gather enough materials to keep warm or cool each night, or if the blood in my urine is a bad omen, etc. In comparison to someone who does, I’ve got it pretty good."

    Exactly…which is why I get so frustrated when people like Ian, or Sam, or any number of others here act as if they are risking their lives by drinking a beer in a city council meeting.
    If you're able to recognize that you don't have it as bad as other people, then you shouldn't go about your daily lives pretending like you do.

  49. @mauiguy,

    "It’s only perfectly correct if you’re living in Victorian England."

    Wrong.

    It's perfectly correct if you live in England today. And it is perfectly correct here as well, it's just not the usual way to spell it.

    And the joke about colour in the first place, color if you must, was a reference to an earlier post of mine.

    And here in America we say goodbye, not aloha.

    FTFY.

    But hey, canoli & zeus, good arguments. Extremely long winded and a bit repetitive, but good.

  50. Step out from beneath the Hegelian Dialetic and you free yourselves from controlled and guided thought thus ending the conflict.

    "…the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State… for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'" ~William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'

    Don't compromise your values. Live your life free of arbitrary constraint and external control. Don't ask for or seek permission from the State. Be free and be responsible for that freedom.

Care to comment?