Wow, have I really blown it. A few days ago I posted this article which was intended to thank the activists who did such an amazing job on the Concord BEARCAT issue. It apparently did the opposite – at least two of the activists who spearheaded the issue are apparently very upset. Why? The answer is in the last paragraph of the article where I said:
The more ridiculous and outrageous the NH state-believers become, the more people will move here and get active. The state-believers are not even close to having learned their lesson about not aggressing against peaceful people yet, so I must thank them for inspiring more influential activists like Dan to move here and concentrate their activism! Yay!
One of the anti-BEARCAT organizers shared my post on facebook, calling it a “backhanded compliment”. She apparently thought I was talking about her in that paragraph. I thought I was clear that I was talking about the government bureaucrats, but apparently I was not at all clear.
Why would she think I was talking about her with the term “state believer”? Well, after the BEARCAT activism, the activists in question were understandably a little frustrated with some of their fellow liberty-loving activists. Apparently there is a group of “anarchists” in the movement who have a habit of deriding political activism and that has frustrated the anti-BEARCAT activists in question, who are political activists and are disappointed that more people did not help with their anti-BEARCAT efforts. Worse, some of the “anarchists” apparently openly insulted the anti-BEARCAT efforts as pointless – these critics are totally wrong – the efforts were a strong success. The anti-BEARCAT activists had indicated that some callous people had called them “statists” for their small-government beliefs. So, when she saw my use of “state-believer”, she thought I was talking about her. At least – that’s what I could extract from the posts one of them made on facebook before blocking me.
I wasn’t talking about the political activists. I was talking about the aggressors – in this case, the people calling themselves the “city of Concord” and police. I can see how “state believers” did not effectively communicate that.
I have nothing but respect for the political activists in New Hampshire. They have done and continue to do amazing work. I myself am a politically active person and did the exact-same-things as did the Concord activists during the Keene BEARCAT situation – why on earth would I insult similar efforts? I hope this message reaches the eyes of anyone who took offense. Your activism was fantastic, as I poorly expressed in my original article. I’m sorry I blew communicating my ideas – I did not mean to upset you.
Regarding the term “state-believers”, the reason I’ve been using it is to stop using the word “statist”, which comes off as very derogatory. I see the state as a dangerous religion. The use of “state-believer” is intended to point that out, but it doesn’t discriminate between those who are actively advocating aggression vs those who, like the organizers above, believe in a smaller, friendlier state. I am sorry for upsetting anyone and I will work on being a better communicator in the future and am certainly open to ideas on how best to communicate these concepts.
Does anyone remember when this guy called law enforcement and a fire truck in on that guy for having a fire without a permit in Grafton? Then stormed on his property and extinguished it and either, sent him the bill or threatened to?
Some libertarian. If he’s willing to exercise his power as fire chief (or whatever he was/is) what would he do with the governorship? Not that Ovide or Hassan would be better.
If you want nuance: A fire fighter extinguishing a fire on rural wooded land because the person did not bother to check for weather conditions before they started the burn was the very least Mr. Babairz could have done to stop a very possibly hazardous situation from getting out of hand.
If this incident showed anything it is what a good conscientious neighbor Mr. Babiarz is.
For calling law enforcement over a permit? It was specifically over a permit and if you look back, I bet there is an article on this site about it.
You are overreacting.
I’m overreacting by pointing it out as a reminder? I haven’t suggested any action as a result just merely reminding those who may have forgotten and informing those who weren’t aware.
You are wrong. All Babiarz did was to extinguish the fire. He did not take active steps to imprison the person who started the fire, in fact he even left the property without removing all fire-starting equipment from the possession of the person who had used it to start the fire. In other words, Babiarz allowed the hazardous situation that had caused the fire to remain fully intact–as soon as Babiarz was out of sight the fire-starter could have just started another fire. So if your idea of a “good conscientious neighbor” is someone who disregards inconvenient private property designations… Read more »
The weather conditions were fine, and the fire was very small, and contained withing a fire ring. He’d also previously approved the fire ring when the prior owner lived there.
The /sole/ complaint was that there was no permit in place. Since seasonal permits clearly don’t avoid false alarms (being good for an entire season, they do not alert a watcher that there will be smoke at a particular site on a particular day), and since there’s no fee to obtain a permit, the whole system is clearly about nothing other than demanding obedience.
On his website, this guy calls for “a citizens efficiency commission,” he says he wants to “institute user fees on those activities requiring government intervention,” he advocates “the encouragement of greener, sustainable alternative sources of power,” but doesn’t say who will be doing that “encouragement,” he says “I strongly believe in the right of the people to have access to quality education,” and he advocates “competitive public..schools,” whatever that is. Sounds like a statist to me. Not that Ovide or Hassan would be better.
I believe that what he means about the schools is this: If the schools are competitive, each school will improve their curriculum, sports, extra curricular activities, etc. in order to attract more students. By giving students and parent the choice of what school to attend, they will pick the school that has a better reputation. By our schools being competitive, the quality of education dramatically increase as schools compete and to attract more students… kind of like colleges and universities… at this time many children are stuck in the school district they are in without a choice, therefore schools don’t… Read more »
It sounds like you’re reading what you wish he means, not what he actually means. His website doesn’t say any of that stuff you wrote, in fact he specifically uses the term “public” schools, which by definition are not competitive since they’re all controlled by the same monopoly corporation.
If this guy really believed in competitive schools, he would have started one, as more than one freestater has already done. Instead, he’s trying to get a job that allows him to tell other people what to do under threat of violent coercion.
why can’t public schools be competitive? i am not trying to be contrary, I am trying to understand as well.
Can I decide to stop paying for the local school? No? Then there’s not competition; there’s a monopoly. Competition requires choice.
Public school cannot be competitive because without any risk of going out of business, there is no incentive not to suck. Public schools can only be competitive in the way that different McDonald’s franchises compete with each other. One might have cleaner bathrooms, or a 24-hour drive through, but they all have the same menu, the same uniforms, and they’re all licensed by, and answer to the same authority that can yank their permission to operate if they don’t conform to their “lowest-common-denominator” standards of mediocrity. If all you have is a McDonalds gift certificate, then at best you can… Read more »