Hi guys!
I'm from around the area and am just trying to get to know a little bit more of what you're all about 
I think the Shire society Declaration says it best:
[quote]FIRST, each individual is the exclusive proprietor of his or her own existence and all products thereof, holding no obligations except those created by consent;
SECOND, no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual;
THIRD, each individual has the inalienable right of self-defense against the initiation of force;
FOURTH, explicit voluntary association is the only means by which binding obligations may be created, and claims based on association or relationships to which any party did not consent are empty and invalid;
FIFTH, rights are neither collective nor additive in character and no group can possess rights in excess of those belonging to its individual members;
[/quote]
In short, we want the maximum amount of Liberty for ourselves, which requires granting the same to everyone else.
Other "Intros to Libertarian thought" can be found everywhere. The basis of all of it, though, is expressed in those 5 statements. (especially the first 3, since some people quibble over the last two)
I understand the belief that every person should have the right to his or her own 'lief' as it were, but I'm not sure how effective that logic is when placed in a community setting.
I think part of being in a community requires cooperation. Unfortunately, that means some sacrifices may need to be made, but in the long run I think there are many benefits.
That's not to say that I don't support anyone's right to protest something when they believe there is a flaw in the system, I just think it has to be done in a manner which is both effective and respectful/mindful of the system which is already in place.
I have no problem with cooperation. In fact, Cooperation is inherently necessary for the continuation of life as we know it (Do you know the right time to plant a soybean? I don't. Thank all the gods the farmers do, though.)
What I, and pretty much everyone else here, has a problem with, is Coercion. Coercion is the antithesis of cooperation. It is rape, it is theft, it is assault. That it is called "Prima Nocta", "Tax", and "Pain Compliance" Doesn't change the core of what it is.
No "sacrifices" need be made for society to run properly, save that I must "sacrifice" my desire for your stuff, unless I can afford what you're asking for it. (or bargain you down 
)
I take it you're here because of tonight's Drinking game? (See, guys, it does work) Not having been there myself, I can only speak for what I saw in the video of the last drinking game. There was no disrespect made to anyone, and I think someone sitting peacefully rinking from a brown bottle is pretty respectful, all told. Certainly I saw no ruckus on the video until the grand poo-ba saw a brown bottle and stopped proceedings. If anything, I would ask that the city council respect our right to witness the meeting, and not call it off because someone's drinking from a bottle. Not very green to say you can't re-use old beer bottles.
For that matter, it's people's actions which matter, and since I saw only one person disrupt the meeting, Perhaps he should be excluded from future proceedings?
Welcome.
Respect is earned. The people calling themselves "government" are aggressing against peaceful people and aggressors don't deserve respect.
I recommend you visit http://book.freekeene.com and read Healing Our World.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42459#msg42459 date=1282278098]
Hi guys!
I'm from around the area and am just trying to get to know a little bit more of what you're all about
[/quote]
Welcome! I applaud you for coming on here.
I'm from Keene myself. I don't agree with every kind of activism that's gone on in Keene, but I do believe we're loosing liberties fast in this country, and would like to see more freedom restored.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42466#msg42466 date=1282279228]
I understand the belief that every person should have the right to his or her own 'lief' as it were, but I'm not sure how effective that logic is when placed in a community setting.
I think part of being in a community requires cooperation. Unfortunately, that means some sacrifices may need to be made, but in the long run I think there are many benefits.
That's not to say that I don't support anyone's right to protest something when they believe there is a flaw in the system, I just think it has to be done in a manner which is both effective and respectful/mindful of the system which is already in place.
[/quote]
I certainly agree with cooperation – I just don't agree with aggression. That is, I think if we're going to have a healthy society, we do need to choose to work with each other, and help out those in need. I believe, though, that I should use my own resources to fund causes I believe in, rather than forcing my neighbor to fund them.
Really, I pretty much agree with the basic morality that just about all of us use in our daily lives. I just wish we'd apply those standards to our "political" interactions as well. I don't think behaviors we would find immoral as individuals, become moral when implemented through government. (If that makes sense)
It's just that, from what I've seen in Keene at least, aggression is hardly ever used. In instances where the Free Keene movement has been involved, the only aggression from 'government' I have seen is when people were provoking 'the system' as it were.
It's a difficult situation because I know one has to push the boundaries in order to instigate change, I just don't know how fair it is to say that one is fighting against aggression when there isn't really that much of it in the first place.
That being said, I don't claim to know about every instance of police violence or anything of the sort that goes on in Keene, so I would definitely be interested to hear some examples if anyone has some.
The reason I think most laws are effective and necessary is not because most people are irresponsible or dangerous and we need to oppress them or anything of that sort. Let's take the open container law for example since that has been an issue you guys seem to be trying to deal with recently. Sure, it's an inconvenience and a total bummer that you can't go hang out with some friends in central square and drink a few beers. It would be great to be able to bar hop around main street without having to finish your drink before leaving each bar. I agree that for majority of people in this town are perfectly capable of conducting themselves in fashions which would not cause problems were they allowed to hold open alcohol containers in public spaces. However, there are people who would eventually cause problems. If you are truly against aggression, then you should also be against causing situations in which aggression would be necessary. I can only imagine how much public drunkenness or disorderly conduct would rise if some people who simply can't hold their liquor as it were, were allowed to walk down the street with a beer in hand. This would also most likely lead to more violent arrests, more people in jails, and more taxes.
So when I said it was part of living in a community, that's what I meant. If you believe you are mature enough to handle certain situations without causing problems, you probably are. But you should also be able to realize that there are some people who can't, and that is why the laws are there…not to keep you personally from your freedoms, but to protect the community as a whole.
If you really wanted to see open container laws repealed effectively, maybe it would be more prudent to start addressing the reasons why they are there in the first place. Like maybe give speeches on alcoholism awareness, or unhealthy drinking habits.
The fact of the matter is, laws like that weren't put there because some law maker decided people weren't being oppressed enough. They were put there because, without them, there was obviously some sort of issue in the community which needed to be resolved.
That being said, I still don't believe you shouldn't have the right to protest in any way you see fit, I'm just trying to squeeze my two cents in about the matter haha.
Also…I know I basically just wrote a novel and still didn't address everything that was said to me, but I'm just trying to make my general beliefs known I guess…sorry for all the reading! 
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42530#msg42530 date=1282321776]
It's just that, from what I've seen in Keene at least, aggression is hardly ever used.[/quote]
Consider this: There are games of chess played where the winner of the game never moved his most powerful piece: the Queen. Some may argue that in a game such as that, the player never needed his Queen at all in order to win the game. That point, however, would be false. Just because the Queen didn't move, doesn't mean that the threat of the Queen moving goes away. The player's opponent very likely did not make certain moves he otherwise would have made had the Queen simply been missing, because the threat of it attacking remains.
The same holds true with the State. You don't see the aggresssion often, because people "obey" before it gets to that point, because the threat of aggression is always there.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42530#msg42530 date=1282321776]
It's just that, from what I've seen in Keene at least, aggression is hardly ever used. In instances where the Free Keene movement has been involved, the only aggression from 'government' I have seen is when people were provoking 'the system' as it were.
It's a difficult situation because I know one has to push the boundaries in order to instigate change, I just don't know how fair it is to say that one is fighting against aggression when there isn't really that much of it in the first place.
[/quote]
To me, some of the biggest issues of aggression include:
1. The various forms of taxation – which is exacerbated by the use these taxes are put to, including aggressive war (which is really a category in itself), bailouts for well connected corporate and governmental cronies, money for foreign dictators, etc. Many of the projects they fund with the fruit of my labor, I consider immoral in themselves. To force me, by threatening me with jail or the loss of my home, to fund things that I consider at best wasteful, and at worst highly damaging or even evil, is aggressive and immoral behavior.
2. Various regulations/licensure, etc. If I were to build an addition to my house, trade any number of goods and services with my neighbors, etc, without getting a license first, and paying a fee to the city or state, I would be fined or arrested. For example, one elderly couple was recently subjected to a SWAT raid and thrown in jail for importing orchids without the proper permission. This is agressive, and immoral.
3. Victimless crimes – similar to 2. The biggest of these is probably the war on drugs. We've got more people in jail in this country, per capita, than anywhere else on the planet. That's not freedom – and to throw someone in jail for possessing a plant, or consuming it, is absolutely aggressive and immoral. Many lives and families have been destroyed this way – and prohibition directly finances just about every gang in the country, and many foreign cartels, which in turn leads to more violence. I've never used an illegal drug in my life, by the way.
I could list more, but these are really the main categories, for me.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42530#msg42530 date=1282321776]
That being said, I don't claim to know about every instance of police violence or anything of the sort that goes on in Keene, so I would definitely be interested to hear some examples if anyone has some.
[/quote]
KPD is far, far better than most police departments in the country, or even in NH, when it comes to abuse/brutality, I agree with you there.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42530#msg42530 date=1282321776]
The reason I think most laws are effective and necessary is not because most people are irresponsible or dangerous and we need to oppress them or anything of that sort. Let's take the open container law for example since that has been an issue you guys seem to be trying to deal with recently. Sure, it's an inconvenience and a total bummer that you can't go hang out with some friends in central square and drink a few beers. It would be great to be able to bar hop around main street without having to finish your drink before leaving each bar. I agree that for majority of people in this town are perfectly capable of conducting themselves in fashions which would not cause problems were they allowed to hold open alcohol containers in public spaces. However, there are people who would eventually cause problems. If you are truly against aggression, then you should also be against causing situations in which aggression would be necessary. I can only imagine how much public drunkenness or disorderly conduct would rise if some people who simply can't hold their liquor as it were, were allowed to walk down the street with a beer in hand. This would also most likely lead to more violent arrests, more people in jails, and more taxes.[/quote]
I think it'd be better to enforce laws against drunken or disorderly behavior. The vast majority of the people who can exercise their freedom responsibly should be allowed to do so. In general, I don't like the idea of creating prohibitions just because a few individuals may abuse their freedoms – and I do disagree that it would lead to more arrests.
That said, open carry laws are nowhere near the top of my list of issues to address. I think it's a bit unfortunate that it's taken center stage, but what can you do.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42530#msg42530 date=1282321776]
So when I said it was part of living in a community, that's what I meant. If you believe you are mature enough to handle certain situations without causing problems, you probably are. But you should also be able to realize that there are some people who can't, and that is why the laws are there…not to keep you personally from your freedoms, but to protect the community as a whole.[/quote]
I have no problem with laws against actually harming persons or property – but if I arrest a person who is behaving in a responsible manner, and harming nobody, then I have become the aggressor. Does that make sense?
Again, I really wish, when considering laws, people would stop and think, "Would I treat my neighbor this way, as an individual?" I think people's moral sense as individuals is far superior, and that these standards should be applied more broadly. If you believe it would be wrong for you as an individual to threaten your neighbor for a certain behavior (say, consuming something you consider unhealthy), it doesn't magically become right when you hire a politician to do it for you.
Likewise, none of us would begin a community project by going around extorting money from our neighbors by threatening to harm them. Why do we imagine that this behavior becomes appropriate if we use "political" mechanisms?
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42530#msg42530 date=1282321776]
If you really wanted to see open container laws repealed effectively, maybe it would be more prudent to start addressing the reasons why they are there in the first place. Like maybe give speeches on alcoholism awareness, or unhealthy drinking habits.
The fact of the matter is, laws like that weren't put there because some law maker decided people weren't being oppressed enough. They were put there because, without them, there was obviously some sort of issue in the community which needed to be resolved.
[/quote]
I agree that that would be a good approach. Frankly, I think a lot of people are upset by the abuse and excess of government, especially at the federal level – but standing up to Goldman Sachs, or the Fed reserve, or the military industrial complex, or giant federal bureaucracies is just about impossible – unless you're going to refuse to pay federal taxes, which can land you in jail for a long time.
So people rebel where they can, to show they're sick and tired and fed up with the whole b.s. system. Unfortunately, while cathartic, I don't think this motivation always leads to the most effective methods of activism.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42530#msg42530 date=1282321776]
That being said, I still don't believe you shouldn't have the right to protest in any way you see fit, I'm just trying to squeeze my two cents in about the matter haha.
[/quote]
And I'm very glad you are :). I really hope for more dialog with reasonable folks like yourself – I think better communication would benefit everyone involved.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42530#msg42530 date=1282321776]
Also…I know I basically just wrote a novel and still didn't address everything that was said to me, but I'm just trying to make my general beliefs known I guess…sorry for all the reading!
[/quote]
Not at all, I think your thoughts were excellent.
That's a very good analogy, Coconut, I like it.
However, I'm not sure I exactly see eye to eye with your point. I don't see why it's a bad thing to know that there are systems in place designed to fight violence with violence. I understand the fact that there are aggressive tactics employed unnecessarily sometimes, but I don't see why it's a bad thing that people would avoid, say, robbing a bank because they don't want to be pursued aggressively by the authorities.
Also, I have heard numerous people who seem to be associated with the Free Keene movement advocate strongly for gun rights. If one of the core arguments of this group is that aggression is out of control, why would you want to promote a surplus of guns? I understand that it is something you believe you have a right to, but as I was saying in my last post, you have to consider how other people would take advantage of laws like that being repealed. Just because you (not necessarily you, Coconut, but others) are capable of living your life owning a gun, taking it wherever you want whenever you want, without ever unnecessarily harming someone doesn't mean others will make the same, responsible choices which you do.
If you say you need guns to protect yourself and your loved ones from robbers, rapists, what have you, but you also believe that aggression is bad, then shouldn't you be fighting to get more programs in place that prevent and educate people on crimes like that, rather than dealing with the problem when it comes to its breaking point and aggression is necessary?
I just think that a lot of the issues the Free Keene movement chooses to protest are ones which have deeper root causes that need to be addressed on a social level, before they can be addressed on a personal level in order for them to actually become effective.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42540#msg42540 date=1282326538]
but I don't see why it's a bad thing that people would avoid, say, robbing a bank because they don't want to be pursued aggressively by the authorities.
[/quote]
Don't you think the bank would want it's money back? The thief owes them that money, it's rightfully theirs. They'd be justified in kicking down his door to get it. Not that I think that's the best answer, but the option is there, should he not agree to Arbitration (That's a key element to a successful Stateless society, Arbitration - Voluntary, market based dispute resolution.)
[quote]
Also, I have heard numerous people who seem to be associated with the Free Keene movement advocate strongly for gun rights. If one of the core arguments of this group is that aggression is out of control, why would you want to promote a surplus of guns? I understand that it is something you believe you have a right to, but as I was saying in my last post, you have to consider how other people would take advantage of laws like that being repealed. Just because you (not necessarily you, Coconut, but others) are capable of living your life owning a gun, taking it wherever you want whenever you want, without ever unnecessarily harming someone doesn't mean others will make the same, responsible choices which you do.
If you say you need guns to protect yourself and your loved ones from robbers, rapists, what have you, but you also believe that aggression is bad, then shouldn't you be fighting to get more programs in place that prevent and educate people on crimes like that, rather than dealing with the problem when it comes to its breaking point and aggression is necessary?
[/quote]
Education and prevention is all well and good, but nothing prevents crime like the sight of a gun on the potential victim's belt. Just ask any criminal. They don't want to mess with an armed person.
The "omg everybody would have a gun" fear, is largely baseless. Guns are pretty hard to get now… for the law abiding citizen. A criminal doesn't have to wait 7 days, or pass a background check, or pee in a cup, or whatever insane checks the .gov wants to put in place, only the good guys do. A criminal just needs to know a guy who knows a guy. Criminals already have guns. lots of them.
The other place it fails is that "good guys", the ones you don't have to worry about being armed, outnumber, vastly, the ones you do have to worry about. If you gave a gun and training on how to use it to every man and woman in America, Crime would drop nearly to zero, as would gun violence (after the small spike which represents the stupid criminals getting themselves killed off by picking on armed "victims" - the smart ones would go "straight" real fast.).
[quote]
I just think that a lot of the issues the Free Keene movement chooses to protest are ones which have deeper root causes that need to be addressed on a social level, before they can be addressed on a personal level in order for them to actually become effective.
[/quote]
The root cause of all the issues we protest is the State itself. I'm ALL for getting rid of that blight on our society.
Tremendoustie…I don't know how to quote certain parts of the post like you did, so I'll just repost the parts I am replying to haha:
"To me, some of the biggest issues of aggression include:…"
Ok, I guess I was thinking mostly of physical aggression but I'll take your examples as other forms of aggression as well.
However, I think a clarification needs to be made between 'aggressive behavior' and 'vindictive behavior.'
To me, it sounds like you (and many other people involved with Free Keene) feel like the law and those who enforce it have some sort of personal vendetta against you. I think you will find in most, if not all cases, this is not true.
Sure, there may be laws which you feel are oppressive, but I think there are much more effective ways of changing those laws or customs than making huge public showings that really don't change anything. For example, I heard that a few Free Keene people (I believe it was Free Keene, may have been Free State…?) paid their property taxes in $1 bills. I understand the sentiment behind that, but you have to consider who you are actually effecting when you do something like that. At the end of the day, you are still paying your taxes, so the government doesn't really care. However, think about the person whose job it is to count through all those dollar bills, or the mail person who had to carry them (if they were mailed, I don't actually know).
Do you see how those types of actions not only are inconsiderate towards people who are simply trying to do their job, but also will probably make other people view you as stubborn, lazy people who simply don't want to pay taxes? I think, in the end, demonstrations like that end up hurting your cause. Even if they spike public interest on the topic, the public is much more likely to not sympathize with you if they view your actions as childish and inconsiderate.
Do you get what I'm trying to say? haha
"KPD is far, far better than most police departments in the country, or even in NH, when it comes to abuse/brutality, I agree with you there."
So then why do you think it is fair to criticize and belittle them in a manner which suggests they are just as bad as everywhere else?
Don't you think people would be much more interested in hearing what you had to say if, say, one day instead of getting into an altercation with the police (regardless of who starts it) you had some sort of sincere police appreciation day? Where you thanked the law enforcers here for not only being much kinder than the national standard, but for also allowing you to so freely and often voice your opinions?
I know that you, as a movement, don't really feel the need for any sort of police/civilian interaction (or at least that's how it seems) but I think it is prudent to realize you have to take baby steps. Showing that you are willing to cooperate with, and even appreciate what the police do and allow you to do in this town would show people that you not only are committed to your cause, but are willing to act rationally to see that your ideals can be made reality.
Just a thought.
"I think it'd be better to enforce laws against drunken or disorderly behavior. The vast majority of the people who can exercise their freedom responsibly should be allowed to do so. In general, I don't like the idea of creating prohibitions just because a few individuals may abuse their freedoms – and I do disagree that it would lead to more arrests.
That said, open carry laws are nowhere near the top of my list of issues to address. I think it's a bit unfortunate that it's taken center stage, but what can you do."
But see, if you don't want to see a rise in aggression, then you have to take preventative steps, not just deal with the situation when it arises. If you want laws to be enforced against drunken behavior, then you are basically saying that you are ok with police being aggressive towards people if they can't handle their alcohol…because let's face it, how many times do you see a drunk person being perfectly cooperative with the police?
If you say that you think open container laws should be repealed, and drunken behavior laws should be enforced, then you are basically saying 'I'm ok with aggressive action being taken as long as it's not against me' no?
"I have no problem with laws against actually harming persons or property – but if I arrest a person who is behaving in a responsible manner, and harming nobody, then I have become the aggressor. Does that make sense?"
Yes, it makes perfect sense. The problem is, 'behaving in a responsible manner and harming no one' is a pretty subjective statement. You may be behaving in a way which you believe is responsible and harmless, but another person may take offense to it, or feel threatened etc. That's where the cooperation kicks in. If you don't want to be subjected to aggression, then you have to be willing to understand that not everyone has the same standards as you do when it comes to what is appropriate, responsible, or harmful. Does that make sense?
"Again, I really wish, when considering laws, people would stop and think, "Would I treat my neighbor this way, as an individual?" I think people's moral sense as individuals is far superior, and that these standards should be applied more broadly. If you believe it would be wrong for you as an individual to threaten your neighbor for a certain behavior (say, consuming something you consider unhealthy), it doesn't magically become right when you hire a politician to do it for you. "
But that's the thing…you can't just look at the people who are simply doing something you don't agree with, you have to look at the people who would take advantage of the lack of laws if they were repealed. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult and frankly unrealistic to think that laws can be made that would deal with the bad situations, without somehow impeding on the situations which would be perfectly fine.
Gun laws, for example. Sure, it's fine for a responsible person to walk down the street with a gun in his hand, and I don't necessarily think aggressive actions should be taken against him…but what happens when that person walks into a school? If there are no laws against situations like that, law enforcers have no way of preventing a potentially harmful and dangerous situation (a school shooting) because they can't do anything about the fact that he has a gun.
Do you see what I mean when I say laws are put in place as precautionary measures, not merely to oppress people who are capable of acting responsibly?
"Likewise, none of us would begin a community project by going around extorting money from our neighbors by threatening to harm them. Why do we imagine that this behavior becomes appropriate if we use "political" mechanisms?"
I'm not sure what you mean by this one exactly. I know I have never been physically threatened for money by any politician.
That being said, I understand that there are enormous amounts of corruption in the political system. However, that doesn't mean the system needs to be abandoned altogether, it just means people need to be more involved, and conscious of where their money is going.
"So people rebel where they can, to show they're sick and tired and fed up with the whole b.s. system. Unfortunately, while cathartic, I don't think this motivation always leads to the most effective methods of activism."
Exactly. And as I have said before, I don't think people should ever feel like they can't protest in the way they believe is best. However, what I think is happening now, is that people are getting fed up with the ways in which the Free Keene Movement chooses to rebel, so they are beginning to want to rebel against them which is obviously not effective if the Free Keene Movement wants to actually enact any sort of change.
"And I'm very glad you are . I really hope for more dialog with reasonable folks like yourself – I think better communication would benefit everyone involved."
I totally agree. As with any hot-button argument, people tend to polarize, and not realize that there is a much bigger common ground than they originally thought.
"Not at all, I think your thoughts were excellent."
Thank you, and same to you
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42540#msg42540 date=1282326538]
That's a very good analogy, Coconut, I like it.
However, I'm not sure I exactly see eye to eye with your point. I don't see why it's a bad thing to know that there are systems in place designed to fight violence with violence. I understand the fact that there are aggressive tactics employed unnecessarily sometimes, but I don't see why it's a bad thing that people would avoid, say, robbing a bank because they don't want to be pursued aggressively by the authorities.[/quote]
Absolutely I don't think that's a bad thing either. But, when that threat is used against people who are minding their own business – say, a person who opens a lemonade stand on their front lawn, that's where the problem comes in.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42540#msg42540 date=1282326538]
Also, I have heard numerous people who seem to be associated with the Free Keene movement advocate strongly for gun rights. If one of the core arguments of this group is that aggression is out of control, why would you want to promote a surplus of guns? I understand that it is something you believe you have a right to, but as I was saying in my last post, you have to consider how other people would take advantage of laws like that being repealed. Just because you (not necessarily you, Coconut, but others) are capable of living your life owning a gun, taking it wherever you want whenever you want, without ever unnecessarily harming someone doesn't mean others will make the same, responsible choices which you do.
[/quote]
Those people will get guns anyway. I know this argument is overused, but it's absolutely true. It's similar to drug prohibition – prohibiting drugs doesn't mean that magically no drugs will exist – it just means that criminals and gangs will produce and supply them. Likewise, prohibiting guns doesn't mean they won't exist – it just means the gangs and the criminals will be the only ones who have them.
Many mass shootings, that could have otherwise been far worse, were stopped by an armed citizen, or citizens.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42540#msg42540 date=1282326538]
If you say you need guns to protect yourself and your loved ones from robbers, rapists, what have you, but you also believe that aggression is bad, then shouldn't you be fighting to get more programs in place that prevent and educate people on crimes like that, rather than dealing with the problem when it comes to its breaking point and aggression is necessary?
[/quote]
I'd agree with such preventative efforts – but I do hope these programs would be implemented by friends and neighbors in the community, voluntarily, rather than by forcing others to fund them. This also keeps the organization accountable, because in order to continue to receive funding and support, they will need to show results, and it gives them the flexibility to try different approaches without lawsuits and red tape.
I'd be curious to hear what specific suggestions you have, though. What kind of education regarding these crimes do you think would help reduce them?
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42540#msg42540 date=1282326538]
I just think that a lot of the issues the Free Keene movement chooses to protest are ones which have deeper root causes that need to be addressed on a social level, before they can be addressed on a personal level in order for them to actually become effective.
[/quote]
How do you mean exactly? Take the issue of the war on drugs, as an example (if it doesn't fit, you can pick another issue).
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
Tremendoustie…I don't know how to quote certain parts of the post like you did, so I'll just repost the parts I am replying to haha:
[/quote]
There's a "quote" button near the top right of each post. You can then copy and paste the tags to divide the quote into subsections – or just type [ quote ] to start a quote, and [/ quote ] to end one (remove the spaces). There's also a quote button just above the smileys, and to the right, when you're writing a reply. Whew that was wordy
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
"To me, some of the biggest issues of aggression include:…"
Ok, I guess I was thinking mostly of physical aggression but I'll take your examples as other forms of aggression as well.
[/quote]
These are examples of physical aggression though – people just get scared into complying before it gets to that point. For example, suppose I send a letter to my neighbor saying, "If you don't put $1000 in my mailbox tonight, I will come over there tomorrow morning and blow your kneecap off". Even if he decides to pay me the money, that's still absolutely aggressive behavior – a physical threat.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
However, I think a clarification needs to be made between 'aggressive behavior' and 'vindictive behavior.'
To me, it sounds like you (and many other people involved with Free Keene) feel like the law and those who enforce it have some sort of personal vendetta against you. I think you will find in most, if not all cases, this is not true.
[/quote]
I agree, I don't think anyone has a personal vendetta against me.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
Sure, there may be laws which you feel are oppressive, but I think there are much more effective ways of changing those laws or customs than making huge public showings that really don't change anything. For example, I heard that a few Free Keene people (I believe it was Free Keene, may have been Free State…?) paid their property taxes in $1 bills.
[/quote]
Definitely Free Keene. To clarify, "Free Stater" is just a description of folks who move to NH to try to work for more liberty. The vast majority of these folks don't do any sort of civil disobedience. They get involved in the political process, community work, educating people, etc.
Free Keene (this site) is about Keene activism specifically, which is more focused on disobedience, for better or for worse.
I know lots of great free state folks who don't agree with the methods used in Keene, so I think it's important to make this distinction. Of course, there are lots of NH natives involved with both efforts, too (I'm one).
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
I understand the sentiment behind that, but you have to consider who you are actually effecting when you do something like that. At the end of the day, you are still paying your taxes, so the government doesn't really care. However, think about the person whose job it is to count through all those dollar bills, or the mail person who had to carry them (if they were mailed, I don't actually know).
[/quote]
I have mixed feelings about this. When a person is having money extorted from them, it's hard to object to them making the process as difficult as possible.
Then again, perhaps this is not the best way to make that point.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
Do you see how those types of actions not only are inconsiderate towards people who are simply trying to do their job,
[/quote]
I hear this, "just doing my job" phrase a lot – but I don't think it works. Do immoral actions become moral, or is a person no longer responsible for their own actions, because they get a paycheck in exchange?
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
but also will probably make other people view you as stubborn, lazy people who simply don't want to pay taxes?
[/quote]
I'm proud to say I don't want to pay taxes, especially federal taxes. I think they do far more harm than good, and I could use that money to help my neighbors far more effectively, if it were not funneled through giant corrupt bureaucracies.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
I think, in the end, demonstrations like that end up hurting your cause. Even if they spike public interest on the topic, the public is much more likely to not sympathize with you if they view your actions as childish and inconsiderate.
Do you get what I'm trying to say? haha[/quote]
Yeah, I agree with you – civil disobedience should be chosen to demonstrate to the public the absurdity/immorality of a bad law, in a way they can understand. If you're driving people away, it defeats the purpose.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
So then why do you think it is fair to criticize and belittle them in a manner which suggests they are just as bad as everywhere else? [/quote]
I think they should be applauded for avoiding the abuse that occurs in, say, the NYPD or LAPD. I do think that KPD often enforces bad laws, and should be criticized when they do so. For example, shutting down a kid's lemonade stand, which is getting in nobody's way, is not appropriate.
But, I also certainly don't approve of the behavior of some people, who yell or scream at cops. I think those folks should study the methods of Gandhi, MLK, etc, a little closer.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
Don't you think people would be much more interested in hearing what you had to say if, say, one day instead of getting into an altercation with the police (regardless of who starts it) you had some sort of sincere police appreciation day? Where you thanked the law enforcers here for not only being much kinder than the national standard, but for also allowing you to so freely and often voice your opinions?[/quote]
I'm happy to applaud a particular action of the police, or a particular officer, when they show restraint, and choose not to enforce a bad law, or when they do a good job stopping a real criminal. I'm reluctant to show "appreciation" for the whole department, because I think their means of funding, and so many of their behaviors, are immoral.
I feel that the people who most deserve applause are average folks who work hard every day producing goods and services that other people need, interacting with their neighbors peaceably, and funding their endeavors with their own money, or willing supporters. Frankly, I think "average folks" are just about the most heroic in the country.
Actually, I hope you'll forgive me for going afield of your original suggestion, but an "average people" appreciation event sounds like an excellent idea.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
I know that you, as a movement, don't really feel the need for any sort of police/civilian interaction (or at least that's how it seems) but I think it is prudent to realize you have to take baby steps. Showing that you are willing to cooperate with, and even appreciate what the police do and allow you to do in this town would show people that you not only are committed to your cause, but are willing to act rationally to see that your ideals can be made reality.
Just a thought.[/quote]
I don't know about police appreciation day – but I absolutely believe police should get more positive feedback when they do the right thing. Brad Jardis, here, has taken the time to right positive letters to the departments of officers who handle particular situations well, and I think that's an excellent idea.
Always being negative is not helpful – good actions should be encouraged.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
But see, if you don't want to see a rise in aggression, then you have to take preventative steps, not just deal with the situation when it arises. If you want laws to be enforced against drunken behavior, then you are basically saying that you are ok with police being aggressive towards people if they can't handle their alcohol…because let's face it, how many times do you see a drunk person being perfectly cooperative with the police?[/quote]
I think we should use individual standards of decency, which as I say, I think are excellent.
Question: Suppose you saw a person sitting quietly on the grass having a picnic, with a sandwich and a beer, in an orderly, peaceful manner. Would you personally walk over (with a gun), slap handcuffs on that person, and lock them up? Would you walk over and demand they give you money? I would say no.
Now suppose a person is wandering around the park wildly gesticulating, obviously drunk. Would you stop them? I would say maybe, depending if I thought they would wander into traffic, or harm others. I might take them to my car, and give them a place to sleep it off.
Now suppose that same drunk person is harassing passerby, and impeding traffic. Would you stop them, if you had the means to do so? For my part, I would say absolutely yes.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
If you say that you think open container laws should be repealed, and drunken behavior laws should be enforced, then you are basically saying 'I'm ok with aggressive action being taken as long as it's not against me' no?
[/quote]
I think a person behaving in an out of control manner could be considered an imminent threat to others.
Ideally, the property owner decides what's allowed. But, we don't have that option on public property.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
"I have no problem with laws against actually harming persons or property – but if I arrest a person who is behaving in a responsible manner, and harming nobody, then I have become the aggressor. Does that make sense?"
Yes, it makes perfect sense. The problem is, 'behaving in a responsible manner and harming no one' is a pretty subjective statement. You may be behaving in a way which you believe is responsible and harmless, but another person may take offense to it, or feel threatened etc. That's where the cooperation kicks in. If you don't want to be subjected to aggression, then you have to be willing to understand that not everyone has the same standards as you do when it comes to what is appropriate, responsible, or harmful. Does that make sense?[/quote]
Yes, that's true – naturally, people are going to disagree to an extent about what constitutes harm, or an imminent threat. But, I think we can recognize that the use of certain violence is far from defensive. If I don't send money to the federal government, they will come and assault me. That is certainly aggressive. Or, if I open a business without permission the state/city, I will be threatened. That's also clearly aggressive. If I were to have a pot plant in my house, I would be thrown in jail. That's also aggressive.
Again, I think the vast majority of people have pretty good standards for their personal, private behavior. I'd like to adopt those, consistently.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
"Again, I really wish, when considering laws, people would stop and think, "Would I treat my neighbor this way, as an individual?" I think people's moral sense as individuals is far superior, and that these standards should be applied more broadly. If you believe it would be wrong for you as an individual to threaten your neighbor for a certain behavior (say, consuming something you consider unhealthy), it doesn't magically become right when you hire a politician to do it for you. "
But that's the thing…you can't just look at the people who are simply doing something you don't agree with, you have to look at the people who would take advantage of the lack of laws if they were repealed. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult and frankly unrealistic to think that laws can be made that would deal with the bad situations, without somehow impeding on the situations which would be perfectly fine.
[/quote]
I don't think that's unrealistic at all. We have laws against rape, not lust, murder, not anger, and theft, not envy.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
Gun laws, for example. Sure, it's fine for a responsible person to walk down the street with a gun in his hand, and I don't necessarily think aggressive actions should be taken against him…but what happens when that person walks into a school? If there are no laws against situations like that, law enforcers have no way of preventing a potentially harmful and dangerous situation (a school shooting) because they can't do anything about the fact that he has a gun.
Do you see what I mean when I say laws are put in place as precautionary measures, not merely to oppress people who are capable of acting responsibly?
[/quote]
Ideally, I'd say the person who owns the school should prohibit guns, except for teachers, administrators, and parents.
The deeper problem, which we probably won't solve completely anytime soon, is that when you fund property by force, the person you've taken the money from has a right to use that property. Really, all of the problems like this, that you describe, would be non-issues if the property actually had an owner – they could set the rules.
In the current situation, I do think it'd be a good idea for teachers to be armed, so that some random crazy person off the street can't wander in and kill a bunch of people.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
"Likewise, none of us would begin a community project by going around extorting money from our neighbors by threatening to harm them. Why do we imagine that this behavior becomes appropriate if we use "political" mechanisms?"
I'm not sure what you mean by this one exactly. I know I have never been physically threatened for money by any politician.
[/quote]
Of course you have. What do you think happens if you don't pay property tax, for example? They will show up with guns, and physically remove you from your own home. If you don't pay income tax, they will lock you in jail. It's all ultimately based on threats of violence.
Do you think people would keep sending money to congress if they weren't fearful of what the government would do to them, if they don't? I can think of about a million charities I'd rather have my money go to.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
That being said, I understand that there are enormous amounts of corruption in the political system. However, that doesn't mean the system needs to be abandoned altogether, it just means people need to be more involved, and conscious of where their money is going.[/quote]
Money and power has never been separated in history, and it never will be. You can't collect massive amounts of power in one central entity, and then expect that average joe is going to run it. It's a pipe dream. Such concentrated power is like Christmas morning for every power hungry or corrupt individual, and every monied interest in the nation.
How many people do you think would have voluntarily contributed to "bailout" goldman sachs? How many do you think would have contributed to the invasion of Iraq, or to send some cash to overseas dictators? Forced monopolies are never accountable. Real accountability means I have a right to withdraw my support.
Suppose we were to eliminate every restaurant in Keene but one, and force everyone to buy dinner there once per week, whether they wanted to or not. Do you think quality would improve? How about prices? With no accountability, there's no motivation to provide a good service at a good price. That's how we get the government school system, which spends upwards of 15K per student per year, when a far better education could be had for far less. It's how we get the DMV, how we get Fannie and Freddie, how we get FEMA, NASA, a social security system that is a worse investment than a matress, etc.
How long do you think DMV customer service would last, if they had competitors? Do you think NASA would be able to waste as much money as they do, if academic, industrial, or individual investors could choose alternatives? Do you think public schools could compete, charging 15K or more per year?
The only reason massive, corrupt, wasteful federal bureaucracies survive, is because people have no choice. If they don't hand over their cash, to be eaten by this enormous machine, or spent on aggressive war, they'll get thrown on the street or in prison.
This is not the way to organize a humane society.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
"So people rebel where they can, to show they're sick and tired and fed up with the whole b.s. system. Unfortunately, while cathartic, I don't think this motivation always leads to the most effective methods of activism."
Exactly. And as I have said before, I don't think people should ever feel like they can't protest in the way they believe is best. However, what I think is happening now, is that people are getting fed up with the ways in which the Free Keene Movement chooses to rebel, so they are beginning to want to rebel against them which is obviously not effective if the Free Keene Movement wants to actually enact any sort of change.[/quote]
Yeah, I agree to an extent. I hope activists will chose future issues, and behaviors, with care.
Holding an unlicensed flea market/lemonade stand, to draw attention to oppressive licensing laws? Good (imo). Smoking pot in the middle of pumpkin fest? Not so good.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42551#msg42551 date=1282328845]
"And I'm very glad you are . I really hope for more dialog with reasonable folks like yourself – I think better communication would benefit everyone involved."
I totally agree. As with any hot-button argument, people tend to polarize, and not realize that there is a much bigger common ground than they originally thought.
"Not at all, I think your thoughts were excellent."
Thank you, and same to you
[/quote]
By the way, I hope my somewhat strong rhetoric on some of these issues doesn't bother you. I'm speaking honestly about how I see things. Lots of great friends of mine don't agree with me on everything (or even most things), so don't take any of this personally. And, sorry about my longwindedness.
Also, I want to add that I think local government is far more responsive, and accountable than national government, and they actually provide real services – fire, police, roads, parks, etc. I think if we could keep local government, but do away with national government, I'd be quite happy.
I think it's when you conglomerate huge amounts of power in remote governments that you get the really serious abuse.
[quote]Also, I want to add that I think local government is far more responsive, and accountable than national government, and they actually provide real services – fire, police, roads, parks, etc. I think if we could keep local government, but do away with national government, I'd be quite happy.[/quote]
Yeah, because a military and international trade are bad things.
[quote author=PyotrByali link=topic=3828.msg42578#msg42578 date=1282337314]
[quote]Also, I want to add that I think local government is far more responsive, and accountable than national government, and they actually provide real services – fire, police, roads, parks, etc. I think if we could keep local government, but do away with national government, I'd be quite happy.[/quote]
Yeah, because a military and international trade are bad things.
[/quote]
The founding fathers spoke vehemently against a standing army (well, a good chunk of 'em, anyway), and the federal government has more to do with restricting international trade, than fostering it.
[quote] There's a "quote" button near the top right of each post. You can then copy and paste the tags to divide the quote into subsections – or just type [ quote ] to start a quote, and [/ quote ] to end one (remove the spaces). There's also a quote button just above the smileys, and to the right, when you're writing a reply. Whew that was wordy [/quote]
Hopefully this works! haha
[quote] Okay but there are still many levels that must be breached before physical aggression is necessary. Again, it comes back to agreeing to be part of a community. You said earlier that it is immoral to throw someone in jail just for having a 'plant' (drugs) in their house. Really, it is not, as long as the laws of that city/town/country were readily available to the person who had the plant. If you do something which you know is illegal, or has a high likelihood of being illegal, you can't claim it is immoral that you get arrested. [/quote]
[quote] I agree, I don't think anyone has a personal vendetta against me. [/quote]
Sorry, I shouldn't really have said 'you', because I obviously can't claim to know all of your personal beliefs after only responding to a few of your remarks. However, the feeling I get from the Free Keene Movement in general is that they believe the government shouldn't have control over most/any aspects of their lives, and they therefore choose to protest things which they feel are controlling or unnecessary.
What the Movement doesn't seem to recognize, however, is why those laws truly are there. They aren't there to oppress people, they are there to protect them. I agree that there are laws which could do with some tweaking, but I don't think it is rational or responsible for a community member to think merely about their own civil liberties, without considering what the effects would be if everyone were to be allowed free reign.
[quote] Definitely Free Keene. To clarify, "Free Stater" is just a description of folks who move to NH to try to work for more liberty. The vast majority of these folks don't do any sort of civil disobedience. They get involved in the political process, community work, educating people, etc.
Free Keene (this site) is about Keene activism specifically, which is more focused on disobedience, for better or for worse.
I know lots of great free state folks who don't agree with the methods used in Keene, so I think it's important to make this distinction. Of course, there are lots of NH natives involved with both efforts, too (I'm one). [/quote]
I'm aware that there is a difference, and I didn't mean to lump the two together, I just really wasn't sure which group it was who had taken this action against property taxes.
[quote] I have mixed feelings about this. When a person is having money extorted from them, it's hard to object to them making the process as difficult as possible.
Then again, perhaps this is not the best way to make that point. [/quote]
But don't you see how this didn't really make the process difficult for the people who get the money, but merely for the middle-men? In the end, the government still gets the money, but they are not the ones who have to deal with counting, sorting it etc.
[quote] I hear this, "just doing my job" phrase a lot – but I don't think it works. Do immoral actions become moral, or is a person no longer responsible for their own actions, because they get a paycheck in exchange? [/quote]
I know that phrase has a lot of negative connotations with it (Nazis etc) but in this case I believe it is a little different. The fact being, people who are counting property tax money are not necessarily doing something which they believe is immoral. It may be something that you or other people consider immoral, but that does not necessarily make it so. Paying property taxes in single dollar bills could quite possible ended up punishing people who believe that they are doing what is right, and doesn't the Free Keene Movement believe (for the most part) that people should have the right to do what they believe is right, even if other people consider it bad?
[quote] I'm proud to say I don't want to pay taxes, especially federal taxes. I think they do far more harm than good, and I could use that money to help my neighbors far more effectively, if it were not funneled through giant corrupt bureaucracies. [/quote]
That's great, and I don't think people would have nearly as much of a negative idea of what people associated with the Free Keene Movement stood for if they would simply articulate this fact. When they choose to resort to gimmicky protests such as paying in $1 bills, the true message behind the protest is lost. People won't want to listen to why you think taxes are wrong or unnecessary if they are blinded by images of you (collectively, not personally) being stubborn and making things as difficult as possible for everyone in the system.
[quote] Yeah, I agree with you – civil disobedience should be chosen to demonstrate to the public the absurdity/immorality of a bad law, in a way they can understand. If you're driving people away, it defeats the purpose. [/quote]
Definitely, and that's pretty much what I want to get across by joining this forum as someone who does not agree with most of the methods the Free Keeners choose to use in their protests. I'm hoping that the people in Keene who agree with me in this sense will be able to start having mature, rational conversations about what is working, and what is not.
[quote] I think they should be applauded for avoiding the abuse that occurs in, say, the NYPD or LAPD. I do think that KPD often enforces bad laws, and should be criticized when they do so. For example, shutting down a kid's lemonade stand, which is getting in nobody's way, is not appropriate.
But, I also certainly don't approve of the behavior of some people, who yell or scream at cops. I think those folks should study the methods of Gandhi, MLK, etc, a little closer. [/quote]
You have mentioned this lemonade stand instance multiple times. Is there an actual event you are referring to or is it just an example?
And if you think they should be applauded then applaud them! haha
And I agree, yelling is almost never an effective method of communication…unfortunately it seems to be one which the Free Keene Movement has adopted many times, which is another reason why many people in the community believe they are a negative influence.
[quote] I'm happy to applaud a particular action of the police, or a particular officer, when they show restraint, and choose not to enforce a bad law, or when they do a good job stopping a real criminal. I'm reluctant to show "appreciation" for the whole department, because I think their means of funding, and so many of their behaviors, are immoral.
I feel that the people who most deserve applause are average folks who work hard every day producing goods and services that other people need, interacting with their neighbors peaceably, and funding their endeavors with their own money, or willing supporters. Frankly, I think "average folks" are just about the most heroic in the country.
Actually, I hope you'll forgive me for going afield of your original suggestion, but an "average people" appreciation event sounds like an excellent idea. [/quote]
haha alright, but don't you think most of the law enforcers in Keene, at least, could be considered 'average people'? You have already said that they are much more tolerant and accepting than most others in this country, so shouldn't they appreciated for that as well?
Maybe we can organize some sort of Free Keene-and-Non Free Keene 'people appreciation day' downtown? I think it would be a great way to show that the Free Keeners are willing to listen to what the community has to say, and that the community is willing to 'bridge the gap' as it were and work with the free Keeners?
[quote] I don't know about police appreciation day – but I absolutely believe police should get more positive feedback when they do the right thing. Brad Jardis, here, has taken the time to right positive letters to the departments of officers who handle particular situations well, and I think that's an excellent idea.
Always being negative is not helpful – good actions should be encouraged. [/quote]
Definitely. And I think it's great that people associated with the group have taken time to let officers and such know that they appreciate them.
However, don't you agree that the amount of public 'humiliation' of law enforcers is MUCH greater than the amount of public appreciation that they get? Whether or not you think the system as a whole should be congratulated, you can't deny the fact that a lot of law enforcers have been publicly degraded, humiliated, taunted, undermined what have you and not nearly the same amount of appreciation has been publicly shown by the Free Keene movement. It definitely makes a difference both to them, and to the Free Keene cause how and where the appreciation is shown.
Do you get what I'm saying there? haha
[quote] I think we should use individual standards of decency, which as I say, I think are excellent.
Question: Suppose you saw a person sitting quietly on the grass having a picnic, with a sandwich and a beer, in an orderly, peaceful manner. Would you personally walk over (with a gun), slap handcuffs on that person, and lock them up? Would you walk over and demand they give you money? I would say no.
Now suppose a person is wandering around the park wildly gesticulating, obviously drunk. Would you stop them? I would say maybe, depending if I thought they would wander into traffic, or harm others. I might take them to my car, and give them a place to sleep it off.
Now suppose that same drunk person is harassing passerby, and impeding traffic. Would you stop them, if you had the means to do so? For my part, I would say absolutely yes. [/quote]
But see that is all completely subjective. Some people might have answered yes to your first scenario. For example, a mother who is walking through that park and doesn't want to expose her children to drinking culture.
Just because you personally wouldn't do something, doesn't mean someone else wouldn't. So do you see how it would be difficult to manage a community based on standards of decency? How would you be able to debate someone who arrested someone for drinking in a park, if they said they believed they were being disruptive or inappropriate? You can't debate a person's personal beliefs when the scenario at hand is completely subjective.
[quote]I think a person behaving in an out of control manner could be considered an imminent threat to others.
Ideally, the property owner decides what's allowed. But, we don't have that option on public property. [/quote]
So then you are saying that aggression is ok against people who aren't capable of composing themselves?
[quote] Yes, that's true – naturally, people are going to disagree to an extent about what constitutes harm, or an imminent threat. But, I think we can recognize that the use of certain violence is far from defensive. If I don't send money to the federal government, they will come and assault me. That is certainly aggressive. Or, if I open a business without permission the state/city, I will be threatened. That's also clearly aggressive. If I were to have a pot plant in my house, I would be thrown in jail. That's also aggressive.
Again, I think the vast majority of people have pretty good standards for their personal, private behavior. I'd like to adopt those, consistently. [/quote]
But if you are perfectly aware that your actions may potentially lead to aggression or assault, then you can't blame the system that is already in place. If the system is clearly laid out and stated, and available to you, whether you believe it is right or wrong becomes unimportant at the moment. I know that sounds horrible, but it's true. You can't fight a battle from the top down, you have to recognize that there are certain systems already in place, and if you don't agree with those systems you can't simply go against them and not expect negative outcomes. Instead, you have to articulate to people why you believe there is something wrong and why it should be changed.
[quote]I don't think that's unrealistic at all. We have laws against rape, not lust, murder, not anger, and theft, not envy. [/quote]
I'm not sure I get your point here. However, I can say this…lust, anger, and envy generally do not interfere with other people's lives to the extent that rape, murder and theft do. But yeah, can you just clarify what you meant by this? haha
[quote] Ideally, I'd say the person who owns the school should prohibit guns, except for teachers, administrators, and parents.
The deeper problem, which we probably won't solve completely anytime soon, is that when you fund property by force, the person you've taken the money from has a right to use that property. Really, all of the problems like this, that you describe, would be non-issues if the property actually had an owner – they could set the rules.
In the current situation, I do think it'd be a good idea for teachers to be armed, so that some random crazy person off the street can't wander in and kill a bunch of people. [/quote]
But this isn't addressing the issue I initially raised. I was making the point that if there were no restrictions on guns at a higher level, there would no way for law enforcers to intercept potentially dangerous situations when the only thing the potential offender is guilty of is walking into a school with a gun. Do you see what I mean?
[quote] Of course you have. What do you think happens if you don't pay property tax, for example? They will show up with guns, and physically remove you from your own home. If you don't pay income tax, they will lock you in jail. It's all ultimately based on threats of violence.
Do you think people would keep sending money to congress if they weren't fearful of what the government would do to them, if they don't? I can think of about a million charities I'd rather have my money go to. [/quote]
No, I have never been physically threatened for money by a politician because I have never disregarded the laws that are already in place. I think a lot of people see the benefit in taxes. But if you don't, that's perfectly fine. My point is that you can't ignore the system that you have accepted to be a part of (this country) and not expect that there will be consequences. If you want to get this system changed, that's also great, but you can't get something to change by simply ignoring it.
[quote] Money and power has never been separated in history, and it never will be. You can't collect massive amounts of power in one central entity, and then expect that average joe is going to run it. It's a pipe dream. Such concentrated power is like Christmas morning for every power hungry or corrupt individual, and every monied interest in the nation.
How many people do you think would have voluntarily contributed to "bailout" goldman sachs? How many do you think would have contributed to the invasion of Iraq, or to send some cash to overseas dictators? Forced monopolies are never accountable. Real accountability means I have a right to withdraw my support.
Suppose we were to eliminate every restaurant in Keene but one, and force everyone to buy dinner there once per week, whether they wanted to or not. Do you think quality would improve? How about prices? With no accountability, there's no motivation to provide a good service at a good price. That's how we get the government school system, which spends upwards of 15K per student per year, when a far better education could be had for far less. It's how we get the DMV, how we get Fannie and Freddie, how we get FEMA, NASA, a social security system that is a worse investment than a matress, etc.
How long do you think DMV customer service would last, if they had competitors? Do you think NASA would be able to waste as much money as they do, if academic, industrial, or individual investors could choose alternatives? Do you think public schools could compete, charging 15K or more per year?
The only reason massive, corrupt, wasteful federal bureaucracies survive, is because people have no choice. If they don't hand over their cash, to be eaten by this enormous machine, or spent on aggressive war, they'll get thrown on the street or in prison.
This is not the way to organize a humane society. [/quote]
I agree on most levels, and I don't know if I can even begin to suggest a system which would work better. That is why I completely support the Free Keene Movements in its right to protest. Again, the main issue I have is with the ways in which they choose to protest.
[quote] Yeah, I agree to an extent. I hope activists will chose future issues, and behaviors, with care.
Holding an unlicensed flea market/lemonade stand, to draw attention to oppressive licensing laws? Good (imo). Smoking pot in the middle of pumpkin fest? Not so good. [/quote]
Definitely. Although I'm still not sure the ways in which the activists generally conduct themselves at the demonstrations (flea markets and lemonade stands included) are always the most conducive to affecting change.
[quote]
By the way, I hope my somewhat strong rhetoric on some of these issues doesn't bother you. I'm speaking honestly about how I see things. Lots of great friends of mine don't agree with me on everything (or even most things), so don't take any of this personally. And, sorry about my longwindedness. [/quote]
Oh definitely not, and I hope the same. I know that sometimes online conversations can get heated, and often people speak in ways which they wouldn't if they were actually speaking to that person face to face. I'm certainly guilty of this. So far I have seen none of that here, but I am apologizing in advance if any of my comments come off as curt or snide–they really aren't meant to be…usually
And I am the queen of longwindedness, if you haven't noticed haha
[quote]And I am the queen of longwindedness, if you haven't noticed haha[/quote]
You picked your name well.