[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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]
That is a really good point. Yelling or using a bullhorn to yell at people rarely makes sense and I've been discouraging local liberty activists from doing it for quite sometime. Thanks for helping.
[quote]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]
This is a good point. Everyone that was there saw that only a couple people or so did it. No one else wanted to do it.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
Hopefully this works! haha
[/quote]
Looks good to me 
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449] Okay but there are still many levels that must be breached before physical aggression is necessary.
[/quote]
Does that really make it ok? It's still extortion, is it not? I'm pretty sure if I were to behave this way, I'd be thrown in prison.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
Again, it comes back to agreeing to be part of a community.
[/quote]
I'd like to unpack this a little more. Do you think the fact that I move near people makes it ok for them to treat me this way?
Or, to try break this down to the core issue, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the following scenario:
Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. My first neighbor and I hold a "constitutional convention", and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It's now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.
Do you think this scenario is any different, or more moral, than common theft?
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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]
I don't think the fact that a particular behavior by government can be expected, makes it moral. For example, for a long time people knew that if you operated a business in Al Capone's territory, or tried to sell alcohol in the Chicago area, he was going to demand a cut. Do you think that made his behavior moral? I don't think so.
Al capone didn't own Chicago, and the government doesn't own the country. They have no right to enforce their will on everyone, especially on private property.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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]
I think it's quite reasonable to say that people should be free to make their own personal decisions, and decisions about their finances, so long as they don't harm anyone, or anyone's property, or put others in imminent danger.
I mean, that is how most of us live our daily lives. I don't think many folks go around demanding cash from their neighbors, demanding that their neighbors ask them permission before conducting business, or attacking people who consume something they believe is unhealthy. Individually, we immediately recognize these kind of behaviors as immoral.
Instead, as individuals, we fund raise for good causes, compete in business, and try to intervene, to get our friends the attention they need, when they develop unhealthy habits.
Actually, I think a lot of good reform, through history, is about extending these basic moral principles – kindergarten morality, if you will – to institutions and people to which they had not formerly been applied (treatment of commoners, treatment of blacks, treatment of women, behaviors of political leaders, etc). I think it's right that we continue this trend, and try to live up to these simple standards in all aspects of our lives.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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]
Gotcha :).
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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]
Yeah, I see what you mean. But, this raises the question, who is "the government" really? I mean, if it's not the people who collect the money, is it the people who will come after you if you don't pay (police)? If not them, is it the elected politicians? Is it the people who actually end up receiving the money?
This arrangement enables people to pass off responsibility. I don't consider myself an anarchist, but I like this AIYH comic: 
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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.
[/quote]
Not that collecting local taxes is anywhere near this level of evil, but don't you think many of the Nazi guards also believed they were doing the "right thing", as well as many southern slaveholders, etc? How about the crusaders, or communist revolutionaries? Most of the greatest evils through history were committed by people convinced they were doing the right thing, and receiving a paycheck for it.
Indeed, most of these acts were asserted to be necessary for society, the greater good, etc.
Again, let me clarify that I'm not saying collecting taxes is nearly as bad as any of these things – just that I don't think that justification holds water.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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]
No, certainly not. I mean, imagine someone who believes it's ok to murder! Obviously a killer should be stopped, regardless of whether they recognize their behavior as wrong.
I'd say a person should have the right to do what they believe is right, so long as they don't harm others (or others' property). That's the line you can't cross – because then you're impeding on other people's rights.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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 do agree that perhaps that activism was not an effective choice.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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 that's a very worthy goal :).
So, what liberty issue is most important to you, and what do you think would be a good "outside the system" type of activism to take a stand on that issue?
I say "outside the system" not because there's anything wrong with "inside the system" activism, but because I know getting people around here to do the latter is going to be from hard to impossible.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
You have mentioned this lemonade stand instance multiple times. Is there an actual event you are referring to or is it just an example?[/quote]
Yeah, it's an actual event. There was a flea market in railroad square a couple weekends ago, including an eight year old with a lemonade stand, and the cops shut it down.
I should probably mix my examples up a little bit.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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]
It's really just a couple individuals. Unfortunately, when there's ten people being quiet, and two people yelling, people don't remember the quiet folks.
Hopefully this is something that will improve in the future.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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?
[/quote]
Yeah … I guess I'm more comfortable praising individual cops for individual displays of tolerance and restraint. And I do think that should happen more than it does.
The organization as a whole does too many wrong things for me to give it unqualified praise – but if any cop is listening, I do absolutely praise the KPD for not behaving in some of the ways other police departments have around the country, and for showing a good deal of restraint in many cases – for allowing free speech.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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]
Good idea, although "people appreciation day" might be a little amorphous for a real life event. Perhaps some sort of trading/hobby event, where people can swap goods and services, and find common interests? I'm a sucker for local community markets – and local clubs (e.g. hiking, various sports, modeling) could sign up new members.
I think building community is a positive step, no matter your perspective.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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]
Yeah, I would like to see a huge outpouring of support and positivity towards police every time they, for example, allow FK fest to operate without licences, as they did last year.
I think there is a bit of nervousness about praising them when they choose not to enforce bad laws, though. Do you think such praise would have the desired effect, to encourage the continued use of discretion, or do you think they would rather not have attention called to the fact that a law was not enforced?
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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.
[/quote]
I've yet to hear of a phyiscal attack by a mother on, say, a smoker, for being a bad example in front of her kids. I think most folks recognize that the right behavior is to either move elsewhere, or nicely ask the person to stop.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
Just because you personally wouldn't do something, doesn't mean someone else wouldn't.
[/quote]
Right, I'm just saying, that among all the people I know, I can't think of a single person who doesn't have what I consider quite good personal standards for their behavior, at least certainly as far as the use of force goes.
Of course robbers, vandals, etc, exist, but they're the exception rather than the rule. If people were to hold their political interactions to the same standards as their personal interactions, everything would not be perfect, but it would be an enormous improvement.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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]
Really, it should be the person who owns the park who sets the rules.
On public property, resolving these kinds of issues becomes more difficult. But, certainly, if a person is going to use force, they should be well justified in doing so – it should be clearly defensive – otherwise, they themselves are going to be held accountable in court.
There's better, and then there's ideal. Simply keeping laws against public intoxication, but eliminating open container laws, would be a great improvement on this issue. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Of course, as I say, I don't think this issue is all that important in the first place.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
So then you are saying that aggression is ok against people who aren't capable of composing themselves?
[/quote]
I don't think defense against imminent harm is aggression – it's defense. For example, if someone tries to shoot me, I don't have to wait for them to hit me before I can defend myself.
This applies to lots of situations. For example, I think a driver who is reckless, and putting others in imminent danger, should be stopped. If a drunk person is clearly presenting a danger to pedestrians, or about to wander into traffic, they should likewise be stopped.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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 think there's the moral question, and the practical question. Morally, the behavior is not ok just because it's systemized. Practically, though, as you say, a person is not going to be able to accomplish meaningful reform just by defying the system. As you say, articulating ideas is essential.
There is a place for civil disobedience – there are many examples of very effective civil disobedience in the past. But, it has to be done in a very careful, and calculated way, in my view, to shed light and public attention on an issue that needs it.
There are, I think, examples of both good and bad CD in Keene. Are you familiar with Andrew Carroll's cannabis CD? I thought that was excellently done. He announced ahead of time that he would stand on a particular park bench with a bud of marijuana. He read a prepared statement opposing the drug war, showed the bud, was arrested for it, and went quietly and peacefully.
He then walked all the way from downtown Keene to report to the Westmoreland jail, with a few others, carrying signs.
I think that was far closer to the standards set by Gandhi and MLK, than some of the other protests that have occurred.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
[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]
Sure, I'm just saying that in general, it's right to outlaw the actual act that harms another person or puts them in danger – not all behaviors that could potentially lead to those kinds of acts.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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]
Well, if the owner of the school has prohibited guns, if a person walks onto the property with a gun, they're trespassing, and absolutely should be removed.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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.
[/quote]
If most people see the benefit in it, it will receive funding anyway – there's no need to use force. For example, I absolutely want a police department, to stop people who would attack me or my property, as I think most people do. I want fire protection too, and am willing to pay for it.
There's no reason people have to be forced to pay for such valuable services - they'll demand them anyway. People aren't forced to buy food, yet food is sold, and people don't starve.
It's the "services" nobody wants – like aggressive wars and bailouts for bankers, that would be bankrupt if people had free choice. And I say, Good Riddance!
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
My point is that you can't ignore the system that you have accepted to be a part of (this country)
[/quote]
Do you believe I have accepted this system?
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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]
I agree with that.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
I agree on most levels, and I don't know if I can even begin to suggest a system which would work better.
[/quote]
We just have to allow people more freedom to choose, rather than presuming to make their choices for them. It's the best kind of democracy, if you want to think about it that way – the will of the majority will still get implemented, simply because the majority has a huge amount of resources. But, instead of forcing everyone else into the majority's programs, minorities get to work to accomplish their goals as well.
I also think the good news is that most of the worst harm can be easily eliminated, just by moving towards localism. If you want great improvement with little disruption, keep local governments, and tell the feds to butt out. All of the most valuable services are provided locally anyway – and local government is the least expensive, and least abusive. The federal government's bankrupt at this point anyway.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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]
Good to hear, and I think many of your criticisms about methods are very valid.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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]
Yes, that could probably use improvement also, I agree. I think talking with cops about why you believe what they're doing is wrong is good – but I think it's important not to get emotional, or flustered, but to speak calmly and peacefully – and show genuine care for them as well.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42595#msg42595 date=1282345449]
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 
[/quote]
Not curt or snide at all, quite thoughtful 
Feel free to take a few days, and only respond to as much or little of this as you like – what you consider the key points (and I'll do the same with your reply). I'm sure we both are quite busy, and I don't want either of us to spend too much time on this at once, and burn out or neglect other responsibilities.
[quote] Does that really make it ok? It's still extortion, is it not? I'm pretty sure if I were to behave this way, I'd be thrown in prison. [/quote]
Again, I think what makes it okay and not extortion is that you agree to abide by certain rules if you want to benefit from being part of a community. Sure, there are problems within the system in general, but to say the system should be scrapped altogether seems a bit extreme to me.
[quote] I'd like to unpack this a little more. Do you think the fact that I move near people makes it ok for them to treat me this way? [/quote]
If you move into a community which is functioning happily by having laws in place which discourage people from not paying their taxes, but you decide that this is wrong and want to upset the entire function of the community, then yes, I think it is ok for them to throw you in jail.
[quote] Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. My first neighbor and I hold a "constitutional convention", and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It's now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.
Do you think this scenario is any different, or more moral, than common theft? [/quote]
In this case, I think the neighbor has every right to try to convince you where the flaw is in your logic, or to wait for other people to join his cause. Or, yes, if he doesn't like what is happening to him, then he can leave.
But let me ask you this question: what if the third neighbor is perfectly fine contributing to the needs of the other two. However, a fourth man enters the scenario, willingly, and immediately tries to disrupt the balance between the first three have come to terms with by refusing to play by their rules, even though he came there willingly. Why should the rules have to be changed for this man who is living with the other three of his own accord, but doesn't want to abide by any of the rules they have already set in motion?
[quote]I don't think the fact that a particular behavior by government can be expected, makes it moral. For example, for a long time people knew that if you operated a business in Al Capone's territory, or tried to sell alcohol in the Chicago area, he was going to demand a cut. Do you think that made his behavior moral? I don't think so.
Al capone didn't own Chicago, and the government doesn't own the country. They have no right to enforce their will on everyone, especially on private property. [/quote]
But the fact is they do have a right, because it has been predetermined through legal methods that they do. Al Capone didn't have any legal backing for forcing payment. If you don't agree that the legal backing the government has is sound, then attack that, but you can't attack the problem without addressing it's root cause…that's what I've been trying to say all along.
[quote] I think it's quite reasonable to say that people should be free to make their own personal decisions, and decisions about their finances, so long as they don't harm anyone, or anyone's property, or put others in imminent danger. [/quote]
And I don't necessarily disagree, especially when it comes to the finances part. But that still doesn't mean that the most effective way to see change transpire is by refusing to work with the system that is already in place.
[quote] Actually, I think a lot of good reform, through history, is about extending these basic moral principles – kindergarten morality, if you will – to institutions and people to which they had not formerly been applied (treatment of commoners, treatment of blacks, treatment of women, behaviors of political leaders, etc). I think it's right that we continue this trend, and try to live up to these simple standards in all aspects of our lives. [/quote]
Definitely, I have no problem with setting up programs to enact social change, but I still don't think it is realistic to expect that one day everyone will be responsible enough to repeal all precautionary laws which are now in place.
[quote] Yeah, I see what you mean. But, this raises the question, who is "the government" really? I mean, if it's not the people who collect the money, is it the people who will come after you if you don't pay (police)? If not them, is it the elected politicians? Is it the people who actually end up receiving the money? [/quote]
All I can say is 'the government' is certainly not the people who have to sort through thousands of property tax forms, but rather the people who decide what that money actually goes towards. In theory this is 'the people' but in reality there is always going to have to be groups of people designated to allocate those funds.
[quote] Not that collecting local taxes is anywhere near this level of evil, but don't you think many of the Nazi guards also believed they were doing the "right thing", as well as many southern slaveholders, etc? How about the crusaders, or communist revolutionaries? Most of the greatest evils through history were committed by people convinced they were doing the right thing, and receiving a paycheck for it. [/quote]
Absolutely, but do you think it is as effective to punish those people as it would be to address the actual problem? Maybe it makes a person feel better, like their somehow chipping away at the evil, but actual change will never be seen unless the actual root problem is exposed.
[quote] No, certainly not. I mean, imagine someone who believes it's ok to murder! Obviously a killer should be stopped, regardless of whether they recognize their behavior as wrong.
I'd say a person should have the right to do what they believe is right, so long as they don't harm others (or others' property). That's the line you can't cross – because then you're impeding on other people's rights. [/quote]
Okay, fair enough, but then where do you draw the line? You may say that collecting taxes is harming you, but I may say that people smoking pot in a public space is harming me. See what I mean when I say things like this are very subjective, so it's hard to make blanket statements like 'as long as their actions don't harm others'?
[quote] I think that's a very worthy goal .
So, what liberty issue is most important to you, and what do you think would be a good "outside the system" type of activism to take a stand on that issue?
I say "outside the system" not because there's anything wrong with "inside the system" activism, but because I know getting people around here to do the latter is going to be from hard to impossible. [/quote]
Thanks! haha
I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'outside the system' versus 'inside the system' but there are definitely many activism groups and causes which I am passionate about. Abortion/reproductive health rights and LGBT rights are probably the biggest ones.
As for what I'm trying to do with the Free Keene Movement, I would really love to find some sort of common ground, as I said before, which would allow the people in the movement to stop attracting negative media attention which honestly detracts from the image of Keene itself, which would maybe even end up with more citizens being willing to listen to what the movement has to say.
[quote] Yeah, it's an actual event. There was a flea market in railroad square a couple weekends ago, including an eight year old with a lemonade stand, and the cops shut it down. [/quote]
Hm, I didn't hear about that…do you have any more information I could check out about it? I would like to see how the events transpired (as it were haha).
[quote] It's really just a couple individuals. Unfortunately, when there's ten people being quiet, and two people yelling, people don't remember the quiet folks.
Hopefully this is something that will improve in the future. [/quote]
Definitely. But if all these people stand for the same thing, can't the quiet ones who notice the bad reputation the loud ones are gaining try to communicate this to the loud ones? haha. Don't the out-spoken people in the Free Keene movement realize that they are aggravating the community at large much more than they are getting their points across?
[quote] Good idea, although "people appreciation day" might be a little amorphous for a real life event. Perhaps some sort of trading/hobby event, where people can swap goods and services, and find common interests? I'm a sucker for local community markets – and local clubs (e.g. hiking, various sports, modeling) could sign up new members. [/quote]
Certainly…we should work on that
[quote] Yeah, I would like to see a huge outpouring of support and positivity towards police every time they, for example, allow FK fest to operate without licences, as they did last year.
I think there is a bit of nervousness about praising them when they choose not to enforce bad laws, though. Do you think such praise would have the desired effect, to encourage the continued use of discretion, or do you think they would rather not have attention called to the fact that a law was not enforced? [/quote]
Well I don't think publicly praising them for not enforcing a law is the right thing to do because, as you suggested, it would probably make them feel obligated to enforce that law.
However, there are other times when they could be praised. I mean…if a police man/woman shows aggression towards a Free Keene member, it is pretty certain that that incident will be reported on this site (probably multiple times) and maybe video taped, etc. However, I'm sure there are plenty of times when they have been pleasant when interacting with members, but all that ever seems to be done about that is they get private letters of appreciation.
So do you see what I mean when I say the public has a skewed view of how Free Keene deals with/reacts to law enforcers? They only get to see the bad side, because the only part that is publicized. If topics and videos started going up every time a police man/woman was nice to a member, I think it would really begin to shift the public's perception of the movement in general…most likely in a positive manner.
[quote] I've yet to hear of a phyiscal attack by a mother on, say, a smoker, for being a bad example in front of her kids. I think most folks recognize that the right behavior is to either move elsewhere, or nicely ask the person to stop. [/quote]
No I can definitely see where a parent would get in a verbal, if not physical altercation if their children were continually subjected to drug culture in a public park on a daily basis.
[quote] Right, I'm just saying, that among all the people I know, I can't think of a single person who doesn't have what I consider quite good personal standards for their behavior, at least certainly as far as the use of force goes. [/quote]
But once again, you are using your own personal standards as the basis. Not to mention I can't imagine that all of the people you know constitute even a significant fraction of all the people in the country (no offense, haha) and the fact that most people surround themselves with people who hold similar beliefs. All that taken into account, can't you see how it is quite possible that there may be someone out there saying the same thing as you 'can't think of a single person who doesn't have what I consider quite good personal standards for their behavior' but whose behavior you would consider unacceptable?
[quote] On public property, resolving these kinds of issues becomes more difficult. But, certainly, if a person is going to use force, they should be well justified in doing so – it should be clearly defensive – otherwise, they themselves are going to be held accountable in court. [/quote]
But who is to say what is 'clearly defensive. What happened last night at the City Council Drinking Game is a great example. I don't know if you've seen the video, but Sam got into an altercation outside City Hall with a man named James. In the video, you can see that Sam gets within inches of James' face. James then raises the cup he was holding and positions in between himself and Sam…in the process he bumps into Sam's face. Sam then grabs the cup and crumples it.
People have been discussing this all day, and I think it relates very well to the point I am trying to make. Some people say that Sam was justified in using obvious force to attack James' property (his cup) because he had no idea what was in it (could have been poison…?) or what James was planning to do next and James did brush his face with the cup, though by accident. However, Sam positioned himself merely inches from James in the first place, why would he do that if he really felt threatened?
Do you see what I mean when I say that 'clearly self defense' usually isn't clear?
[quote] I don't think defense against imminent harm is aggression – it's defense. For example, if someone tries to shoot me, I don't have to wait for them to hit me before I can defend myself.
This applies to lots of situations. For example, I think a driver who is reckless, and putting others in imminent danger, should be stopped. If a drunk person is clearly presenting a danger to pedestrians, or about to wander into traffic, they should likewise be stopped. [/quote]
So you think defense against imminent harm is acceptable, but not defense against potential harm?
Also, you still never directly answered my question…if you believe aggression is unnecessary, then why would you want to remove laws which prevent aggression, at least to some extent?
[quote] There are, I think, examples of both good and bad CD in Keene. Are you familiar with Andrew Carroll's cannabis CD? I thought that was excellently done. He announced ahead of time that he would stand on a particular park bench with a bud of marijuana. He read a prepared statement opposing the drug war, showed the bud, was arrested for it, and went quietly and peacefully. [/quote]
No, I wasn't aware of that but that sounds like a form of CD which is incredibly more effective at least in the public's eyes than the more violent/'radical' ones that I have heard about. Unfortunately, it is usually the violent/'radical' ones which get the most attention…just the way media works I guess.
[quote] Sure, I'm just saying that in general, it's right to outlaw the actual act that harms another person or puts them in danger – not all behaviors that could potentially lead to those kinds of acts. [/quote]
Definitely, but that is why 'all' the behaviors which may lead to those acts aren't outlawed. Some are, but I believe that is only because they have been proven to be needed in the past.
:duh:
[quote] Well, if the owner of the school has prohibited guns, if a person walks onto the property with a gun, they're trespassing, and absolutely should be removed. [/quote]
But that's not the scenario I presented. In my scenario, guns are legal. Plain and simple. So what can be done to prevent a school shooting if someone walks in with a gun?
[quote] If most people see the benefit in it, it will receive funding anyway – there's no need to use force. For example, I absolutely want a police department, to stop people who would attack me or my property, as I think most people do. I want fire protection too, and am willing to pay for it.
There's no reason people have to be forced to pay for such valuable services - they'll demand them anyway. People aren't forced to buy food, yet food is sold, and people don't starve.
It's the "services" nobody wants – like aggressive wars and bailouts for bankers, that would be bankrupt if people had free choice. And I say, Good Riddance! [/quote]
Unfortunately, I don't think that all the people in this country are willing to invest the time to decide where they want their money to go. They would much rather pay taxes and trust that their money is being put back into the system to help them. Obviously this is grossly false, but if the tax system were to disappear tomorrow, do you really think that people would be willing to actually sit down and decide where, and how much of their money should be spent on certain things? Don't you think organizations which are pivotal to a productive society would end up being unable to do their job simply due to a lack of public interest in economics?
That's why I believe raising social awareness is important. If people are aware, they are more likely to attend city meetings and things of the sort which would give them more control over where their money is actually going.
[quote] Do you believe I have accepted this system? [/quote]
I believe that you have accepted to be a part of this country because you live in it. You can try to change it, but by living here you accept that there are certain standards set in place which must be followed if you want to see any change.
[quote] We just have to allow people more freedom to choose, rather than presuming to make their choices for them. [/quote]
But, as I was talking about earlier, the reason most choice have to 'be made for people' is because of their own apathy or unwillingness to make them themselves. If people really are concerned about how their money is being spent, there are many ways which allow them to at least take some control, without having to disband the system altogether.
[quote] I also think the good news is that most of the worst harm can be easily eliminated, just by moving towards localism. If you want great improvement with little disruption, keep local governments, and tell the feds to butt out. All of the most valuable services are provided locally anyway – and local government is the least expensive, and least abusive. The federal government's bankrupt at this point anyway. [/quote]
I'm all for promoting local government! yay! haha
[quote] Yes, that could probably use improvement also, I agree. I think talking with cops about why you believe what they're doing is wrong is good – but I think it's important not to get emotional, or flustered, but to speak calmly and peacefully – and show genuine care for them as well. [/quote]
Yup. I also think one of the biggest flaws I have seen in the Free Keene Movement is that they tend to be extremely passive aggressive and, quite frankly, childish when it comes to interacting with law enforcement and the like. If you try to communicate with cops or whatever without trying to undermine them or taunt them, they are much more likely to hear you out.
[quote] Not curt or snide at all, quite thoughtful
Feel free to take a few days, and only respond to as much or little of this as you like – what you consider the key points (and I'll do the same with your reply). I'm sure we both are quite busy, and I don't want either of us to spend too much time on this at once, and burn out or neglect other responsibilities. [/quote]
haha yes, I think this is certainly a great plan for the future, seeing as I'm pretty sure I just spent two hours here! ah! haha but I really do appreciate the discussion! I'm hoping that it is discussions like these which will result in less of a rift between the Free Keene Movement and the general public!
Haha Jay…sorry that I seem to be drafting a book here or something!
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42627#msg42627 date=1282367182]
[quote] Well, if the owner of the school has prohibited guns, if a person walks onto the property with a gun, they're trespassing, and absolutely should be removed. [/quote]
But that's not the scenario I presented. In my scenario, guns are legal. Plain and simple. So what can be done to prevent a school shooting if someone walks in with a gun?
[/quote]
I'm not going to even try to address the rest of this… but, He never said anything about legality or illegality… Only that the owner of a piece of private property has decided that on his or her property, there should be no guns allowed, or that only persons approved by him/her are allowed to carry guns… Anyone disobeying his decision is trespassing, and can be removed. Thus, A private school that doesn't allow guns except by their hired security guards, would prevent a school shooting by simply removing the person or the gun from the property.
[quote] I'm not going to even try to address the rest of this… but, He never said anything about legality or illegality… Only that the owner of a piece of private property has decided that on his or her property, there should be no guns allowed, or that only persons approved by him/her are allowed to carry guns… Anyone disobeying his decision is trespassing, and can be removed. Thus, A private school that doesn't allow guns except by their hired security guards, would prevent a school shooting by simply removing the person or the gun from the property. [/quote]
I know, but we were discussing what would happen if guns were made totally legal in all places, and a school did not have a law against guns.
Or, even to get away from the 'private property rules' issue. What if a man was running down the street (public property) towards a school with a gun, obviously intending to shoot up the school. The law enforcers would not be able to do anything to apprehend the gun from him before he reached school property, at which time, it may be too late.
[quote author=Myrkul999 link=topic=3828.msg42651#msg42651 date=1282398606]
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42627#msg42627 date=1282367182]
[quote] Well, if the owner of the school has prohibited guns, if a person walks onto the property with a gun, they're trespassing, and absolutely should be removed. [/quote]
But that's not the scenario I presented. In my scenario, guns are legal. Plain and simple. So what can be done to prevent a school shooting if someone walks in with a gun?
[/quote]
I'm not going to even try to address the rest of this… but, He never said anything about legality or illegality… Only that the owner of a piece of private property has decided that on his or her property, there should be no guns allowed, or that only persons approved by him/her are allowed to carry guns… Anyone disobeying his decision is trespassing, and can be removed. Thus, A private school that doesn't allow guns except by their hired security guards, would prevent a school shooting by simply removing the person or the gun from the property.
[/quote]
Not to butt in, but this is incorrect. A private school in this scenario that really wants to prevent a school shooting would revoke its policy against carrying weapons.
[quote author=error link=topic=3828.msg42718#msg42718 date=1282441864]
[quote author=Myrkul999 link=topic=3828.msg42651#msg42651 date=1282398606]
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42627#msg42627 date=1282367182]
[quote] Well, if the owner of the school has prohibited guns, if a person walks onto the property with a gun, they're trespassing, and absolutely should be removed. [/quote]
But that's not the scenario I presented. In my scenario, guns are legal. Plain and simple. So what can be done to prevent a school shooting if someone walks in with a gun?
[/quote]
I'm not going to even try to address the rest of this… but, He never said anything about legality or illegality… Only that the owner of a piece of private property has decided that on his or her property, there should be no guns allowed, or that only persons approved by him/her are allowed to carry guns… Anyone disobeying his decision is trespassing, and can be removed. Thus, A private school that doesn't allow guns except by their hired security guards, would prevent a school shooting by simply removing the person or the gun from the property.
[/quote]
Not to butt in, but this is incorrect. A private school in this scenario that really wants to prevent a school shooting would revoke its policy against carrying weapons.
[/quote]
True, an even better way to prevent school shootings is to allow at least teachers to carry. I don't know how I feel about hormone-charged youngsters carting around guns, but those that prove themselves to be reasonable and competent should cause no problem being armed. Columbine would have ended much differently (and much sooner) had some of the students and teachers been armed.
[quote] True, an even better way to prevent school shootings is to allow at least teachers to carry. I don't know how I feel about hormone-charged youngsters carting around guns, but those that prove themselves to be reasonable and competent should cause no problem being armed. Columbine would have ended much differently (and much sooner) had some of the students and teachers been armed. [/quote]
Yeah I mean the issue of how to stop school shootings is another discussion altogether. I was just using it as an example of something that could be rather harmful, were gun laws to be repealed.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
Sure, there are problems within the system in general, but to say the system should be scrapped altogether seems a bit extreme to me.
[/quote]
I'm not saying we should, or could, scrap everything and change the way we operate overnight. Systematic evils in society have always taken time to remove, and always will.
But, we have to see the goal in order to know which way to carry the ball. This is not an appropriate basis for the operation of society. And, we can do a lot better, even if we can't fix everything right away.
More freedom, and less abuse is what I'm looking for – not perfection tomorrow.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
Again, I think what makes it okay and not extortion is that you agree to abide by certain rules if you want to benefit from being part of a community.
[/quote]
I was born here. And, if I and my neighbors choose to live near each other, hang out socially, or trade with each other, that doesn't mean we've consented to our lives and property being placed at the disposal of a politician somewhere.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
If you move into a community which is functioning happily by having laws in place which discourage people from not paying their taxes …[/quote]
Can you see that this situation might not be so "happy" to some people? That some folks might object to having the fruit of their labor extorted from them, by threats of being thrown in prison – especially when those resources are going to be used for aggressive war, or other actions they consider evil?
If everyone's so happy with the arrangement, why do we need the threats at all?
Again, I'm not saying we can completely fix this overnight – but we can at least reduce the abuse that's occurring.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
[quote] Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. My first neighbor and I hold a "constitutional convention", and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It's now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.
Do you think this scenario is any different, or more moral, than common theft? [/quote]
In this case, I think the neighbor has every right to try to convince you where the flaw is in your logic, or to wait for other people to join his cause. Or, yes, if he doesn't like what is happening to him, then he can leave.
[/quote]
I should clarify. I wasn't trying to ask about what recourse my second neighbor might have. I was asking whether you consider the actions of myself, and the first neighbor, moral. Do you think we have the right to take his property by force? Why or why not?
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
But let me ask you this question: what if the third neighbor is perfectly fine contributing to the needs of the other two. However, a fourth man enters the scenario, willingly, and immediately tries to disrupt the balance between the first three have come to terms with by refusing to play by their rules, even though he came there willingly. Why should the rules have to be changed for this man who is living with the other three of his own accord, but doesn't want to abide by any of the rules they have already set in motion?
[/quote]
So, for starters the first three all mutually agree to have this arrangement. I'd like to point out that that's not the way this country's government was started – not even close. Approximately 12,000 people voted for constitutional representatives, in a country of over 3 Million residents, not including native peoples. Women were not allowed to vote, non-property owners were not allowed to vote, non-whites were not allowed to vote. And, thousands of those who did vote did not win the vote.
Roughly 7 or 8 thousand people actually explicitly consented, if you count voting for an actual representative as explicit consent, although I am sure there were more who had no objection. They then rammed their will down everyone else's throats, to put it nicely.
But, even if a majority had voted to support the US constitution – would they have had the right to enforce their will on the minority, who never consented, or to take their property by force? I say absolutely not.
Nevertheless, for the sake of theory, are you saying the fourth person bought property from one of the first three, who willingly sold it to him – or is renting from one of them? If so, I'd have to ask, what were the conditions of the sale/lease? Did it include that the fourth person must give a certain amount of his property to the other three on a regular basis? If so, then yes, he needs to follow that agreement.
Again, I hope what I'm saying doesn't feel like an attack on you of any sort, I'm just trying to speak very frankly and clearly about the problems I see. We all grew up being taught to accept this, and as I say, many of the great people I know and love still do. Objectively, I think it's wrong, I think it's causing huge problems, and I think we can do better.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
But the fact is they do have a right, because it has been predetermined through legal methods that they do. Al Capone didn't have any legal backing for forcing payment. If you don't agree that the legal backing the government has is sound, then attack that, but you can't attack the problem without addressing it's root cause…that's what I've been trying to say all along.[/quote]
I agree – it is indeed the legal backing, and methods, that I am objecting to.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
And I don't necessarily disagree, especially when it comes to the finances part. But that still doesn't mean that the most effective way to see change transpire is by refusing to work with the system that is already in place.[/quote]
Very true :). I know a lot of people who think the best way to change things is indeed to work within the system. I don't necessarily disagree, I think a lot of good can be done in politics (especially at the local and state level), and I'm optimistic for the future. I'm not convinced there is no value in other methods though – there are some examples of civil disobedience that has been done that I consider exemplary.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
Definitely, I have no problem with setting up programs to enact social change, but I still don't think it is realistic to expect that one day everyone will be responsible enough to repeal all precautionary laws which are now in place.
[/quote]
I don't know, I guess we'd have to get into what we mean by "precautionary" laws a bit more. But, I think our current system fails badly to live up to basic standards for decent behavior.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
All I can say is 'the government' is certainly not the people who have to sort through thousands of property tax forms, but rather the people who decide what that money actually goes towards. In theory this is 'the people' but in reality there is always going to have to be groups of people designated to allocate those funds. [/quote]
Fair enough. I don't think paying in ones is very constructive, or effective either.
If my job were to count income tax receipts, however, I can tell you that I would quit.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
Absolutely, but do you think it is as effective to punish those people as it would be to address the actual problem? Maybe it makes a person feel better, like their somehow chipping away at the evil, but actual change will never be seen unless the actual root problem is exposed.[/quote]
I agree, that's true.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
Okay, fair enough, but then where do you draw the line? You may say that collecting taxes is harming you, but I may say that people smoking pot in a public space is harming me. See what I mean when I say things like this are very subjective, so it's hard to make blanket statements like 'as long as their actions don't harm others'?
[/quote]
If the space is owned by a person or community foundation (even if it's publicly used), you can get the owner to prohibit pot smoking. I really think that's the best way to handle these things.
Also, we certainly still need arbiters/judges and courts to help mediate disputes. Obviously, not everyone's going to agree on what constitutes harm, or how much harm was done, etc.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
Thanks! haha
I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'outside the system' versus 'inside the system'
[/quote]
Sorry about the jargon, let me clarify – "Outside the system" would include any sort of civil disobedience, unlicensed/underground businesses, events, etc. "Inside the system" refers to working in the political process, or court system – lobbying, electing candidates, legal challenges, etc.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
but there are definitely many activism groups and causes which I am passionate about. Abortion/reproductive health rights and LGBT rights are probably the biggest ones.[/quote]
Hmm … well, abortion's already legal. There's gay marriage … I think you'll find a lot of people around here really just wish marriage weren't controlled by the state at all. The only type of "outside the system" event I could think of on these issues would be a marriage ceremony for a couple, without state approval. It wouldn't really be civil disobedience, because I don't think it's illegal to call yourself married if you're not legally, but it still might be a nice demonstration.
It'd be difficult these days being married without state approval … insurance, taxes, inheritance, immigration, etc, could all be issues, although I know some people do it. If there were a couple willing to do it, I really think this could be a great event. What do you think?
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
As for what I'm trying to do with the Free Keene Movement, I would really love to find some sort of common ground, as I said before, which would allow the people in the movement to stop attracting negative media attention which honestly detracts from the image of Keene itself, which would maybe even end up with more citizens being willing to listen to what the movement has to say.
[/quote]
Cool – this kind of relates to our discussion on the other thread. I think concrete suggestions for activism could be very helpful.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
Hm, I didn't hear about that…do you have any more information I could check out about it? I would like to see how the events transpired (as it were haha).
[/quote]
Here's the only video I've found. I bet you could get personal accounts from some folks. Not that all of the discussion/argumentation with the police was ideal …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3T93gwn8-M&feature=player_embedded
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
Definitely. But if all these people stand for the same thing, can't the quiet ones who notice the bad reputation the loud ones are gaining try to communicate this to the loud ones? haha. Don't the out-spoken people in the Free Keene movement realize that they are aggravating the community at large much more than they are getting their points across?[/quote]
Doing my best :). I don't have a problem with discussion/debate with police, but I do have a problem with yelling, which has occurred on a few occasions.
I do hope people will speak up more, to try to cull bad behavior at activism events. I also think there have been events that were poor choices from the get-go.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
Well I don't think publicly praising them for not enforcing a law is the right thing to do because, as you suggested, it would probably make them feel obligated to enforce that law.
[/quote]
Yeah, I could see that. Although, they should feel proud about using discretion. I mean, it's technically illegal to operate a motor vehicle, or play a sport on a Sunday in NH. I think most people are happy they're not enforcing that … or any of the other myriad of silly laws on the books.
Don't we want humans, and members of the community acting as peace officers, who work to resolve disputes and protect people, rather than automatons blindly enforcing the law? I wish they'd be proud when they are recognized for acting like a wise human rather than a blind robot.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
However, there are other times when they could be praised. I mean…if a police man/woman shows aggression towards a Free Keene member, it is pretty certain that that incident will be reported on this site (probably multiple times) and maybe video taped, etc. However, I'm sure there are plenty of times when they have been pleasant when interacting with members, but all that ever seems to be done about that is they get private letters of appreciation.[/quote]
True. For example, I also think there needs to be more interaction with police when they're not showing up to enforce a bad law. I mean, it's hard to complement a person if they have a good demeanor while doing something wrong. But, if there could be more interaction with police during social events, lunches, etc, that could be reported very positively. And I do think positive reports when police stop a real criminal are a good idea.
Here's an example of a positive report by Brad, on this site: http://freekeene.com/2010/06/08/a-thank-you-to-the-nashua-police/
I'd have probably taken my glasses off, btw ;). But I'm glad the cop responded the way he did.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
So do you see what I mean when I say the public has a skewed view of how Free Keene deals with/reacts to law enforcers? They only get to see the bad side, because the only part that is publicized. If topics and videos started going up every time a police man/woman was nice to a member, I think it would really begin to shift the public's perception of the movement in general…most likely in a positive manner.[/quote]
The problem is, police don't usually show up to say "hi" and have a lemonade. They show up to enforce the law – and when it's on activists, usually that's going to be what most here would consider a bad law. They can let it go, but as we said, it's not necessarily a great idea to praise them for that. So it is difficult.
Maybe both sides can go out of their way to create more "lemonade" type interactions.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
[quote] I've yet to hear of a phyiscal attack by a mother on, say, a smoker, for being a bad example in front of her kids. I think most folks recognize that the right behavior is to either move elsewhere, or nicely ask the person to stop. [/quote]
No I can definitely see where a parent would get in a verbal, if not physical altercation if their children were continually subjected to drug culture in a public park on a daily basis. [/quote]
I meant a cigarette smoker (but then I guess that's a drug too)
Verbal altercation maybe, in rare circumstances, but I've never heard of a physical altercation. And certainly not for what someone chooses to do on their own private property. It'd have to be a pretty crazy person who would bust down your front door and attack you for consuming something they don't personally approve of. Yet, that's exactly what the government does on a daily basis …
Check out this map, showing just some of the "botched" paramilitary raids on peaceful people in this country, mostly over drugs http://www.cato.org/raidmap/. Of course, I'd call any such raid on an innocent person's home a botch.
It's like we all have a giant moral blind spot when it comes to the behavior of government.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
But once again, you are using your own personal standards as the basis.[/quote]
I'm saying the standards I'm discussing are just about universally accepted when it comes to the behavior of individuals in their own private lives.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
Not to mention I can't imagine that all of the people you know constitute even a significant fraction of all the people in the country (no offense, haha) and the fact that most people surround themselves with people who hold similar beliefs. All that taken into account, can't you see how it is quite possible that there may be someone out there saying the same thing as you 'can't think of a single person who doesn't have what I consider quite good personal standards for their behavior' but whose behavior you would consider unacceptable?
[/quote]
I don't think so – unless that person was a member of a street gang or something, and even then, I bet they'd know decent people. I meet a lot of strangers too. Not once has a random stranger on the bus hauled off and punched me for no reason. Not once have I met someone who believes mugging people is ok.
There's definitely a very strong consensus in this country, that for a person in their private lives to attack someone, or steal from them, is immoral behavior. Surely you recognize this. Yet, many behaviors that everyone would recognize as immoral, if done by a private individual, is excused when done by "government". This is what I'm saying needs to change.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
But who is to say what is 'clearly defensive. What happened last night at the City Council Drinking Game is a great example. I don't know if you've seen the video, but Sam got into an altercation outside City Hall with a man named James. In the video, you can see that Sam gets within inches of James' face. James then raises the cup he was holding and positions in between himself and Sam…in the process he bumps into Sam's face. Sam then grabs the cup and crumples it.
People have been discussing this all day, and I think it relates very well to the point I am trying to make. Some people say that Sam was justified in using obvious force to attack James' property (his cup) because he had no idea what was in it (could have been poison…?) or what James was planning to do next and James did brush his face with the cup, though by accident. However, Sam positioned himself merely inches from James in the first place, why would he do that if he really felt threatened?
[/quote]
We still certainly need judges and arbiters to resolve disputes - and certainly disputes will still occur. But, the basic principles are there: we all agree that to initiate violence would be wrong. Nobody's saying that James or Sam was a special individual, belonging to a special group, and so the rules don't apply to them. Nobody's saying that attacking people who irritate you is ok. In fact, just about everyone, including Sam, recognizes his behavior as wrong, and everyone, including James, recognizes his behavior as rude – this general agreement is occurring even on what is really a rather complicated situation, not nearly as clear cut as most cases where force is used.
I think the consensus I'm speaking about certainly exists. Not that there are no disagreements, but that there is a very close level of agreement on major principles. Do you know anyone who thinks breaking and entering a person's home is ok, or murder, arson, rape, or muggings are ok? The overwhelming majority of people abide by basic principles for decency in their private lives.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
Do you see what I mean when I say that 'clearly self defense' usually isn't clear?
[/quote]
It's usually very clear, I think. If we could somehow pull up the last 100 uses of force by private individuals against private individuals in the country, I bet we'd have the same moral judgment on all 100. When it comes to serious violence, it's usually even clearer.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
So you think defense against imminent harm is acceptable, but not defense against potential harm?
[/quote]
There's definitely some room for discussion – but defense means that you're stopping someone who's in the act of harming you. I can't haul off and attack people because I think they might do something bad in the future.
Again, commonly accepted standards for decency between private individuals seem pretty close to the mark, to me.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
Also, you still never directly answered my question…if you believe aggression is unnecessary, then why would you want to remove laws which prevent aggression, at least to some extent?[/quote]
Because the enforcement of such laws IS aggression. It's like someone asking, "If you don't like aggression, why don't you like Joe's policy of knocking anyone who looks at him funny out cold? After all, I bet he's prevented a lot of fights".
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
No, I wasn't aware of that but that sounds like a form of CD which is incredibly more effective at least in the public's eyes than the more violent/'radical' ones that I have heard about. Unfortunately, it is usually the violent/'radical' ones which get the most attention…just the way media works I guess.[/quote]
Yeah. Here's a video of the CD itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8dQZ3aStis
And a longer video, before and after: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY0hq1f8nvQ
Here's a pretty complete account: http://jailedactivist.info/activists/james-andrew-carroll/2009-01-10-marijuana-protest/
There was one guy in the crowd who yelled something about nazis, that was unfortunate, but it seems like everyone did a good job on this otherwise.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42624#msg42624 date=1282366191]
Definitely, but that is why 'all' the behaviors which may lead to those acts aren't outlawed. Some are, but I believe that is only because they have been proven to be needed in the past.
[/quote]
I think the laws against victimless behaviors, today, are causing massive amounts of death, destruction of lives/families, and wasted resources.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42627#msg42627 date=1282367182]
But that's not the scenario I presented. In my scenario, guns are legal. Plain and simple. So what can be done to prevent a school shooting if someone walks in with a gun?[/quote]
Guns can be legal, period, but still prohibited by the owner of the school. I mean, cigarettes are legal, period (for adults), but that doesn't mean you can't ask me to smoke outside – or even call the cops if I won't leave. I really think private property rights are the way to resolve these kinds of issues.
But, to follow your scenario, I think the best thing to do to prevent a shooting is make sure all of the teachers and administrators are armed.
Actually, this is the best defense anyway. Because, let's face it, regardless of what the law says, if an armed person wants to enter a school, they can (unless someone who's armed is there to stop them). The shootings that have occurred would have been far less disastrous if someone had been there, armed, to stop the shooter. In fact, disaster has been averted in just this way, on schools, on a number of occasions.
Why do you think gunmen choose to attack schools, or post offices, instead of shooting ranges, or gun conventions?
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42627#msg42627 date=1282367182]
Unfortunately, I don't think that all the people in this country are willing to invest the time to decide where they want their money to go. They would much rather pay taxes and trust that their money is being put back into the system to help them.
[/quote]
If this is really what people want, we can just keep sending them tax forms, but mark it "optional". Then, they have the option of sending their money to the government, to be dispersed, or not. No threats needed.
Actually, there are already charities that do just this very thing now – like the United Way. You can donate to the umbrella organization, and trust that they'll distribute your money wisely.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42627#msg42627 date=1282367182]
Obviously this is grossly false, but if the tax system were to disappear tomorrow, do you really think that people would be willing to actually sit down and decide where, and how much of their money should be spent on certain things?
[/quote]
How about we at least give people the option?
I think quite a few people would be quite happy to refrain from bailing out Goldman Sachs, and send that money to the united way instead. This would be REAL accountability. If you don't do what the people want, you don't get funding. Plain and simple.
Or, at least, in the mean time, lets do this on some issues. Give people control over where their money goes.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42627#msg42627 date=1282367182]
Don't you think organizations which are pivotal to a productive society would end up being unable to do their job simply due to a lack of public interest in economics?
[/quote]
Definitely not. People are always willing to pay for valuable services. What would we do without food, clothing, or shelter? I'd say those industries are quite pivotal to a productive society (life itself, in fact), and yet we supply them quite effectively on a voluntary basis.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42627#msg42627 date=1282367182]
That's why I believe raising social awareness is important. If people are aware, they are more likely to attend city meetings and things of the sort which would give them more control over where their money is actually going.
[/quote]
The most control people can have over where their money is going, is actual control – free choice.
But, I do agree that encouraging local involvement is a good thing – and local government can be held far more accountable than higher governments.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42627#msg42627 date=1282367182]
I believe that you have accepted to be a part of this country because you live in it.[/quote]
I was born here. I had no choice. Do you think the group of men and women calling themselves the government has a right to demand that I either pay them, or leave my home? Why? Do you think they own all the land? If so, how did they come to such ownership?
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42627#msg42627 date=1282367182]
But, as I was talking about earlier, the reason most choice have to 'be made for people' is because of their own apathy or unwillingness to make them themselves. If people really are concerned about how their money is being spent, there are many ways which allow them to at least take some control, without having to disband the system altogether.
[/quote]
I think if you give people the option, you'll find they're quite willing to make their own choices about how to use their money. My goal is not to disband the system and let things fall where they may. I think it will take some time to change the way things work in certain areas, and I wouldn't want to cause major disruptions by being hasty.
I just want to move in the right direction – more freedom, more individual choice, less coercion – and more localism, less nationalism.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42627#msg42627 date=1282367182]
I'm all for promoting local government! yay! haha
[/quote]
Suppose I were to propose dispensing with national and state governments, and letting communities make their own decisions, in their own local governments. Would you support such a proposal?
Frankly, I think if we could somehow get that far, I'd be happy. There could be communities that have little or no taxes, and no intrusive laws, for people like me who'd prefer that, and there could be communities with higher taxes, more government services, or more intrusive laws. Then, each person could choose the kind of place they'd like to live. To me, making government local is every bit as important as making government small – perhaps even more important.
I think the problem is that with a national government like we have, there's no choice. I'd be happy to move a couple towns away for freedom. Heck, I'd be happy to move across the country. But, I have no option. Pretty much every livable place on the planet is part of a country with a man or women, or group of men or women effectively claiming to own everything and everyone in it.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42627#msg42627 date=1282367182]
Yup. I also think one of the biggest flaws I have seen in the Free Keene Movement is that they tend to be extremely passive aggressive and, quite frankly, childish when it comes to interacting with law enforcement and the like. If you try to communicate with cops or whatever without trying to undermine them or taunt them, they are much more likely to hear you out.[/quote]
Taunting is definitely no good. It seems like they do generally hear people out, I definitely give them lots of credit for that. That's not the case many places in this country.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42627#msg42627 date=1282367182]
haha yes, I think this is certainly a great plan for the future, seeing as I'm pretty sure I just spent two hours here! ah! haha but I really do appreciate the discussion! I'm hoping that it is discussions like these which will result in less of a rift between the Free Keene Movement and the general public!
[/quote]
I hope so too, and thanks very much for talking :).
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=3828.msg42726#msg42726 date=1282442445]
[quote] True, an even better way to prevent school shootings is to allow at least teachers to carry. I don't know how I feel about hormone-charged youngsters carting around guns, but those that prove themselves to be reasonable and competent should cause no problem being armed. Columbine would have ended much differently (and much sooner) had some of the students and teachers been armed. [/quote]
Yeah I mean the issue of how to stop school shootings is another discussion altogether. I was just using it as an example of something that could be rather harmful, were gun laws to be repealed.
[/quote]
"could be" if nobody took responsibility for the school's safety is pretty far from "would be". And the beauty is, in a stateless society, without the state dictating what must be done, every option would be tried somewhere, and you could place your child in the one with which you agreed, whether that's the metal detectors and guards, or the "armed citizenry" model, or something else entirely.
We talk about positive feedback for police – I want to publicly thank the cop shown in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XlGitfwC18 for his professional, kind, neighborly manner. He could have taken the "respect my authoritah or be arrested" approach, but he didn't. I think his actions were exemplary.
I'm not sure what was up with the guy at the end … I think he and the "double rainbow" guy should collaborate though. ;D
[quote author=tremendoustie link=topic=3828.msg42941#msg42941 date=1282587179]
We talk about positive feedback for police – I want to publicly thank the cop shown in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XlGitfwC18 for his professional, kind, neighborly manner. He could have taken the "respect my authoritah or be arrested" approach, but he didn't. I think his actions were exemplary.
I'm not sure what was up with the guy at the end … I think he and the "double rainbow" guy should collaborate though. ;D
[/quote]
Yaaaaah Youtoob!
[quote]But, to follow your scenario, I think the best thing to do to prevent a shooting is make sure all of the teachers and administrators are armed.
[/quote]
I think it is appropriate to say here that from my experience i believe a lot of teachers would not want to carry guns and also, there is a school resource officer at the high school who is well equipped to handle intruders.
On a separate not teaching is a stressful job and putting guns in the hands on stressed people who are not trained to handle them is an abysmal idea.
While a single school resource officer is "well equipped" to handle day-to-day disputes, I think they'd be hard-pressed to fend off even a columbine-style shooting, much less an actual attack.
I see your point on teachers being stressed and perhaps not the best choice for carrying… but I would NEVER advocate giving a weapon to someone who wasn't trained in its safe and proper use! If a teacher decides that he or she does not, for whatever reason, want to carry, that's up to them. What I am suggesting is allowing them that choice.