I'm here.
welcome to the forum.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29021#msg29021 date=1265765336]
I'm here.
[/quote]
Welcome 
I wondered if you were going to pop up! Welcome.
[quote author=FTL_Ian link=topic=2518.msg29027#msg29027 date=1265770872]
I wondered if you were going to pop up! Welcome.
[/quote]
I am compelled.
Welcome, Shane.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29028#msg29028 date=1265772088]
[quote author=FTL_Ian link=topic=2518.msg29027#msg29027 date=1265770872]
I wondered if you were going to pop up! Welcome.
[/quote]
I am compelled.
[/quote]
Compelled? ???
In any case, I look forward to hearing your perspective on things
[quote author=ttie link=topic=2518.msg29032#msg29032 date=1265775130]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29028#msg29028 date=1265772088]
[quote author=FTL_Ian link=topic=2518.msg29027#msg29027 date=1265770872]
I wondered if you were going to pop up! Welcome.
[/quote]
I am compelled.
[/quote]
Compelled? ???
In any case, I look forward to hearing your perspective on things
[/quote]
As am I. The ride along I saw on youtube was a lot different than I expected, so I don't see why his perspective would be like I expected.
You are one of the 2 cops that made me think twice about putting all cops in the same catagory of "asshole". Glad you're on.
Welcome to the forum Shane!
Hey Shane. Welcome.
Well, I had something wonderfully written up, but I did Preview then hit the BACK button to re-edit and it flushed everything. Live and learn. Here goes again.
Back from days off, sick with whatever is hitting everyone lately.
Addressing earlier posts in no order:
I've been lurking or using aliases for years, beginning with NH Underground. I saw an opportunity for face-to-face detente, so I surfaced under my real name there a few years back. I saw what I thought was an extended hand, I extended my own. There was some good communication going on, even a few positive in-person things. Alas, after some time I found myself burned out with the whole thing…I was somewhat demoralized by several aspects of the relationship (for example, the many goods we have done are irrelevant as long as we're still "the Police"). I wearied at becoming the defacto "pinata" for some of the pre-orchestrated "events." I fell victim to the whole "online forum" phenomenon, I found myself kissing up to even unreasonable assholes just to be accepted by "the group." When I found myself logging on at home (at dial-up speeds of 26.4 to 28.8 K!) and losing sleep because I was so aggravated by something someone had written, I decided to go cold turkey. And for the most part I did, until recently.
As for "compelled," the Spruce Street shooting and the predictable reactions to it prompted me to step back in.
Regarding my "perspective," many of you know me fairly well. I like to think I am reasonable, fair and certainly open to mature discussion about what I do, or my opinions on things. It is known that I tend to agree with much of this groups "platform" (if there was such a thing), but I disagree with the practicality or efficacy of many of the tactics chosen, simply because they're just that…tactics, not strategy. No one ever won a war with tactics. I'm also a realist, in that I know there are some out there who can NEVER agree with me simply because I am who I am. These are the same people who prefer to let the lives I've saved as a cop (there've been a few personal highlights in my career), or the lives I've changed for the better (many of those) be eclipsed by the fact they hate me because I do some things they disagree with (like write parking tickets, or arrest DWI's or whatever). So, you may not like my "perspective."
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29367#msg29367 date=1266110770]
Regarding my "perspective," many of you know me fairly well. I like to think I am reasonable, fair and certainly open to mature discussion about what I do, or my opinions on things.[/quote]
I think being here, and open to discussion is a very positive thing, I find it admirable.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29367#msg29367 date=1266110770]
It is known that I tend to agree with much of this groups "platform" (if there was such a thing), but I disagree with the practicality or efficacy of many of the tactics chosen, simply because they're just that…tactics, not strategy.[/quote]
Would you say you disagree with civil disobedience in general, or do you make a finer distinction? Surely you must recognize the effectiveness of civil disobedience efforts of the past, in causing reform (the underground railroad, Egyptian independence, Indian independence, the crumbling of the communist government in East Germany and in what's now the Czech Republic, the independence of the Baltic states from the USSR, women's sufferage, the end of segregation, etc, were accomplished mainly or entirely using civil disobedience). If you do support civil disobedience in some cases, is there a certain way of doing civil disobedience that you support, and other ways you do not support?
I myself disagree with the tactics of some, of course.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29367#msg29367 date=1266110770]
No one ever won a war with tactics. I'm also a realist, in that I know there are some out there who can NEVER agree with me simply because I am who I am. These are the same people who prefer to let the lives I've saved as a cop (there've been a few personal highlights in my career), or the lives I've changed for the better (many of those) be eclipsed by the fact they hate me because I do some things they disagree with (like write parking tickets, or arrest DWI's or whatever).[/quote]
I think people are far too complicated to paint with one brush. Few (perhaps none) do only good or evil. We need to recognize the goodness in each other, and encourage it, while pointing out and opposing the evil. No person should be considered an enemy. Rather, we must work to root out the evil within ourselves, and others.
I think it's a shame if some others cannot recognize and laud the admirable things in each other, because they oppose other actions. Condemning a person does not help anything improve – encouraging good does.
Specifically, I think there is a great deal of what KPD does that is good and necessary, and a great deal that is unnecessary and/or wrong. I wish people were free to support the protection services they need, rather than being forced to pay for everything. We need people to stop those who harm others or their property, and hold them accountable. Arresting pot smokers, shutting down unlicensed business, or enforcing regulations? Not so much.
I want the freedom to hire you to perform those services I need, and morally support. The fact that I do not have that freedom is not your doing, but it is something you can do a great deal to correct. Standing up for what's morally right is never popular – reformers are usually hated in their time, and only universally lauded when they are old or dead.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29367#msg29367 date=1266110770]
So, you may not like my "perspective."
[/quote]
I'd like to hear your perspective. There's no point in talking to people with whom I agree 100%. And, you're in a difficult and unique position. It requires more courage for you to take stands, than it does for others, because of personal risk to yourself – but I think you also have a greater voice, for that reason.
The point is not for us to condemn others or ourselves for not being perfect – the point is to move forward, rather than stagnate or regress. The key is to have the courage to think honestly, and the courage to act on our convictions.
It's been too long since Shane came to a Social Sundays. You working Sunday evenings these days?
At the risk of quoting way too much from an excellent source, I'll agree that the strategy is the most important thing. But that the strategy is unclear (to outsiders) does not mean it doesn't exist.
This is from The Voluntaryist No. 29, excerpted from I Must Speak Out: The Best of the Voluntaryist 1982-1999 and it squarely addresses this issue.
[quote]Nineteenth-century reformers, especially the non-resistants and abolitionists, grappled with this problem. How were they to advocate the abolition of slavery? Should they wait for Congress to abolish slavery or should they try to eliminate the vestiges of slavery from their daily lives? Should they be immediatists or gradualists? Should they use legislative means or moral suasion? Should they vote or hold office or should they denounce the U.S. Constitution as a tool of the slaveholders?
Those nineteenth-century thinkers whom I would label voluntaryist (such as Henry David Thoreau, Charles Lane, William Lloyd Garrison, Henry Clarke Wright, and Edmund Quincy in pre-Civil War days, and Nathaniel Peabody Rogers) all believed that a better society only came about as the individuals within society improved themselves. They had no plan, other than a supreme faith that if one improved the components of society, societal improvement would come about automatically. As Charles Lane once put it, "Our reforms must begin within ourselves." Better men must be made to constitute society. For "society taken at large is never better or worse than the persons who compose it, for they in fact are it."
The Garrisonians, for example, were opposed to involvement in politics (whether it be office holding or participating in political parties) because they did not want to sanction a government which permitted slavery. Their opposition to participation in government also stemmed from their concern with how slavery was to be abolished. To Garrison's way of thinking it was as bad to work for the abolition of slavery in the wrong way as it was to work openly for an evil cause. The end could not justify the means. The anti-electoral abolitionists never voted, even if they could have freed all the slaves by the electoral process. Garrison's field of action was that of moral suasion and not political action. He thought that men must first be convinced of the moral righteousness of the anti-slavery cause. Otherwise it would be impossible to change their opinions, even by the use of political force.
Given this approach, it seemed that the anti-electoral abolitionists had no real strategy. In rebutting this criticism, Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, in a September 6, 1844, editorial in the Herald of Freedom, spelled out his answer to the question: "What is your Plan?"
[quote][T]o be without a plan is the true genius and glory of the anti-slavery enterprise. The mission of that movement is to preach eternal truths, and to bear an everlasting testimony against the giant falsehoods which bewitch and enslave the land. It is no part of its business to map out its minutest course in all time to come,–to furnish a model for all the machinery that will ever be set in motion by the principle it is involving. The plan and the machinery will be easily developed and provided, as soon as the principle is sufficiently aroused in men's hearts to demand the relief of action.
What is the course of action these abolitionists have pursued? How have they addressed themselves to their mighty work? . . . They were not deterred by finding themselves alone facing a furious and innumerable host of enemies. They felt that the Right was on their side, and they went forward in the calm certainty of a final victory. They began, and as far as they have remained faithful, they continue to perform their mission by doing "the duty that lieth nearest to them." They soon discovered that Slavery is not a thing a thousand miles removed, but that it is intertwined with all the political, religious, social and commercial relations in the country. . . . In obedience to the highest philosophy, though perhaps not knowing it to be such, they proceeded to discharge their own personal duties in this regard–to bear an emphatic and uncompromising testimony against Slavery, and to free their own souls from all participation in its blood-guiltness. They laid no far-reaching plans . . . but obeyed that wisdom which told them that to do righteousness is the highest policy, and that to pursue such a straight-forward course would bring them soonest to the desired goal. Their question was not so much how shall we abolish Slavery? as, how shall we best discharge our duty?[/quote]
Edmund Quincy in a February 24, 1841, editorial by the same title, in The Non-Resistant, pointed out that social institutions are but the projection or external manifestation of the ideas and attitudes existing in people's minds. "Change the ideas, and the institutions instantly undergo a corresponding change." In words reminiscent of Bob LeFevre's emphasis on self-control, Quincy went on to write that
[quote]There is a sense in which the kingdoms of the world are within us. All power, authority, consent, come from the invisible world of the mind. . . . External revolutions, accomplished by fighting, have in general affected little but a change of masters. . . .
We would try to bring about a mightier revolution by persuading men to be satisfied to govern themselves according to the divine laws of their natures, and to renounce the [attempt to govern others] by laws of their own devising. Whenever men shall have received these truths into sincere hearts, and set about the business of governing themselves, and cease to trouble themselves about governing others, then whatever is vicious and false in the existing institution will disappear, and its place be supplied by what is good and true.
We do not hold ourselves obliged to abandon the promulgation of what we believe to be truths because we cannot exactly foretell how the revolution which they are to work, will go on, or what will be the precise form of the new state which they bring about. . . . A reformer can have no plan but faith in his principles. He cannot foresee whither they will lead him but he knows that they can never lead him astray. A plan implies limitations and confinement. Truth is illimitable and diffusive. We only know that Truth is a sure guide, and will take care of us and of herself, if we will but follow her.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Ian, I just changed days, am on Sat. through Tuesdays (except tomorrow, I took a day off for my daughter's birthday party). I could be ammenable to a "Well-met Wednesday" or a "Thoughtful Thursday" or even a "Familiar Friday." Where is it these days?
Error, that all makes some sense, however I view "plans" as flexible, not rigid. I view them as aids to focusing effort. While entropy seems nice to some people, by itself it takes a long time. I'm no history expert, but I would guess there were plenty of people and organizations working to abolish slavery, including some who planned, organized and executed, from both within and without the electoral process.
There's something to that. Plans certainly help with accomplishing specific objectives. Though, as some people have said…
No battle plan survives contact with the enemy. - Colin Powell
In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
(Neither of those are original; the sayings have been around in one form or another for millennia.)
good post Error
it is hard for some to understand our methods or goals … especially those in the system which we seek to change or abolish
A goal without a plan is just a wish. - Larry Elder
Officer Maxfield, would you consent to a special thread called "Ask an Officer - w/ Shane Maxfield" where "we" can politely ask you the relevant questions on our mind?
If so, I propose question #1:
What are your thoughts regarding the theory/assertion behind "our" government's right to rule based on the voluntary consent of the governed? I'm sure you've seen Ian's "Shire Society" threads; do, in your opinion, "we" have the Right, under the government's own system/rules/etc, to withdraw our consent to be governed, and if so, what are the ramifications for one who declares their Sovereignty and withdraws their consent?