[quote author=Sovereign Curtis link=topic=2518.msg29402#msg29402 date=1266164984]
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?
[/quote]
I'm not Shane, but I'll give this one a go.
Typically throughout history when something like this has happened, the immediate result has been war, to reclaim the territory claimed by the would-be sovereign(s). The modern world looks a bit different, though, and so I expect something a bit different to happen. The claim of personal sovereignty, as opposed to the sovereignty of a state, is also rather different - not necessarily in its machinations, but in how it's viewed by others.
For instance, it's my personal opinion that the South lost the Civil War by attacking Fort Sumter. I don't think the people of the North would have had as much will to go to war without the provocation, and it's certain that the South lost the moral high ground (in respect to states' "rights") there. Let's be clear, slavery in the South was already on the way out before the war, and probably would have been gone within 20 years, but for the war - which, now that I think on it, is probably the reason that racism as law lasted as long as it did.
Long story short, if you withdraw consent, I don't think Judge Burke is going to care whether you consented to be governed or not. Claim your house as sovereign territory, and he isn't going to care; he'll send his people to come onto your territory and drag you off. Now, maybe something different will happen if you put up a fence and a border checkpoint… 
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29387#msg29387 date=1266119944]
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?
[/quote]
5pm at Abunara on Sundays. There was a weeknight Karaoke - not sure what is happening with that these days.
[quote author=FTL_Ian link=topic=2518.msg29410#msg29410 date=1266170805]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29387#msg29387 date=1266119944]
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?
[/quote]
There was a weeknight Karaoke - not sure what is happening with that these days.
[/quote]
I dont think karaoke night would make a good forum.
Bi-weekly weeknight meet n greet dinner @ Pedraza's?
[quote author=Sovereign Curtis link=topic=2518.msg29402#msg29402 date=1266164984]
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?
[/quote]
I feel this would turn again into Mr. Maxfield being "burnt out" on answering the same questions he's always fielded from us. I, while I realize he's a nice and reasonable guy, eventually felt that bombarding him with questions after "events" such as Rich Paul's arrest simply turned into the same discussion time and time again.
Anyone wanting to ask Mr. Maxfield questions, should first take the time to read through the questions he fielded on NHFree.com : http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=1825
He will tell you to work within the system. He will gloss over the fact that working "within the system", be it political or judicial, costs extraordinary amounts of time and effort, and often money, that isn't reimbursed should we be found not-guilty, or the charges dropped at the last moment. But the police and prosecutors get paid to prepare and be there. Therefore "the system" is inherently unfair toward the citizen, in favor of the State.
[quote author=Coconut link=topic=2518.msg29420#msg29420 date=1266176599]
[quote author=Sovereign Curtis link=topic=2518.msg29402#msg29402 date=1266164984]
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?
[/quote]
I feel this would turn again into Mr. Maxfield being "burnt out" on answering the same questions he's always fielded from us. I, while I realize he's a nice and reasonable guy, eventually felt that bombarding him with questions after "events" such as Rich Paul's arrest simply turned into the same discussion time and time again.
Anyone wanting to ask Mr. Maxfield questions, should first take the time to read through the questions he fielded on NHFree.com : http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=1825
He will tell you to work within the system. He will gloss over the fact that working "within the system", be it political or judicial, costs extraordinary amounts of time and effort, and often money, that isn't reimbursed should we be found not-guilty, or the charges dropped at the last moment. But the police and prosecutors get paid to prepare and be there. Therefore "the system" is inherently unfair toward the citizen, in favor of the State.
[/quote]
I read the thread, and thought Mr. Maxfield was reasonable. I can understand how answering too many of the same sort of questions could burn someone out – and I'm sure some people are more hostile than reasoned. I also think that it's unfair to ascribe to him the truly abusive actions of many modern police officers, especially in larger cities. He's obviously not a thug from the G8 protests, for example. Individualism, not collectivism, remember? All police officers are not the same – although I can understand that some would have a fear of all police, given the horrific things they have endured.
I'd understand if you don't want to get into a big discussion at this time, and you don't have to answer, but I still have a couple questions:
1. Do you recognize the benefit of civil disobedience in general (see my earlier reply on this thread), and do you support civil disobedience against immoral laws? If so, what do you think is the most effective way to go about doing it? If not, why not, and how do you square that with your presumed support for men like MLK?
2. What do you think of property rights, as a means of solving the issue of risky behavior (which you mention on the thread), as well as the tragedy of the commons? For example, if a road is privately owned, the owner(s) has/have a right to prohibit any intoxicated person from using it – or anyone without a license. If a park is privately owned, the owner has a right to prohibit pot smoking (or any smoking) in that park. In general, an owner of property can set whatever rules for its use that he/she likes. The problem is, since everyone is forced to pay for these things, there's no real owner – so there's no moral authority to create rules for the use of that property. I'd say the solution is to stop taking, and maintaining property by force, and to start returning it to the people.
Also, don't you think what would be extremely significant consequences in the case where a person is harmed can act as a deterrent? Personally, the reason I don't drink and drive is the risk of injuring others, or myself – not the risk of arrest. Accompanying this should be the knowledge that if my reckless behavior ends the life of someone else, the rest of my life will be spent working to make restitution to the beneficiaries of their will (family, etc.)
3. I hope I'm not pushing the envelope too much here, but do you support my right to decide how I will use the fruit of my labor? Could you support an arrangement where police services were subscribed to by individuals, community groups, charities, businesses, etc, voluntarily?
To Sover. Curtis's initial question: Sure, if you want to start a thread like that it's fine with me. Just remember that I'm here of my own accord, no one has tasked me to do this, and anything I state is my opinion and doesn't represent the city or the PD. I see the need for open, mature communication as vital to get any "good" done, and frankly my efforts in this area are usually not pleasurable, at all, to me (as anyone who was in the PD lobby a couple nights ago could probably attest).
For your "meatty" question: I don't recall reading the "Shire Society" section, though I might've glossed over a portion because I hit a hyperlink he put in a post. Regarding the "consent of the governed," I have said before that my take on that is "the governed" refers to the body of people in a given society. It is fantasy to assume that every individual in that body will agree with every aspect of the system (whether it's based on laws or a system of voluntariness complete with contracts and arbitration). That is why there are multiple ways to deal with such disagreement, to include going elsewhere where one isn't as affected by whatever they disagree with, or working within the system (that the body has set up and sanctions) to make change. As to an individual withdrawing consent, I don't pretend to be intimate with all of the legal issues and quasi-political theories about that sort of thing (I read a portion of a thread a week or two ago by a guy called SocialistSleepover that had so many "-isms" in it I had to stop and go pop an Advil). Perhaps the purchase of a large island in northern Lake Champlain would be in order, then see what y'all could do with that. Unless you could find a decisive way to geographically separate yourself from this society (which, again, is sanctioned by the body), to include cutting off from all services etc. then it would be practically difficult, in my opinion. Remember, I am but a layman in this area, so I'm sure there's all kinds of stuff I don't get.
Ian, I'm not a big fan of Mexican, but I can tolerate it. Also, with whom can I negotiate the purchase of a copy of the footage from the other night?
Well, Nick can tell you what I'll say, but the only way you'll know for sure is to walk up to me (or call or email me) and say "Hello." I guarantee you I'll say hello back, then you can ask me anything you wish.
Nick might classify it as "glossing over" but I seem to recall saying that the stuff he refers to (let's call it "Defendant Reimbursement in Certain Situations" for simplicity sake) is among much (most, even) that could be remedied legislatively. Sillier things are "legislated" each year, I still don't see why, with focused effort, something like that couldn't.
Also, I'm not punking out Nick here, he's been historically pretty fair and decent, and certainly willing to talk maturely.
ttie,
1. It's unarguable that CivDis has corrected some of the biggest wrongs in this country. I cannot equate, however, remedying the inequities against non-whites (for example), with smoking pot in Central Square for the sole purpose of zinging "the system" to get a reaction (also for example). Drug laws, motor vehicle laws etc. can, have and should be fought in the legislative system. During one of the last marijuana shindigs I was in front of the PD talking with anyone who wished, when one yelled at me equating the arrest of this pot "activist" with burning Jews in ovens. Come on. (Of course, despite the fact there were six or eight video cameras in my face THAT little nugget never made the edit!)
Ordinances and laws are added, changed and deleted every year, all across the country. There have been several places that have made great strides in the marijuana issue. It can be done, but it takes some organization, some patience and some maturity. From a practical viewpoint, while the 420 things and the great "invasions" of my PD make for great blog and YouTube fodder (and the resultant forum backslapping), I think they're hurting the legalization cause as well as damaging your credibility and standing in this community which you've come to. In short, you're alienating "the body" I referred to earlier.
ttie,
2. Property rights as you framed it sound great, in theory. Maybe someone could enlighten me on how we would make the transition from public property to private ownership. Auctions? You'd end up with four or five rich / powerful people owning everything in town (probably some of the same who own whole blocks now). Nothing, then, to stop them from doing pretty much anything they wished. Then, they'd hire their own Private Security Companies to enforce the rules on their property (like the toll booths that would spring up all over the place (they'd have to recoup their investment somehow) and also to man the anti-aircraft guns (they'll want to control their airspace, too, Ian!). Replicate this on a national scale, you'd end up with several large entities, and ultimately either a state of war-like coexistence at the expense of all of us who can't afford to buy any roads or land (like in Mogidishu) or defacto "government" under another name.
If not auctions, how about just giving everyone the road in front of their property. Even if everyone could agree on how that would work (usually have a different property owner on each side of the road), what would happen from then on would resemble a very real Monopoly game. The end result would be the same as in the Auction scenario.
The first step, returning all public property to "the people," seems impossible. Unless you're already rich. For most of us, it would be like starting Monopoly with just a couple 20's and a ten.
The "consequences" you mention would be different for every property owner. You'd have to have a billboard at each entrance of the block you own (you're rich!) because the penalty for drunk driving on your land is death, while the penalty for drunk driving on this other guy's land is you have to buy everyone a round of Scotch. Also, many people don't give a damn about consequences, because they don't care or they don't have much for you to "sue" out of them. The Market For Liberty sounds great, until you inject the "human condition" into the formula. Many people are just assholes, they won't cooperate, they'll abscond, they'll just whack your security guard when he comes over.
Sounds great, but it's fantasy.
ttie,
3. Easy one. I could support this, but again practicality and the human condition factors in. Would you have a big sign on your door that has a checklist of what you've subscibed for? If I was driving by and you hadn't subscribed to my service, do I just ignore your cries for help because someone's hacking you to death with a machete? Now, everyone might be saying "You're a human being, of course you'd help!" Well, it could be dangerous, and besides the fact you don't have a contract with me, I could get hurt or killed helping you. According to "The Market for Liberty" (and this is pretty close to a quote) self-sacrifice goes against the very spirit of a voluntary society. To me, that means the death of the concept of "duty," as far as public safety services go. Firefighters would be discouraged from putting out fires at houses they don't contract with, Private Security Guards same thing.
As a cop right now I would risk my life (and have a few times) to save someone else, whether I know them or not. That trait would be discouraged in a voluntary society. Accountability is less in a private organization, just look at Blackwater and, more recently, the private security guards who just stood around and watched as that 15 year old girl got the snot literally kicked out of her.
Again, I could support this, but you might not like the way the end result works out.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29477#msg29477 date=1266277544]
ttie,
1. It's unarguable that CivDis has corrected some of the biggest wrongs in this country. I cannot equate, however, remedying the inequities against non-whites (for example), with smoking pot in Central Square for the sole purpose of zinging "the system" to get a reaction (also for example). Drug laws, motor vehicle laws etc. can, have and should be fought in the legislative system. During one of the last marijuana shindigs I was in front of the PD talking with anyone who wished, when one yelled at me equating the arrest of this pot "activist" with burning Jews in ovens. Come on. (Of course, despite the fact there were six or eight video cameras in my face THAT little nugget never made the edit!)
Ordinances and laws are added, changed and deleted every year, all across the country. There have been several places that have made great strides in the marijuana issue. It can be done, but it takes some organization, some patience and some maturity. From a practical viewpoint, while the 420 things and the great "invasions" of my PD make for great blog and YouTube fodder (and the resultant forum backslapping), I think they're hurting the legalization cause as well as damaging your credibility and standing in this community which you've come to. In short, you're alienating "the body" I referred to earlier.
[/quote]
Can you equate the inequities against non-whites with the 250,000+ individuals in prisons for drugs? These people harmed nobody but themselves. The purpose of CivDis, in my opinion, is to draw attention to the problem, which the 420 celebrations did. I do not know who compared it to "burning Jews in ovens." as I was not there, but I will agree that statement was a little wide of the current mark.
CivDis, may alienate some people, but it is very good at getting attention, and putting pressure on "representatives", which can, and has in the past, brought about positive change.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
ttie,
2. Property rights as you framed it sound great, in theory. Maybe someone could enlighten me on how we would make the transition from public property to private ownership. Auctions? You'd end up with four or five rich / powerful people owning everything in town (probably some of the same who own whole blocks now). Nothing, then, to stop them from doing pretty much anything they wished. Then, they'd hire their own Private Security Companies to enforce the rules on their property (like the toll booths that would spring up all over the place (they'd have to recoup their investment somehow) and also to man the anti-aircraft guns (they'll want to control their airspace, too, Ian!). Replicate this on a national scale, you'd end up with several large entities, and ultimately either a state of war-like coexistence at the expense of all of us who can't afford to buy any roads or land (like in Mogidishu) or defacto "government" under another name.
If not auctions, how about just giving everyone the road in front of their property. Even if everyone could agree on how that would work (usually have a different property owner on each side of the road), what would happen from then on would resemble a very real Monopoly game. The end result would be the same as in the Auction scenario.
The first step, returning all public property to "the people," seems impossible. Unless you're already rich. For most of us, it would be like starting Monopoly with just a couple 20's and a ten.
The "consequences" you mention would be different for every property owner. You'd have to have a billboard at each entrance of the block you own (you're rich!) because the penalty for drunk driving on your land is death, while the penalty for drunk driving on this other guy's land is you have to buy everyone a round of Scotch. Also, many people don't give a damn about consequences, because they don't care or they don't have much for you to "sue" out of them. The Market For Liberty sounds great, until you inject the "human condition" into the formula. Many people are just assholes, they won't cooperate, they'll abscond, they'll just whack your security guard when he comes over.
Sounds great, but it's fantasy.
[/quote]
The best transition method I've heard of involves the people, individual choosing to stop paying the state for the "services" it provides, then as "public" property becomes unmaintained by a state that has little money left, the property is homesteaded. Interested individuals operating in whatever method they feel best, be this building toll booths or going door to door for donations, begin maintaining the properties on a voluntary basis. The idea of the use of AA guns to control the airspace above a property seems prohibitively expensive, while renting the airspace out, perhaps to an "air-highway" company that then sell the routes to airlines, is actually profitable, and thus going to be more desirable to the land owner. Private arbitration companies will likely also establish a limit to how far above a piece of property one can control the airspace, or the argument could be made that I hold the exclusive title, and right to use, a rotating beam of property extending between the land I purchased and the edge of the universe, which would be a property rights nightmare. Further, as air travel doesn't cause damage to the property under it, a claim that an airplane flying overhead is trespassing would be difficult to enforce.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29480#msg29480 date=1266279570]
ttie,
3. Easy one. I could support this, but again practicality and the human condition factors in. Would you have a big sign on your door that has a checklist of what you've subscibed for? If I was driving by and you hadn't subscribed to my service, do I just ignore your cries for help because someone's hacking you to death with a machete? Now, everyone might be saying "You're a human being, of course you'd help!" Well, it could be dangerous, and besides the fact you don't have a contract with me, I could get hurt or killed helping you. According to "The Market for Liberty" (and this is pretty close to a quote) self-sacrifice goes against the very spirit of a voluntary society. To me, that means the death of the concept of "duty," as far as public safety services go. Firefighters would be discouraged from putting out fires at houses they don't contract with, Private Security Guards same thing.
As a cop right now I would risk my life (and have a few times) to save someone else, whether I know them or not. That trait would be discouraged in a voluntary society. Accountability is less in a private organization, just look at Blackwater and, more recently, the private security guards who just stood around and watched as that 15 year old girl got the snot literally kicked out of her.
Again, I could support this, but you might not like the way the end result works out.
[/quote]
As to this, it is perfectly reasonable, if I, as a private security vendor, provide an emergency service to somebody I don't have a contract with for me to then bill them for the services rendered, and enforce it in private arbitration. This kind of thing happens with doctors whenever a person enters the ER while unconscious and unidentified. There is a risk that the person would refuse to pay, but that is a risk in any transaction. These costs, whatever they happen to be, would be built into the regular service agreements. The company would have the right to publish the names of people who have not paid for services received, which would lead to public pressure from those customers footing the bill for the person to pay up.
It is my opinion that there are enough good people to pressure private security companies that don't provide emergency services to ANY person regardless of an existing contract out of business as they encourage things like boycotts and demonstrations against the actions of that company.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
Many people … won't cooperate, they'll abscond, they'll just whack your security guard when he comes over.
[/quote]
Are you kidding me? You are a police officer, and you REALLY believe this? You, who has a career's worth of experience leveraging the threat of force to coerce compliance?!? If we get rid of police, and re-label them all private security, all of a sudden people will stop respecting an authoritative individual? They'll stop fearing for their physical safety? I dont think so.
Also, I can imagine a much better playing out of the "everyone gets the road in front of their land" scenario. In fact, after much time and effort, there is not ONE SINGLE "problem" I can't see private industry "solving". I guess you just need a little imagination. Perhaps you should watch some Molyneux videos, he does a very good job opening your mind to the endless possibilities inherit in a society in which everyone is able to maximize their effort towards improving their lot in life.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29477#msg29477 date=1266277544]
During one of the last marijuana shindigs I was in front of the PD talking with anyone who wished, when one yelled at me equating the arrest of this pot "activist" with burning Jews in ovens. Come on. (Of course, despite the fact there were six or eight video cameras in my face THAT little nugget never made the edit!) [/quote]
wow.
did anyone in the group call that person out on it right then? Even just a "shut up" or "hey come on?"
[quote author=Sovereign Curtis link=topic=2518.msg29488#msg29488 date=1266282016]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
Many people … won't cooperate, they'll abscond, they'll just whack your security guard when he comes over.
[/quote]
Are you kidding me? You are a police officer, and you REALLY believe this? You, who has a career's worth of experience leveraging the threat of force to coerce compliance?!? If we get rid of police, and re-label them all private security, all of a sudden people will stop respecting an authoritative individual? They'll stop fearing for their physical safety? I dont think so.
[/quote]
Though I work for little KPD, if someone murders me on the job it's probable that every other agency able to will pull out the stops to help bring my killer in. That's a benefit (for me, anyway) of that "monopoly" if you will. Now imagine several (or many) different Private Security Firms. Some may be pretty big, more probably will be smaller. These individual companies would be competing, so there might not be much effort put into helping each other out. The resources available to that little security company would probably be pretty limited. One could argue that there could be a few GIANT security firms, who could muster the economy of scale to be able to conduct a huge investigation or manhunt, but then you run into virtual monopolies there, with them gobbling up the smaller firms until there's no way to hold them accountable for anything.
Bottom line, in my opinion, is for the evil person predilected to that sort of behavior there would be a lot less deterrent with a PrivateSecurity Firm.
Maybe private industry could do everything better. Just remember that the bigger firms would end up dominating their market, probably driving smaller firms out, or gobbling them up. End result might be a few huge companies duking it out, maybe even in open warfare. Maybe you'd end up with defacto government, or at least virtual serfdom for we little people. Like the robber barons of old.
Just my opinion. Where can I watch Molyneux?
[quote author=PraeterIdiot link=topic=2518.msg29490#msg29490 date=1266283506]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29477#msg29477 date=1266277544]
During one of the last marijuana shindigs I was in front of the PD talking with anyone who wished, when one yelled at me equating the arrest of this pot "activist" with burning Jews in ovens. Come on. (Of course, despite the fact there were six or eight video cameras in my face THAT little nugget never made the edit!) [/quote]
wow.
did anyone in the group call that person out on it right then? Even just a "shut up" or "hey come on?"
[/quote]
No, no one did that I heard. That was actually one of three times someone said that (different people each time). The first time no one said anything to them, and I didn't call them on it either. The third time someone was saying it one of you DID come up to me and say that fellow didn't represent most of your thinking. The chap who talked to me then also has always been decent and mature, which I appreciate.
[quote author=PraeterIdiot link=topic=2518.msg29490#msg29490 date=1266283506]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29477#msg29477 date=1266277544]
During one of the last marijuana shindigs I was in front of the PD talking with anyone who wished, when one yelled at me equating the arrest of this pot "activist" with burning Jews in ovens. Come on. (Of course, despite the fact there were six or eight video cameras in my face THAT little nugget never made the edit!) [/quote]
wow.
did anyone in the group call that person out on it right then? Even just a "shut up" or "hey come on?"
[/quote]
It sounds similar to the stuff Ian and Mark say on FTL. I've heard several activists in Keene stay stuff like this. Or we are all slaves. Mark defends both of these sayings on FTL. To the average person, this type of talk may seem absurd or even insane. I'm not sure because I'm not the average person.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29494#msg29494 date=1266285566]
Like the robber barons of old.
Just my opinion. Where can I watch Molyneux?
[/quote]
The robber barons of old often had government granted monopolies, or favorable legislation preventing competition.
Molyneux is at Freedomainradio.com.