Another article, updated to 2019, another indication of how laws
that are unenforceable can be used to harass citizens.
Even though some laws are rarely enforced, I have seen laws
against blasphemy, same-sex sex, fornication, etc. still on the books.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/do-sodomy-laws-still-exist/
Harassment can be done regardless of laws.
By demonstrating freedom in our Society, we attract others to assist and demonstrate.
This is a snowball effect to allow us to displace statism.
So many homesteads around the shire society federation and unaffiliated homesteads as well practicing more paternal voluntaryism exist to allow this to continue.
Welcome Home
So, it behooves us to remove as much of their ammunition as possible.
It’s something like rebels taking over an armory… it takes away the
ammunition before the government can use it, and gives the rebels the
ammunition to fight back.
We take away the laws, we take away their ammunition, and if they
continue to try to use it, we can claim that the laws they are trying to
use to harass us no longer exist. Enough false arrest, and they soon
stop it.
Bitcoin for the win.
My apologies for my long delay, real life and all.
I apologize if I mis-identiftied you, I can only judge people by what I see and hear.
I too am done with baby-steps. I’m for living my life as a free man. My freedom isn’t dependent upon others opinions, but rather my ability to, as Heinlein said, accept responsibility for my actions, to ignore or tolerate the ‘laws’ that are unjust, and to obey the Laws that are just, but am always be responsible for my actions.
I question your premise that “we can’t just rid of goverment”. Why not? “Government” doesn’t exist in this reality. It never has existed. It’s a form of religion, and just like any religion you are free to accept it’s ideology, or reject it. Don’t think me a fool that there aren’t men and women who belong to this religion, whom are willing to justify their immoral and unlawful behaviors in the name of their religion, just as there are other religions who have in the past, and those who even now choose to attack and kill people to serve their “gods”.
It’s like Atlas Shrugged, the first step in changing your paradigm is to first understand that everything you “know is wrong” and then to stand up and say “no”. “No” is a powerful word. The fact that you have people willing to say “no” to one set of rulers is and will be a move in the direction of exercising the collectivist mental spooks that exist in people’s heads.
It’s interesting that you mention Marx’s failures. I wonder if you consider that you are doing something similar to what he did. You can not predict, let alone control, the collective will of nine billion people, nor nine million, nor nine thousand, nor nine hundred, nor nine. You can only control one person, you. Any attempt to control the will of anyone else is an exercise in futility. You can talk to people. You can attempt to influence people, but you can’t control them. So, just don’t try.
I can understand that this is what you maybe are trying to do, convince or influence people. Garbage in, equals garbage out. If you start will a faulty idea, the only outcome is a faulty one. The first step is to change your perspective, then you can start to effectively influence people. People want answers to their questions of “what do we do” and “how do we move from here”. You don’t have the answer. I don’t have the answer. No one does.
So, when I tell people that we need to end “government” they play the game “twenty questions”, I refuse to play. I just tell them, first you have to be willing to accept the premise that everything you know is wrong, and can you do possibly do that? If they can’t, then it’s a waste of time because they are so hooked into the Matrix that they can’t break free. If they say, yes or maybe then we can talk.
Changing minds is a long and arduous task. You have to attack accepted premises. If someone asks me what do we do about the police, and after they are will to at least accept the premise that possibly everything they know is wrong, I attack the premise. First, what do police officers do? “They uphold the law.” How do they do that? “By enforcing the law”, “by protecting people from law breakers”, or “by fighting violence with violence”. How many people live “here”, roughly 330 million. How many law enforcers are there, about 23 million. Even if it were 1 citizen to 1 law enforcer, would there still be crime, yes. It is because crime is, by and large an opportunity behaviour, that eliminating crime, even with a 1 to 1 ratio, would mean that the law enforcer would still have to be present to stop crime. You’d need either a force multiplier or a higher ratio of law enforcer to citizen. Even then, that wouldn’t be enough.
We already see, within the law enforcement community, an “us” versus “them”, or more precisely a “law enforcement” versus “citizen”. More precisely we see “gang” elements arrmsing. Some law enforcers believe that because they have been “granted power” that they are above the “citizen”, check any videos on “amendment auditors” and you’ll see this recurring theme. They even have slogans like “back the blue”, their own religion like “the thin blue line”, and their own emblems like a black and white American-like flag where a stripe is blue.
I could beat this dead horse for hours, but I feel I’ve made my point on this issue. Similar attributes are contained within every element of “government”, doctrine, slogans, and emblems because they are nothing more then gang members.
Now going back to NHExit, you aren’t going to convince anyone to support the idea by outlining just the problem, and some people do this, and I don’t think you’re going to convince people to support it by giving them solutions either. They will always turn back to false rhetoric. The “who will protect us”, oh the police, “who will adjudicate the law”, we need lawyers and judges, “who will protect us from hostile states”, we need a strong military, and so on. Simply put, we need to expose the facts behind these ideas. Soldiers, law enforcers, judges and lawyers, all profit from their positions in their society, they all pervert the law for their own wants and needs, even the so-called “good guys” will, from time to time, commit acts of evil. They, like us, are only human.
Answering the “what about” and “who will” questions won’t convince people. You have to strike at the root of all the issues. You have the “government” you deserve because your “government” doesn’t represent you. The people occupy the positions of “government” are human beings, filled with human desires. If you allow them to rule over you, you will always get flawed situations. The answer is not to replace federal “government”, with the state “government”, or local “government”, but rather to replace it with a system of voluntary association with real consent, where the default is the violence of natural existence, or choosing to live in a society where your choices and decisions are respected, and no one holds a superior position to anyone. It’s not an utopia, it’s a hard wanted, hard earned life style change.
Cyberdoo, I’m not trying to win friends and influence people, as they say.
I agree with most of what you say. But no, I’m not trying to predict what
people will do, or influence them in any particular direction.
I AM trying to demonstrate that there are practical responses that can be
made to what government is now doing to what the people can do in the
future. For example, I made a comparison between the marriage relationship
and the freedom of sex relationship. There were no obvious advantages to
being married, at least at the state level (federal is something else altogether).
Further, the government does not keep track of what persons are living
together “in sin” as it were, unless they are getting government benefits
of some kind… at least here in NH.
You have put forth all of the basic arguments made for an anarchist society.
But it is only theory. You have not said one iota about how to practically
reach the ends you have enumerated. It’s all talk, no practice.
There is one prohibition regarding sex that much has been made of
in the past, that relies on a combination of statutes.
We have already looked at the statutes for indecent exposure… some
of these make it criminal to expose in the presence of anyone under
a certain age, if it will cause affront or alarm.
There is another statute, usually about “enticing” a minor into a situation
for lewd/lascivious/immoral behavior. Not all states have an age limit.
Not all states have an enticement statute.
There are even some states that have neither an age exception nor
an enticement of a minor stature.
In this case, the most libertarian outlook would be to not prohibit the
mere presence of a minor in the presence of anyone engaging in sex.
In NH, the recently passed statute reads:
I. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if:
(a) Such person fornicates, exposes his or her genitals, or performs
any other act of gross lewdness under circumstances which he or
she should know will likely cause affront or alarm; or
II. A person is guilty of a class B felony if:
(a) Such person, under circumstances that may be reasonably
construed as being for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal,
purposely fornicates, exposes his or her genitals, or performs any
other act of gross lewdness knowing that a child who is less than
16 years of age is present.
(b) Such person purposely performs any act of sexual penetration or
sexual contact on himself or herself or another in the presence of
a child who is less than 16 years of age.
Other paragraphs of this section pertain to electronic transmission
of images of the same type.
As far as I can tell, there is no enticement statute currently on the books.
It would mean that persons under a certain age would be able to be
present with two or more people engaged in sex, so long as there is
no actual involvement by the child him/her self, and the adults
could not be prosecuted for allowing a child to view them having
sex.
To move toward a more libertarian state, it would be necessary to
repeal this newest wording of the statute, or at least the parts referred
to above.
If the Olympic Parade next year has children participating, it may very well be the largest civil disobedience push on NH against restrictions on “exposing” ourselves to and from children, granite style if they and their parents allow such National Geographic life style.
Recording naked children has some serious criminalization efforts so putting an AI filter of such into place might be necessary to publish such as a journalist.
Simply pretending to cover such events might be huge civil disobedience for videographers.
Can you expand on 1: the Olympic Parade (what is it, never heard of it),
and 2: what that has to do with exposing ourselves.
Sure, the original Olympics had no dress codes and the gender divisions were through demonstrating your gender publicly while competing.
It follows that Olympic parades around Rome had nude participants of all ages.
There are rumors one or more people plan to circle the camping areas along the roads of Rogers at a predefined time before or after next years Olympic games at Rogers around the time of the Summer Solstice 2024. Somewhat of a hybrid between a short marathon and a celebratory parade for anyone to participate in, decentralized fashion which participants raise the best donations.
An Olympic “Porcupune Parade”.
No gas combustion vehicles please, going green by not buying or wearing clothes during the Olympics is highly recommended although towels are sold by BFV sponsors.
Summing up the changes that would have to be made to make NH the most libertarian state in all of the statutes so far discussed.
The number [12] means change the number 13 to 12.
Title XLIII Domestic Relations. Chapter 457 Marriages. Relationships
457:1 Purpose and Intent [REPEAL]
457:2 Marriages Prohibited
No person shall marry his or her father, mother, [father’s brother, father’s sister, mother’s brother, mother’s sister], son, daughter, brother, sister, son’s son, son’s daughter, daughter’s son, daughter’s daughter, [brother’s son, brother’s daughter, sister’s son, sister’s daughter, father’s brother’s son, father’s brother’s daughter, mother’s brother’s son, mother’s brother’s daughter, father’s sister’s son, father’s sister’s daughter, mother’s sister’s son, or mother’s sister’s daughter]. No person shall be allowed to be married to more than one person at any given time. [delete sections in bold between the brackets]
457:3 Recognition of Out-of-State Marriages.
Every marriage legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire [, which would not be prohibited under RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire, ] shall be recognized as valid in this state for all purposes if or once the contracting parties are or become permanent residents of this state subsequent to such marriage, and the issue of any such marriage shall be legitimate. [Marriages legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire which would be prohibited under RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire shall not be legally recognized in this state. Any marriage of New Hampshire residents recognized as valid in the state prior to the effective date of this section shall continue to be recognized as valid on or after the effective date of this section. Notwithstanding anything in this statute or the provisions of RSA 457:43 to the contrary, any marriage of a same-sex couple lawfully contracted outside New Hampshire shall be recognized in New Hampshire as of the date of its solemnization.] [Delete the words in bold between brackets]
Section 457:8 to section 457:46 [REPEAL]
Add something like the Alabama code:
Title 30 – Marital and Domestic Relations
Section 30-1-4 – Minimum Age for Contracting Marriage
A person under the age of 16 years is incapable of contracting marriage.
Section 30-1-9.1 Requirements for marriage; validity
(a) The only requirement for a marriage in this state shall be for parties who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a marriage as provided in this section.
(b) The marriage document required to be executed by the parties shall contain information to identify the parties:
(1) The full legal names of both of the parties.
(2) A notarized affidavit from each party declaring all of the following:
Chapter 632-A. Sexual Assault and Related Offenses.
Section 632-A:2 Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault
I. A person is guilty of the felony of aggravated felonious sexual assault if such person engages in sexual penetration with another person under any of the following circumstances:
(l) When the victim is less than [12] years of age.
Section 632 – A:3 Felonious Sexual Assault
A person is guilty of a class B felony if such person:
II. Engages in sexual penetration with a person who is [12] years of age or older and under 16 years of age where the age difference between the actor and the person is 5 years or more; or
III. (a) Engages in sexual contact with a person:
(1) Who is under [12 ] years of age
Section 632-A:4 Sexual Assault
A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor under any of the following circumstances:
(a) When the actor subjects another person who is [12 ] years of age or older to sexual contact under any of the circumstances named in RSA 632-A:2.
(b) When the actor subjects another person who is [12 ] years of age or older and under 16 years of age to sexual contact where the age difference between the actor and the other person is 5 years or more.
(c) In the absence of any of the circumstances set forth in RSA 632-A:2, when the actor engages in sexual penetration with a person who is [12 ] eyars of age or older and under 16 years of age where the age difference between the actor and the other person is [5 ] years or less.
Chapter 639 Offenses Against the Family
Section 639:1 Bigamy [REPEAL]
Section 639:2 Incest [REPEAL ]
Chapter 645 Public Indecency
645:1 Indecent Exposure and Lewdness
II. A person is guilty of a class B felony if:
(a) [REPEAL ]
(b) [REPEAL ]
The following is from https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/print-edition-2021.pdf
Most of the weight of the marriage freedom category
is tied to the availability of same-sex partnerships,
whether civil unions or marriage. The remainder
is tied to waiting periods and blood test requirements,
availability of cousin marriage and covenant marriage,
and sodomy laws, which were struck down by the
Supreme Court in 2003. In our view, state governments
should treat marriage as a contract that is “registered”
or “recorded,” rather than a personal status that is “licensed.”
Note that NH prohibits cousin marriage:
457:2 Marriages Prohibited. – No person shall marry his or her father, mother, father’s brother, father’s sister, mother’s brother, mother’s sister, son, daughter, brother, sister, son’s son, son’s daughter, daughter’s son, daughter’s daughter, brother’s son, brother’s daughter, sister’s son, sister’s daughter, father’s brother’s son, father’s brother’s daughter, mother’s brother’s son, mother’s brother’s daughter, father’s sister’s son, father’s sister’s daughter, mother’s sister’s son, or mother’s sister’s daughter.
But it does not prohibit sex with cousins.
639:2 Incest. –
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if he or she
marries or engages in sexual penetration as defined
in RSA 632-A:1, V, or lives together with, under the
representation of being married, a person 18 years
or older whom he or she knows to be his or her
ancestor, descendant, brother, or sister, of the whole
or half blood, or an uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece;
provided, however, that no person under the age of
18 shall be liable under this section if the other party
is at least 3 years older at the time of the act.
NH marriage statutes also require that a license be issued before the marriage:
457:22 Completion of Marriage License Application. –
All persons proposing to be joined in marriage within
the state shall complete a marriage license application
with all facts required by RSA 5-C:41 to be entered in
any town clerk’s office. The clerk shall record the
application in a book to be kept for that purpose.
The Alabama code is essentially a registering or recording
of the marriage relationship, which takes effect immediately
with no waiting time.
No blood test requirements are listed in the statute covering
marriage.
Re: the Olympic Parade
If any child in the Olympic Parade is touched, in a manner reminiscent of the Joe Biden episode, some people might be offended, but it probably would not rise the level of a crime.
The statures clearly state that the touching must be conduct which “can be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification or the humiliation of the person being touched.”
(632-A:1 Definitions “Sexual contact”) or “under circumstances that may be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal” (645:1 Indecent Exposure and Lewdness)
If there is “serious personal injury” to the child it could be considered Felonious Sexual Assault, but barring that, I haven’t found any statute that would allow charges to be filed… unless the nudity of anyone, adults or children, will likely cause affront or alarm. Even then, if it is announced ahead of time, and is on private property, I don’t see how that would happen.
That being the case, 645:1 Indecent Exposure and Lewdness I.(a) or II.(c), regarding transmission of of an image of himself or herself, cannot be invoked. Among other things, the section of code refers only to the actors (those in the Parade) who are prohibited from transmitting an image. If there are videographers, persons in the parade are free to opt out if they don’t want to be filmed nude.
Chapter 649-A Child sexual abuse images refers to sexually explicit conduct, which we have already touched on above. Distribution is covered in (649-A:3-a Distribution of Child Sexual Abuse Images)
(649-B: Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention ) refers to transmitting by computer any information that would allow the receiver to identify the child for purposes of “facilitating, encouraging, offering, or soliciting sexual conduct of or with any child, or the visual depiction of such conduct.” but does not refer to images of nude children not engaging in sexual activity.
Sections of the NH RSA referred to:
632-A:1 Definitions
632-A:2 Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault
632-A:3 Felonious sexual Assault
632-A:4 Sexual Assault
645-A:1 Indecent Exposure and Lewdness
649-A:2 Definitions
649-A:3-a Distribution of Child Sexual Abuse Images
649-A:3-b Manufacture of Child Sexual Abuse Images
Remember, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one in real life.
Sections of the RSA consulted:
https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/632-A/632-A-1.htm
https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/632-A/632-A-2.htm
https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/632-A/632-A-3.htm
https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/632-A/632-A-4.htm
https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/645/645-1.htm
https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/649-A/649-A-3-a.htm
https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/649-A/649-A-3-b.htm
https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LXII-649-B.htm
I’m not trying to win friends, but I am trying to influence people. What is the purpose of this discussion, if not to influence people?
It was not my goal to pitch for an anarchist society. I have better things to do then try to do the exact same thing so many other people are doing, namely “creating a new society”, then to orchestrate a new society. See. the problem with some anarchists is they agree top-down societies don’t work, and then propose a top-down anarchist society. It just doesn’t work. I’m all for co-creating or joining an anarchist society, but so many prototypes seek to do all the same things that cause organized societies to fail, namely, violating the Right of Liberty. I digress.
Before going to recreate a society in the ashes of an existing one, take the time to examine why it failed. It is because of this failure that so many have tried and failed. You aren’t going to change a top-down structure. As many agree that NH should leave the union, they will find themselves facing the same problems with the State government that they have found with the national government.
Both Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Mises encouraged local seperation from existing government as a way of both achieving political and social liberty. It is far easier for a group of folks to purchase a large tract of land under an agreement, move toward privatization of said land, than to get a majority of 1.3 million people to agree to leave the national government.
I think many people would prefer to live in an area of liberty loving folks, than living in a less free area. The sad thing is that most people would rather stay in a less free area than move toward a more free society.
Again, not trying to convince others of anything, because I have better things to do, like discuss ideas. Also, if you are interested in joining an anarchist/libertarian collective, or looking for a member, hit me up.
cyberdoo: The purpose of this discussion is… well, it’s not really a discussion, although i don’t mind if anyone can correct any errors that I might post.
it is simple, and I’ve said it before… I’m trying to provide the basic research needed for moving NH toward a fully libertarian society.
I am personally an anarchist. Some people have stated that “anarchist state” is an oxymoron. I disagree. But that is not the purpose of this thread.
My audience does not have to be swayed to the ideas of liberty. Nearly everyone in this shiresociety forum is already convinced that liberty is a common goal.
But… most of them have no idea of how to reach it. I believe that eventually, possibly in ten years or less, NH can achieve full liberty.
Others are striking at the root of the problem, some at the heart of the problem. I’m attacking the branches, or the tentacles, of the monster we call statism.
All of these things need to be done.
It takes a long time to get rid of the stump of a tree that has been cut down. It takes much less time to trim the branches from the trunk, which eventually kills the tree.
The latest information I have on legalization of cannabis use comes from the attached website.
It appears that there are 22 states that have legalized recreational use of cannabis/marijuana. There are 6 states in which it is still completely banned.
The biggest differences are in the extent of the regulation, and sometimes the types of establishments that are legalized… it’s not just a case of sales, there are also things somewhat akin to opium dens or lounges where recreational use of cannabis is the specialty.
States in which recreational and medical marijuana is legalized include:
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
States in which both recreational and medical use are prohibited are:
Idaho
Wyoming
Nebraska
Kansas
South Carolina
North Carolina
Some interesting observations:
The west coast is completely legal…Washington, Oregon, and California. These states are buttressed by Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico.
Nine states in the east, more specifically the northeast, have legal recreational use of marijuana… the exceptions are Delaware and New Hampshire, both of which are isolated by all the states around them having legal use.
Adding NH and Delaware to the list of states that have legalized recreational use would complete a solid northeastern block of states.
In “Freedom In the 50 States” for 2021 (Sixth Edition) NH is only in 14th place. Given its isolation, not only would it become less isolated in the northeast, but it would raise our standing in terms of Freedom In the 50 States.
While going through the statutes, Connecticut impressed me.
The statute basically invokes something like nullification to reduce
the effect of federal marijuana laws in the state.
Title 21a - Consumer Protection
Chapter 420h - Regulation of Adult-Use Cannabis
Section 21a-420b. - Enforcement of violations of federal law related to cannabis.
.
(a) No agency or political subdivision of the state may rely on a violation
of federal law related to cannabis as the sole basis for taking an adverse
action against a person, except for any adverse action taken as required
by federal law, including, but not limited to, the state’s disqualification of
a commercial driver’s license, commercial learner’s permit, commercial
motor vehicle operator’s privilege or hazardous materials endorsement
for violations of federal law related to cannabis for which the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations or the Hazardous Materials Regulations require
disqualification, or for which the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
or the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has, based
upon such violation, issued a disqualification order.
(b) It is the public policy of this state that contracts related to the operation
of a cannabis establishment business are enforceable.
(c) It is the public policy of this state that no contract entered into by a
licensed cannabis establishment or its agents as authorized in accordance
with a valid license, or by those who allow property to be used by a
cannabis establishment, its employees, backers or its agents as authorized
in accordance with a valid license, shall be unenforceable on the basis that
cultivating, obtaining, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, transporting,
selling, possessing or using cannabis is prohibited by federal law.
(d) No law enforcement officer employed by an agency that receives state
or local government funds shall expend state or local resources, including
the officer’s time, to effect any arrest or seizure of cannabis, or conduct any
investigation, on the sole basis of activity the officer believes to constitute
a violation of federal law if the officer has reason to believe that such activity
is in compliance with this section and sections 21a-420a, 21a-420c to 21a-420i,
inclusive, 21a-420l to 21a-420n, inclusive, 21a-420p to 21a-420t, inclusive,
21a-420v to 21a-421c, inclusive, 21a-421f, 21a-421g, 21a-421j to 21a-421q,
inclusive, 21a-421aa to 21a-421dd, inclusive, 21a-422k and 53-247a and
sections 23, 60 and 63 to 65, inclusive, of public act 21-1 of the June special
session* or chapter 420f.
(e) An officer may not expend state or local resources, including the officer’s
time, to provide any information or logistical support to any federal law
enforcement authority or prosecuting entity related to activity the officer
believes to constitute a violation of federal law if the officer has reason to
believe that such activity is in compliance with the provisions of this
section and sections 21a-420a, 21a-420c to 21a-420i, inclusive, 21a-420l
to 21a-420n, inclusive, 21a-420p to 21a-420t, inclusive, 21a-420v to 21a-421c,
inclusive, 21-421f, 21a-421g, 21a-421j to 21a-421q, inclusive, 21a-421aa to
21a-421dd, inclusive, 21a-422k and 53-247a and sections 23, 60 and 63 to
65, inclusive, of public act 21-1 of the June special session* or chapter 420f.
Alright, I appreciate the feedback you’ve given. I feel I’ve said enough on the subject. I sincerely wish you good luck in your endeavor, and hope that it will lead you to your goal. I look forward to cheering your successes.
The following movie is on Tubi right now. It talks about sex work in Seattle.
Interesting about 50minutes in it talks about how juries are using jury
nullification to free sex workers on trial.
About 30 minutes into this movie they start to question why
our society wants to control the exposure of women’s breasts,
including by law enforcement.