 Author
|
Topic: Man arrested for public gardening (Read 15903 times)
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
So the people who are saying that this protest was justified would be behind me if I decided to take a jackhammer and a shovel and start digging up city parking in Keene to put in swimming pools?
That's the thing, what Jesse did had no negative consequences. He was digging up dirt, which served no purpose and didn't look nice. He tried to beautify the city by planting tomatoes and basil in dirt. His plan was also to allow people in Keene to eat the stuff. If he wouldn't have brought his rifle, I think the non-voilent civil disobedience which he preformed would have been some of the best I've even seen. Make the city look nicer - check. Help feed the hungry - check. Save the taxpayers $5000 - check. What he was trying to do would help everyone and harm no one. If everyone regularly acted in a similar manor there would be no need for government. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MK
|
So the people who are saying that this protest was justified would be behind me if I decided to take a jackhammer and a shovel and start digging up city parking in Keene to put in swimming pools?
That's the thing, what Jesse did had no negative consequences. He was digging up dirt, which served no purpose and didn't look nice. He tried to beautify the city by planting tomatoes and basil in dirt. His plan was also to allow people in Keene to eat the stuff. If he wouldn't have brought his rifle, I think the non-voilent civil disobedience which he preformed would have been some of the best I've even seen. Make the city look nicer - check. Help feed the hungry - check. Save the taxpayers $5000 - check. What he was trying to do would help everyone and harm no one. If everyone regularly acted in a similar manor there would be no need for government. Well said Keith!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Gun you have Pointed at me is Awfully Distracting. Please put it down and then I'll listen.
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
So the people who are saying that this protest was justified would be behind me if I decided to take a jackhammer and a shovel and start digging up city parking in Keene to put in swimming pools?
That's the thing, what Jesse did had no negative consequences. He was digging up dirt, which served no purpose and didn't look nice. He tried to beautify the city by planting tomatoes and basil in dirt. His plan was also to allow people in Keene to eat the stuff. If he wouldn't have brought his rifle, I think the non-voilent civil disobedience which he preformed would have been some of the best I've even seen. Make the city look nicer - check. Help feed the hungry - check. Save the taxpayers $5000 - check. What he was trying to do would help everyone and harm no one. If everyone regularly acted in a similar manor there would be no need for government. This is really sad to see coming from a Libertarian. Is it OK for me to paint your house if I think it would look better a different color? How about if I till your front lawn and plant a flower garden? Maybe it's better and maybe not. The point is, it's not my property and so I have to ask your permission before I do any improvements to your property. Can we try to have some consistency? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
How is Jesse aggressing against anyone by growing a garden on land that he is FORCED TO PAY TO MAINTAIN?
I think the question here is academic--the City of Keene has not complained that Jesse was using the land in a way inconsistent with the City's desire. IIRC, the complaint is that he was "excavating without a permit". Isn't that the same thing? The city would only grant a permit to excavate their land if they desired that excavation to happen, and the requirement for a permit is to keep undesired excavation from happening? It's not quite the same thing. He was charged with excavating without a permit--it could have been on his own property (or someone else's). As opposed to charging him with criminal trespassing or destruction of property, etc. Functionally, it may achieve the same result. But the City has never really said, "No, we don't want our land used for gardening." And they'll try to avoid saying that as long as they can. If I was trying to raise a stink about this (and I'm not) that's the issue I'd be concentrating on. Hell, I'm not even sure gardening qualifies as "excavating"... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 21, 2009, 05:18:01 pm by B.D. Ross »
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
FTL_Ian
|
This is really sad to see coming from a Libertarian. Is it OK for me to paint your house if I think it would look better a different color? How about if I till your front lawn and plant a flower garden? Maybe it's better and maybe not. The point is, it's not my property and so I have to ask your permission before I do any improvements to your property.
Can we try to have some consistency?
Why are you bringing private property questions to a discussion about public property? If Central Sq. is public, Jesse was within his rights to garden there. What is confusing to you about that? If you disagree with his efforts, you can go dig them up, since you "own" a piece too. This is the insanity that is public land. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
Note: I'm reposting this after it got moved, since I think this where the "gardening" discussion left off. You don't get to tell me what my principles are.
Government doesn't legitimately own anything. It's a group of men and women stealing money and property from people. They do not own any of what they have stolen or what they purchased with stolen funds or maintained with stolen funds. It is unclaimed land, and the thieves do not have a legitimate claim to it, so Jesse's gardening is a violation of no one's rights.
But there are people that give their money to the government willingly. All of the government's resources are not stolen, unless you think those funds given willingly are stolen too? What percentage of the City of Keene's funds can you say for certain were collected from those unwilling? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
But there are people that give their money to the government willingly. All of the government's resources are not stolen, unless you think those funds given willingly are stolen too?
What percentage of the City of Keene's funds can you say for certain were collected from those unwilling? What percentage are collected from willing "donors?" Zero... So long as the threat of violence for non-compliance exists, it is utterly impossible for any "donation" to the government to be "willing" in nature. Duress precludes the possibility of a willing contract. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
But there are people that give their money to the government willingly. All of the government's resources are not stolen, unless you think those funds given willingly are stolen too?
What percentage of the City of Keene's funds can you say for certain were collected from those unwilling? What percentage are collected from willing "donors?" Zero... So long as the threat of violence for non-compliance exists, it is utterly impossible for any "donation" to the government to be "willing" in nature. Duress precludes the possibility of a willing contract. Joe That's not true. You can borrow money from a loan shark willingly, and then be under duress to pay it back, but you willingly borrowed it and willingly decided to pay it back with interest. It's when you're under duress to enter a contract that you don't do so willingly. So anyone that moved to Keene fully aware of what they were getting themselves into, and willing to abide by those terms, did so completely willingly. There is most certainly some revenue that is given willingly. I would also argue that if someone actively chooses to stay because they want to live under those terms, and they do not feel any resent toward them whatsoever, that they are not actually under duress. You would have to be threatened with something you do not want to be under duress. If jail never plays a factor in someone's decision there is no coercion. In effect, you're trying to decide for someone else what they're doing willingly and what they're not. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
That's not true. You can borrow money from a loan shark willingly, and then be under duress to pay it back, but you willingly borrowed it and willingly decided to pay it back with interest. It's when you're under duress to enter a contract that you don't do so willingly. So anyone that moved to Keene fully aware of what they were getting themselves into, and willing to abide by those terms, did so completely willingly. You can't be under duress to repay money you willingly chose to pay. The "city of Keene" decreed that "you must pay us X, or face death." That's not a situation in which a contract can be established. Nor does the "city of Keene" have any rights to make such demands (as opposed to a free contract between a lender and borrower), as they are "selling" something they don't own, at a price they determine without the consent of the "buyer," and enforced unilaterally against those who never entered any contract. They have no more legitimacy than mafiosos or any other protection racket. I would also argue that if someone actively chooses to stay because they want to live under those terms, and they do not feel any resent toward them whatsoever, that they are not actually under duress. You would have to be threatened with something you do not want to be under duress. If jail never plays a factor in someone's decision there is no coercion.
In effect, you're trying to decide for someone else what they're doing willingly and what they're not. Since there is no choice, the threat of violence is always present. No one can act "willingly" under those circumstances. "You can do A, or A, or if you want to be a rebel, you can do A, and if you do anything else, we'll kill you" is not a situation in which someone can be said to be a willing participant. It's impossible to explore what someone might choose to do, because the option is removed. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
That's not true. You can borrow money from a loan shark willingly, and then be under duress to pay it back, but you willingly borrowed it and willingly decided to pay it back with interest. It's when you're under duress to enter a contract that you don't do so willingly. So anyone that moved to Keene fully aware of what they were getting themselves into, and willing to abide by those terms, did so completely willingly. You can't be under duress to repay money you willingly chose to pay. The "city of Keene" decreed that "you must pay us X, or face death." That's not a situation in which a contract can be established. Nor does the "city of Keene" have any rights to make such demands (as opposed to a free contract between a lender and borrower), as they are "selling" something they don't own, at a price they determine without the consent of the "buyer," and enforced unilaterally against those who never entered any contract. They have no more legitimacy than mafiosos or any other protection racket. I would also argue that if someone actively chooses to stay because they want to live under those terms, and they do not feel any resent toward them whatsoever, that they are not actually under duress. You would have to be threatened with something you do not want to be under duress. If jail never plays a factor in someone's decision there is no coercion.
In effect, you're trying to decide for someone else what they're doing willingly and what they're not. Since there is no choice, the threat of violence is always present. No one can act "willingly" under those circumstances. "You can do A, or A, or if you want to be a rebel, you can do A, and if you do anything else, we'll kill you" is not a situation in which someone can be said to be a willing participant. It's impossible to explore what someone might choose to do, because the option is removed. Joe I'm not saying the government is legitimate. But there are people who are "for" government. If not, the FSPs job would be much easier. I know it's popular around here to paint reality as if government is going around knocking on everyone's doors with guns demanding money, a constant threat of force. But the reality is that our government found a much better system a while back. Sending men with guns around to knock on doors is not good for moral, so they got employers to give them your money before you ever touch it. If you want it back you have to get it back from them. For the majority of taxpayers there's never a threat of force present because the government already has their money. IMO, this is a more insidious tactic than sending men around with guns to knock on doors. But it does mean that for someone who supports government, there is no gun to their head when they pay taxes. There's a thought in the back of their head that if they didn't pay the taxes, that someone would come for them. But that's not the same as duress. And the difference is, if someone says they willingly pay their taxes, they are cool and calm, there is not imminent danger to affect their decision. In fact, there is no danger at all for the decision of whether they willingly or unwillingly pay their taxes. The danger only applies to when you actually don't pay, not if you pay begrudgingly or protest paying. Put another way: Your argument works for people that protest taxes. But it doesn't apply to people who support taxes. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 07:56:36 am by ggeezz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
But it does mean that for someone who supports government, there is no gun to their head when they pay taxes. There's a thought in the back of their head that if they didn't pay the taxes, that someone would come for them. But that's not the same as duress. Yes. Yes, it is. That's exactly what duress means. You just destroyed your own argument. Thanks for playing, though... Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
But it does mean that for someone who supports government, there is no gun to their head when they pay taxes. There's a thought in the back of their head that if they didn't pay the taxes, that someone would come for them. But that's not the same as duress. Yes. Yes, it is. That's exactly what duress means. You just destroyed your own argument. Thanks for playing, though... Joe If you've decided to go to the Post Office and you've started getting things ready to go the Post Office, and then someone tells you that they will break your leg if you don't go to the Post Office, you're not actually under duress. I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt you could use that argument in court as long as the other side could prove that you were going to the Post Office anyway, and that the threat on your leg wasn't the reason you went. The threat on your leg would have to influence your decision to make your decision invalid. The threat has to cause some conflict within you, some stress. A person could threaten your leg before you've made the decision to go the Post Office, but you have to believe it might happen for it to affect your decision. It has to be a possibility in your mind. If someone supports taxes and intends to pay them and whatever punishment there is for not paying taxes is not a possibility in their mind, not a factor in their decision, then they are not under duress. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
But it does mean that for someone who supports government, there is no gun to their head when they pay taxes. There's a thought in the back of their head that if they didn't pay the taxes, that someone would come for them. But that's not the same as duress. Yes. Yes, it is. That's exactly what duress means. You just destroyed your own argument. Thanks for playing, though... If you've decided to go to the Post Office and you've started getting things ready to go the Post Office, and then someone tells you that they will break your leg if you don't go to the Post Office, you're not actually under duress. I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt you could use that argument in court as long as the other side could prove that you were going to the Post Office anyway, and that the threat on your leg wasn't the reason you went. The threat on your leg would have to influence your decision to make your decision invalid. The threat has to cause some conflict within you, some stress. A person could threaten your leg before you've made the decision to go the Post Office, but you have to believe it might happen for it to affect your decision. It has to be a possibility in your mind. If someone supports taxes and intends to pay them and whatever punishment there is for not paying taxes is not a possibility in their mind, not a factor in their decision, then they are not under duress. That's not even vaguely a valid analogy. Superficially, of course, you might change your mind and not go to the Post Office, if the threat had not been placed upon you. More fundamentally, however, the threat predates the decision to pay. You did not decide to pay, then get threatened; you were threatened, then you "decided" to pay. There is no way of telling whether your "decision" was free or coerced, because you were aware of the threat before reaching whatever decision you made. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
But it does mean that for someone who supports government, there is no gun to their head when they pay taxes. There's a thought in the back of their head that if they didn't pay the taxes, that someone would come for them. But that's not the same as duress. Yes. Yes, it is. That's exactly what duress means. You just destroyed your own argument. Thanks for playing, though... If you've decided to go to the Post Office and you've started getting things ready to go the Post Office, and then someone tells you that they will break your leg if you don't go to the Post Office, you're not actually under duress. I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt you could use that argument in court as long as the other side could prove that you were going to the Post Office anyway, and that the threat on your leg wasn't the reason you went. The threat on your leg would have to influence your decision to make your decision invalid. The threat has to cause some conflict within you, some stress. A person could threaten your leg before you've made the decision to go the Post Office, but you have to believe it might happen for it to affect your decision. It has to be a possibility in your mind. If someone supports taxes and intends to pay them and whatever punishment there is for not paying taxes is not a possibility in their mind, not a factor in their decision, then they are not under duress. That's not even vaguely a valid analogy. Superficially, of course, you might change your mind and not go to the Post Office, if the threat had not been placed upon you. More fundamentally, however, the threat predates the decision to pay. You did not decide to pay, then get threatened; you were threatened, then you "decided" to pay. There is no way of telling whether your "decision" was free or coerced, because you were aware of the threat before reaching whatever decision you made. Joe I'm not trying to craft a valid analogy. I'm trying to explain that duress would only apply if the threat affected the decision. We don't have to speculate about when the threat happened and this and that. We can just ask a person. If someone tells you that any threats the government made for not paying taxes absolutely did not affect their decision to pay, are you not going to believe them? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
I'm not trying to craft a valid analogy. I'm trying to explain that duress would only apply if the threat affected the decision. You weren't trying to craft a valid analogy. You were just trying to explain by using an example? Glad we cleared that up!  We don't have to speculate about when the threat happened and this and that. We can just ask a person. If someone tells you that any threats the government made for not paying taxes absolutely did not affect their decision to pay, are you not going to believe them? No. They've never experienced the lack of that threat, so they are not in a position to make a comparison. How would they know what they would do, if the threat did not exist? Such knowledge is literally impossible for them to have. Maybe they'd pay anyway. Maybe not. We cannot ascertain that in any scientifically-valid way. The thing we can ascertain is that the threat of force does exist. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
