Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: fschmidt on June 10, 2008, 05:18:07 am

Title: A few questions
Post by: fschmidt on June 10, 2008, 05:18:07 am
I live in California where I can no longer afford to stay, partly because of the state income tax.  So I looked into states with no income tax, one of which is New Hampshire, and so I found out about the Free State Project.  I am not a strict libertarian and haven't been very politically active.  I know some libertarian groups are pretty extreme, but from this forum, this group seems quite tolerant.  So my first question is, does someone who is about 80% libertarian fit into the Free State Project?

I am looking for a town that is quiet (meaning no noise) and walkable.  I don't want to hear my neighbor's dogs or stereo.  But I would like to be able to walk to a grocery store.  I realize that one of the main reasons that America isn't walkable is because of land-use zoning, so a town that doesn't have this would be best.

Having an impact at a state level seems like quite a challenge, but having an impact at a town level seems easier.  So I would be particularly interested in towns where FSP members are active town politics, especially in fighting zoning.

And one last thing, I noticed that the speed limit in NH is 65.  I would prefer living where ridiculous speed laws aren't enforced.

So based on this, what towns would you recommend?
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Ron Helwig on June 10, 2008, 07:05:27 am
I am not a strict libertarian and haven't been very politically active.  I know some libertarian groups are pretty extreme, but from this forum, this group seems quite tolerant.  So my first question is, does someone who is about 80% libertarian fit into the Free State Project?
You'll find a vocal minority that will shout "UnPure!", but they're mostly harmless. Most will welcome you.

Welcome!

I am looking for a town that is quiet (meaning no noise) and walkable.  I don't want to hear my neighbor's dogs or stereo.  But I would like to be able to walk to a grocery store.  I realize that one of the main reasons that America isn't walkable is because of land-use zoning, so a town that doesn't have this would be best.
From what I can tell, most towns that are walkable are also zoned. The towns that don't have zoning are typically spread out so that a vehicle of some sort is necessary. However, if you are willing to join or start the fight to remove zoning, there are probably some decent choices.

Having an impact at a state level seems like quite a challenge, but having an impact at a town level seems easier.  So I would be particularly interested in towns where FSP members are active town politics, especially in fighting zoning.
The Grafton crew would probably be to your liking, but Grafton is spread out and a car is needed. It is a beautiful area though.

Keene sounds like it fits your walking about desires, but most of the activists there seem to be anti-political types.

Portsmouth has a walkable downtown, but I'm not sure how many people we have there yet.

Seabrook is nice, and if you don't mind longer walks then it could be considered walkable. The state LP chair lives there, and we have a "porcupine manor" there: Max Abramson's place (http://porcmanor.com/residence/seabrook_wooded_privacy).

Manchester and Concord both seem to be walkable, and have a good number of us there. However, they are cities, and the amount of work needed is proportionately larger.

And one last thing, I noticed that the speed limit in NH is 65.  I would prefer living where ridiculous speed laws aren't enforced.

You'll find that, except for the freeways (and tollways), for most roads a safe speed is 65 or less anyway. Twisty, windy, hilly roads don't make for high speeds; although they are fun to drive.

Also, the cops here mostly seem to be more concerned with bad driving than speeding. 5 or so miles above the limit is routinely ignored on most roads. 10 - 15 over is routinely ignored on the freeways. YMMV of course, and reasonable prudence is suggested.

Again, if you are willing to work on the issue I believe you'll find many allies here.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: ny2nh on June 10, 2008, 07:22:23 am
I am looking for a town that is quiet (meaning no noise) and walkable.  I don't want to hear my neighbor's dogs or stereo.  But I would like to be able to walk to a grocery store.  I realize that one of the main reasons that America isn't walkable is because of land-use zoning, so a town that doesn't have this would be best.

Sorry for sounding really negative in my response.....but logic would tell me that in order to be far enough away from your neighbor to not be able to hear his stereo or moreso his dog would mean that the houses are quite a distance apart. If houses are that far apart, walking will be lengthy simply because of the distance between one property and the next. I would think that the grocery stores that would be located in more rural towns will be more of corner stores or convenience stores rather than the larger grocery stores. Anyplace is walkable - it just depends on how much of your time you want to spend walking. : )

Sometimes I just think people who are considering moving here want things that just don't exist because the things they want contradict each other.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 10, 2008, 07:37:55 am

just barter with the family down the street to use their rickshaw(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickshaw) hooked up to your jackasses to go to the store...simple...

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 10, 2008, 08:35:44 am
...hooked up to your jackasses to go to the store...

They prefer to be called "politicians," Rob! :o

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Jitgos on June 10, 2008, 09:19:47 am
UNPURE!!!  ;D
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Fishercat on June 10, 2008, 09:38:06 am
I am not a strict libertarian and haven't been very politically active.

I found there is nothing that motivates one quite so much to political activity than seeing your fellow Free Staters engaging in successful political activity all around you.  I've heard many, many people here say, "Before I moved to NH, I was not active at all.  But now,..."


Quote
Having an impact at a state level seems like quite a challenge, but having an impact at a town level seems easier.  So I would be particularly interested in towns where FSP members are active town politics, especially in fighting zoning.

If your experience is only with California politics, you have no idea how easy it can be to have an impact at the State level.  If at all possible, try to visit here during one of the Free State Project events, and go on a tour of the State House.  I was amazed how accessible the state government is.

Finally, my comment about speeding.   One thing I noticed during my move here.   When I crossed the border from Massachusettes into New Hampshire, all of the NH plates dropped their speed down to pretty close to the posted limit.   The MA plates tended to race by.   I took this to mean that the locals knew something about speeding that we out-of-staters didn't.  I can't back it up with numbers, but I think they are pretty harsh on speeders up here.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: margomaps on June 10, 2008, 11:56:38 am
I live in California where I can no longer afford to stay, partly because of the state income tax.  So I looked into states with no income tax, one of which is New Hampshire, and so I found out about the Free State Project.  I am not a strict libertarian and haven't been very politically active.  I know some libertarian groups are pretty extreme, but from this forum, this group seems quite tolerant.  So my first question is, does someone who is about 80% libertarian fit into the Free State Project?

If you agree with the FSP's statement of intent (http://freestateproject.org/soi (http://freestateproject.org/soi)), then you fit in the FSP.  If you want the role of the government to be greater than that indicated in the SOI, then the FSP isn't for you.  BUT, if you're somewhere in the gray zone...not quite on board with the stated role of the government, but "basically there", I'm sure you'd get along fine with the majority of those in the FSP (see Ron Helwig's post).

Quote
I am looking for a town that is quiet (meaning no noise) and walkable.  I don't want to hear my neighbor's dogs or stereo.  But I would like to be able to walk to a grocery store.  I realize that one of the main reasons that America isn't walkable is because of land-use zoning, so a town that doesn't have this would be best.

Yeah, I don't really see how this is possible.  Recently I was in a rural area where you could hear a neighbor's outdoor stereo almost 1/2 mile away (the lot sizes were 10+ acres).  I can't really think of any small towns where you could be within a short walking distance to the grocery store, yet be so far from your neighbor that you'd be guaranteed not to hear them.  Also, there are a handful of towns in NH that don't have zoning, and I don't think that really has any bearing on whether these towns are "walkable" or not.

Quote
Having an impact at a state level seems like quite a challenge, but having an impact at a town level seems easier.  So I would be particularly interested in towns where FSP members are active town politics, especially in fighting zoning.

As mentioned, Grafton is one of those towns that doesn't have zoning.  But what are you going to do when your neighbor in your no-zoning town fills his yard with chickens and goats which you can hear at all hours?   >:D

Quote
And one last thing, I noticed that the speed limit in NH is 65.  I would prefer living where ridiculous speed laws aren't enforced.

Are you in a hurry?  :)  Seriously though, I've seen a lot of people pulled over on highways in NH.  Depends on the highway though.  I've seen many pulled over on 93 and 89, but almost none on 101 east of Manchester.  I've never once seen anyone pulled over on the lesser/smaller highways and roads in the Seacoast, but that could just be coincidence.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: fschmidt on June 10, 2008, 12:35:48 pm
If you agree with the FSP's statement of intent (http://freestateproject.org/soi (http://freestateproject.org/soi)), then you fit in the FSP.

This statement says "the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property".  If someone punches me in the nose, they aren't really threatening my life, liberty, or property.  They are just giving me a bloody nose.  I would like civil government to protect my nose and prevent other people from punching it.  So I guess I disagree with FSP's statement of intent.  Is this statement really the true intent of people here?

Quote
Quote
I am looking for a town that is quiet

Yeah, I don't really see how this is possible.  Recently I was in a rural area where you could hear a neighbor's outdoor stereo almost 1/2 mile away (the lot sizes were 10+ acres).  I can't really think of any small towns where you could be within a short walking distance to the grocery store, yet be so far from your neighbor that you'd be guaranteed not to hear them.

I think blasting one's stereo onto someone else's property is effectively trespassing and violates property rights.  People should be free to do what they want on their property as long as they don't harm their neighbors, and blasting noise onto one's neighbor's property does harm them.  I live in San Francisco where people live close together but noise regulations are fairly well enforced, so it is reasonably quiet.  I would want the same in NH.

Quote
Also, there are a handful of towns in NH that don't have zoning, and I don't think that really has any bearing on whether these towns are "walkable" or not.

San Francisco is a nice walkable city because it was built before zoning.  This allowed shops and houses to mix naturally in mixed-use neighborhoods where people could walk to shops.  All American cities and towns built since zoning started are based on single-use zoning which prevents this.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 10, 2008, 12:47:09 pm
This statement says "the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property".  If someone punches me in the nose, they aren't really threatening my life, liberty, or property.  They are just giving me a bloody nose.  I would like civil government to protect my nose and prevent other people from punching it.  So I guess I disagree with FSP's statement of intent.  Is this statement really the true intent of people here?

Your nose is part of your life.

To translate the "technical" SOI to more colloquial speech, the idea is that the maximum role of government is to stop others from doing your bodily harm, stealing your stuff, or preventing you from freely doing whatever you want, so long as all participants are consenting adults.

I think blasting one's stereo onto someone else's property is effectively trespassing and violates property rights.  People should be free to do what they want on their property as long as they don't harm their neighbors, and blasting noise onto one's neighbor's property does harm them.  I live in San Francisco where people live close together but noise regulations are fairly well enforced, so it is reasonably quiet.  I would want the same in NH.

Noise does not violate your property rights, and is not trespassing.  You don't have a "right" to quiet, unless you contract with your neighbors to promise such to each other.

In any case, people here are generally respectful of each other, and I've never had a noise problem.  In a free society, people tend to take responsibility for their own actions simply because it is beneficial to be on good terms with one's neighbors, rather than because men with guns are running around forcing you to be polite.

I do recall a recent discussion of a town that had an ordinance against firing artillery during the night...

San Francisco is a nice walkable city because it was built before zoning.  This allowed shops and houses to mix naturally in mixed-use neighborhoods where people could walk to shops.  All American cities and towns built since zoning started are based on single-use zoning which prevents this.

If you want an "old school" city, Portsmouth is probably what you're looking for.  However, even with zoning in NH, most places do not prohibit mixing.  For example, while my town has zoning, the town is expressly required to allow home businesses and other mixing of residential and commercial uses, as that sort of thing is inherent in the character of New England towns.

If you are specifically looking for a city-type atmosphere, Portsmouth is definitely a walking city.  Personally, I prefer living in a rural area, but I can still walk to the local market from here, or to the local egg farm for that matter.  Getting to the actual supermarket would require transportation give the distance and hills, but folks ride horses right down the street here, so if I were so-inclined, I could travel without a motor vehicle...

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: fschmidt on June 10, 2008, 01:15:48 pm
To translate the "technical" SOI to more colloquial speech, the idea is that the maximum role of government is to stop others from doing your bodily harm, stealing your stuff, or preventing you from freely doing whatever you want, so long as all participants are consenting adults.

Thanks for explaining this, but I want to make sure I understand.  Suppose someone walks up to me and just squeezes my nose.  This isn't bodily harm, but is annoying.  Does the government have a role in preventing this, or do you think people have a right to squeeze each other's noses?

I am not asking these question to be annoying, but just to clarify what the FSP is all about.  If the SOI was something more general like "I will exert the fullest practical effort toward increasing freedom in New Hampshire", then I would have no need to get specific.  But since the SOI specifies the kind of society it wants to create, I need to understand exactly what kind of society that is.

Quote
Noise does not violate your property rights, and is not trespassing.  You don't have a "right" to quiet, unless you contract with your neighbors to promise such to each other.

To give the physical equivalent, my neighbors are vibrating my eardrums.  Do they have a right to vibrate my eardrums.  I personally find noise even more harmful than being punched in the nose.

Is it the general consensus of FSP people that people have the right to blast noise onto their neighbor's property?  If this is a debated issue, then I would prefer to live near FSP people who agree with me on this.  But if the consensus is against me, then I probably don't belong.

Quote
even with zoning in NH, most places do not prohibit mixing

That is great news. 
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 10, 2008, 01:33:02 pm
Thanks for explaining this, but I want to make sure I understand.  Suppose someone walks up to me and just squeezes my nose.  This isn't bodily harm, but is annoying.  Does the government have a role in preventing this, or do you think people have a right to squeeze each other's noses?

You don't have a right to violate the personal sovereignty of another individual.  If you want to ask permission to squeeze a stranger's nose, or if you want to squeeze the noses of your friends whom you know consent to such things, that's all well and good.  But you can't be going around assaulting folks, regardless of the assault being minor.

I am not asking these question to be annoying, but just to clarify what the FSP is all about.  If the SOI was something more general like "I will exert the fullest practical effort toward increasing freedom in New Hampshire", then I would have no need to get specific.  But since the SOI specifies the kind of society it wants to create, I need to understand exactly what kind of society that is.

The SOI needs to be specific, to some extent, because someone could claim to have a very different idea of "freedom."  So questions are perfectly acceptable. :)

To give the physical equivalent, my neighbors are vibrating my eardrums.  Do they have a right to vibrate my eardrums.  I personally find noise even more harmful than being punched in the nose.

They are making noise on their own property.  Unless they are doing you harm (eg, if the noise is loud enough to cause physical damage), you have no claim against them.

Build a noise fence, or move to a neighborhood that has covenants preventing loud noise.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: margomaps on June 10, 2008, 01:54:13 pm
To give the physical equivalent, my neighbors are vibrating my eardrums.  Do they have a right to vibrate my eardrums.  I personally find noise even more harmful than being punched in the nose.

If you put it that way, anyone who speaks to you from the street in front of your yard, whistles, or drives past your house is vibrating your eardrums.  Would you claim this is a violation of your right to not have your eardrums vibrated?

If someone erects an ugly antennae on their house, which you can see from your house, they are imposing reflected light on your retina.  Does this violate your right to not have your retina stimulated by unsightly structures?

I'm not trying to be annoying either -- I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what it is you're after.  Perhaps you don't want zoning, but you do want a noise ordinance which prohibits volumes beyond a certain dB level at certain times of the day?

Quote
Is it the general consensus of FSP people that people have the right to blast noise onto their neighbor's property?  If this is a debated issue, then I would prefer to live near FSP people who agree with me on this.  But if the consensus is against me, then I probably don't belong.

A neighbor "blasting" noise is probably a very different thing than making sounds that you might be able to hear on your property.  You indicated that you didn't want to hear your neighbor's music, nor their dog.  I can tell you from experience that you're going to be able to hear a barking dog from quite a distance away, and if your hearing is good you'll be able to hear music (even music played at moderate volumes) pretty far as well.  You cannot control everything.  Joe gives good advice about what to do if you want to live quietly.

FYI, I bet it would be very easy to find likeminded people who enjoy quiet.  Now, finding such in a "walkable" town...that could be a serious challenge.  A "walkable" town is generally going to have a sizeable population density, which means a lot more people who might do things to irritate you will be living within earshot.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Fishercat on June 10, 2008, 01:54:40 pm

I think blasting one's stereo onto someone else's property is effectively trespassing and violates property rights.  People should be free to do what they want on their property as long as they don't harm their neighbors, and blasting noise onto one's neighbor's property does harm them.  I live in San Francisco where people live close together but noise regulations are fairly well enforced, so it is reasonably quiet.  I would want the same in NH.

Noise does not violate your property rights, and is not trespassing.  You don't have a "right" to quiet, unless you contract with your neighbors to promise such to each other.

Reasonable people may disagree.   I have a recollection that there was a discussion about the right to "quiet enjoyment."  There were Free Staters/libertarians on both sides of that argument.  So I think you could, in good conscience, sign the SOI while maintaining that the "Right to Quiet Enjoyment" is a property right.

As was said earlier, many here may disagree.   But other may not.


In any case, people here are generally respectful of each other, and I've never had a noise problem.  In a free society, people tend to take responsibility for their own actions simply because it is beneficial to be on good terms with one's neighbors, rather than because men with guns are running around forcing you to be polite.

I do recall a recent discussion of a town that had an ordinance against firing artillery during the night...

My town.

The background is that this year a "Noise Ordinance" was passed.  Basically it prohibits noise overnight, as well as some of the "usual suspects" (e.g. stereo "blasting") during other times.  And, yes, it specifically mentions the firing of cannon during the prohibited hours.

What this suggests is that living in New Hampshire (as opposed to the yet-to-be-obtained free society), you will find some towns that have supported your desire for "quiet enjoyment" through regulation.  And since my town's regulation was, according to the Selectmen, based on "similar ordinances from around NH," it probably isn't that hard to find a town with this on the books.

And, according to the chief of police, the ordinance was necessary because of a handful of property/noise disputes that the police are asked to respond to, but didn't feel they had the force of law to back them in.

Many of the people who signed the SOI will see this all as a massive new infringement of the government on our individuals rights.   Others maybe not so much.  My view is that the SOI is deliberately vague enough that you can decide for yourself what this means to you.

San Francisco is a nice walkable city because it was built before zoning.  This allowed shops and houses to mix naturally in mixed-use neighborhoods where people could walk to shops.  All American cities and towns built since zoning started are based on single-use zoning which prevents this.

Many towns in NH were built during the industrialization in the late 1800s, early 1900s.   As such, some are built to be walkable because it was a time when not everyone had a car.   The key is that if the town has a small population, they're not really going to support an "urban center," which probably means you'll need to drive to get to the store, etc.   But as the populations get larger, more regulation, including zoning, has come in with it.  In fact, some of the zoning is specifically to preserve the "historic" nature of the town (look and walkability specifically).   So a walkable town without zoning does strike me as being generally cross-purposes.

That said, there are so many places in NH from Manchester (small city) to hermit-like isolation, with nearly everything in between.  You can probably find a happy balance amonst it all (including cost-of-living, a driving factor for where I chose to move).   Not sure if its an easy answer, though.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Fishercat on June 10, 2008, 02:38:54 pm
Is it the general consensus of FSP people that people have the right to blast noise onto their neighbor's property?  If this is a debated issue, then I would prefer to live near FSP people who agree with me on this.  But if the consensus is against me, then I probably don't belong.

From http://freestateproject.org/about/faq.php

Q: I'm mostly a libertarian, but I don't agree with [issue X]. What do you have to say about that?

A: We welcome all who love liberty. We are not a lockstep movement, requiring all who join to subscribe to a long list of agreements on every point. All we ask is that you agree that government's maximum role should be to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud. We welcome you and support your desire to live according to your values. We ask only that you support others in their right to do the same.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 10, 2008, 02:41:00 pm
Noise does not violate your property rights, and is not trespassing.  You don't have a "right" to quiet, unless you contract with your neighbors to promise such to each other.

No one has a right to absolute quiet. The recognized right is "quiet enjoyment" of your property. That other people's uses of their property should not unduly interfere with your use of your property. Sound, light, noxious odors, soot deposited upon your property from smokestacks... these can all be trespassory. Trespass and nuisance are both ancient and intimately related. It's a really a very fascinating subject--how various societies deal with this! :D
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 10, 2008, 02:47:11 pm
No one has a right to absolute quiet. The recognized right is "quiet enjoyment" of your property. That other people's uses of their property should not unduly interfere with your use of your property. Sound, light, noxious odors, soot deposited upon your property from smokestacks... these can all be trespassory. Trespass and nuisance are both ancient and intimately related. It's a really a very fascinating subject--how various societies deal with this! :D

Authoritarian jackboots have long used such excuses to interfere with property rights.  That does not make "quiet enjoyment" an actual right.  It has no basis in moral philosophy, and rights don't just spring out of thing air because you want them to.

Chemicals (soot, etc.) are different from sound, in that they involve an actual trespass.  You can't discharge waste onto my property.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Fishercat on June 10, 2008, 02:53:41 pm
No one has a right to absolute quiet. The recognized right is "quiet enjoyment" of your property. That other people's uses of their property should not unduly interfere with your use of your property. Sound, light, noxious odors, soot deposited upon your property from smokestacks... these can all be trespassory. Trespass and nuisance are both ancient and intimately related. It's a really a very fascinating subject--how various societies deal with this! :D

Authoritarian jackboots have long used such excuses to interfere with property rights.  That does not make "quiet enjoyment" an actual right.  It has no basis in moral philosophy, and rights don't just spring out of thing air because you want them to.

Chemicals (soot, etc.) are different from sound, in that they involve an actual trespass.  You can't discharge waste onto my property.

Joe

Fschmidt - this should answer your questions about "consensus."   ;)
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Dave Mincin on June 10, 2008, 02:55:23 pm
I lived in Dover for three years.  Great llittle downtown.   Shops, restaurants, bars, movie, laundry mat, and a great little
super market, with its own butcher shop.  Pretty much all you need if you prefer walking. Lots of UNH students too,
if you are so inclined. :)

Portsmouth has at least 11 porcs, and more due this summer.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 10, 2008, 04:52:21 pm
No one has a right to absolute quiet. The recognized right is "quiet enjoyment" of your property. That other people's uses of their property should not unduly interfere with your use of your property. Sound, light, noxious odors, soot deposited upon your property from smokestacks... these can all be trespassory. Trespass and nuisance are both ancient and intimately related. It's a really a very fascinating subject--how various societies deal with this! :D

Authoritarian jackboots have long used such excuses to interfere with property rights.  That does not make "quiet enjoyment" an actual right.  It has no basis in moral philosophy, and rights don't just spring out of thing air because you want them to.

Chemicals (soot, etc.) are different from sound, in that they involve an actual trespass.  You can't discharge waste onto my property.

Joe

Fschmidt - this should answer your questions about "consensus."   ;)

Heh, so true. I think we continually disagree about this point. It will suffice to say that rights don't magically spring from descriptive inquiries of dead moral philosophers either. The actual source is so debatable, that we won't agree on that in a single thread. Regardless, as I said before, one should be wary to use the term "property rights" because it's such a blanket term that doesn't identify the particular right being spoken about.

The distinction drawn above was exactly the problem early judges had (and I mean judges in the general sense, not just English judges). A cow is a large physical object and anyone can clearly observe a trespass. Light and sounds are more ephemeral and were less understood. Yet, there was still something about them that interfered with a property owner's right to exclude. With some terribly abbreviated handwaving, that's how we came to call it quiet enjoyment and nuisance instead of trespass upon land. We know sound is mechanical and light is electromagnetic (and technically, they're both electromagnetic... *cough*). I can intentionally send powerfully disruptive sound waves onto your property that would crack your home's walls and damage your ear drums. Or I could transmit highly energetic photons (let's say... an x-ray emitter aimed at your house). Have these "ephemeral" things--sound waves and photons--entered your property? If we say "no" and maintain that those are merely the transfers of energy--and only physical things can actually trespass--we must also conclude that I could set a fire on my property to let "it" crossed onto your land, that would also NOT be trespass, because no physical thing is moving onto your property, just a self-perpetuating reaction that happens to emit light in the visible spectrum. Sounds a bit funny to think that might not be trespass. And many communities would agree. It's not only the physical act but the intent of the moral actor at the core of the action.

Is it the general consensus of FSP people that people have the right to blast noise onto their neighbor's property?  If this is a debated issue, then I would prefer to live near FSP people who agree with me on this.  But if the consensus is against me, then I probably don't belong.

Consensus?! HA! Welcome to the lack of it! :D
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: fschmidt on June 10, 2008, 08:41:01 pm
I'm glad that there is no consensus.  It's natural for reasonable people to have different opinions.  The best way to handle this is through local laws, so each person can live in a town that best fits his opinions.

MaineShark, I promise you that if I move to NH, I will oppose any state law that regulates noise.  I hope that you can do the same for me and promise me that you would oppose any state law that would prevent towns from regulating noise.

This July I will look at New Hampshire, Xalapa Mexico, and Uruguay as possible places to live.  Mexico and Uruguay have far more individual freedom than America does.  The main negative of these places is that they do not regulate noise.

In NH, I will look at Portsmouth, Manchester, and Concord.  I would prefer not living in a college town, which rules out Dover and Keene.  Does anyone know why Portsmouth is so much more expensive than other NH towns?  Any other comments about these towns, particularly regarding noise (music and barking dogs) and walkability?  Thanks.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2008, 07:03:04 am
Heh, so true. I think we continually disagree about this point. It will suffice to say that rights don't magically spring from descriptive inquiries of dead moral philosophers either. The actual source is so debatable, that we won't agree on that in a single thread. Regardless, as I said before, one should be wary to use the term "property rights" because it's such a blanket term that doesn't identify the particular right being spoken about.

Property rights is not a blanket term, and the source of property rights is not debatable.  All rights result from self-ownership, which is axiomatic - you cannot formulate an argument against self-ownership, without inherently admitting self-ownership in the process.

I can intentionally send powerfully disruptive sound waves onto your property that would crack your home's walls and damage your ear drums. Or I could transmit highly energetic photons (let's say... an x-ray emitter aimed at your house). Have these "ephemeral" things--sound waves and photons--entered your property? If we say "no" and maintain that those are merely the transfers of energy--and only physical things can actually trespass--we must also conclude that I could set a fire on my property to let "it" crossed onto your land, that would also NOT be trespass, because no physical thing is moving onto your property, just a self-perpetuating reaction that happens to emit light in the visible spectrum. Sounds a bit funny to think that might not be trespass.

That would be trespass, based upon it actually doing damage.  Not the intent, but the actuality of it.  If you never intended the fire to spread, but were negligent in failing to properly contain it, you would still be responsible.

Being "annoyed" by sound that travels through the air does not qualify as damage.  I'm "annoyed" by the way some people dress, for that matter.

I'm glad that there is no consensus.  It's natural for reasonable people to have different opinions.  The best way to handle this is through local laws, so each person can live in a town that best fits his opinions.

MaineShark, I promise you that if I move to NH, I will oppose any state law that regulates noise.  I hope that you can do the same for me and promise me that you would oppose any state law that would prevent towns from regulating noise.

Absolutely not.  I will oppose any aggressive violence, regardless of how small-scale you want to make it.  You do not have a right to attack others for offending your aesthetic sensibilities.  If you want to live in a place that is quiet, you may obtain such a condition by the unanimous consent of your neighbors.  The minute you try to force others to obey your personal preferences against their will, you are an oppressor.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: maeqFREEDOMfree on June 11, 2008, 08:24:45 am
O.P. When you move, please post your town. sometimes i can be loud and I have a tendency to squeeze random people's noses. I would never want to encroach on your pursuit of happiness; so due to my freakish urges, i'll be sure to move at least a town away.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 11, 2008, 09:33:00 am
The LOUD I can deal with... the nose squeezing might be a problem.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 11, 2008, 09:39:07 am
I'm glad that there is no consensus.  It's natural for reasonable people to have different opinions.  The best way to handle this is through local laws, so each person can live in a town that best fits his opinions.

MaineShark, I promise you that if I move to NH, I will oppose any state law that regulates noise.  I hope that you can do the same for me and promise me that you would oppose any state law that would prevent towns from regulating noise.

This July I will look at New Hampshire, Xalapa Mexico, and Uruguay as possible places to live.  Mexico and Uruguay have far more individual freedom than America does.  The main negative of these places is that they do not regulate noise.

In NH, I will look at Portsmouth, Manchester, and Concord.  I would prefer not living in a college town, which rules out Dover and Keene.  Does anyone know why Portsmouth is so much more expensive than other NH towns?  Any other comments about these towns, particularly regarding noise (music and barking dogs) and walkability?  Thanks.


Probably because Portsmouth has higher income levels due to its geographical location.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Fishercat on June 11, 2008, 10:16:28 am
Property rights is not a blanket term, and the source of property rights is not debatable. 

So anyone who thinks this open to debate should not be eligible to join the Free State Project?   Or quit, if they have already signed up? 

Just checking.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2008, 10:36:40 am
Property rights is not a blanket term, and the source of property rights is not debatable.
So anyone who thinks this open to debate should not be eligible to join the Free State Project?   Or quit, if they have already signed up? 

Just checking.

Given that such rights are axiomatic, they are literally not debatable - trying to debate them is illogical.  I'd prefer if rational people moved here, rather than irrational looters who believe that the world is a free-for-all where no one has any real rights.  We have enough of those, already - that sort of belief is the problem we are trying to solve here in NH.

Whether or not someone can do some level of good before running up against that sort of wall is debatable.  Someone (eg Ron Paul) might do some good, even being far from "pure," but when it comes to someone who thinks that calling in thugs with guns because of a barking dog is acceptable, no, I don't want someone like that moving here.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Fishercat on June 11, 2008, 10:39:27 am
The new Free State Project goal.   Reduce the number of participants to 10 or less by the end of 2009!

That should be a lot easier to achieve than that silly 20,000 number.  Count me in.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2008, 10:48:04 am
The new Free State Project goal.   Reduce the number of participants to 10 or less by the end of 2009!

That should be a lot easier to achieve than that silly 20,000 number.  Count me in.

The 20,000 number is silly.  It's an order of magnitude too high, by most estimates based upon what we've actually achieved in the actual Free State using actual people who have actually moved.  We've made serious advances with 1/40 of that number.  Because we are actual activists who actually care about liberty.

Those who want a nanny state where thugs with guns attack their neighbors to enforce their every whim should just stay where they are, because they are the problem that we are trying to solve here.

Getting people to sign up is not the goal.  Enhancing and maintaining freedom is.  Sign-ups are a helpful means to that end, but only when those who are signing up actually believe in the goal.

And the number of participants can't really go below 500-1000, anyway, because that's how many have already moved.  Within the next year or two, we should be at the actual number that we actually need in order to make this work.  More movers beyond that would be icing on the cake, and would help us somewhat, but if they are not actually committed to the goal, it I don't want them.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: margomaps on June 11, 2008, 10:53:03 am
Property rights is not a blanket term, and the source of property rights is not debatable. 

So anyone who thinks this open to debate should not be eligible to join the Free State Project?   Or quit, if they have already signed up? 

Just checking.

If you really, honestly think carefully and logically about what freedom means, I find it hard to imagine that you'll come to a conclusion that's much different than Joe's never-ending treatise ( :P  ;D ) on self-ownership/property rights.

However, having said that...don't forget that Joe is just one person in the FSP expressing his opinion.  His opinion -- or at least similar variations on the theme -- are probably held by a large percentage of porcs.  But not everyone sees the world in such stark terms, and not everyone ends up at exactly the same conclusion about all issues related to liberty.  Joe does not speak for the FSP; nobody does.  The SOI is the only thing that contractually connects us, really.  If you value freedom, and believe the maximum role of the government is to protect life, liberty, and property; and if you pledge to work toward that ideal, then the FSP is right for you.

Reasonable people can and will disagree on the exact meaning of the SOI, but for all intents and purposes it's good enough to largely get the intended audience of freedom fighters moving to NH.  My guess is that Joe and some others would prefer that the SOI were different; more explicit and more like the non-aggression principle.  But it isn't.  So those who believe they agree with the SOI are welcome to join the FSP.  Those who say they want the government to do more than what the SOI indicates should not sign the pledge, and should not necessarily expect to be welcomed by many FSPers.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2008, 10:58:05 am
My guess is that Joe and some others would prefer that the SOI were different; more explicit and more like the non-aggression principle.

I can't speak for others, but I actually like it the way it is.  It's simple and to the point, while allowing the minimum role of government to be open-ended.

Those who say they want the government to do more than what the SOI indicates should not sign the pledge, and should not necessarily expect to be welcomed by many FSPers.

Indeed.  And hiring thugs to impose "noise ordinances" would be well in excess of the limits set up by the SOI.  Hence my comments :)

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Fishercat on June 11, 2008, 11:06:37 am
And the number of participants can't really go below 500-1000, anyway, because that's how many have already moved.  Within the next year or two, we should be at the actual number that we actually need in order to make this work.  More movers beyond that would be icing on the cake, and would help us somewhat, but if they are not actually committed to the goal, it I don't want them.

If any of those 538 have the audacity to consider debating the foundation of property rights, than the movement would be best served if they would remove their names from the list, and reduce the total count.   I'm sure we could get the number way down.  Less than 200 would be easy.   Some of the rest may hang on for a while, but I don't believe they are all really, truly and unreservedly commit to the goal.

But what do I know.  I doubt I'm pure enough to have an opinion.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: margomaps on June 11, 2008, 11:32:50 am
I can't speak for others, but I actually like it the way it is.  It's simple and to the point, while allowing the minimum role of government to be open-ended.

I'm not convinced.  With how vociferously you defend self-ownership/property rights/non-aggression principle, it's hard to believe that you wouldn't prefer the SOI would read more like the NAP.

Quote
Indeed.  And hiring thugs to impose "noise ordinances" would be well in excess of the limits set up by the SOI.  Hence my comments :)

Nah, as we've seen in this very thread, some people might think that loud noises are a violation of their liberty, and they might want the government to interfere to protect said liberty.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2008, 12:34:42 pm
If any of those 538 have the audacity to consider debating the foundation of property rights, than the movement would be best served if they would remove their names from the list, and reduce the total count.   I'm sure we could get the number way down.  Less than 200 would be easy.   Some of the rest may hang on for a while, but I don't believe they are all really, truly and unreservedly commit to the goal.

There are more than 538 - the counter is not very accurate.

And I have yet to meet any of those who have moved, who do not understand that property rights result from self-ownership.  We're talking about libertarians, forcryingoutloud - people who are typically able to discuss why the Articles of Confederation were far superior to the oppressive monstrosity that is the Constitution.  Self-ownership is the basis of all libertarian thought.

I'm not convinced.  With how vociferously you defend self-ownership/property rights/non-aggression principle, it's hard to believe that you wouldn't prefer the SOI would read more like the NAP.

The SOI is just a re-statement of the NAP.  Actually, it's more strict, in reality.  Defending someone's life, liberty, and property are things which anyone may do, governmental or not.

Nah, as we've seen in this very thread, some people might think that loud noises are a violation of their liberty, and they might want the government to interfere to protect said liberty.

Some individuals think that.  I haven't met any actual libertarians who think that.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: margomaps on June 11, 2008, 12:44:45 pm
The SOI is just a re-statement of the NAP.  Actually, it's more strict, in reality.  Defending someone's life, liberty, and property are things which anyone may do, governmental or not.

Hmmmm.  I don't see it that way.  To me, the the NAP is more concise and explicit.  The SOI seems to suggest different things to different people.

Quote
Some individuals think that.  I haven't met any actual libertarians who think that.

Well that's kind of my point.  If sort-of-libertarians-but-not-quite stumble across the SOI and think it means "Cool!  I'll move to town X and work to reduce taxes but make loud noises illegal, because loud noises annoy me", then the SOI is not effective in attracting the kind of people most of us want to join the FSP.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Cat Herder on June 11, 2008, 12:51:28 pm
Quote
Nah, as we've seen in this very thread, some people might think that loud noises are a violation of their liberty, and they might want the government to interfere to protect said liberty.

Or, just the opposite -  get the government to stay out of the landlord's/property owner's way to protect said liberty.

Before moving here I lived in an apartment building in New York City and during my last year there I was put through living hell by my neighbors. They had extremely loud parties every weekend (and often during the week) lasting at least until 6am. (The building had a "no noise after 10PM" rule. )The walls in my apartment were vibrating, not to mention my eardrums. It was affecting my health, my ability to work etc. etc. I'd call it a little more than an "aesthetic" problem.

I had countless discussions with the neighbors and with the property manager who agreed with me (especially after my neighbors caused thousands of dollars in property damage by breaking an elevator) but could do nothing about it. The government regulations kept him from breaking their lease and throwing them out of the building.

But I guess I shouldn't have objected to my neighbor's "right" to drive me insane either.

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2008, 12:56:40 pm
The SOI is just a re-statement of the NAP.  Actually, it's more strict, in reality.  Defending someone's life, liberty, and property are things which anyone may do, governmental or not.
Hmmmm.  I don't see it that way.  To me, the the NAP is more concise and explicit.  The SOI seems to suggest different things to different people.

A government can exist under an anarchic system.  The two are not mutually-exclusive, the way that "State" and "anarchy" are.

So the SOI is restricting what such a government could do.  An anarchic government could engage in charity, for example, but those who sign the SOI would have to be opposed to that (which I am - charity should be fully private and personal).

Well that's kind of my point.  If sort-of-libertarians-but-not-quite stumble across the SOI and think it means "Cool!  I'll move to town X and work to reduce taxes but make loud noises illegal, because loud noises annoy me", then the SOI is not effective in attracting the kind of people most of us want to join the FSP.

I don't think that's overly-likely to happen, personally.  Some small percentage, maybe, but overall those who believe in liberty to the extent that they are willing to pull up roots and move to a new place in order to become activists are going to tend to be the sort who have thought these things out, and realize that they cannot justly legislate their personal preferences, because that's exactly what got us to the point that something like the FSP was important.

Heck, I'm a mixed-use area.  I'd certainly like it if Saturday mornings were quieter around here, but I knew I was moving in near a repair shop when I bought this place, and unless I were willing to pay them to remain closed on Saturdays, I have no business complaining about the noise, let alone sending in thugs with guns.  If I wanted to live in a place where things were quiet, I could have purchased a house in a residential area which was built with covenants requiring quiet.

Or, just the opposite -  get the government to stay out of the landlord's/property owner's way to protect said liberty.

Before moving here I lived in an apartment building in New York City and during my last year there I was put through living hell by my neighbors. They had extremely loud parties every weekend (and often during the week) lasting at least until 6am. (The building had a "no noise after 10PM" rule. )The walls in my apartment were vibrating, not to mention my eardrums. It was affecting my health, my ability to work etc. etc. I'd call it a little more than an "aesthetic" problem.

I had countless discussions with the neighbors and with the property manager who agreed with me (especially after my neighbors caused thousands of dollars in property damage by breaking an elevator) but could do nothing about it. The government regulations kept him from breaking their lease and throwing them out of the building.

But I guess I shouldn't have objected to my neighbor's "right" to drive me insane either.

Your neighbors were violating a contract (lease agreement), and should have been out on the street.

There is no comparison between that and someone trying to use force on individuals who had never agreed to any such thing.  As I've said before, if you want quiet, move someplace where quiet is required by the covenants that the property owners agreed to abide by.  Legislating rules for others, who never agreed to them, is something completely different, and that's what the original poster is suggesting should be done.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Fishercat on June 11, 2008, 01:02:44 pm
Well that's kind of my point.  If sort-of-libertarians-but-not-quite stumble across the SOI and think it means "Cool!  I'll move to town X and work to reduce taxes but make loud noises illegal, because loud noises annoy me", then the SOI is not effective in attracting the kind of people most of us want to join the FSP.

Loud noises are already illegal in many towns in New Hampshire.   So the SOI might attract the kind of person who will say, "Cool!  I will move to town X and work to reduce taxes.   But... I don't mind that town X has a noise ordinance, so I'm not really going to work to get rid of that." 

Are you seriously saying this person is a "jackboot" that should be... wait, just what are we going to do with jackboots again?

Let's be practical for a second.  10,000 people per year are moving to NH (give or take, I made that up).   Do you really think your energy is best spent trying to discourage a handful sort-of-libertarians-but-not-quite because they don't like barking dogs? 
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2008, 01:25:24 pm
Loud noises are already illegal in many towns in New Hampshire.   So the SOI might attract the kind of person who will say, "Cool!  I will move to town X and work to reduce taxes.   But... I don't mind that town X has a noise ordinance, so I'm not really going to work to get rid of that." 

Are you seriously saying this person is a "jackboot" that should be... wait, just what are we going to do with jackboots again?

They don't have to work to get rid of it.  But they can't get in the way of others doing so, or work to institute noise ordinances in towns that do not already have them, or to increase the scope of existing ordinances.

Let's be practical for a second.  10,000 people per year are moving to NH (give or take, I made that up).   Do you really think your energy is best spent trying to discourage a handful sort-of-libertarians-but-not-quite because they don't like barking dogs?

Yes.  You aren't held accountable by society for the actions of your enemies, but you are often taken to task for the actions of your friends.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Fishercat on June 11, 2008, 02:28:58 pm
It's a shame I've already "made the move."   Because I think you just convinced me not to join.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 11, 2008, 02:30:20 pm
Property rights is not a blanket term, and the source of property rights is not debatable.  All rights result from self-ownership, which is axiomatic - you cannot formulate an argument against self-ownership, without inherently admitting self-ownership in the process.

"Property rights" is a blanket term. You can say, "I have a property right in my car." But it doesn't tell you anything more about the relationship between you and the car--except that there is one. Do you have full title to the car? Or may you only use the car? Or perhaps you're merely possessing the car for a day or two. Do you rent it out and receive proceeds? Do you have a security interest in the car? --Or perhaps you have sold the design to the car? We don't know--because the phrase "property right" doesn't tell us much of anything.

The source of property rights isn't debatable? People have been doing it for thousands of years. And we're doing it right now. On this very thread!

Appealing to higher authorities, I see it's claimed we should accept certain axioms about the source of rights. But there's nothing self-evident about it that means we should accept it. It's a fairly major consequence to even elevate to being "axiomatic". As if it were as rigorous as the Zermelo-Frankel axioms--when it's really just an assertion of belief. Accepted by some; rejected by others. I can't accept it because it's not reduced to a more primitive set of axioms. If "self-ownership" and "rights" are to be defined terms themselves, any relationship between them will be based upon how they're defined. By definition, I can't call it axiomatic.

But, really, if we're all going with the "no-true-libertarian", "these-axioms-are-really-really-true", "you-can't-debate-it", and "anything-not-in-agreement-with-my-view-must-be-against-it" routes, then this is just degenerating into religious fervor. If that's the case, we literally can't debate at all.

That would be trespass, based upon it actually doing damage.  Not the intent, but the actuality of it.  If you never intended the fire to spread, but were negligent in failing to properly contain it, you would still be responsible.

Being "annoyed" by sound that travels through the air does not qualify as damage.  I'm "annoyed" by the way some people dress, for that matter.

Regardless of the interesting analysis on trespass and negligence, you seem to say that if their is actual damage, then there's a trespass. While I disagree with the inference that damage alone proves trespass, I'm glad we agree that sound can be trespassory. Sound over 85 dB will cause hearing loss; over 120 dB and you'll get immediate damage. Sound can also shake walls and break things. Therefore, sound can damage you and your property. And, according to your previous post, that damage is enough to be a trespass. And hold the producer of the sound responsible. I can't recall if anyone has speaking of merely being annoyed. (I don't think I did...) We're talking about serious interference with use of your property and harm to your person.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2008, 02:37:23 pm
It's a shame I've already "made the move."   Because I think you just convinced me not to join.

Have fun with that.  We don't have checkpoints at the border to keep folks in...

The source of property rights isn't debatable? People have been doing it for thousands of years. And we're doing it right now. On this very thread!

No, debate involves logic, not merely, "this annoys me so it must be wrong."

Appealing to higher authorities, I see it's claimed we should accept certain axioms about the source of rights. But there's nothing self-evident about it that means we should accept it.

You cannot phrase an opposition to self-ownership without admitting self-ownership.  Ergo, it is axiomatic.

You're welcome to try, but folks have been trying for a long time, and I don't think you're going to be the one to succeed...

Regardless of the interesting analysis on trespass and negligence, you seem to say that if their is actual damage, then there's a trespass. While I disagree with the inference that damage alone proves trespass, I'm glad we agree that sound can be trespassory. Sound over 85 dB will cause hearing loss; over 120 dB and you'll get immediate damage. Sound can also shake walls and break things. Therefore, sound can damage you and your property. And, according to your previous post, that damage is enough to be a trespass. And hold the producer of the sound responsible. I can't recall if anyone has speaking of merely being annoyed. (I don't think I did...) We're talking about serious interference with use of your property and harm to your person.

Yes, the original poster was speaking specifically of being annoyed by loud music and barking dogs.  We're not talking about sound as a source of physical damage.  Just sound as a source of annoyance.  Sound at damaging levels would be assault, and there would be no need for a separate "noise ordinance."

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: fschmidt on June 11, 2008, 02:45:26 pm
I posted a poll on the noise question here:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15370

Please vote so I can get a better idea of where Free Staters generally stand on this issue.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2008, 02:50:36 pm
Please vote so I can get a better idea of where Free Staters generally stand on this issue.

Actually, very few Freestaters actually visit here all that often.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: margomaps on June 11, 2008, 03:30:07 pm
Loud noises are already illegal in many towns in New Hampshire.   So the SOI might attract the kind of person who will say, "Cool!  I will move to town X and work to reduce taxes.   But... I don't mind that town X has a noise ordinance, so I'm not really going to work to get rid of that."

Quote
Are you seriously saying this person is a "jackboot" that should be... wait, just what are we going to do with jackboots again?

I'm not seriously -- nor jokingly -- saying any such thing.  With all due respect, what the @#%! are you talking about?   ;D  Did I mention anything about a "jackboot"?  I think you have me confused with somebody else.  Seriously.

Quote
Let's be practical for a second.  10,000 people per year are moving to NH (give or take, I made that up).   Do you really think your energy is best spent trying to discourage a handful sort-of-libertarians-but-not-quite because they don't like barking dogs?

I'm really at a loss to understand where you're coming from here.  Please point to where I've spent energy trying to discourage a sort-of-libertarian from moving to NH.  Are you just looking to pick a fight?  Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed?  You have me totally nonplussed here.

I (rightfully, IMO) pointed out that someone's feelings on a particular matter might mean that the SOI isn't for them.  And I (truthfully, IMO) mentioned that there are probably FSPers who wouldn't welcome someone with those beliefs.  I'm pretty sure Joe's unequivocal non-welcome as stated on this thread is evidence of the veracity of that claim.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Fishercat on June 11, 2008, 03:36:58 pm

Authoritarian jackboots have long used such excuses to interfere with property rights.  That does not make "quiet enjoyment" an actual right.  It has no basis in moral philosophy, and rights don't just spring out of thing air because you want them to.

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: margomaps on June 11, 2008, 03:40:56 pm
It's a shame I've already "made the move."   Because I think you just convinced me not to join.

Look, I don't know you, so I'm a little reluctant to say this.  But that's just downright pathetic.  You got a boo-boo while playing on a message forum, in which perhaps a tiny fraction of 1% of FSP participants disagreed with you on a fundamental issue.  And that is enough to convince you to take your ball and go home??  For heaven's sake, what are you going to do when the going actually gets tough?  I'm shocked -- shocked I say! -- that you haven't learned the value of a slightly thicker skin when 1) debating libertarians, and 2) debating on the internet.

If you value liberty (not just your own, but the principle itself), and you're not going to work to promote more/bigger/nastier government, and you're going to work to any degree to decrease the size and scope of government, then I'm personally thrilled that you're in NH.  I don't care if you're in the FSP or not.

Also: how many @#%!% times does it have to be stated that no individual's or set of individuals' opinions -- on these forums or elsewhere -- are to be taken as the FSP's position?  The people in the FSP do not march in lockstep, and you shouldn't be surprised that some of them disagree (sometimes strongly) with you on some issues.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: margomaps on June 11, 2008, 03:42:42 pm

Authoritarian jackboots have long used such excuses to interfere with property rights.  That does not make "quiet enjoyment" an actual right.  It has no basis in moral philosophy, and rights don't just spring out of thing air because you want them to.


Please tell me that you have additional evidence implicating me in this "jackboot" fiasco.  Because in case you haven't noticed, Maineshark is not the same as margomaps.  They're spelled slightly differently.   8)
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2008, 03:43:07 pm
Authoritarian jackboots have long used such excuses to interfere with property rights.  That does not make "quiet enjoyment" an actual right.  It has no basis in moral philosophy, and rights don't just spring out of thing air because you want them to.

Um, yes?

I presume this is in response to margomaps?

You may want to look up the definition of a "converse error."

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Fishercat on June 11, 2008, 04:00:25 pm

I'm not seriously -- nor jokingly -- saying any such thing.  With all due respect, what the @#%! are you talking about?   ;D  Did I mention anything about a "jackboot"?  I think you have me confused with somebody else.  Seriously.

I didn't mean "you" as in literally you...   in this case, it was MaineShark who actually used the term.  And he did answer to my satisfaction.

I'm really at a loss to understand where you're coming from here.  Please point to where I've spent energy trying to discourage a sort-of-libertarian from moving to NH.  Are you just looking to pick a fight?  Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed?  You have me totally nonplussed here.

I (rightfully, IMO) pointed out that someone's feelings on a particular matter might mean that the SOI isn't for them.  And I (truthfully, IMO) mentioned that there are probably FSPers who wouldn't welcome someone with those beliefs.  I'm pretty sure Joe's unequivocal non-welcome as stated on this thread is evidence of the veracity of that claim.

Again... sorry if you took this as a personal criticism.   It is MaineShark that is, as he clarified, actively trying to discourage "sort-of-libertarians" from move to NH.  "You" was meant in general, not specifically you.  But by posting it as a reply to your comment, I can see how it came of exactly that way.  Not my meaning, not my intention.  Sorry.

However, what I was reacting to was the particular statement about the sort of people that  "most of us [don't] want to join the FSP."  Joe's "unequivocal non-welcome" seems to extend also to people who might be inclined to debate the moral basis of property rights.

I wanted to ask Joe if he really believes that FSP membership should be restricted to "actual libertarians," defined by strict definitions.  Which he seems to, at least to some extent.  I don't think that "most freestaters" do.  But what do I know, I'm not most freestaters - just one.  And Joe weighed in as well.

I also think "unequivocal non-welcomes" are almost always counter productive.  Is that to be the new public face of the Free State Project?  That's the fight that I'm trying to pick, if you feel my posts are indeed fighting words.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2008, 04:07:17 pm
However, what I was reacting to was the particular statement about the sort of people that  "most of us [don't] want to join the FSP."  Joe's "unequivocal non-welcome" seems to extend also to people who might be inclined to debate the moral basis of property rights.

All rights are property rights.  If you don't think property rights are absolute, then you don't think that any rights are absolute, no matter how much you may claim that you do.

I wanted to ask Joe if he really believes that FSP membership should be restricted to "actual libertarians," defined by strict definitions.  Which he seems to, at least to some extent.  I don't think that "most freestaters" do.  But what do I know, I'm not most freestaters - just one.  And Joe weighed in as well.

I don't speak for the FSP.  This is my home, and I know for sure who I consider welcome here, and who I do not.

I also think "unequivocal non-welcomes" are almost always counter productive.  Is that to be the new public face of the Free State Project?  That's the fight that I'm trying to pick, if you feel my posts are indeed fighting words.

The FSP is about increasing liberty, not sending armed thugs to harass your neighbors because their dog barks.  That sort of behavior is the antithesis of liberty, and is unequivocally unwelcome here.

That sort of nonsense goes against everything we're trying to achieve in NH.  Those who believe in it should stay away.  Those who live here already and believe in it should leave.  Mass would be happy to have them, among other places.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Fishercat on June 11, 2008, 04:07:53 pm
Also: how many @#%!% times does it have to be stated that no individual's or set of individuals' opinions -- on these forums or elsewhere -- are to be taken as the FSP's position?  The people in the FSP do not march in lockstep, and you shouldn't be surprised that some of them disagree (sometimes strongly) with you on some issues.

One more time wouldn't hurt, as far as I'm concerned.

This particular discussion morphed from the opinions of one person to a "most of us" argument.  I'm just saying, if my first impression of this project was a big "you're not welcomed here,"  I'm not sure I would have been encouraged to look further, or think harder.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: margomaps on June 11, 2008, 04:14:27 pm
I didn't mean "you" as in literally you...   in this case, it was MaineShark who actually used the term.  And he did answer to my satisfaction.

<snip>

Again... sorry if you took this as a personal criticism.   It is MaineShark that is, as he clarified, actively trying to discourage "sort-of-libertarians" from move to NH.  "You" was meant in general, not specifically you.  But by posting it as a reply to your comment, I can see how it came of exactly that way.  Not my meaning, not my intention.  Sorry.

Well, for future reference when you reply directly to someone, and ask a question like "is this what you think?" -- you can expect more confusion just like this.  I'm glad you cleared up the confusion eventually though.  Thank you.

Quote
However, what I was reacting to was the particular statement about the sort of people that  "most of us [don't] want to join the FSP."  Joe's "unequivocal non-welcome" seems to extend also to people who might be inclined to debate the moral basis of property rights.

That could be the case for Joe.  And by "most of us" I suppose I meant most of the handful of people who I tend to see on the forums.  This point cannot be emphasized enough: you are dealing with a very small handful of people, and they (we) do not represent "the FSP".

Quote
I wanted to ask Joe if he really believes that FSP membership should be restricted to "actual libertarians," defined by strict definitions.  Which he seems to, at least to some extent.  I don't think that "most freestaters" do.  But what do I know, I'm not most freestaters - just one.  And Joe weighed in as well.

Exactly!  You realize that Joe is just one freestater, and that you are another.  And you (obviously) realize that you two might not see eye to eye on everything.  Which makes it all the more bizarre to me that you would start talking about "dropping out" of the FSP as a result of one or two FSPers opinions.

Quote
I also think "unequivocal non-welcomes" are almost always counter productive.  Is that to be the new public face of the Free State Project?  That's the fight that I'm trying to pick, if you feel my posts are indeed fighting words.

I actually agree with you 100%.  In most circumstances I try to use honey rather than vinegar when I disagree with someone, especially if we agree on 80% and I'm trying to win the person over on the other 20%.  I'm not always successful at it, and sometimes I use a mixture of honey and vinegar -- I'm not perfect.  Other people skip the honey altogether.  Again, to take one person's comments that offend you and make a capricious judgment about the FSP as a whole...you might want to rethink that approach.

As far as concerns about warts on the "public face of the FSP", that's just the nature of a loose organization like this.  There's nobody to "clamp down" on cranky posters here, and I don't think there should be.  People just sometimes need to be reminded of the FSP's goals, and not to take disagreements with others so seriously.  That's my opinion at any rate.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Fishercat on June 11, 2008, 04:26:46 pm

I actually agree with you 100%.  In most circumstances I try to use honey rather than vinegar when I disagree with someone, especially if we agree on 80% and I'm trying to win the person over on the other 20%.  I'm not always successful at it, and sometimes I use a mixture of honey and vinegar -- I'm not perfect.  Other people skip the honey altogether.  Again, to take one person's comments that offend you and make a capricious judgment about the FSP as a whole...you might want to rethink that approach.

As far as concerns about warts on the "public face of the FSP", that's just the nature of a loose organization like this.  There's nobody to "clamp down" on cranky posters here, and I don't think there should be.  People just sometimes need to be reminded of the FSP's goals, and not to take disagreements with others so seriously.  That's my opinion at any rate.

I'm also with you 100% here.

I'm happy that this last statement of yours is part of the discussion... considering in particular this is a subtopic called "Prospective Participants," presumably to be read by those who are trying to figure out what we are all about.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 11, 2008, 04:30:42 pm
No, debate involves logic, not merely, "this annoys me so it must be wrong."

I whole-heartedly agree! You may use logic all day long. But to get others to accept the validity of your reasoning, you may need to support your claims.

You cannot phrase an opposition to self-ownership without admitting self-ownership.  Ergo, it is axiomatic.

Perhaps you do not know what axiomatic means? First, one does not prove axioms. You either accept them or you do not. Second, you seem to be making a claim: that self-ownership cannot be denied without also accepting it. And you conclude that self-ownership is axiomatic (I assume you mean "valid" or "true"). But you haven't supported that claim in any way. It's like you're trying to prove an "axiom" by contradiction. But your contradiction seems to be that no one else has not disproved your statement. The burden is upon you, the maker, to demonstrate that your statement is valid. If you think your "axiom" is true, you may prove it.

Now, I'm not asking you to prove it now. I'm just saying, that if you expect people to accept grand hand-waving statements, back it up! Tell us why you think a certain way.

And none of this actually shows a link between self-ownership and how all property rights flow from it. I believe something like that was the original assertion.

We're not talking about sound as a source of physical damage.  Just sound as a source of annoyance.  Sound at damaging levels would be assault, and there would be no need for a separate "noise ordinance."

If you reread the thread, I believe there are multiple instances of sound being spoken of that can damage things. I'm quite sure of that. Either way you cut it, I cannot see how that could be assault. You may attempt to demonstrate why you think it's assault. In doing so, you should probably tell us what you think assault is. But I'd refrain from just assigning "damaging levels of sound" some actionable, legal-sounding name.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 11, 2008, 04:43:03 pm

Meh...

I skipped a few posts in this abortion...

Here is the real deal folks...

There are ONLY two kinds of human beings...
You can only be one or the other...
You can't just have "some of both"...

You are either a "taker/looter/bureaucrat/jackboot/mercenary" and you steal and rob others for what you want and you use aggression/force/fraud against others...

Or...

You are a Philosophically Mature Student and Advocate of the Non-Aggression Principle and you apply it to each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being recognizing that each and every one has Basic Inherent Inalienable Irrevocable Human Rights such as the right to life, liberty, and property...

Of course, when two or more Individual Sovereign Human Beings conduct all their interactions based on the Non-Aggression Principle there is not a need for ANY other person to be involved...ever...

Joe's been taking care of my heavy work here...

THANKS JOE!!!

RAD

Enjoy!

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: fschmidt on June 11, 2008, 05:01:21 pm
Powerchuter, could you add your town to the location in your profile so that I can skip that town when I visit NH?
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 11, 2008, 05:03:23 pm
As far as concerns about warts on the "public face of the FSP", that's just the nature of a loose organization like this.  There's nobody to "clamp down" on cranky posters here, and I don't think there should be.  People just sometimes need to be reminded of the FSP's goals, and not to take disagreements with others so seriously.  That's my opinion at any rate.

Well, I never consider myself cranky. At least, I'm not actually cranky when I write. Sorry if it comes off that way.

But the discussion might answer the original poster's question about consensus.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: margomaps on June 11, 2008, 06:10:05 pm
Well, I never consider myself cranky. At least, I'm not actually cranky when I write. Sorry if it comes off that way.

No, I wasn't referring to you.  I just meant that there's nobody around to toe the company line, since there isn't a company line, and hence there's certainly nobody around to make sure that people are toeing the non-existent company line.  Er, if you get my meaning with that particular metaphor.   :D
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2008, 06:22:16 pm
I whole-heartedly agree! You may use logic all day long. But to get others to accept the validity of your reasoning, you may need to support your claims.

Feel free to read any of the many treatises on self-ownership out there.  I'm not giving "Liberty 101" classes here.  This is basic stuff.

Perhaps you do not know what axiomatic means?

Self-evident would be one convenient definition.

First, one does not prove axioms. You either accept them or you do not.

False.

Second, you seem to be making a claim: that self-ownership cannot be denied without also accepting it.

"Seem?"  I stated that flatly.

And you conclude that self-ownership is axiomatic (I assume you mean "valid" or "true"). But you haven't supported that claim in any way. It's like you're trying to prove an "axiom" by contradiction. But your contradiction seems to be that no one else has not disproved your statement. The burden is upon you, the maker, to demonstrate that your statement is valid. If you think your "axiom" is true, you may prove it.

Someone doesn't seem to understand how self-evident statements work.  The fact is that it is logically impossible to argue against self-ownership without implicitly accepting self-ownership as valid.  Offering to let you try is just humor - you can't.

And none of this actually shows a link between self-ownership and how all property rights flow from it. I believe something like that was the original assertion.

Which is, again, "Liberty 101," and should not need to be discussed by anyone who is actually even vaguely in the liberty movement.  You own you.  Ergo, you own all the fruits of your labors, including any property you obtain by homesteading or trade.  Provided you do not aggressively violate the self-ownership of another, no one may interfere with your self-ownership, without himself being an aggressor.

If you reread the thread, I believe there are multiple instances of sound being spoken of that can damage things. I'm quite sure of that.

Yes, by individuals such as yourself, who were trying to build straw men.  The actual discussion is about "annoying" sound like loud music and barking dogs.

Either way you cut it, I cannot see how that could be assault. You may attempt to demonstrate why you think it's assault. In doing so, you should probably tell us what you think assault is. But I'd refrain from just assigning "damaging levels of sound" some actionable, legal-sounding name.

Go look up the definition of assault.  Using sound waves to cause damage to another is no different from firing bullets.

The issue, of course, is actually causing damage.  You can't fire a gun randomly at my house, either.  Or set a brush fire, knowing that you do not have the means to control it.  But simply annoying me does not cause me damage, so your dog can bark all it wants, unless we have a contract that says otherwise, in which case you would be in violation of that contract.

Powerchuter, could you add your town to the location in your profile so that I can skip that town when I visit NH?

Rob travels around a lot.  So do I.  You should probably just avoid the whole state, since you clearly think that using aggressive force to oppress others is perfectly acceptable behavior.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2008, 06:53:04 pm
Now, I'm not asking you to prove it now. I'm just saying, that if you expect people to accept grand hand-waving statements, back it up! Tell us why you think a certain way.

"Grand hand-waving statements," eh?  Like, when you and Fishercat and schmidt all say that you have some mystical positive right to use violence against those who make noises you dislike?  Those sort of statements?

And describing how that sort of oppression has been common throughout history doesn't qualify as proof that you are right.  Slavery was also common throughout history.

So, since you folks are the ones actually making the positive claim here, namely that you have a right to use violence against those who make annoying, but non-harmful levels of noise... back up your claim.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: fschmidt on June 11, 2008, 07:06:51 pm
MainShark, I hope you won't object to me squeezing your nose if I see you in NH.  After all, that is just annoying, not harmful.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2008, 10:24:17 pm
MainShark, I hope you won't object to me squeezing your nose if I see you in NH.  After all, that is just annoying, not harmful.

No, that's a physical assault, and you should expect to be treated to whatever level of defensive force I feel is appropriate, if you try that.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 11, 2008, 10:41:56 pm
Now, I'm not asking you to prove it now. I'm just saying, that if you expect people to accept grand hand-waving statements, back it up! Tell us why you think a certain way.

"Grand hand-waving statements," eh?  Like, when you and Fishercat and schmidt all say that you have some mystical positive right to use violence against those who make noises you dislike?  Those sort of statements?

...

So, since you folks are the ones actually making the positive claim here, namely that you have a right to use violence against those who make annoying, but non-harmful levels of noise... back up your claim.

That's incorrect. I have not made this claim at any point in this thread. Please don't invent claims and falsely attribute them to me.

If you incorrectly believe that's what I've said, you should re-read the thread.


Go look up the definition of assault.  Using sound waves to cause damage to another is no different from firing bullets.

The issue, of course, is actually causing damage.  You can't fire a gun randomly at my house, either.  Or set a brush fire, knowing that you do not have the means to control it.  But simply annoying me does not cause me damage, so your dog can bark all it wants, unless we have a contract that says otherwise, in which case you would be in violation of that contract.

Unfortunately, the definition of assault has been ingrained in my skull.

Indeed, I would entreat you to look up the definition of assault. Try Black's or refer to Blackstone. From this, you don't appear to distinguish assault from other private wrongs.

Someone doesn't seem to understand how self-evident statements work.  The fact is that it is logically impossible to argue against self-ownership without implicitly accepting self-ownership as valid.  Offering to let you try is just humor - you can't.

But your statement is not self-evident. All you've done is repeated your claim. And now added that even allowing someone to try to refute the claim would be humorous. Because--as you continue to assert without proof--it cannot be refuted.

Protest as much as you like. Fact remains, you haven't reasoned or supported your arguments logically, like you claim you are doing. No appeal to authority, ridicule, obviousness, or other diversionary fallacy will obviate the lack of support for your claims.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing will all of your conclusions. I'm saying, as logical arguments--as you claim they are--the claims are not being supported. And it really stands out when you call major conclusions axioms. Personally, I find this rhetorical style distasteful, because it's so easy to intersperse personal beliefs disguised as absolute truths. But you're not in terrible company. Hegel and Marx had similar rhetorical styles: "I know the truth; and stating the truth is sufficient to prove it's truth."

I hope you won't object to me squeezing your nose if I see you in NH.  After all, that is just annoying, not harmful.

Priceless.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 12, 2008, 05:45:29 am
Powerchuter, could you add your town to the location in your profile so that I can skip that town when I visit NH?

Rob travels around a lot.  So do I.  You should probably just avoid the whole state, since you clearly think that using aggressive force to oppress others is perfectly acceptable behavior.

Joe

the most calming effect that NH has on me...personally...is knowing that Joe and I are NOT alone in our philosophy...and our determination to "Live Free or Die"...here in New Hampshire...

and we're removing more and more from the matrix each and every day...

others...not so much...

RAD

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 12, 2008, 07:52:38 am
That's incorrect. I have not made this claim at any point in this thread. Please don't invent claims and falsely attribute them to me.

No one has a right to absolute quiet. The recognized right is "quiet enjoyment" of your property. That other people's uses of their property should not unduly interfere with your use of your property. Sound, light, noxious odors, soot deposited upon your property from smokestacks... these can all be trespassory. Trespass and nuisance are both ancient and intimately related. It's a really a very fascinating subject--how various societies deal with this! :D

Have fun.

Unfortunately, the definition of assault has been ingrained in my skull.

Oh?  Why don't you share it, then, if it's so ingrained?

Indeed, I would entreat you to look up the definition of assault. Try Black's or refer to Blackstone. From this, you don't appear to distinguish assault from other private wrongs.

Try Webster's.

But your statement is not self-evident. All you've done is repeated your claim. And now added that even allowing someone to try to refute the claim would be humorous. Because--as you continue to assert without proof--it cannot be refuted.

Protest as much as you like. Fact remains, you haven't reasoned or supported your arguments logically, like you claim you are doing. No appeal to authority, ridicule, obviousness, or other diversionary fallacy will obviate the lack of support for your claims.

I'm also not going to prove that the Earth is round, or that the sky is blue, or that gravitation tends to cause masses to attract each other.  Deal with it.  Those things are well-proven elsewhere, and not even to the same extent that self-ownership is.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing will all of your conclusions. I'm saying, as logical arguments--as you claim they are--the claims are not being supported. And it really stands out when you call major conclusions axioms. Personally, I find this rhetorical style distasteful, because it's so easy to intersperse personal beliefs disguised as absolute truths. But you're not in terrible company. Hegel and Marx had similar rhetorical styles: "I know the truth; and stating the truth is sufficient to prove it's truth."

Your "rhetorical style" seems to be that you whine and complain about everything, without ever adding anything of substance to any conversation, then argue about how you didn't mean to say what you obviously said.  It's exactly the style used by politicians, and other such scum.

Anyone with any real involvement in the liberty movement would know of the principle of self-ownership, and the derivation.  I'm not duplicating it here because such a request is completely asinine.  Unless, of course, the one making the request actually knows nothing about the principles involved in libertarian thought, because that individual is actually nothing of the sort...

As I said, I'm also not "proving" that the Earth is round, or how gravitation works, or any other such things.  That's not because they're unprovable, or because I'm insisting that you should just "take it on faith," but simply because they have been established elsewhere, and you should already know that if you live in this society.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: magicmonkey on June 16, 2008, 12:28:49 pm
Wow, I really don't understand why some members of the Free State Project wouldn't want a an "80%" libertarian.  S/he isn't all there.  So why not bring them into the State and "convert" where it will be easier, and you get to win political allies.  Is there some fear that this 80-percenter will pollute the truth?  Or is the fear that they will become a political enemy?  I don't see the first situation happening, because if the truth is the Truth, it won't be polluted and everyone can continue to spread the concept of self-ownership.  As for the second fear, isn't it far more likely for someone who is NOT libertarian to be a greater political enemy than almost-a-libertarian?  And, as far as I know, New Hampshire is still being filled with way more socialists from Massachusetts than libertarians of any sort, pure or otherwise.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 16, 2008, 12:35:16 pm
As for the second fear, isn't it far more likely for someone who is NOT libertarian to be a greater political enemy than almost-a-libertarian?  And, as far as I know, New Hampshire is still being filled with way more socialists from Massachusetts than libertarians of any sort, pure or otherwise.

You aren't judged by the actions of your enemies, but by the actions of your "allies."

We do not need folks claiming to be one of "us," and then going off on how great it is to call the cops when your neighbor's dog barks.  Because we all end up getting blamed for that sort of nonsense.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 16, 2008, 12:42:05 pm
Wow, I really don't understand why some members of the Free State Project wouldn't want a an "80%" libertarian.  S/he isn't all there.  So why not bring them into the State and "convert" where it will be easier, and you get to win political allies.  Is there some fear that this 80-percenter will pollute the truth?  Or is the fear that they will become a political enemy?  I don't see the first situation happening, because if the truth is the Truth, it won't be polluted and everyone can continue to spread the concept of self-ownership.  As for the second fear, isn't it far more likely for someone who is NOT libertarian to be a greater political enemy than almost-a-libertarian?  And, as far as I know, New Hampshire is still being filled with way more socialists from Massachusetts than libertarians of any sort, pure or otherwise.

A few Free Staters prefer to have child molesters running around than someone who might want a local noise ordinance.  ::) Fortunately, I don't think I've actually met any of these Free Staters in person. They just seem to be absorbed with these Internet debates, while the doers in NH largely have much more... reasonable views.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 16, 2008, 12:45:17 pm
They just seem to be absorbed with these Internet debates, while the doers in NH largely have much more... reasonable views.

As opposed to you, who lives where, precisely?

Speaking as someone who actually lives in NH and who actually has involvement here, you couldn't be further from the truth.  The ones who try to cater to the lowest common denominator are typically the ones who get nothing, or next-to-nothing actually done.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: magicmonkey on June 16, 2008, 04:18:37 pm
Ok, MaineShark, I have a question pinging inside my head and I say this not to be a dick, but out of honest curiosity:
If someone is yelling "fuck!" repeatedly in my general direction, is it verbal assault?  Is there such a thing as verbal assault, because wouldn't it just be noise I found annoying or unpleasant, i.e. by your definition does not involve civil liberties?  The person is clearly causing no physical harm and we can even assume they are not on my private property or otherwise committing trespass.  If they were pointed away from me, I guess I would have no case besides "oh, it's annoying".  I would, however, feel assaulted to have someone yell obscenities at me or at my general direction, or really any word that is generally understood to be derogatory.  How is this different (again, I don't know, I'm just asking) from loud sounds being emitted in my general direction at "unreasonable" times?

For me, it still unclear whether or not one has the private property right to not be bothered by "offensive" sounds.  I'm having a difficult time making a distinction as you do, and for me it's a very gray area.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 16, 2008, 04:35:58 pm
Ok, MaineShark, I have a question pinging inside my head and I say this not to be a dick, but out of honest curiosity:
If someone is yelling "fuck!" repeatedly in my general direction, is it verbal assault?  Is there such a thing as verbal assault, because wouldn't it just be noise I found annoying or unpleasant, i.e. by your definition does not involve civil liberties?  The person is clearly causing no physical harm and we can even assume they are not on my private property or otherwise committing trespass.  If they were pointed away from me, I guess I would have no case besides "oh, it's annoying".  I would, however, feel assaulted to have someone yell obscenities at me or at my general direction, or really any word that is generally understood to be derogatory.  How is this different (again, I don't know, I'm just asking) from loud sounds being emitted in my general direction at "unreasonable" times?

There's no such thing as a verbal assault.

For me, it still unclear whether or not one has the private property right to not be bothered by "offensive" sounds.  I'm having a difficult time making a distinction as you do, and for me it's a very gray area.

Rights are negative.  Your right to life doesn't mean that someone has to pay to feed you; it means that no one may just kill you for fun, or any other reason (except self-defense, if you attack them).

Your property rights mean that no one may take your property from you, or damage it.  They do not mean that you can dictate what they do on their property.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Dave Mincin on June 16, 2008, 05:38:15 pm

A few Free Staters prefer to have child molesters running around than someone who might want a local noise ordinance.  ::) Fortunately, I don't think I've actually met any of these Free Staters in person. They just seem to be absorbed with these Internet debates, while the doers in NH largely have much more... reasonable views.

As one of the first half dozen movers, I remember those nut cases well.  Fortunately we were able to run them off. :)

Personally I and most of the folks I know would welcome as many 80 or 60% libertarians willing to come.  I don't recall anything in the statement of intent that says only pure libertarians need
apply. ???

Getting things done and really moving in the direction of freedom requires building broad based coalitions.

A good example of this is REAL ID.  With Joel in the lead, after years of work we were able to defeat REAL ID in NH.  In truth we built a broad based coalition of lefties, righties, socialist, Christians, homeschooliers and who knows how many other groups, hell. even the ACLU.   Left to the pure llibertarians, it just wouldn't have happened.

I honestly believe that many of you folks who express interest in the project, because of what you read on this forum, get the wrong impression.  The real truth is most of the real doers, have little time for constant debate on this forum.  They are to busy living there lives, working there jobs, raising there faimilies, and doing what time permits to promote freedom.

In truth the many folks I have been working with to promote a freer NH, almost never post to this forum.

BTW Joel Winters, a Freestater, and the first porc elected to the legislature, was elected as a Democrat!  Maybe he isn't pure, but hardly think him any less a freedom guy, and he is the only one of us who has a vote in Concord.

I'm hopeful that you folks who are interested in joining us do not take the words of the few in NH who seem to love debating on the forum, but rather look to the folks who live here, and are working to actually get things done.

Sorry we are to busy to respond to all of your questions or thoughts...but hello real world, only so many hours in the day! :)

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 16, 2008, 06:52:16 pm
We debate to open our mindset.
Its a chance to look at an idea that we have held to be truth in a new light. Sometimes its a little messy... but I find it worthwhile.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 16, 2008, 07:13:59 pm
Property rights is not a blanket term, and the source of property rights is not debatable. 

So anyone who thinks this open to debate should not be eligible to join the Free State Project?   Or quit, if they have already signed up? 

Just checking.

I think the original poster is “there enough” to be eligible for the FSP. Moving to a place with so many libertarians tends to have the effect of helping people move in the right direction on the ideological spectrum. I’ve seen this happen with several people.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 16, 2008, 07:42:55 pm
As for the second fear, isn't it far more likely for someone who is NOT libertarian to be a greater political enemy than almost-a-libertarian?  And, as far as I know, New Hampshire is still being filled with way more socialists from Massachusetts than libertarians of any sort, pure or otherwise.

You aren't judged by the actions of your enemies, but by the actions of your "allies."

We do not need folks claiming to be one of "us," and then going off on how great it is to call the cops when your neighbor's dog barks.  Because we all end up getting blamed for that sort of nonsense.

I don’t know about this. People were saying this after the Guinta controversy and it never happened. I think it was made quite clear that the freestaters who supported his election did not support his attacks on the pro-decrim rep, and so nothing stuck to the FSP, so to speak.

We also had that incident where a freestater got a restraining order against another after a domestic dispute. If I recall correctly, a lot of freestaters turned against her at that point—and others helped her find an alternative solution, private mediation, which I think was the correct course of action. I would suggest a similar route for our noise-averse friend here.

Freestaters seem to be very good at preventing others from painting us all as one big homogeneous group. :)
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 16, 2008, 07:55:43 pm
They just seem to be absorbed with these Internet debates, while the doers in NH largely have much more... reasonable views.

Lol. The handful of ardent NAP-supporters on this forum are all movers. You?

Fortunately, I don't think I've actually met any of these Free Staters in person.

Well, if you hadn’t skipped out of PorcFest so soon after your speech, I’d’ve said hi. ;D
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: magicmonkey on June 16, 2008, 07:59:23 pm

There's no such thing as a verbal assault.


Again, just asking; if there is no verbal assault, what is slander and libel?  It could be slander/libel of my own character, which I assume I own, or slander/libel that hurts the earning or investment potential of my private property.  Are those just assumed risks?

Quote

Rights are negative.  Your right to life doesn't mean that someone has to pay to feed you; it means that no one may just kill you for fun, or any other reason (except self-defense, if you attack them).

Your property rights mean that no one may take your property from you, or damage it.  They do not mean that you can dictate what they do on their property.

Joe

What if I were holding a classical concert on my property and it was phonically competing with rock next door?  Is it my responsibility to pay for the additional expense of holding the concert, or is it the other person's responsibility to pay (by reducing their enjoyment) by lowering the volume?  Also, do I own the airspace above my land?  Because if noise is a mere annoyance, it seems I don't own the airspace above my land.  If I don't own the airspace above my property, who does?

Again, I don't have the answers, but I appreciate your insights.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 17, 2008, 09:15:18 am
I don’t know about this. People were saying this after the Guinta controversy and it never happened. I think it was made quite clear that the freestaters who supported his election did not support his attacks on the pro-decrim rep, and so nothing stuck to the FSP, so to speak.

Despite his flaws, Guinta was a positive change.  The case of supporting negative laws is different.

We also had that incident where a freestater got a restraining order against another after a domestic dispute. If I recall correctly, a lot of freestaters turned against her at that point—and others helped her find an alternative solution, private mediation, which I think was the correct course of action. I would suggest a similar route for our noise-averse friend here.

That was not really publicized.

Freestaters seem to be very good at preventing others from painting us all as one big homogeneous group. :)

Not really.  Look at the nut who thinks that "our leader" got arrested at the airport.

Again, just asking; if there is no verbal assault, what is slander and libel?  It could be slander/libel of my own character, which I assume I own, or slander/libel that hurts the earning or investment potential of my private property.  Are those just assumed risks?

Slander and libel are fraud.  I could go on about what a jerk you are, or accuse you of unspeakable things.  As long as they are my opinion, or any accusations are actually true, there is no slander or libel.  Those terms only apply when fraud is involved.

What if I were holding a classical concert on my property and it was phonically competing with rock next door?  Is it my responsibility to pay for the additional expense of holding the concert, or is it the other person's responsibility to pay (by reducing their enjoyment) by lowering the volume?

Neither one has to pay.  Just because you dislike something, does not mean that the perpetrator of that thing has harmed you, or owes you payment.  I dislike folks who walk around in public with extremely-strong perfume/cologne.  That doesn't mean that my aesthetic disapproval of their odor gives me cause to attack them and demand payment for some imaginary "harm."

I would suggest, if you were going to the trouble of holding a concert, you might want to mention that to your neighbors.  More than likely, they would be willing to keep the rock music turned off, just to be polite.  After all, when they want to hold a rock concert, they certainly don't want Tchaikovsky drowning out the guitars, so being accommodating is in their own best interest.  Or, maybe they would ask that you pay them to keep the volume down.  Then, if they failed to do so, they would be violating a contract and you would have a right to seek reparations.

Also, do I own the airspace above my land?  Because if noise is a mere annoyance, it seems I don't own the airspace above my land.  If I don't own the airspace above my property, who does?

Airspace, above the point that you can use, is not ownable, due to the physical fact that you cannot make and establish a claim.  If you decide to build a skyscraper, obviously you have extended the height that you are capable of using.

Noise, by itself, travels.  Just like air.  While you could own the "airspace" up to a certain point, you cannot own the air.  Air travels, without intervention.  If you were to pump some air into a tank, then you could own it (while it was in the tank), because it no longer travels freely.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: magicmonkey on June 17, 2008, 01:44:24 pm

Airspace, above the point that you can use, is not ownable, due to the physical fact that you cannot make and establish a claim.  If you decide to build a skyscraper, obviously you have extended the height that you are capable of using.

Noise, by itself, travels.  Just like air.  While you could own the "airspace" up to a certain point, you cannot own the air.  Air travels, without intervention.  If you were to pump some air into a tank, then you could own it (while it was in the tank), because it no longer travels freely.

Joe

I realize noise, by itself, travels just like air, because it is air that is vibrating at specific audible frequencies.  Does that mean people can't own radio spectrum, since they can't lay claim over it as private property or dispute "frequency stealing"?  Radio spectrum is just higher energy frequencies traveling in the air, just like noise.  What if I beamed specific radio frequencies to drown out or otherwise distort your radio frequencies from my own property, assuming there is no bodily or structural harm, do I have a claim for a legitimate complaint?  To me it seems like a "noise violation", only with higher frequencies.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 17, 2008, 01:46:51 pm
I realize noise, by itself, travels just like air, because it is air that is vibrating at specific audible frequencies.  Does that mean people can't own radio spectrum, since they can't lay claim over it as private property or dispute "frequency stealing"?  Radio spectrum is just higher energy frequencies traveling in the air, just like noise.  What if I beamed specific radio frequencies to drown out or otherwise distort your radio frequencies from my own property, assuming there is no bodily or structural harm, do I have a claim for a legitimate complaint?  To me it seems like a "noise violation", only with higher frequencies.

You can't own portions of the radio spectrum.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 17, 2008, 03:17:53 pm
Freestaters seem to be very good at preventing others from painting us all as one big homogeneous group. :)

Not really.  Look at the nut who thinks that "our leader" got arrested at the airport.

Maybe I should’ve said, we’re good at correcting people who make these mistakes. People piled on that guy for that. The few times we’ve had people come in here and accuse “us” of being racists, or prejudiced against a particular religion, or somesuch, similar happens.

Again, just asking; if there is no verbal assault, what is slander and libel?  It could be slander/libel of my own character, which I assume I own, or slander/libel that hurts the earning or investment potential of my private property.  Are those just assumed risks?

Slander and libel are fraud.  I could go on about what a jerk you are, or accuse you of unspeakable things.  As long as they are my opinion, or any accusations are actually true, there is no slander or libel.  Those terms only apply when fraud is involved.

Specifically, the American legal concept of slander/libel is just a special case of fraud. The U.K. and many other nations consider even true statements to be slander/libel if the intent of the spreader was to harm the victim’s reputation.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 17, 2008, 03:21:37 pm
Maybe I should’ve said, we’re good at correcting people who make these mistakes. People piled on that guy for that. The few times we’ve had people come in here and accuse “us” of being racists, or prejudiced against a particular religion, or somesuch, similar happens.

Yeah, but how many others like him are out there, with the same false notions, who will never read this forum?

Specifically, the American legal concept of slander/libel is just a special case of fraud. The U.K. and many other nations consider even true statements to be slander/libel if the intent of the spreader was to harm the victim’s reputation.

The anarchic concept of slander/libel, as well.  If something isn't force/fraud, it's not a violation.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 17, 2008, 03:22:45 pm
I realize noise, by itself, travels just like air, because it is air that is vibrating at specific audible frequencies.  Does that mean people can't own radio spectrum, since they can't lay claim over it as private property or dispute "frequency stealing"?  Radio spectrum is just higher energy frequencies traveling in the air, just like noise.  What if I beamed specific radio frequencies to drown out or otherwise distort your radio frequencies from my own property, assuming there is no bodily or structural harm, do I have a claim for a legitimate complaint?  To me it seems like a "noise violation", only with higher frequencies.

That one can “own” radio frequencies is a misconception created by the fact that the government monopolizes its use (via the FCC) and then sells access rights to that which they’ve taken control of. It’s a legal fiction like “intellectual” property (invented by the British government in the 1600s to regulate printers, now perverted beyond recognition by those who profit from it) and the up-and-coming “carbon-trading” scheme.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Russell Kanning on June 17, 2008, 04:10:53 pm
I live in California where I can no longer afford to stay, partly because of the state income tax.  So I looked into states with no income tax, one of which is New Hampshire, and so I found out about the Free State Project.  I am not a strict libertarian and haven't been very politically active.  I know some libertarian groups are pretty extreme, but from this forum, this group seems quite tolerant.  So my first question is, does someone who is about 80% libertarian fit into the Free State Project?

I am looking for a town that is quiet (meaning no noise) and walkable.  I don't want to hear my neighbor's dogs or stereo.  But I would like to be able to walk to a grocery store.
I have found there to be less noisy dogs and stereos in NH than CA.
Many people say that I am not libertarian at all and I am part of the FSP.
Our group is very extreme and tolerant. :)
In Keene the grocery stores can be too far.
In Grafton there is no grocery store to walk to.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: magicmonkey on June 17, 2008, 04:35:42 pm
I realize noise, by itself, travels just like air, because it is air that is vibrating at specific audible frequencies.  Does that mean people can't own radio spectrum, since they can't lay claim over it as private property or dispute "frequency stealing"?  Radio spectrum is just higher energy frequencies traveling in the air, just like noise.  What if I beamed specific radio frequencies to drown out or otherwise distort your radio frequencies from my own property, assuming there is no bodily or structural harm, do I have a claim for a legitimate complaint?  To me it seems like a "noise violation", only with higher frequencies.

You can't own portions of the radio spectrum.

Joe

Yeah, I agree.  But I can certainly produce frequencies with enough strength to drown out or distort others, all from my own private property and not cause harm to their body or private structures.  Isn't that a noise violation issue?
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 18, 2008, 07:25:25 am
I live in California where I can no longer afford to stay, partly because of the state income tax.  So I looked into states with no income tax, one of which is New Hampshire, and so I found out about the Free State Project.  I am not a strict libertarian and haven't been very politically active.  I know some libertarian groups are pretty extreme, but from this forum, this group seems quite tolerant.  So my first question is, does someone who is about 80% libertarian fit into the Free State Project?

I am looking for a town that is quiet (meaning no noise) and walkable.  I don't want to hear my neighbor's dogs or stereo.  But I would like to be able to walk to a grocery store.
I have found there to be less noisy dogs and stereos in NH than CA.
Many people say that I am not libertarian at all and I am part of the FSP.
Our group is very extreme and tolerant. :)
In Keene the grocery stores can be too far.
In Grafton there is no grocery store to walk to.

our leader speaks...

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 18, 2008, 07:58:32 am
I realize noise, by itself, travels just like air, because it is air that is vibrating at specific audible frequencies.  Does that mean people can't own radio spectrum, since they can't lay claim over it as private property or dispute "frequency stealing"?  Radio spectrum is just higher energy frequencies traveling in the air, just like noise.  What if I beamed specific radio frequencies to drown out or otherwise distort your radio frequencies from my own property, assuming there is no bodily or structural harm, do I have a claim for a legitimate complaint?  To me it seems like a "noise violation", only with higher frequencies.

You can't own portions of the radio spectrum.

Joe

Yeah, I agree.  But I can certainly produce frequencies with enough strength to drown out or distort others, all from my own private property and not cause harm to their body or private structures.  Isn't that a noise violation issue?

"enough strength"...

ah, the race to the Global Annihilation Device...

haven't we already "been there...done that"...

and now that we have...folks like Maineshark, J, and I are totally fed up with the "unpure"...

several folks repeatedly proclaim that we should welcome the "unpure" into our midst to assist in "movement" towards "productive" ends...

and we won't deny that using/exploiting these unpure people "helps" to slow down the tyranny of the majority...

but by the very nature of our usage/exploitation of the unpure...we are extending and furthering the reign of terror of the tyrannical majority...

and I won't claim to be innocent of these charges...I wholeheartedly use/exploit the Ron Paul Campaign and the Campaign for Liberty(not to mention Aaron Russo's film and many other instruments of instruction) to assist in reaching/educating/waking-up those who have stagnated in Philosophical Maturity 101...

WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE WITH THE UNPURE...

good question...

Perhaps that depends on exactly WHAT they are DOING to others...

Do we wait until the perpetrator of aggression progresses all the way from ACTUAL USAGE of a club to the GAD(global annihilation device)...

or do we...instead...endeavor to repel and destroy all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries well before they "perfect" their perpetration of perpetual aggression/force/fraud upon whole regions...whole peoples...and ultimately upon the whole globe...

simply put...my seventeen year old daughter is an Individual Sovereign Human Being and, as such, she utilizes "repel and destroy" to maintain, demand, and assert her advocacy of the Philosophical Mature Non-Aggression Principle in her self defense and the defense of each and every other Individual Sovereign Human Being with Basic Inherent Inalienable Irrevocable Human Rights...

when she repels and destroys the rapist who attempts to perpetrate her victimization...she spares each and every other human being of the advancing aggression/force/fraud of the rapist who might very well become the possessor of the GAD...

we're not opposed to EDUCATING the unpure...

we're not opposed to destroying them either...

Go figure...


(food for thought for any and all who directly or indirectly approve of or participate in...ANY aggression/force/fraud...and, yes, even one percent of it makes you a looter, bureaucrat, jackboot, and/or mercenary...who may be legitimately repelled and destroyed at the intended victim's discretion)...

JUST SAY NO TO THE LOOTERS, BUREAUCRATS, JACKBOOTS, AND MERCENARIES!

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 18, 2008, 08:17:42 am
Unpure?
A mercenary is self governed... entering a contract and beholden only to it.
The suggestion that non-agression is more than a philosophical principle... and a governing principle... denies anarchy.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: JonM on June 18, 2008, 08:18:47 am
Funny thing, I live about 700 yards from a race track, as the crow flies and the sound travels.  If I sit outside on a Sunday afternoon, the noise can be quite loud.  The amazing thing about triple pane windows, is I can't hear any of it inside my house.  The speedway predates my purchase of the house and even the construction of the house.  I have no standing to bitch about it, perhaps one day the land will become worth more than the potential revenue of the speedway and be sold for other development.  Until then, I have a well insulated house, for both temperature and noise.

Of course, I'm not really within walking distance to anything either.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 18, 2008, 09:26:06 am
I live within less than 500 feet of Rte 106 between Laconia and Loudon... its motorcycle week and even in my yard, I hardly notice.
Now if I burn toast and my smoke detectors go off... that's annoying.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: margomaps on June 18, 2008, 09:31:02 am
I live within less than 500 feet of Rte 106 between Laconia and Loudon... its motorcycle week and even in my yard, I hardly notice.
Now if I burn toast and my smoke detectors go off... that's annoying.


Is your hearing OK?  I can hear loud bikes on the highway from about 1/2 mile away, through thick forest with multiple 30ft +/- elevation changes.   ;D
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 18, 2008, 09:39:13 am
I hear very well...
Most likely I've gotten use to the sound.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 18, 2008, 09:52:38 am
But I can certainly produce frequencies with enough strength to drown out or distort others, all from my own private property and not cause harm to their body or private structures.

And...?

What's your point?

They don't own the radio spectrum, and have no standing to deny you use of it.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: margomaps on June 18, 2008, 10:17:17 am
I hear very well...
Most likely I've gotten use to the sound.

Or you've become deaf in the frequency range of motorcycle engines/exhaust from overexposure.   8)

I'm only kidding.  One does get used to certain sounds when exposed to them frequently enough.  I guess "tuning out" is a valuable defense mechanism against insanity.   :)
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 18, 2008, 03:06:04 pm
and now that we have...folks like Maineshark, J, and I are totally fed up with the "unpure"...

several folks repeatedly proclaim that we should welcome the "unpure" into our midst to assist in "movement" towards "productive" ends...

and we won't deny that using/exploiting these unpure people "helps" to slow down the tyranny of the majority...

but by the very nature of our usage/exploitation of the unpure...we are extending and furthering the reign of terror of the tyrannical majority...

and I won't claim to be innocent of these charges...I wholeheartedly use/exploit the Ron Paul Campaign and the Campaign for Liberty(not to mention Aaron Russo's film and many other instruments of instruction) to assist in reaching/educating/waking-up those who have stagnated in Philosophical Maturity 101...

Actually, I’m still one of the people who think we can help move these “almost-there libertarians” in the right direction toward voluntaryism…
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: cathleeninnh on June 18, 2008, 03:53:39 pm
When pushed to the breaking point, the mainstream usually moves into the libertarian camp. If they take rational thought and non aggression seriously, they often move on to anarchy. That interim step is crucial for most people. As unpleasant as it gets, it isn't an option that I want removed. It gets them thinking and learning.

Everyone at their own pace.

Cathleen
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Dreepa on June 18, 2008, 09:55:04 pm
When pushed to the breaking point, the mainstream usually moves into the libertarian camp. If they take rational thought and non aggression seriously, they often move on to anarchy. That interim step is crucial for most people. As unpleasant as it gets, it isn't an option that I want removed. It gets them thinking and learning.

Everyone at their own pace.

Cathleen
this

I am an 80%... FSchimdt you can move to NH.. I will help you move in.  Concord might be a town  you are looking for.  You can walk and it is still 'rural' enough.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 18, 2008, 11:05:34 pm
Your "rhetorical style" seems to be that you whine and complain about everything, without ever adding anything of substance to any conversation, then argue about how you didn't mean to say what you obviously said.  It's exactly the style used by politicians, and other such scum.

Anyone with any real involvement in the liberty movement would know of the principle of self-ownership, and the derivation.  I'm not duplicating it here because such a request is completely asinine.  Unless, of course, the one making the request actually knows nothing about the principles involved in libertarian thought, because that individual is actually nothing of the sort...

As I said, I'm also not "proving" that the Earth is round, or how gravitation works, or any other such things.  That's not because they're unprovable, or because I'm insisting that you should just "take it on faith," but simply because they have been established elsewhere, and you should already know that if you live in this society.

Joe

Hmm, I don't think I've been whining or complaining. Discussing, same as everyone else. Terrible shame my posts seem to grate you so. But if all we can do is resort to ad hominem attacks and fallacious argumentation, I don't think we'll ever go anywhere.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Denis Goddard on June 18, 2008, 11:15:34 pm
all we can do is resort to ad hominem attacks and fallacious argumentation
Welcome to teh internets  :P

Seriously, I had several knock-down, drag-out forum fights with MaineShark before we got to chatting in person at a few parties & similar events. The internet is a crummy way to communicate with people -- compared to face-to-face. Especially prickly porcupines!

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 18, 2008, 11:19:26 pm
all we can do is resort to ad hominem attacks and fallacious argumentation
Welcome to teh internets  :P

Seriously, I had several knock-down, drag-out forum fights with MaineShark before we got to chatting in person at a few parties & similar events. The internet is a crummy way to communicate with people -- compared to face-to-face. Especially prickly porcupines!


Thanks for teh memo ;D
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 19, 2008, 08:46:53 am
all we can do is resort to ad hominem attacks and fallacious argumentation
Welcome to teh internets  :P

Seriously, I had several knock-down, drag-out forum fights with MaineShark before we got to chatting in person at a few parties & similar events. The internet is a crummy way to communicate with people -- compared to face-to-face. Especially prickly porcupines!

Denis relates a very common situation between the interwebs, and their north and south pole mutual repulsions, and the real world discretion of the Philosophically Mature students and advocates of the Non-Aggression Principle as they respectfully demand that each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being recognize and interact respecting the Basic Inherent Inalienable Irrevocable Human Rights of each and every other Individual Sovereign Human Being...

Most often you will find my "point of entry" into a discussion/situation/incident coming directly from the "repel and destroy" "end" of the spectrum of human interaction...

This is intentionally done(obviously) to accelerate the destruction of the cognitive dissonance of the enslaved masses still embedded in the mind control matrix, the global gulag, and the prison planet...

It's not a "style" for the faint at heart as can be attested by my being "banned" from several forums...including one which Denis personally lords over(NHLA)...

I'm actually proud of the fact that I'm the first Life Member of the NHLA...and the first to be banned from the forum...

Go figure...

And...

Denis is moving my way...
(you don't have to admit it though...lol...)

Thankfully...

Slowly but surely...

NAP...not just for breakfast anymore...

Enjoy!

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 19, 2008, 08:54:48 am
I am an 80%... FSchimdt you can move to NH.. I will help you move in.  Concord might be a town  you are looking for.  You can walk and it is still 'rural' enough.

Concord is pretty noisy.  I worked there for a while.  Lots of barking dogs and loud stereos.

Hmm, I don't think I've been whining or complaining. Discussing, same as everyone else. Terrible shame my posts seem to grate you so.

Discussing is when you add things to a conversation.  Even just saying, "hey, I agree with this" is of value.

Your posts here have pretty much been nothing but trolling.

But if all we can do is resort to ad hominem attacks and fallacious argumentation, I don't think we'll ever go anywhere.
[emphasis added]

Is that a royal "we," there?

Seriously, I had several knock-down, drag-out forum fights with MaineShark...

Really?  I don't recall anything like that.  Of course, we've both been at this a long time, and it's early in the morning, so it's possible that I'm not recalling something.

Still, I'm not a "yes-man," and if a friend says something incorrect, I don't just ignore it.  Depending on the level of friendship, I might make the "reprimand" private, I suppose.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 19, 2008, 09:00:24 am

In all "fairness"...

Denis did warn me before banning me...

Much the same as the murderous raping necrophiliac "advises" their victim that the penetration will only hurt while they're still alive...

Hey...

Some like it hot...

Some like it cold...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 19, 2008, 09:20:01 am
Would you compare your non-agression principle to roughly... All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness without coercion?
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 19, 2008, 09:38:55 am
Discussing is when you add things to a conversation.  Even just saying, "hey, I agree with this" is of value.

Your posts here have pretty much been nothing but trolling.

Strange. I had pegged you as the troll.

But if all we can do is resort to ad hominem attacks and fallacious argumentation, I don't think we'll ever go anywhere.
[emphasis added]

Is that a royal "we," there?
[/quote]
Of course not.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 19, 2008, 02:50:38 pm
Strange. I had pegged you as the troll.

Yeah, that's a sensible claim.  The individual who is actually living in NH, who was a "freestater" before Sorens even came up with the notion, and who is actively working for liberty is the troll.  But the individual who just showed up and does nothing but troll threads, who doesn't live here, and who hasn't contributed anything to the cause of liberty... is not.

Quote
But if all we can do is resort to ad hominem attacks and fallacious argumentation, I don't think we'll ever go anywhere.
[emphasis added]

Is that a royal "we," there?
Of course not.

Seems to be, since you are clearly referring to your own behavior.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 19, 2008, 03:53:53 pm
They just seem to be absorbed with these Internet debates, while the doers in NH largely have much more... reasonable views.

As opposed to you, who lives where, precisely?

As opposed to non-doers, including, it appears, you. I'm a doer in NY. :)
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 19, 2008, 04:24:07 pm
They just seem to be absorbed with these Internet debates, while the doers in NH largely have much more... reasonable views.

As opposed to you, who lives where, precisely?

As opposed to non-doers, including, it appears, you. I'm a doer in NY. :)

And we’re all doers actually in New Hampshire. :)
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Dreepa on June 19, 2008, 08:18:02 pm


And we’re all doers actually in New Hampshire. :)
That all word is pretty big.
J you are a doer.... not ALL who moved are doers.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Dreepa on June 19, 2008, 08:19:44 pm
I am an 80%... FSchimdt you can move to NH.. I will help you move in.  Concord might be a town  you are looking for.  You can walk and it is still 'rural' enough.

Concord is pretty noisy.  I worked there for a while.  Lots of barking dogs and loud stereos.

Depends on the section of Concord.
Concord still has farms.
Concord has 'suburban area'.
Concord has a mini downtown.
Concord is central to get to most parts of the state.

I like Concord's main street.
I don't live in Concord.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 19, 2008, 08:55:43 pm
And we’re all doers actually in New Hampshire. :)

That all word is pretty big.
J you are a doer.... not ALL who moved are doers.

True. We’ve had our share of people move and then drop off the face of the earth.

But in context, I was talking about all of the people Jason keeps ragging on (myself, MaineShark, Powerchuter) for spending too much time debating and arguing on the forum.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 19, 2008, 11:06:58 pm
They just seem to be absorbed with these Internet debates, while the doers in NH largely have much more... reasonable views.
As opposed to you, who lives where, precisely?
As opposed to non-doers, including, it appears, you. I'm a doer in NY. :)

Doing what?  Becoming less libertarian (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15410.msg186128#msg186128)?  Arguing against property rights at every turn?  Arguing that it's okay to aggress against individuals if you "need" to?

"Do" much more, and you'll be a Republican.

Other than writing up an idea that numerous individuals had had before, and getting folks interested in it, what have you actually "done?"  Believe me, I'm glad that the FSP exists, but all it actually did was speed up the inevitable.  Folks are moving to NH for liberty, without ever hearing of the FSP.  They've been doing it for years.  They'll be doing it for years to come.

Personally, aside from actually living liberty here in NH and helping out with such things, I've used writing on various forums as a tool to convert several dozen individuals to the cause of liberty, including some who started out as just about as pro-government as you can get.  I've helped at least a few dozen more already-liberty-minded individuals to further solidify their beliefs (favorite recent quote was "I never knew I was an anti-Federalist!"), a good number of whom have moved here, and several more of whom are planning moves in the next few years.  If I stopped right now, and only the people who are currently here, or seriously talking about moving here actually moved, I think the total comes to about three dozen individuals.

So, other than this anti-property-rights book you keep harping about (hardly a pro-liberty bit of work), what are you actually "doing?"

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Russell Kanning on June 20, 2008, 07:02:10 am
Actually, I’m still one of the people who think we can help move these “almost-there libertarians” in the right direction toward voluntaryism…
We can all try to not hurt other people and instead actually help them ... no matter how pure we are right now.
We can influence anyone with the way we live our lives. :)

Isn't the bigness of the FSP tent decided by the SOI and mission statement? If people agree with that, then they belong in the FSP.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Russell Kanning on June 20, 2008, 07:09:57 am
Is Jason really doing that much bad stuph to you Joe?

Some of us actually had to move out of our way to come to NH. It is not that easy for some people.

Jason has some time to get here .... wait a minute ... didn't you sign the 1st 1000 pledge Jason? Then I guess we will see you really soon. 8)
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 20, 2008, 07:55:49 am
And we’re all doers actually in New Hampshire. :)

That all word is pretty big.
J you are a doer.... not ALL who moved are doers.

True. We’ve had our share of people move and then drop off the face of the earth.

But in context, I was talking about all of the people Jason keeps ragging on (myself, MaineShark, Powerchuter) for spending too much time debating and arguing on the forum.

"True. We’ve had our share of people move and then drop off the face of the earth."

Does that mean that they are not doing anything!?!

Are some passing judgment on movers who choose to relocate here and "do their own thing"!?!

Isn't "doing our own thing" what this whole "leave everyone else alone thing" is all about...

and...

as far as J, Joe, and Pchuter "debating"...

those three have been present at many more events than the Sorcerer dud...

Personally, I could care less if Harry Potter Jr. goes back to the Dark Side...

We've already shown what we can do sans sorcerer...

Amanda and Jason have had their 15min...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 20, 2008, 08:17:46 am
Is Jason really doing that much bad stuph to you Joe?

If he's going to accuse others of doing nothing, I want to know what standing he has to make such an accusation.

As I said, I'm glad that the FSP started, because it sped up the process of moving liberty-lovers here.  But it was an already-existing process, not something he created.  If he's not simply being a hypocrite, then he had better be able to describe that he's done for liberty...

The fact is, from where I'm sitting, all of the individuals that he is maligning, directly or indirectly, have done more than he has.

Some of us actually had to move out of our way to come to NH. It is not that easy for some people.

Few things worth doing are easy.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: margomaps on June 20, 2008, 08:50:29 am
Isn't the bigness of the FSP tent decided by the SOI and mission statement? If people agree with that, then they belong in the FSP.

Yes, by definition.  But even in the simple words of the SOI, there seems to be significant room for interpretation.  Someone who agrees with the maximum role of government being the protection of "life, liberty, and property", might think that government-managed health care is OK under the SOI.  Because after all, health care involves the protection of life (ignoring for a moment the evidence that government-managed health care does so rather poorly).  If the person sees a conflict in the SOI, he might resolve the conflict by choosing the lesser of two evils.  For example, take "health care is the protection of life" vs "government-managed health care implies disrespect for property via taxation".  Someone could say, "Ok, Medicare is violating the property part of the SOI, but its (supposed) protection of life trumps that; life is more important than property (money)."

I would strongly disagree with that person's viewpoint on the matter, but it certainly seems possible that people will interpret the SOI differently.  Witness the fairly large number of "80%-ers" that pop up on the forums.  And as we know, those on the forums represent a tiny fraction of those not on the forums.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 20, 2008, 09:03:53 am
Take the time to educate.
Its not like the FSP could stop someone from moving here.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: margomaps on June 20, 2008, 09:37:06 am
Take the time to educate.
Its not like the FSP could stop someone from moving here.

Agreed!
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 20, 2008, 02:05:12 pm
Personally, aside from actually living liberty here in NH and helping out with such things, I've used writing on various forums as a tool to convert several dozen individuals to the cause of liberty, including some who started out as just about as pro-government as you can get.  I've helped at least a few dozen more already-liberty-minded individuals to further solidify their beliefs (favorite recent quote was "I never knew I was an anti-Federalist!"), a good number of whom have moved here, and several more of whom are planning moves in the next few years.  If I stopped right now, and only the people who are currently here, or seriously talking about moving here actually moved, I think the total comes to about three dozen individuals.

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you, but I find these claims above dubious. So far all I've observed is that you've done a good job turning people off the FSP by attacking them at every turn if they disagree with you one iota. So any good that you might be attempting in other areas is likely to have been washed out by the harm you are doing the FSP here.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 20, 2008, 02:07:35 pm
Jason has some time to get here .... wait a minute ... didn't you sign the 1st 1000 pledge Jason? Then I guess we will see you really soon. 8)

Yup!  :D Didn't see you at PF this time, so I guess you wouldn't have heard yet...
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: lloydbob1 on June 20, 2008, 05:02:31 pm
It was good seeing you and Mary at PF Jason, although it was fleeting and as usual I interrupted you ;D
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 20, 2008, 06:03:16 pm
It was good seeing you and Mary at PF Jason, although it was fleeting and as usual I interrupted you ;D

Yeah, it's too bad we didn't get to spend more time w/ you & a lot of the other "old timers." 8) For once, we came to the Festival really early (Tuesday), and then we left on Saturday afternoon.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 20, 2008, 06:53:31 pm
I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you, but I find these claims above dubious.

I'll take if from your response that you haven't actually done anything that you can name to further the cause of liberty, then.

So far all I've observed is that you've done a good job turning people off the FSP by attacking them at every turn if they disagree with you one iota. So any good that you might be attempting in other areas is likely to have been washed out by the harm you are doing the FSP here.

"Turning people off" who think that calling in thugs because the neighbor's dog barks... yeah, that's really harming things. ::)

There's this thing about knee-jerk reactions like that... your knee jerks in the direction you are already facing.  Someone whose response to a barking dog is "call the armed thugs to attack the dog's owner" is not facing in the direction of liberty.  Not even vaguely.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 20, 2008, 10:12:32 pm
I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you, …

And here I thought you were trying to do just that, what with all your claims about doers and non-doers… ::)
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 21, 2008, 08:15:11 am
I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you, but I find these claims above dubious.

I'll take if from your response that you haven't actually done anything that you can name to further the cause of liberty, then.

So far all I've observed is that you've done a good job turning people off the FSP by attacking them at every turn if they disagree with you one iota. So any good that you might be attempting in other areas is likely to have been washed out by the harm you are doing the FSP here.

"Turning people off" who think that calling in thugs because the neighbor's dog barks... yeah, that's really harming things. ::)

There's this thing about knee-jerk reactions like that... your knee jerks in the direction you are already facing.  Someone whose response to a barking dog is "call the armed thugs to attack the dog's owner" is not facing in the direction of liberty.  Not even vaguely.

Joe

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you, …

And here I thought you were trying to do just that, what with all your claims about doers and non-doers… ::)

guess I might as well add something after Joe and J...

"chime"

I liked the knee jerk thing...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Rebel on June 21, 2008, 11:17:03 am
Come on, can't we all just get along... This bickering doesn't exactly further our cause, nor does it entice fence-sitters to get on board.  ;)
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 21, 2008, 02:09:59 pm
Come on, can't we all just get along... This bickering doesn't exactly further our cause, nor does it entice fence-sitters to get on board.  ;)

Anyone who can be scared away by a discussion on an Internet forum... probably won't make a very good activist... :o

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: sj on June 21, 2008, 02:53:02 pm
Come on, can't we all just get along... This bickering doesn't exactly further our cause, nor does it entice fence-sitters to get on board.  ;)

Anyone who can be scared away by a discussion on an Internet forum... probably won't make a very good activist... :o

Joe

Seeing as the internet forum gives a disproportionate amount of what newbies see about what porcupines are like, I think that someone might figure "well, I'd love to join but it seems my view on x and y issues would make me unwelcome" if that's the only kind of responses they see on the forum.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 21, 2008, 06:33:49 pm
Come on, can't we all just get along... This bickering doesn't exactly further our cause, nor does it entice fence-sitters to get on board.  ;)

Anyone who can be scared away by a discussion on an Internet forum... probably won't make a very good activist... :o

Joe

Seeing as the internet forum gives a disproportionate amount of what newbies see about what porcupines are like, I think that someone might figure "well, I'd love to join but it seems my view on x and y issues would make me unwelcome" if that's the only kind of responses they see on the forum.

I say get over your tuberculosis(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis) BEFORE you join and before you move...

No one here wants any part of YOUR sickness...we get enough massholes as it is...

Looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries can all go to hell...

There is plenty of good information immediately available to prove the Non-Aggression Principle beyond a shade of a doubt...
Read it, learn it, and live it...BEFORE you come pissing in our pickle jar...

Liberty and Freedom are NOT for the faint of heart...

There are fates worse than death...

Live Free Or Die!

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: slothman on June 24, 2008, 01:02:48 am
I came up with these quotes because they are good examples.

...
Being "annoyed" by sound that travels through the air does not qualify as damage.
I'm "annoyed" by the way some people dress, for that matter.
...
Joe
Interesting. I never thought of it that way.


...
Before moving here I lived in an apartment building in New York City and during my last
 year there I was put through living hell by my neighbors.
They had extremely loud parties every weekend (and often during the week) lasting at
 least until 6am. (The building had a "no noise after 10PM" rule. )The walls in my
 apartment were vibrating, not to mention my eardrums.
 It was affecting my health, my ability to work etc. etc.
 I'd call it a little more than an "aesthetic" problem.
I had countless discussions with the neighbors and with the property manager
 who agreed with me (especially after my neighbors caused thousands of dollars
 in property damage by breaking an elevator) but could do nothing about it.
 The government regulations kept him from breaking their lease and throwing
 them out of the building.
...
I know what he did was bad but I can't quite figure out why.
Maybe it doesn't count as freedom because it was hurting you.
Also, what kind of regulations were used?



...
Again, just asking; if there is no verbal assault, what is slander and libel?
  It could be slander/libel of my own character, which I assume I own, or slander/libel
 that hurts the earning or investment potential of my private property.
  Are those just assumed risks?
...
I think slander/libel should be legal.


I realize noise, by itself, travels just like air, because it is air that is vibrating
 at specific audible frequencies.  Does that mean people can't own radio
 spectrum, since they can't lay claim over it as private property or dispute "frequency
 stealing"?  Radio spectrum is just higher energy frequencies traveling in the air, just
 like noise.  What if I beamed specific radio frequencies to drown out or otherwise
 distort your radio frequencies from my own property, assuming there is no bodily
 or structural harm, do I have a claim for a legitimate complaint?
  To me it seems like a "noise violation", only with higher frequencies.
I would guess that is similar to sound wave annoyances.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Russell Kanning on June 24, 2008, 07:23:31 am
Isn't "doing our own thing" what this whole "leave everyone else alone thing" is all about...

Amanda and Jason have had their 15min...
leaving everyone else alone sure isn't my highest goal in life ... I would think the FSP is hoping activists who want to help others will join us. :)

are you looking for your 15minutes now? :-\
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Russell Kanning on June 24, 2008, 07:26:32 am
Isn't the bigness of the FSP tent decided by the SOI and mission statement? If people agree with that, then they belong in the FSP.

Yes, by definition.  But even in the simple words of the SOI, there seems to be significant room for interpretation.
so I guess they belong in it
I am recruiting radicals to NH, but I can't tell the FSP as a whole who they should include. :)
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Russell Kanning on June 24, 2008, 07:27:17 am
Jason has some time to get here .... wait a minute ... didn't you sign the 1st 1000 pledge Jason? Then I guess we will see you really soon. 8)

Yup!  :D Didn't see you at PF this time, so I guess you wouldn't have heard yet...
what haven't I heard yet?
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 24, 2008, 07:50:46 am
Yeah, that's a sensible claim.  The individual who is actually living in NH, who was a "freestater" before Sorens even came up with the notion, and who is actively working for liberty is the troll.  But the individual who just showed up and does nothing but troll threads, who doesn't live here, and who hasn't contributed anything to the cause of liberty... is not.

I definitely agree.

The courtesy we show to other people on the Internet is unrelated to our geographical locations or when we put ourselves there.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 24, 2008, 08:28:14 am
Yeah, that's a sensible claim.  The individual who is actually living in NH, who was a "freestater" before Sorens even came up with the notion, and who is actively working for liberty is the troll.  But the individual who just showed up and does nothing but troll threads, who doesn't live here, and who hasn't contributed anything to the cause of liberty... is not.
I definitely agree.

The courtesy we show to other people on the Internet is unrelated to our geographical locations or when we put ourselves there.

No, it's related to content.  The content of your posts has been troll-ish, from the beginning.

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 24, 2008, 08:53:12 am
Yeah, that's a sensible claim.  The individual who is actually living in NH, who was a "freestater" before Sorens even came up with the notion, and who is actively working for liberty is the troll.  But the individual who just showed up and does nothing but troll threads, who doesn't live here, and who hasn't contributed anything to the cause of liberty... is not.
I definitely agree.

The courtesy we show to other people on the Internet is unrelated to our geographical locations or when we put ourselves there.

No, it's related to content.  The content of your posts has been troll-ish, from the beginning.

Joe

Good, I'm glad we agree that living in NH, and "being a 'freestater' before Sorens came up with [it]', etc. is completely irrelevant to the trolling issue.

As far as content, I disagree. My posts have not been troll-ish. At least, I'm not quite sure of your motivation for saying they are. Merely saying they're trolls doesn't make them trolls. And if you incorrectly interpreted them as trolls, they were never intended to be.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: MaineShark on June 24, 2008, 10:01:29 am
Good, I'm glad we agree that living in NH, and "being a 'freestater' before Sorens came up with [it]', etc. is completely irrelevant to the trolling issue.

Um, no, we don't agree on that.  I said that such things were unrelated to courtesy.

As far as content, I disagree. My posts have not been troll-ish. At least, I'm not quite sure of your motivation for saying they are. Merely saying they're trolls doesn't make them trolls. And if you incorrectly interpreted them as trolls, they were never intended to be.

If they were never intended to be, you sure did an excellent job of making them trolls, anyway... ::)

Joe
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 24, 2008, 10:47:02 am
If they were never intended to be, you sure did an excellent job of making them trolls, anyway... ::)

Joe

We often see what we want to see.

There's this thing about knee-jerk reactions like that... your knee jerks in the direction you are already facing...
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 24, 2008, 10:50:28 am
Did Powerchuter self-censor or did a moderator pull his last comment?
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 24, 2008, 04:04:00 pm
...
Again, just asking; if there is no verbal assault, what is slander and libel?
  It could be slander/libel of my own character, which I assume I own, or slander/libel
 that hurts the earning or investment potential of my private property.
  Are those just assumed risks?
...

I think slander/libel should be legal.

Yes and no. Some slander/libel rises to the level of fraud (making false statements purporting to be true, that damage another specific individual economically) but much of what people try to call slander/libel is just patent nonsense.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: dalebert on June 25, 2008, 08:05:20 am
I think slander/libel should be legal.

Yes and no. Some slander/libel rises to the level of fraud (making false statements purporting to be true, that damage another specific individual economically) but much of what people try to call slander/libel is just patent nonsense.

I agree. I think for dishonesty to rise to the level of a violation of the NAP, there needs to be demonstrable harm from it other than hurt feelings.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 25, 2008, 01:15:08 pm
Did Powerchuter self-censor or did a moderator pull his last comment?

Now what do you think?
Do you(or anyone else) actually think I would write something I didn't actually mean to write!?!?!

I've been censored and banned from NHFree and...even though I was the first Life Member of the NHLA...I've been banned there also...

I'd suspect that the goon squad has been stirring the pot since they've harrassed me, my family, my friends, and my associates repeatedly...

They've more than likely been threatened with kidnapping, torture, and possibly even murder so you would expect them to always deny they've been contacted...

Nevertheless, I used the F-bomb and wrote in a "less than social" manner...

geez...

cry me a river...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Dreepa on June 25, 2008, 05:19:35 pm
As a Mod I can tell you I didn't pull the post.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 26, 2008, 12:31:20 am
Now what do you think?
Do you(or anyone else) actually think I would write something I didn't actually mean to write!?!?!

I've been censored and banned from NHFree and...even though I was the first Life Member of the NHLA...I've been banned there also...

Yes, I think you might.

Irrelevant though.
Unless Dreepa is the only moderator, my question is unanswered.
You've neither confirmed nor denied whether you removed the post.
Your response did not give a definite "yes" or "no" answer.
Not that I'm concerned. Judging by your response, I don't think you'd answer now: silence will speak for you.
Just dispelling the myth that a rhetorical question substitutes for a responsive answer.
And not that it truly matters anyhow. If you did remove the post, that was very courteous of you.

I'd suspect that the goon squad has been stirring the pot since they've harrassed me, my family, my friends, and my associates repeatedly...

They've more than likely been threatened with kidnapping, torture, and possibly even murder so you would expect them to always deny they've been contacted...

Don't know what you're talking about.

Nevertheless, I used the F-bomb and wrote in a "less than social" manner...

geez...

cry me a river...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

Cry yourself a river? I'm not complaining about your post. Certainly not because of the content per se. True, I do think it was quite juvenile and unprovoked. But if you want to use this forum to broadcast your generalized hate toward anyone who holds a slightly different opinion than you and make thinly veiled physical threats to injure me, I have no compelling desire to stop you.

Maybe the moderators will pull your posts. Maybe not. Sounds like they've done it before. This is a forum for Prospective Participants after all. And your post appeared very far from welcoming to an outsider. As I've said on other threads, I usually don't read your posts--which is why I was surprised you were addressing me personally.

But if the mods had deprived other readers of yet another opportunity to judge the value of your posts, I would've been a bit disappointed. I would've certainly understood the mod's reasons for it. But I wouldn't think you deserved special protection from public scrutiny because of your unpleasant demeanor. Regardless, it was nice of you to pull it.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 26, 2008, 08:54:09 am
Now what do you think?
Do you(or anyone else) actually think I would write something I didn't actually mean to write!?!?!

I've been censored and banned from NHFree and...even though I was the first Life Member of the NHLA...I've been banned there also...

Yes, I think you might.

Then you thought wrong...

Quote
Irrelevant though.
Unless Dreepa is the only moderator, my question is unanswered.
You've neither confirmed nor denied whether you removed the post.
Your response did not give a definite "yes" or "no" answer.
Not that I'm concerned. Judging by your response, I don't think you'd answer now: silence will speak for you.
Just dispelling the myth that a rhetorical question substitutes for a responsive answer.
And not that it truly matters anyhow. If you did remove the post, that was very courteous of you.

Those that know me will know I did NOT remove, and do not remove...my posts...
(although I will say that I have removed a few of the thousands when they were already posted by others)

Quote
I'd suspect that the goon squad has been stirring the pot since they've harrassed me, my family, my friends, and my associates repeatedly...

They've more than likely been threatened with kidnapping, torture, and possibly even murder so you would expect them to always deny they've been contacted...

Don't know what you're talking about.

said denial...

Quote
Nevertheless, I used the F-bomb and wrote in a "less than social" manner...

geez...

cry me a river...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

Cry yourself a river? I'm not complaining about your post.

Didn't say YOU were...

Quote
Certainly not because of the content per se. True, I do think it was quite juvenile and unprovoked. But if you want to use this forum to broadcast your generalized hate toward anyone who holds a slightly different opinion than you and make thinly veiled physical threats to injure me, I have no compelling desire to stop you.

Maybe the moderators will pull your posts. Maybe not. Sounds like they've done it before. This is a forum for Prospective Participants after all. And your post appeared very far from welcoming to an outsider. As I've said on other threads, I usually don't read your posts--which is why I was surprised you were addressing me personally.

NOT addressing you "personally"...

Quote
But if the mods had deprived other readers of yet another opportunity to judge the value of your posts, I would've been a bit disappointed. I would've certainly understood the mod's reasons for it. But I wouldn't think you deserved special protection from public scrutiny because of your unpleasant demeanor. Regardless, it was nice of you to pull it.

Didn't "pull" it...

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 26, 2008, 08:58:41 am
As a Mod I can tell you I didn't pull the post.

The bigger question is whether the moderator who DID remove my post...did so only because of their own discomfort and philosophical immaturity...or because of the complaints of other uncomfortable and philosophically immature human beings...

I don't believe you(Dreepa) would have removed my post...whether you liked it or not...

Others...not so much...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

RWR

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: JonM on June 26, 2008, 11:00:11 am
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=3263
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Russell Kanning on June 26, 2008, 02:46:39 pm
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=3263
It is funny to read some of the dated tech advice in the first post in that thread. Otherwise I think it lays things out pretty decently. If you post certain things here, you can expect it to not be appeciated and deleted by the moderators. I have never been a moderator on this forum, since I am a forum nazi and not a moderating influence ;D
I hate to add more offtopic stuph here, but the cited thread is closed to people like me.

What were we talking about in this thread anyways? I can't believe the original poster had a few questions he wanted to ask and have it lead to a few people arguing with each other. ;)
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: rossby on June 26, 2008, 03:02:40 pm
What were we talking about in this thread anyways? I can't believe the original poster had a few questions he wanted to ask and have it lead to a few people arguing with each other. ;)

Hehe. I think the questions got answered. Or the OP was scared off ::) Either way, the thread should probably die a quick death ;)
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 27, 2008, 01:18:45 pm
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=3263

unresponsive