0 votes

Free Staters article in the Boston Globe

I feel they got somewhat of a fair shake:

KEENE, N.H. - From a jail cell in this rural corner of New Hampshire, Sam A. Miller waged a philosophical battle, one milk carton at a time.

The soft-spoken electrical engineer declined food for nearly a month, save for swigs of milk. To eat, he said, would be caving to the tyrannical government powers that placed him here for illegally filming in a courthouse and refusing to reveal his legal name to jail officials. (He says it's private; jail officials obtained it from a fingerprint trace.)

His resistance has made him a folk hero among antigovernment types who have been making their way to New Hampshire from points across the country since their leaders put out a clarion call six years ago.

The Free Staters, as they are known, hope to lure thousands of like-minded souls to the state, with the goal of paring government to a bare minimum by eliminating things like taxes, speed limits, and zoning laws.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2009...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Great Article!

Finally,this got the kind of press it has needed!

betty

Actually, the general Libertarian solution

After the state enacts new regulations creating "victimless crimes" (eg. traffic regulations, etc), it has been said that people become dependent on them and can't live without them.

Well, Ron Paul has earlier brought up a similar situation regarding social services creating dependency amoung the people effected, and I think his solution can be roughly translated:

keep all the speed limit signs, the rule books, the education programs, and so on. But now, instead of having them "government enforced", have them "government recommended". That is, make all of the traffic laws (not resulting in crimes such as death/destruction/bodily harm), completely optional and voluntary, with no punishment for "breaking" them.

Or...

"Others impede upon my freedoms when they drink and drive"

Plausibly. But perhaps there is a certain amount of responsibility you should take to protect yourself.
- Drive well (be aware of other -including potentially drunk - drivers)
- Shop well (buy a car with a good crash-test safety rating)

And from a Libertarian perspective,
- eliminate punishment for drunk driving
- increase punishment for drunk driving resulting in death or bodily harm.

I don't know how true it is,

I don't know how true it is, but I've been told that in the late 60's / early 70's if police pulled over a drunk driver they would often follow the person home to make sure that they got home safely....

That's not an argument for drunk driving, though, just wanted to point that tidbit of info out...

...

Speed limits are a classic case of the need to educate slowly.

I, of course, hold the libertarian position on not only seat belt laws and speed limits---but also child car seat laws, cel phone use while driving laws, motorcycle helmet laws, and drunk driving laws. All are ridiculous and unnecessary.

But these issues strike at the heart of the public's perception of the role of police and government. Until people are gradually taught that it's not the government's proper role to protect people from themselves, they will support such nonsense, and write off people like us as kooks when we try to eliminate the laws.

We especially need to work with the tendency of statists to hold up "the children" as a human shield to justify whatever they legislate.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

Others impede upon my freedoms when they drink and drive

What right does one have to place my life at risk due to unintended consequences of a foolish act? I did not ask that person to minimize my safety on the road. They take that liberty from me without my permission.

What right do you have to threaten my safety by owning ____?

I'm sure you have pointy scissors at home, and maybe a knife or two. Perhaps I should lobby for a law against those so the jackboots will come and take those things from you, for the safety of the children, of course.

You don't get to threaten people to make them act the way you'd like them to in an adult world, BillyBoy. People should most definitely be held accountable for their actions, but trying to claim that you have a 'right' to live in a world free of the risk other people and their potential actions is preposterous.

Not looking at it properly

Compare it to owning guns. Walk around with a gun holster, carry an M16 for all I care, but if you decide to fire a gun in a crowd, even if in the air (bullets come down), you are deliberately threatening my right to life. I didn't agree with your actions that have decreased my chances of living on this planet. Keep your guns (or alcohol), because it is your right (it's cool to own scissors, but if I started throwing them as hard as I could across your front lawn where your kids are playing, then that's okay?). Decrease my chances of living by impeding on my rights to live in peace (drunk driving accidents are violent consequences of a bad choice), then I have a problem.

You're right. You're not looking at it properly.

Tell me BillyBoy, who gets to be the final arbiter of what activities other people can engage in without decreasing your chances of living? You?

Law makers

Pretty simple, don't you think? Ron Paul makes laws for a living.

lawmakers make the law...

that may be true but when they make a law that is repugnant to the constitution it may stand as de-facto law due to peoples ignorance, it isn't necessarily law though...

“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137:

“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489:

“Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974:

“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105:

“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262:

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436:

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425:

“Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.”
–US. v. Minker, 350 US 179 at 187

“The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616:

“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622:

“Federal law & Supreme Court cases apply to state court cases.”
Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)

and it is disappointing to hear such un-constitutional, un-libertarian arguments from supposed constitutionalists and libertarians...

Law makers? Gee, aren't those people?

And it is simple Billy. People who want to have power over others seek positions of power in order to do so. People who don't get off on telling other people what to do don't.

But getting around to those 'law makers' Billy, what makes them so special? If 'people' can't be trusted, what make those people trustworthy?

Educate thyself...

A legitimate role of government is the protection of life, limb, and property.

"but also child car seat laws, cel phone use while driving laws, motorcycle helmet laws, and drunk driving laws."

"Educate slowly", huh?
How about starting with understanding the difference between protecting people from themselves and protecting people from other irresponsible people.

Helmet laws and seat belt laws are trying to protect you from your own stupidity or ignorance (assuming that we can guarantee that the rest of society does not end up paying for your medical care) and so are an unjust infringement on personal liberty. I could even see abolishing child restraint laws, assuming that it is YOUR own child. (Could help to clean up the gene pool.) But drunk driving and cell phone use DO effect others, sometimes fatally, and without their consent or ability to be fully compensated.

In a perfectly just world, a drunk driver (or a drunk surgeon) who kills an innocent human being wouldn't be sued, they would be taken out and shot. Our compromise is to try to prevent them from doing their damage in the first place.

If "libertarian" is just another name for "anarchist", then a "libertarian" will never be anything but a dangerous screwball in the eyes of most civilized people.

And having such people identified with the liberty movement will only hinder its ability to restore America to its constitutional roots.

******************************
Natural Law and Natural Rights

http://jim.com/rights.html

******************************

******************************
The Virtual Conspiracy

wow, we are really in trouble if DPers feel this way...

and billyboy comments as well. im shocked. hmmm. kevin tuma- right there with ya bud- everyone else- roll on... i sense fear and anger in what may be "lost" without these incredibly unconstitutional laws. so, who is right/wrong? doesn't matter. what matters is that laws will not prevent those who are going to do what they want from doing it anyway and penalize those that would have never been in an accident after say, two beers but got "caught" driving home and charged with DWI a hellacious and non ending money give away (i.e. probation and classes and tickets and court costs etc.) to the very government that has no right to make these laws in the first place.

The mind is the last part of yourself to listen to.

It thinks of everything you can lose. The heart thinks of

everything you can give, and the soul thinks of

everything you are.

~peace

~peace

you're so right...

disappointing to hear such un-libertarian arguments coming from DP'ers...

Miller?

I thought his last name was Dodson.

Anyways, just read it

Great article. Tho from my perspective, it sounded like the author of the article was kinda scared of the FSP.



---
"Government is just a word for some people who claim authority over other people." - Glenn Jacobs

Speed limits?

"by eliminating things like taxes, speed limits, and zoning laws."

Um, I'm all for minimizing government regulations, but I can't say I've heard an argument for this. Although I realize that speed traps are laid as much to raise revenue as keep people safe. Still.

I'm interested in hearing comments on that particular.
_________________________
Moobi

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson

The fact of the matter is...

all the people in the great country do not think like us and there for need a speed limit to tell them what to do. Now if everyone was like us then there would be no need for this post. I for one have no problem with the speed limit other then the fact that it is another form of control. To tell you the truth, until you learn the true nature of your actions by experience, people need someone to tell them what to do. Just like a parent. After that, then have at it. atlasdaddy

░░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ ☻/
Il███████████████████]. /▌
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤.. / \

reedr3v's picture

The primary question is, who owns the

roads? Then the rules governing their use would be established, if by the community consensus of owners, or by a private corporation concerned for the welfare of its customers; many possibilities.

Speed limits kill

I know you might not see the obvious because you've been trained by the government not to think rationally on this subject (like so many other subjects) BUT... speed limits kill people.

I'm sure you who are reading this are wondering how, right? Read on.

On most limited access highways in the USSA, there are speeds which are declared as limits by the government. Most of you realize that being observed exceeding these limits by an armed agent of the government usually results in a traffic stop, the conclusion of which typically including some of your property being extorted from you (for your own safety of course). But how many of you realize driving too slowly will also result in your being pulled over by one of those armed revenue collection agents of the government though?

One night I happened to have to drive in an unfamiliar area after a particularly long day at work. It was raining, I was tired (20 hours straight at work will do that to you), and all I wanted was to get home to my family and my bed. I was on a road that was posted at 50MPH, but due to the above combination of factors, I was doing 40MPH because I wanted to make it home safely. As I was driving from what seemed like out of nowhere, a vehicle rapidly approached me from the rear with it's high beams on. The vehicle had to have been overtaking me by at least 30-40MPH. The driver didn't turn off their high beams as they approached and proceeded to tailgate me. As someone whose professional responsibilities included training and enforcement of proper defensive driving techniques as well as investigation of any vehicular accidents, I knew exactly what action to take to remain safe; I slowed down even further to 35MPH. After about 2 miles I encountered a passing zone and slowed down to 30MPH, but the tailgater did not pass me as I expected them to. Instead, they turned on the pretty blue lights on top of their vehicle, indicating to me they would like me to stop for a chat.

The following conversation went something like this:
Officer: Good evening sir, do you know why I pulled you over?
me: Good evening officer. Do you know why I slowed down when you were tailgating me?
Officer: Sir, this road is posted at 50MPH. I observed you driving erratically and well below the posted limit. Have you had anything to drink tonight?

Hmm, drive slower than the limit because of some impairment, exercise good judgment, and get stopped and interrogated. Nice way for the government to promote driving safely, huh?

So how do speed limits cause accidents? Simple. They encourage people who would probably drive slower than the posted limit not to. The people that are the most encouraged to drive the speed limits are the ones who ought to slow down the most; those who are impaired by alcohol or some other drug. They have the most to loose if they’re stopped and interrogated. I had nothing to loose. I wasn’t drinking and I wasn’t high. If I were, would I have been more concerned with sticking to the posted limit than I was to paying attention to the road as to not arouse any suspicions? You better believe it.

It’s time to face facts. Fear of punishment may deter some people from doing certain things under certain circumstances. However, it does not deter all people from doing those things all the time. One need not look any further than places with the death penalty for certain offenses, particularly those places that kill people for victimless crimes. Why, if there’s a death penalty for carrying a certain amount of a plant, would anyone do it? If the punishment was effective as a deterrent, and what could be more of a punishment than WE’LL KILL YOU IF YOU DO ____, do people persist? And how then do you expect any punishment less than killing someone to prevent a particular behavior to serve as a deterrent? The simple and only answer is that you can’t, and you won’t. No amount of force is going to make everyone obey.

What makes far more sense is to allow people to drive at speeds that they can operate safely at. If that means grandma can putt-putt down the road to the store in 1st gear at 5MPH in her 47’ Studebaker safely, so be it. After all, she pays for the use of that road, doesn’t she? And that also means that if me and my sport bike buddies want to go rip it up on the twisties endangering no one but ourselves at 100MPH+, that should be our right too. After all, I pay for that road too, don’t I? And if the police want to start writing tickets for people who drive unsafely, don’t signal in traffic, don’t drive to the right, have no idea what a merge is, and things of the like, I’d find that more palatable than proclaiming a lie as truth.

Speed limits do not save lives. Safe actions do.

Try not boozing up

before you get behind the wheel. It's way safer whether you're on a road with a speed limit or not. I promise.

Defend Liberty!

No, really?

Not that it should matter, but I had the distinct displeasure of loosing a loved one to a drunk driver and I was a 1st responder to many accidents where the driver was drunk.

Speed limits don't make people safer. They might make people who can't think for themselves feel safer, but they don't actually achieve that stated goal.

Montana didn't have speed

Montana didn't have speed limits until a few years ago. Most people can regulate themselves.

Traveling fast in and of

Traveling fast in and of itself is not dangerous. The only regulation necessary is that one drives safely. Arbitrary speed limits do not make you safer. Here in NJ no one follows speedlimits. Not even cops. If you do drive the legal speed your bound to cause more risk to people then not.

===
Free Sam Dodson: http://sam.jailedactivist.info

Did a report on this

Variance is speed is a problem. If everyone drove approximately the same speed, whether fast or slow, less incidents would occur.

Read the comments that were left on the Globe article

Quite a bit of support for these people.

Whether ya like the

Whether ya like the tactics/conversation of the Keene folks or not, there's a whole varying community up here in NH. Join us www.freestateproject.org. This summer is gearing up to be huge for us, don't miss out. Check out the Porcupine Freedom Festival, June 25th-28th @http://www.freestateproject.org/festival. You'll love what you see up here, most of it anyway.

Whether ya like the

Whether ya like the tactics/conversation of the Keene folks or not, there's a whole varying community up here in NH. Join us www.freestateproject.org. This summer is gearing up to be huge for us, don't miss out. Check out the Porcupine Freedom Festival, June 25th-28th @http://www.freestateproject.org/festival. You'll love what you see up here, most of it anyway. My fault on the duplicate, having slight internet problems tonight.