Is this the way we are suppose to...

[TXcarlosTX]

handle your parking tickets?

The first min of this video will get you hooked to watch the entire thing.

YouTube - Ian's Parking Ticket Trial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6IS-edTEH4&feature=fvsr)

[Mike4Freedom]

Wow. I have to head out, I will watch the rest later. This is some good shit.

[Jordan]

So...32 minutes later and I don't know who won.

[FSP-Rebel]

Those 2 guys are part of the non-political faction of the FSP out in the Keene area. It appears they've taken their strategy from Marc Stevens' book, Adventures in Legal Land. Ian Freeman is the host of Free Talk Live, an NH-based talk show with 79 affiliates. His counsel is Sam Dodson from the Obscured Truth Network, who you may also remember from being on Freedom Watch last year.

[invisible]

Classic! It's just so wonderful that NH allows recording in courtrooms. Too bad the defense of "this isn't a fair trial because everyone here is employed by the state" was not allowed to play out. I wonder if the judge knew where Ian was going with that line of questioning. I've always wondered how a court would prevent this defense from being raised, but since it was repeatedly stated (by the defendant) that the nature of the proceedings was not understood, this would seem to me to be grounds for appeal, thus giving another opportunity for this defense to be raised. Hopefully Ian appeals, and we get to see part two. I know there are a couple of lawyers on these forums, I'd be real curious to see what their take on this is.

[tremendoustie]

Classic! It's just so wonderful that NH allows recording in courtrooms.

They didn't used to. Then a bunch of people kept repeatedly showing up with cameras and getting arrested. Final score: Civil disobedience 1, Tyranny: 0.

Some of the history of cameras in the courtroom, and lobby:

YouTube - NH videographer broadcasts own arrest live (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCQ2isKxoEQ)

http://freekeene.com/files/SamArrested2009-04-13.mp3

YouTube - Freedom of the Press in NH Courts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQSAphxJTYU&feature=player_embedded#)!

YouTube - NH Court Oppression (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwObWSXY-s4&feature=player_embedded)

YouTube - Police Drag Journalist Sam Dodson Into Police Car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mDgaPJH4D4&feature=player_embedded)

http://freekeene.com/2009/05/13/keene-district-court-quietly-re-allows-cameras/

YouTube - Dave Ridley's "Camera Disobedience" Trial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js4C3NZN3XE&feature=player_embedded#)!

http://freekeene.com/2009/06/26/now-out-of-jail-sams-story-makes-news-again/#more-2519

YouTube - Keene City Attorney Fears Cameras (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0IAB9oBtRQ&feature=player_embedded#)!

YouTube - Sam Dodson's "Camera" Trial - Day 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfvGAowpZHc&feature=player_embedded#)!

YouTube - More Absurd Camera Restrictions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m64-q1KCcyo&feature=player_embedded)

YouTube - Armed Gang Assaults Sam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGFGhiUOLrA&feature=player_embedded#)!

YouTube - When Bureaucrats Attack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSmGLwpHEgI&feature=player_embedded#)!

[0zzy]

meh. i watched few minutes didn't seem too interesting :X

[BuddyRey]

It may not sound like anything Earth-shattering, but these questions Ian is asking have a definite purpose; to make people question the basic legitimacy of the courts and their authority over non-consenting people, which most people take as a foregone conclusion without a moment's thought.

[tremendoustie]

It may not sound like anything Earth-shattering, but these questions Ian is asking have a definite purpose; to make people question the basic legitimacy of the courts and their authority over non-consenting people, which most people take as a foregone conclusion without a moment's thought.

Yep, exactly.

[TXcarlosTX]

They didn't used to. Then a bunch of people kept repeatedly showing up with cameras and getting arrested. Final score: Civil disobedience 1, Tyranny: 0.

Some of the history of cameras in the courtroom, and lobby:

YouTube - NH videographer broadcasts own arrest live (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCQ2isKxoEQ)

http://freekeene.com/files/SamArrested2009-04-13.mp3

YouTube - Freedom of the Press in NH Courts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQSAphxJTYU&feature=player_embedded#)!

YouTube - NH Court Oppression (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwObWSXY-s4&feature=player_embedded)

YouTube - Police Drag Journalist Sam Dodson Into Police Car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mDgaPJH4D4&feature=player_embedded)

http://freekeene.com/2009/05/13/keene-district-court-quietly-re-allows-cameras/

YouTube - Dave Ridley's "Camera Disobedience" Trial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js4C3NZN3XE&feature=player_embedded#)!

http://freekeene.com/2009/06/26/now-out-of-jail-sams-story-makes-news-again/#more-2519

YouTube - Keene City Attorney Fears Cameras (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0IAB9oBtRQ&feature=player_embedded#)!

YouTube - Sam Dodson's "Camera" Trial - Day 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfvGAowpZHc&feature=player_embedded#)!

YouTube - More Absurd Camera Restrictions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m64-q1KCcyo&feature=player_embedded)

YouTube - Armed Gang Assaults Sam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGFGhiUOLrA&feature=player_embedded#)!

YouTube - When Bureaucrats Attack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSmGLwpHEgI&feature=player_embedded#)!

thats some gangster shit:cool:

[Baptist]

I watched the whole video. That was pretty cool. You can tell that Ian and his friend actually spent some time reading, instead of just watching celebrities and sports. LOL, that judge was so frustrated.

[ninepointfive]

classic! These guys are so calm and on top of it.

[james1906]

We all know the whole infraction/violation thing is bullshit to get around a jury trial. I'm glad the judge was tripping up over that.

[JVParkour]

That judge was a jerk...

[tremendoustie]

That judge was a jerk...

You think he's a jerk ... the other guy's worse.

YouTube - Judge loses it on cam, jails man for sitting too slow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5TCnMnCwVY)

[Matt Collins]

I fell out of my chair right after 17:50 into it! That was almost brilliant! :D:D:D

[Legend1104]

That was a good line of reasoning but I tend to disagree with his premise. Since he lives inside of the u.s.and is a citizen then he is subject to it's laws. Now if he were arguing against a law that violated his natural rights or is against the general welfare then he would have a point, but I see no violation as such. A parking meter would help raise revenue for a city in a way that adherred with the general welfare because everyone has the same access to that meter. Although if I missed something feel free to point it out; I am just expressing my thoughts.

[TXcarlosTX]

That was a good line of reasoning but I tend to disagree with his premise. Since he lives inside of the u.s.and is a citizen then he is subject to it's laws. Now if he were arguing against a law that violated his natural rights or is against the general welfare then he would have a point, but I see no violation as such. A parking meter would help raise revenue for a city in a way that adherred with the general welfare because everyone has the same access to that meter. Although if I missed something feel free to point it out; I am just expressing my thoughts.


YouTube - Bill Thorton - An Introduction to Sovereignty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmUGL9JGIGQ&feature=relatedI)

Its Sovereignty principals being used.

[Legend1104]

YouTube - Bill Thorton - An Introduction to Sovereignty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmUGL9JGIGQ&feature=relatedI)

Its Sovereignty principals being used.

So let me get this straight. The argument here is not whether the parking meter law is lawful because the guy did not agree to it, the argument is that; because the parking meter is called a violation an actual crime; and therefore because this reasoning is used to try the person by a judge and not a jury, then the action is illegal?

[Legend1104]

...on a side note, is the supposed to also be an arguement against the 14th amendment citizenship statues?

[tremendoustie]

That was a good line of reasoning but I tend to disagree with his premise. Since he lives inside of the u.s.and is a citizen then he is subject to it's laws.

I disagree. The fact that you are born in a particular location does not make you subject to the whims of politicians. They don't own the land.



Now if he were arguing against a law that violated his natural rights or is against the general welfare then he would have a point, but I see no violation as such. A parking meter would help raise revenue for a city in a way that adherred with the general welfare because everyone has the same access to that meter. Although if I missed something feel free to point it out; I am just expressing my thoughts.

Yeah, as far as city ordinances go, parking meters certainly aren't too bad. I think the core argument, though, is that the government doesn't legitimately own that land -- it was acquired by eminent domain and/or paid for using taxes.

I think those in this video would advocate ceding each parking space back to the business that abuts it.

[tremendoustie]

So let me get this straight. The argument here is not whether the parking meter law is lawful because the guy did not agree to it, the argument is that; because the parking meter is called a violation an actual crime; and therefore because this reasoning is used to try the person by a judge and not a jury, then the action is illegal?

That's also a significant component, yeah.

[Legend1104]

I disagree. The fact that you are born in a particular location does not make you subject to the whims of politicians. They don't own the land.

That is partly true. I confess I had to go back and read John Locke and found that I am partly in error, but not wholly. It is true that one is not a citizen simply because we are born in a particular location, but as Locke states, "And to this I say that every man that hath any possessions, or enjoyment of any part of the dominons of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government during such enjoyment as any one under it; whether this possession be of land to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for a week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on a highway; and in effect it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the territories of that government."
Furthermore Locke goes on to state, "...for it would be a direct contradiction for any one to enter into society with others for the securing and regulating of property, and yet to suppose his land, whose property is to be regulated by the laws of the society, should be exempt from the jurisdicton of the government to which he himself, the proprietor of the land, is a subject."

Ian Freeman obviously had an automobile inside the dominion of the U.S. and is therefore subject to it's laws as long as he is inside of the U.S..

All of my quotes come from The Second Treatise of Government by John Locke chapter 10.

[tremendoustie]

That is partly true. I confess I had to go back and read John Locke and found that I am partly in error, but not wholly. It is true that one is not a citizen simply because we are born in a particular location, but as Locke states, "And to this I say that every man that hath any possessions, or enjoyment of any part of the dominons of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government during such enjoyment as any one under it; whether this possession be of land to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for a week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on a highway; and in effect it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the territories of that government."


I think Locke's statement is completely false. For example, if you owned a business in Chicago in Al Capone's days, would that mean you had consented to him extorting money from you, for "protection"? What about blocks in LA where MS-13 was the most powerful force .. if you live there, does that mean you consent to have your home shot up?

The fact that you happen to live in a geographic area where there is a gang of men attempting to control the lives and property of others by force, makes you a victim, not a consenting party -- and it in no way excuses their behavior.



Furthermore Locke goes on to state, "...for it would be a direct contradiction for any one to enter into society with others for the securing and regulating of property ..."


The phrase "Enter into society" is used duplicitiously by Locke here (perhaps unintentionally). Does it mean live near people and trade with them -- or does it mean to explicitly agree to a contract with others? They're not the same thing.

I own my property, the government does not. My neighbor also owns his property. If we want to trade with eachother, that's our business, and nobody elses - and it certainly does not constitute agreement with or consent to whatever the prevailing gang in the area happens to be.

Agreements are agreements -- they are formed explicity. The fact that someone trades or owns property in what I have arbitrarily decided is my "territory" does not mean they have consented to my rule.



and yet to suppose his land, whose property is to be regulated by the laws of the society, should be exempt from the jurisdicton of the government to which he himself, the proprietor of the land, is a subject."

Since when is he a "subject"? Because the "government" says so?

How does his land become their "dominion"? Because they have a bunch of guns? Might makes right? What if 60% of the people on our street get together and decide to steal everyone else's stuff? Would our behavior magically become moral because we're a majority?

This is, in my opinion, a weak excuse for behavior which does not meet basic standards for decency.



Ian Freeman obviously had an automobile inside the dominion of the U.S. and is therefore subject to it's laws as long as he is inside of the U.S..


Why? If I have an automobile in the "dominion" of MS-13 does that mean they have a right to take it whenever they want? If I have a shop in the "dominion" of al capone does that mean he has the right to extort money from me?

My land is not rightfully the "dominion" of a gang, a mafia, or a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians. It is my dominion.



All of my quotes come from The Second Treatise of Government by John Locke chapter 10.

Locke has some good ideas, but I think he misses the mark here.

Here's a thought experiment I'd really like your opinion on, which I think may help get to the heart of the question. It's really a more explicit rendering of my earlier question:

Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. We could, since we have more guns, and there are two of us, simply overwhelm him and take his stuff. I assume you would call that theft.

Instead, my first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.

Do you consider this scenario any different, or more moral, than the first — common theft?

[Legend1104]

First, I would like to say that I am enjoying this discussion. It certainly makes one know what one knows.

Anyway, Some of your criticisms of Lock are entirely my fault. i simply drew out small snipits of his treastise. Some of your disagreements are simply because I did not quote his opinion on the matter. For example:


The phrase "Enter into society" is used duplicitiously by Locke here (perhaps unintentionally). Does it mean live near people and trade with them -- or does it mean to explicitly agree to a contract with others? They're not the same thing.

He actually states in this same section that their is a difference between tacit agreement (temporary agreement to consent to the local laws while one is inside of it's dominion) and contractual (not sure if that is his exact word) which, according to him, means when a person actually seeks a contractly binding citizenship with the nation/government.


Agreements are agreements -- they are formed explicity. The fact that someone trades or owns property in what I have arbitrarily decided is my "territory" does not mean they have consented to my rule.

Of course not. You are correct. I do not want to rehash his entire paper but his opinion was that previously some group of people agreed to join together to create a government. This government will have dominion over all of their lands as far as the laws that are created under it are concerned. If at any time someone wanders onto one of these citizens fields, for example, and kills the owner then they will be held by the other members under the law of that government.


Since when is he a "subject"? Because the "government" says so?

How does his land become their "dominion"? Because they have a bunch of guns? Might makes right? What if 60% of the people on our street get together and decide to steal everyone else's stuff? Would our behavior magically become moral because we're a majority?

This goes back to what I just stated above. They have dominion because of the concent of the governed that actually own the land.


Why? If I have an automobile in the "dominion" of MS-13 does that mean they have a right to take it whenever they want? If I have a shop in the "dominion" of al capone does that mean he has the right to extort money from me?

My land is not rightfully the "dominion" of a gang, a mafia, or a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians. It is my dominion.

No of course not. Once again I agree with you, and I believe Locke would too; but that is not his/ nor my argument. Like I stated in my original post, I do not believe that a government can ever be given the right to violate our natural rights. So, they could not ever rightfully steal from you, kill you, etc. What Locke meant was if you drove through a country and violated a standing law (like a hit and run) that did not constitute a violation of natural rights, then you should be held accountable. A government is not supposed to be a gang or mafia (even though it obviously can happen). A gang or mafia is a self-appointed group that gains power by force. The type of government that Locke/and I mean is one that is created by concenting adults in order to provide some type of protection of rights, life, or property.

[Legend1104]

I am sorry I forgot to address your last point.


Here's a thought experiment I'd really like your opinion on, which I think may help get to the heart of the question. It's really a more explicit rendering of my earlier question:

Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. We could, since we have more guns, and there are two of us, simply overwhelm him and take his stuff. I assume you would call that theft.

Instead, my first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.

Do you consider this scenario any different, or more moral, than the first — common theft?

Yeah this is of course theft. The two men did not have the right to take from the other since he did not consent to being part of that government. Now if he entered into their land then he would be subject to their government (as long as it did not infringe upon his nautral rights). Locke stated that if you had property like land, that was already under the jurisdiction of another government then you were held under its dominion, but they could not just annex your land into theirs without your consent.

[tremendoustie]

First, I would like to say that I am enjoying this discussion. It certainly makes one know what one knows.


Me too, thanks for having it :)



Anyway, Some of your criticisms of Lock are entirely my fault. i simply drew out small snipits of his treastise. Some of your disagreements are simply because I did not quote his opinion on the matter. For example:

He actually states in this same section that their is a difference between tacit agreement (temporary agreement to consent to the local laws while one is inside of it's dominion)


What constitutes tacit agreement? For example, I may move to an area with a problem with vandalism -- that doesn't mean I "tacitly agree" to the behavior of the vandals.

I think agreements really need to be explicit. I suppose "tacit" agreement might be possible in certain cases. If you say, "speak up if you don't want to go see prince of persia", and I'm silent, that probably means I'm ok with that movie choice.

The act of moving to an area where it is known that a particular individual or group of individuals are behaving a certain way, however, in no way implies tacit agreement to that behavior. At best, it implies that other benefits outweigh those negatives.



and contractual (not sure if that is his exact word) which, according to him, means when a person actually seeks a contractly binding citizenship with the nation/government.

It should be kept in mind that if the government is threatening to exert force against this individual, unless they form such an "agreement", it's no agreement at all. For example, if a government says, "file xyz paperwork, or we'll deport you", for me to file that paperwork does not constitute consent -- I'm only trying to defend myself against their attack. It's under duress.



Of course not. You are correct. I do not want to rehash his entire paper but his opinion was that previously some group of people agreed to join together to create a government. This government will have dominion over all of their lands as far as the laws that are created under it are concerned.


Which lands? The lands of the people who agreed? Because less than 1% of the people in the US voted for representation to the constitutional convention, or for ratification.

Furthermore, even if it had been 90%, the 90% would have no right to impose their will on the persons and property of the other 10%.

What's more, once you die, control of your land passes to the beneficiaries of your will. I can't proclaim, "My land will be forever uninhabited" -- once I die, it is up to the owner of the land I owned to decide how it will be used.



If at any time someone wanders onto one of these citizens fields, for example, and kills the owner then they will be held by the other members under the law of that government.

Sure, but I would argue that holding this person accountable is not just because they have violated the law of a government -- it is just because they have committed murder. They have violated the inherent rights of another person.



This goes back to what I just stated above. They have dominion because of the concent of the governed that actually own the land.


What consent of the governed? I didn't consent. How is it that others consent, and that somehow is a substitute for my consent?



No of course not. Once again I agree with you, and I believe Locke would too; but that is not his/ nor my argument. Like I stated in my original post, I do not believe that a government can ever be given the right to violate our natural rights. So, they could not ever rightfully steal from you, kill you, etc.


Excellent -- I agree. But, don't you think using force against someone for a mallum prohibitum law -- rather than mallum pro se, is infact a violation of natural rights?

Effectively, what I am saying, is that all we need to do is follow and enforce natural law -- you may not harm other persons or their property. To use force against persons who have not harmed others, is to violate natural law oneself.



What Locke meant was if you drove through a country and violated a standing law (like a hit and run) that did not constitute a violation of natural rights, then you should be held accountable.


I would say hit and run is a violation of natural rights -- you are obligated to compensate the person you hit, and yet you are fleeing your responsibility.

A law prohibiting this would only be a defense of innocents, and so would be justified.

I think we agree on this.

But, suppose the government passes a law prohibiting you from painting your house green, or smoking a cigarette in your home. In this case, they are the ones violating your natural rights, and so their behavior is immoral.

If we do suppose that the land the parking spaces are on was taken by emminent domain, and/or paid for using taxes, it would not legitimately be their property -- because it was taken by force, correct? And thus, they would have no right to charge people fees for the use of that property.

Again, I certainly agree that parking meters are not anything close to a top pressing issue these days, when it comes to liberty, but I think the reasoning is sound.



A government is not supposed to be a gang or mafia (even though it obviously can happen). A gang or mafia is a self-appointed group that gains power by force. The type of government that Locke/and I mean is one that is created by concenting adults in order to provide some type of protection of rights, life, or property.

If the government you discuss does not behave in a way that would be considered immoral for an individual, or if it only applies itself to those who explicitly agree to participate, I absolutely support it.

It's when it presumes the right to behave in ways that would be immoral in any other context, that I have a problem with it.

I think the way the land was obtained for the parking spaces probably fit this category. I mean, if I got some armed men together to try to pull something like "eminent domain" or "property tax", I'd be thrown in jail.

Again though, this is rather a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

My greater point, which I think we may agree on, is that what the law happens to be, or what popular opinion is, is largely irrelevant to moral behavior. Natural law (aka inherent rights, non-agression), is the determinant -- and under it, the behavior of average men, and those in government, should be judged equally.

[tremendoustie]

I am sorry I forgot to address your last point.

Yeah this is of course theft.


Good to hear :)



The two men did not have the right to take from the other since he did not consent to being part of that government. Now if he entered into their land then he would be subject to their government (as long as it did not infringe upon his nautral rights).

I agree with this -- this is basic property rights. They have a right to set rules for their own property, and if the man is going to enter their property, he must obey those rules, or leave.



Locke stated that if you had property like land, that was already under the jurisdiction of another government then you were held under its dominion, but they could not just annex your land into theirs without your consent.

Even if we suppose that a man has a right to designate jurisdiction of his property for all future time, which I would contest --- most of the land the us government currently claims "jurisdiction" over was never voluntarily added to it by the property owner. The US government simply claimed jurisdiction over all land, whether the owner consented or not.

Then, if you want to go even farther, most large landholders at that time were "granted" land by the King. Obviously, this is not a legitimate way to obtain property -- homesteading would be legitimate.

[Legend1104]

This will be my last post on the subject seeing as how these posts are becoming exceedingly long and time consuming; I will let you have the last word.


What constitutes tacit agreement? For example, I may move to an area with a problem with vandalism -- that doesn't mean I "tacitly agree" to the behavior of the vandals.

I think agreements really need to be explicit. I suppose "tacit" agreement might be possible in certain cases. If you say, "speak up if you don't want to go see prince of persia", and I'm silent, that probably means I'm ok with that movie choice.

The act of moving to an area where it is known that a particular individual or group of individuals are behaving a certain way, however, in no way implies tacit agreement to that behavior. At best, it implies that other benefits outweigh those negatives.

Do not let my use of the word agreement be confused to mean one thinking it is ok or right. I simply mean that a person understands that that law exists while they are in that land and adhere to it simply because they realize it is the "Law of the Land." The law may not infinge upon them in anyway because they may not participate in it. For example if I were to be around friends that are against drinking so while I am around them, I decide, out of respect, to not drink.


Which lands? The lands of the people who agreed? Because less than 1% of the people in the US voted for representation to the constitutional convention, or for ratification.

Furthermore, even if it had been 90%, the 90% would have no right to impose their will on the persons and property of the other 10%.

What's more, once you die, control of your land passes to the beneficiaries of your will. I can't proclaim, "My land will be forever uninhabited" -- once I die, it is up to the owner of the land I owned to decide how it will be used.


What consent of the governed? I didn't consent. How is it that others consent, and that somehow is a substitute for my consent?

That maybe true but they people tacitly agreed to adhere to the new laws/government by the fact that they remain in that area. When we are first born, we are not under the control of the government so to speak because we are too young to have made a decision to join that society (I am not saying this is what happens in the U.S.). When we become of age to choice we either remain in that government that has already been established or we can choose to go and become part or another (or none at all if we went and lived in some unihabited corner of the world). On another point, let us say that your father agreed to join his land into some government. Let us also say that his land is in the center of that society. Upon his death, you receive his land. You may agrue that you should be able to chose if you want your land to be part of that government or not, but that would create a chimerical situation that is in line with petoria (family guy reference). Your land would be directly in the center of another government. This means that, except for flying, every time you left your home you enter into a new country. One can only imagine the type of problems that would arise. Furthermore, let us say you invite someone onto your property (which would in this case not be part of the country he was in) and then you murder him, by this reasoning you could not be held liable unless his country declared war upon you because if it tried to arrest you it would be violating your rights since you claim it has no authority over you. Also, his family could not legally seek retribution upon you because they consented that they would submit all systems of justice to their government so any act of vigilantism on their part would be criminal in their country.


Excellent -- I agree. But, don't you think using force against someone for a mallum prohibitum law -- rather than mallum pro se, is infact a violation of natural rights?

Effectively, what I am saying, is that all we need to do is follow and enforce natural law -- you may not harm other persons or their property. To use force against persons who have not harmed others, is to violate natural law oneself.

In most cases yes, but in an established government the aqusition of funds to help it complete its designated functions is not exactly the same as a use of force if it has been agreed upon by the members of that society previously and does not violate the general welfare or natural rights. So I would not see a parking meter as a use of force because the members willfully consent to its existence. Besides, from what I can see from your posts taxes in and of themselves would be the use of force and a violation of natural rights, but in that case the government could not exist except upon some form of charity.


I would say hit and run is a violation of natural rights -- you are obligated to compensate the person you hit, and yet you are fleeing your responsibility.

A law prohibiting this would only be a defense of innocents, and so would be justified.

I think we agree on this.

I am sorry my wording is wrong in that first sentence. I was not trying to say a hit and run would not be a violation of natural rights, but rather if the law was not a violation of natural rights.


But, suppose the government passes a law prohibiting you from painting your house green, or smoking a cigarette in your home. In this case, they are the ones violating your natural rights, and so their behavior is immoral.

If we do suppose that the land the parking spaces are on was taken by emminent domain, and/or paid for using taxes, it would not legitimately be their property -- because it was taken by force, correct? And thus, they would have no right to charge people fees for the use of that property.

Again, I certainly agree that parking meters are not anything close to a top pressing issue these days, when it comes to liberty, but I think the reasoning is sound.

Yeah I am a little leery of emminent domain laws. I certainly understand that the government needs some land to perform some of its duties (like court houses, barracks, navy bases, congress houses, etc.) and that land has to come from somewhere, and in a situation where everyone wants a government but no one wants to give up the land then we run into problem. With regard to roads, I guess private businesses could perform that function like they did in the 1800s with toll boothes and privately owned roads. I have not studied enough on the pros and cons of emminent domain and will just continue to side with the founders until I decide that it is not needed.


If the government you discuss does not behave in a way that would be considered immoral for an individual, or if it only applies itself to those who explicitly agree to participate, I absolutely support it.

It's when it presumes the right to behave in ways that would be immoral in any other context, that I have a problem with it.

I think the way the land was obtained for the parking spaces probably fit this category. I mean, if I got some armed men together to try to pull something like "eminent domain" or "property tax", I'd be thrown in jail.

Again though, this is rather a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

My greater point, which I think we may agree on, is that what the law happens to be, or what popular opinion is, is largely irrelevant to moral behavior. Natural law (aka inherent rights, non-agression), is the determinant -- and under it, the behavior of average men, and those in government, should be judged equally.

Agreed. The "law of the land" does not neccesarily equate moral virtue. I guess we just have different opinions of what does and does not constitute force and consent of the governed. which I guess is ok if in the end we only disagree with minutiae such as parking meters.


Even if we suppose that a man has a right to designate jurisdiction of his property for all future time, which I would contest --- most of the land the us government currently claims "jurisdiction" over was never voluntarily added to it by the property owner. The US government simply claimed jurisdiction over all land, whether the owner consented or not.

Then, if you want to go even farther, most large landholders at that time were "granted" land by the King. Obviously, this is not a legitimate way to obtain property -- homesteading would be legitimate.

Technically a majority of the land acquired by the U.S. was either won or purchased from other countries, such as the Louisiana Purchase, Gadsden Purchase, etc. Furthermore, all of the states submitted themselves to the U.S. government to become members of that government (except for the 13 original colonies). I suppose this will led into a debate over the legality of the acquistion of that land from the indians and whether a state government could possibly represent the entire population; but I certainly hope not.