Amish Men Jailed After Refusing To Pay Fines For Not Installing Safety Signs On Buggies

[Xenophage]

The Amish are a fairly easy group to make fun of on an internet message board

My question is, what the hell do they have against electricity?

[00_Pete]

The Amish are a fairly easy group to make fun of on an internet message board

My question is, what the hell do they have against electricity?

If the "Final Battle" happens and Civilization goes back to the Stone Age you will feel like a complete ass for asking that question...the Amish will be OK and laughing at the loudmouths that were previously laughing at them.

[Rael]

If the "Final Battle" happens and Civilization goes back to the Stone Age you will feel like a complete ass for asking that question...the Amish will be OK and laughing at the loudmouths that were previously laughing at them.

In the meantime, I will continue to laugh at them while playing video games in my air conditioned house.

[Anti Federalist]

Who legalized this theft? A private individual or group of individuals using the force of the government to protect their business or steal from people, resembles nothing of what happens in voluntary markets. Without government protection, businesses on the free market fail or succeed depending on the level of satisfaction they provide to the consumers.

This would only be possible if the road owners used the government to impose a monopoly.

Who would buy a house or build a business with no road access? And who would frequent a business or buy a home where the rules for road use are undesirable? Maybe a few crazies, but without a government protected monopoly, the people who desire roads without stupid laws would have their desires fulfilled by other road owners, etc.

Sadly, the power to steal property owners land for such projects as roads, canals, bridges, rail lines and so forth are the only way they can be built within any sort of reasonable budget.

The costs involved in building a road, bridge, canal, or rail line by buying up the property of every person along the route, or moving it every time someone refuses to sell, would make it so costly that nobody would ever build such a thing. That's why the railroads used the power of government to kick people off their lands in the 19th century.

That is not the case with any other business.

That is why the Bill of Rights specifically addresses this, why the Anti Federalists wrote it into the Fifth Amendment, that private property can only be taken for public use, never for private gain.

[Wesker1982]

Sadly, the power to steal property owners land for such projects as roads, canals, bridges, rail lines and so forth are the only way they can be built within any sort of reasonable budget.

First, the "power to steal" is power granted by the government, this is not a result of voluntary exchanges. Second, no one can know what a "reasonable budget" or price is when something is monopolized. Something tells me that when the government builds a highway, because of its monopolistic nature, it does not do it in the most cost effective and profitable manner. The voluntary market, with competition and profit, would do a much better job providing roads than a coercive monopoly.

The calculation problem also applies to road socialism.

The costs involved in building a road, bridge, canal, or rail line by buying up the property of every person along the route, or moving it every time someone refuses to sell, would make it so costly that nobody would ever build such a thing.

Again, without market prices, there is no rational way to calculate costs. It is impossible to predict what the market price would be, but it would certainly be lower than a price set by a monopoly. Competition between property owners would lower costs, etc.

Walter Block refutes these objections in more detail here: Chapter 12

That is why the Bill of Rights specifically addresses this, why the Anti Federalists wrote it into the Fifth Amendment, that private property can only be taken for public use, never for private gain.

Tyranny by majority is still tyranny.

[Anti Federalist]

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the market will deliver 20 or 30 highways to choose from, each with their own set of safety standards, costs, and speed limits that will not have to rely on government coercion to throw people in the way of the road off their land?

When the market cannot deliver on a TV that meets my specifications?

The tyranny of the majority is the market. It is nothing if not 100 percent purely democratic.

I am all about maximum individual liberty. I am not "anti" market.

However I realize, and just a cursory reading of history will make anybody else realize, that an oligarchy of corporate interests can tyrannize a population just as quickly and just as effectively as a government can.

One is bad, so is the other.

We are now living in the worst of both worlds, where we suffer under both, working in an unholy alliance against the people.

There is a name for that type of economic system, it's called fascism.

First, the "power to steal" is power granted by the government, this is not a result of voluntary exchanges. Second, no one can know what a "reasonable budget" or price is when something is monopolized. Something tells me that when the government builds a highway, because of its monopolistic nature, it does not do it in the most cost effective and profitable manner. The voluntary market, with competition and profit, would do a much better job providing roads than a coercive monopoly.

The calculation problem also applies to road socialism.




Again, without market prices, there is no rational way to calculate costs. It is impossible to predict what the market price would be, but it would certainly be lower than a price set by a monopoly. Competition between property owners would lower costs, etc.

Walter Block refutes these objections in more detail here: Chapter 12



Tyranny by majority is still tyranny.

[A Son of Liberty]

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the market will deliver 20 or 30 highways to choose from, each with their own set of safety standards, costs, and speed limits that will not have to rely on government coercion to throw people in the way of the road off their land?

Private companies already negotiate right-of-ways with land owners all over the country. Power lines, gas transmission lines, well sites, turbine sites and access roads... I don't see any reason a company could not negotiate right-of-ways for roads, as well.

We can't assume that what the free market would deliver would be the same product that governments deliver. It may not be that what it wanted and needed would be these massive interstate highways. Keep in mind that these routes, while in many ways convenient, also were intended to be able to move the military of a global superpower around the country, and were made necessary by the advent and eventual subsidization of low end-cost petroleum products.

When the market cannot deliver on a TV that meets my specifications?

Go into either the road or TV business, then, and make one that does meet your standards. But seriously, that IS the beauty of free and competitive markets.

The tyranny of the majority is the market. It is nothing if not 100 percent purely democratic.

Except the market doesn't enjoy the socially-sanctioned monopoly on force.

I am all about maximum individual liberty. I am not "anti" market.

However I realize, and just a cursory reading of history will make anybody else realize, that an oligarchy of corporate interests can tyrannize a population just as quickly and just as effectively as a government can.

One is bad, so is the other.

We are now living in the worst of both worlds, where we suffer under both, working in an unholy alliance against the people.

There is a name for that type of economic system, it's called fascism.

:thumbs:

[00_Pete]

In the meantime, I will continue to laugh at them while playing video games in my air conditioned house.

They don't want your video games and AC unit...so why should you care? Ohhh i know, media/entertainment "told" you to pick on them.

[A Son of Liberty]

In the meantime, I will continue to laugh at them while playing video games in my air conditioned house.

Right. You laugh at them as you're sitting in front of your television playing make believe, while they're actually out in the world living life like a real human being should.

I ain't you, and I ain't them. But if I'm laughing at anyone, it's you.

[Revolution9]

The Amish are a fairly easy group to make fun of on an internet message board

My question is, what the hell do they have against electricity?

Polarity.

HTH
Rev9

[OrigSEOH]

My question is, what the hell do they have against electricity?

I bow and praise the energy gods all the time; for they have made it so plentiful, it would be my sincere pleasure to pay homage to the temple and the logo of the energy gods that provide me with this experience in life. Only with paper notes though

[Pericles]

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the market will deliver 20 or 30 highways to choose from, each with their own set of safety standards, costs, and speed limits that will not have to rely on government coercion to throw people in the way of the road off their land?

When the market cannot deliver on a TV that meets my specifications?

The tyranny of the majority is the market. It is nothing if not 100 percent purely democratic.

I am all about maximum individual liberty. I am not "anti" market.

However I realize, and just a cursory reading of history will make anybody else realize, that an oligarchy of corporate interests can tyrannize a population just as quickly and just as effectively as a government can.

One is bad, so is the other.

We are now living in the worst of both worlds, where we suffer under both, working in an unholy alliance against the people.

There is a name for that type of economic system, it's called fascism.

!FACT!

And well worth reading again.

[Danke]

Private companies already negotiate right-of-ways with land owners all over the country. Power lines, gas transmission lines, well sites, turbine sites and access roads... I don't see any reason a company could not negotiate right-of-ways for roads, as well.

They use the corrupt courts (judges) to get their way over the landowner.

[Wesker1982]

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the market will deliver 20 or 30 highways to choose from, each with their own set of safety standards, costs, and speed limits that will not have to rely on government coercion to throw people in the way of the road off their land?

What I am trying to tell you is that the voluntary market is more efficient at allocating scarce resources than a coercive monopoly. Socialism is bad at economic coordination, this also applies to road socialism.

Markets would be chaotic and wasteful, but central planners with a coercive monopoly and without market signals (prices), are somehow going to be efficient. This is the complete opposite of the truth in every other aspect of the market, there is no reason why road production is immune from these economic truths (monopolies are bad, prices are necessary for coordination, etc.)

that will not have to rely on government coercion to throw people in the way of the road off their land?

Are you implying that violence is necessary to provide roads? Again, Walter Block goes more into detail on this, but put simply, competition between landowners would drive prices down. There would be land owners who would be happy to let a company build a road on their land in return for part of the profits. Easy money. Not to mention that the State "owns" a lot of land that would become abandoned and unowned, so there would be a lot of empty space to be homesteaded by road companies, etc.

When the market cannot deliver on a TV that meets my specifications?

The part that matters the most is you are not violently forced to pay for something that does not meet your standards. To add insult to injury, not only do the roads rarely meet anyone's standards, you are forced to pay for it!

In the first place, these critics overlook the fact that the operation of the free market is vastly different from governmental action. When a government acts, individual critics are powerless to change the result. They can do so only if they can finally convince the rulers that their decision should be changed; this may take a long time or be totally impossible. On the free market, however, there is no final decision imposed by force; everyone is free to shape his own decisions and thereby significantly change the results of “the market.”

The tyranny of the majority is the market.

This is a contradiction in terms if you are talking about the voluntary market. If by the market process, the majority "decides" that the market will produce more of X than Y, it would be fallacious to say all who prefer Y are being tyrannized or oppressed. For how could someone oppress another by not acting, that is, not producing Y? To say this would be tyranny is to say voluntary exchange and mutual benefit is oppressive, it is to say the free and voluntary market itself is tyrannical.

“Other Forms of Coercion”: Economic Power

However I realize, and just a cursory reading of history will make anybody else realize, that an oligarchy of corporate interests can tyrannize a population just as quickly and just as effectively as a government can.

Only when they use the guns of.... the government. Instead of competing in the voluntary market, some businesses see the giant weapon that is the government and decide that if they can influence or basically control (like right now) this giant criminal enterprise, they can effectively outlaw competition (licenses and regulations, etc.). Of course when you have an entity with a legal monopoly on violence, and the power to outlaw competition, some crooked businessmen are going to try to take control of this monster and impose barriers to competition. There will always be criminals, so I say don't give them the means to violate the right's of individuals on a massive scale that would be impossible without the State apparatus.

[A Son of Liberty]

They use the corrupt courts (judges) to get their way over the landowner.

As far as I'm aware, the only time a court forced a private citizen to turn their property over to another private entity was the Kelo case...

Edit: To fix from "Loki" to "Kelo". lol I must be dyslexic.

[A Son of Liberty]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Wesker1982 again.

//

[Danke]

As far as I'm aware, the only time a court forced a private citizen to turn their property over to another private entity was the Loki case...

It is routine with power companies.

[A Son of Liberty]

It is routine with power companies.

I'm not aware of anything like this, but you said yourself that they use the tyrrany of the courts to force the property owner to cede. That's kind of the point...

[moostraks]

I'm not aware of anything like this, but you said yourself that they use the tyrrany of the courts to force the property owner to cede. That's kind of the point...

Look into the right of way given to power companies and what rights private property owners have to use of said property around power lines that they (property owners) pay taxes on but cannot use...

[Anti Federalist]

Private companies already negotiate right-of-ways with land owners all over the country. Power lines, gas transmission lines, well sites, turbine sites and access roads... I don't see any reason a company could not negotiate right-of-ways for roads, as well.

Glad you brought that up.

There is huge battle going on right now in NH where a consortium of power firms and Canadian generators are looking to run a 1500 megawatt transmission line across the NH North Country.

http://livefreeorfry.org/

One of the ways they are getting around citizen opposition is by, you guessed it, eminent domain powers.

This is the worst form of eminent domain abuse, where the power of the state is used to seize a citizens land in order to enrich a private company, in this case a foreign company, Hydro Québec.

It is not logistically or economically possible to secure all the rights of way, leases, grants and buy outs needed to run a major project like this, or a road, without eminent domain power.

[A Son of Liberty]

Look into the right of way given to power companies and what rights private property owners have to use of said property around power lines that they (property owners) pay taxes on but cannot use...

Given by whom?

[A Son of Liberty]

Glad you brought that up.

There is huge battle going on right now in NH where a consortium of power firms and Canadian generators are looking to run a 1500 megawatt transmission line across the NH North Country.

http://livefreeorfry.org/

One of the ways they are getting around citizen opposition is by, you guessed it, eminent domain powers.

This is the worst form of eminent domain abuse, where the power of the state is used to seize a citizens land in order to enrich a private company, in this case a foreign company, Hydro Québec.

It is not logistically or economically possible to secure all the rights of way, leases, grants and buy outs needed to run a major project like this, or a road, without eminent domain power.

So, are you arguing for or against eminent domain?

[Anti Federalist]

So, are you arguing for or against eminent domain?

I am arguing against it, when used to enrich the bottom line of a private firm.

I realize the (sad) need for it, which is why it should never, ever have a profit motive attached to it.

The electrical grid in my town is owned by the town and run as a non profit co-op.

The service is excellent, when other towns during winter storms are down for days, we are back up in usually less than 24 hours.

With a bill that averages about $60 - 70 a month.

When the logistics of a project demand that some people be forced to cede land, or a RoW, the profit motive should be taken out of the equation.

[moostraks]

Given by whom?

google: right of way easements utilities eminent domain

It isn't through agreement with private property owners. They get the right to build on your property for their construction purposes and rights to a large area around surrounding what they erect. In the event that a power pole becomes unstable,for instance, they can then come and take up more of your property erecting guy wires to stabilize their poles and you are not given any say so nor may you construct near their newly erected items.

[Danke]

Given by whom?

Usually the deal is cut in the judge's Star Chamber with the representative of the power company. Not the landowner.

[A Son of Liberty]

Usually the deal is cut in the judge's Star Chamber with the representative of the power company. Not the landowner.

So, not really a free market mechanism.

[A Son of Liberty]

I am arguing against it, when used to enrich the bottom line of a private firm.

I realize the (sad) need for it, which is why it should never, ever have a profit motive attached to it.

Therein lies the paradox.

[Kludge]

I posted a thread over a year ago, but since it's come up again:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/offgrid_man_jai.php

In the Pittsburgh area, a man went to jail rather than let the local power company run an electric line through his property. He's also in some hot water for refusing to connect to the local sewer system. Although he’s repeatedly lost in criminal court, William Williams, 76, of Cecil, vows to continue removing the guy wire and its anchor in his yard each time the power company replaces them. For Mr. Williams, it’s all a matter of civil disobedience. He said he refuses to surrender his property rights to the utilities.
He served 26 days in jail this year for his wire-cutting actions, with more jail time expected in subsequent charges.
It's all part of Mr. Williams' campaign to declare himself free from all public utilities in a case of independent spirit vs. public utility, private rights vs. public service. But the battle has escalated. Mr. Williams has dug a five-foot hole in his yard to remove the guy-wire anchor. And he knows the likely result: More charges, more jail time. "I don't bother anyone. Why should they bother me?" he said. But Allen Staggers, manager of corporate communications for Allegheny Power, said all power company facilities, including guy wires, were on rights of way the company has purchased. With old lines, the right-of-way agreement could have been reached decades ago.
"It's dangerous for people to tamper with our equipment, whether it is a live wire or a guy wire," he said. "[A utility pole] is big, it's heavy and you don't want to compromise the integrity of it. It can result in a power outage or someone getting hurt." Mr. Williams uses no public utilities at his house on Reissing Road and vows never to use any. He's neither wired, plugged in, tapped in nor in the pipeline.
A self-proclaimed arch enemy of utility companies, he said, he stands determined to show the world how to stretch a dollar, reduce reliance on foreign oil and live the simple life. He also vows to fight for the right to refuse to use any public utilities.So the man, who dons a trademark orange tassel cap, said he was proud to be off the grid, despite efforts by some utility companies to force him to tap into their lines.
His anti-utility philosophy has landed him in hot water.He's faced charged three times for cutting the guy wire securing an Allegheny Power utility pole to his property. After each conviction, he's refused to pay restitution, court costs and fines on claims the company is encroaching on his property. "I won't put up with it," he said. "I'm hard-headed." Cost is the main reason he weaned himself from public utilities. He retired from Homestead Valve in 1974 and lives on his Social Security check and a $198-a-month pension.
But he said he preferred living without utilities because they are monopolies whose policies and prices threaten one's property rights and financial independence. Rather than tap into a public waterline, he collects rainwater from his roof gutters in a holding tank. The water flows through a filter into a basement sink. He uses a septic system, despite the fact Cecil has a public sewage system. He's placed solar panels in the windows of his beige brick house to power a rechargeable battery for limited electricity. For nine months, he refused to pay a service charge for electricity because, he said, he was using none. Finally, Allegheny Power removed the electrical lines. Mr. Williams uses propane, kerosene and wood for what little heat he needs. Owning neither a clothes washer nor dryer, he does his laundry in a bucket of filtered water and dries it on a backyard clothesline.
He recently gave away his unused refrigerator, preferring to store perishable food in his cool basement. He never watches television but does listen to a battery-powered radio. Natural gas lines never were installed on his property. And he has no telephone. With no utility lines or pipes attached to his house, Mr. Williams is an island of independence in a world of interconnection.
"You have to learn to stretch dollars, and they will stretch," he said. He cut the guy wire the first time because, he said, he kept tripping over it while collecting berries in his yard. Cecil police cited him for criminal mischief, intentionally damaging property, negligence and reckless endangerment.
But District Judge Valarie Costanzo, of Cecil, dismissed the charges after advising him not to repeat the misdeed. The second time he cut the wire, he pleaded guilty to the charges and paid $400. He was sentenced to serve 19 days in the Washington County Jail, 17 of which he served after refusing to pay all costs, fines and restitution. Before that, he served seven days in jail for failing to respond to a court order in the case.
The most recent criminal case against Mr. Williams was transferred from Judge Costanzo's jurisdiction to that of District Judge Jay Weller in North Strabane, who found Mr. Williams guilty of the same four charges and assessed him $827 in fines, costs and restitution. Refusing to pay, Mr. Williams said he expected more jail time.
He contends Allegheny Power has no right to use his property to secure its pole because the guy wire and anchor are not within the company's right of way. He said the rights of way were not listed on his deed. But Allegheny Power officials said the company owned the right of way, or it would not have installed the guy wire and anchor. He could face even more problems if he doesn't tap into the public sewer system. Its officials could file a lien against his property if he doesn't connect.

For Mr. Williams, it's all a matter of civil disobedience. He said he refuses to surrender his property rights to the utilities. "I don't owe [Allegheny Power] anything, and I'm not going to pay," he said. "They were on my property, and their right of way ends right here."