Why I Support “Free Keene”

Free Keene ^ | August 21, 2010 | Bradley Jardis

[Mojave]

The *Peaceful Evolution* in action.

http://qik.com/video/9339873

[mickey finn]

“When I come in to town for groceries, I am appalled at the slovenly characters that seem to be dregs from Woodstock nation hanging around.”

I guess I don't have to go to Brattleboro to see a freak show when I visit my family in Keene over Labor Day.

[Col Freeper]

Thanks for the link.

My goodness, that certainly appears to be a "peaceful" and "loving" bunch.

More like a sad bunch of extremely foul-mouthed petulant children, screaming obscenities in public.

Those policemen are supposed to be examples of violent, "head-busting pigs"?

And apparently, this video was taken and posted by a "leader" in the "FreeKeene" movement, to show how violent the police are towards these "Freedom Fighters"?

As a Conservative, I really, really found myself just biting at the bit to join in with that ill mannered crowd, whose vocabulary seems to be limited to about 10 words, with 9 of them being F**K. /s

[Daffynition]

Yep. That’s the group. I posted that video on another thread the other night.

[Daffynition]

If the weather is good, they’ll be there. Generally, I try to ignore them.

Brattleboro has it’s own set of issues. LOL I’ve been going to Jamaica, literally, all my life. It wasn’t until the Newyawkers came in to develop the ski areas that Vermont lost its good old fashioned conservative base. The same is true for NH.

[mickey finn]

I grew up in NH and I know what you are talking about. I hope in November NH can regain some ground. My Mom told me that FREE KEENE has given a black eye to the FREE movement and they are considered a pain in the but.

I can't wait to go back over Labor Day and see family. Having traveled many places in this country downtown Keene is still one of the most gorgeous cities I have seen. I also can't wait to crack some lobster.

[citizenredstater9271]

Yes and sometimes police abuse their power. Power always corrupts. That's why we need LESS government then we have That's why I support the Liberty Movement.

And yes I don't like their behavior either BUT how do those people represent the entire Free State Project? The Free State Movement is about liberty and restoring the Constitution, something that NO ONE in Washington aside from Ron Paul and his son Rand intend on doing.

[citizenredstater9271]

My Mom told me that FREE KEENE has given a black eye to the FREE movement and they are considered a pain in the but.

OK yes the antics of Free Keene may not win them much support but their platform will. Ending gov. control of the city of Keene is a great idea and something conservatives need to embrace.

[citizenredstater9271]

FOR THE FREEPERS GIVING FREE KEENE A BAD NAME: look into their ideology before badmouthing the movement. I agree there not going to do much running around naked or smoking pot in front of police. BUT the movement isn’t about that. It’s about bringing the atmosphere back to how the Founders intended: limited gov. control, no more taxes and a return to American values. Do research before writing about the “naked protesters”.

[Daffynition]

Welcome home! Keene *is* a great town.

Back when the FSers started [2001] I joined b/c I thought their mission was something I could fully support. Even went to a couple of meetings and the PorcFest. In-fighting began and that's when I started to loose interest. I wish them well.

The *FreeKeene* group [I don't know too much about them] seem to be a bunch anti-social kids. Their *civil disobedience* turns me off. Guess I'm getting too old for the nonsense. ;)

Enjoy your lobsta! We're having a big end-o-the-season lobster/clam bake on Friday. Heehaw!

[mvpel]

Campaign? You mean deliberately violate state and local law?

Only the people who deliberately violate laws, like the law against performing a manicure without a license, make splashy headlines. Hundreds of others are campaigning in arguably more important and less photogenic ways which don't make for interesting reading in the newspaper.

Were you aware that the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance was founded by Free Staters? That Free Stater reinforcements have invigorated local GOP and taxpayer organizations? That a Free Stater served on the board of Gun Owners of New Hampshire? That two Free Stater votes a few years ago made the difference in cutting $1.5 million from the Merrimack budget? That there's four Free Staters in the legislature right now, and likely to be more in November?

[mvpel]

"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government."

It seems to me that you're skipping over a couple of very important elements of this quote.

How can you expect "voluntary support" of unjust laws which were not formed by persons "of their own choice?"

Law should be a scintillating diamond condensing and reflecting all the best qualities of human nature and society. The law books should be as thin as they were 150 years ago, where a bright sixth grader could, with a little thought about a few basic principles of human interactions, write out essentially all the criminal laws in force.

But now, look at where we've ended up instead! It's physically impossible for anyone to know exactly what's legal or illegal now. Even Congress doesn't know! See the first video at 5:17 - "The congressional research service can no longer even count the current number of federal crimes..."

Understanding this distinction lies, I think, in a reading of John Locke's discussion of "Natural Law" - law which incorporates and reflects, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, "the moral law or the law of God."

There's a legal maxim: lex iniusta non est lex - "an unjust law is not a true law." And I think that's what the folks from Keene are trying to illustrate when they offer the police the opportunity to refrain from using force and violence against their peaceful, but "illegal," actions such as giving a manicure without a license, or drinking a certain type of beverage in public, or smoking a certain type of cigarette in public.

Would it not be salutary to the health of our liberty and our Constitution if we could get back to the days when all the laws of New Hampshire, for example, would fit in a single volume?

[Past Your Eyes]

“My heroes include Jesus and Ron Paul”.
I like starting the day off with a good snort.
Thanks for the ping, bill.

[Mojave]

How can you expect "voluntary support" of unjust laws which were not formed by persons "of their own choice?"

They're violating just laws formed by the citizenry. They've chosen to walk around naked with open containers and lit joints while spewing obscenities to demonstrate their contempt for their neighbors, the law and society generally.

[OCCASparky]

I've noticed that a good number of the "FSP" types are 1--more "LIBERAL"tarian than Libertarian, 2--can fill up a coffeehouse in Keene, and outside that area, maybe a phone booth.

Color me unimpressed.

[mvpel]

They're violating just laws formed by the citizenry.

Who really formed those laws? I don't remember voting on militarized police waging a full-scale war on American citizens and locking up millions of people for victimless, non-violent "crimes." More and more the law is bent to the purpose of protecting and enriching unions, their hacks, and the beneficiaries of their political contributions; rather than protecting liberty and property.

Did you know that it used to be illegal in New Hampshire to consume an alcoholic beverage while standing?

It's not illegal in New Hampshire for a woman to go topless, just as it is not illegal for a man, so no law is being broken by a topless woman. But the police choose to arrest her anyway. How is that just?

How does having an open can of beer, rather than an open can of Coca-Cola, demonstrate contempt for one's neighbors? Is it because the color of the can is blue instead of red, or something? Before Gary Gygax came along, D&D used to mean "drunk AND disorderly," a just law forbidding an actual crime.

In California it is illegal to be merely intoxicated in public, even if all you're doing is sleeping it off or muttering to yourself. I got kicked off a jury pool ("jury stacking," in other words) because I had the gall to express doubt as to the morality and righteousness of that law. No wonder the prison guard's union presides over a $10 billion prison industry in the state.

And how does smoking a cigarette in public demonstrate contempt for one's neighbors? People do it all the time. In fact, thanks to John Lynch and the rest of the Democrats, smoking outdoors is now required by law in New Hampshire if you're not at home.

[Mojave]

Who really formed those laws?

The voters through their elected representatives.

I don't remember voting on militarized police waging a full-scale war on American citizens

Full scale war? Hysterical hyperbole.

It's not illegal in New Hampshire for a woman to go topless

New Hampshire Title LXII, Chapter 645:1 prohibits “Indecent Exposure and Lewdness.”

How does having an open can of beer, rather than an open can of Coca-Cola, demonstrate contempt for one's neighbors?

It violates the law.

And how does smoking a cigarette in public demonstrate contempt for one's neighbors?

Do you mean a joint?

[mvpel]

New Hampshire Title LXII, Chapter 645:1 prohibits “Indecent Exposure and Lewdness.”

Chapter titles have no legal force or effect.

What is actually prohibited by 645:1 is "fornication," "exposing genitals," or "any other act of gross lewdness," performed "under circumstances which he or she should know will likely cause affront or alarm."

A person who is simply not wearing a shirt does not rise to the level of "gross lewdness," the courts have determined.

How does having an open can of beer, rather than an open can of Coca-Cola, demonstrate contempt for one's neighbors?

It violates the law.

It's illegal to do it because it demonstrates contempt for one's neighbors, and doing it demonstrates contempt for one's neighbors because it's illegal. Am I correctly following you around the spinney, here?

[Mojave]

"any other act of gross lewdness"

Like some filthy skank exposing herself to children.

From the police report:

I explained to her that the police department had received multiple complaints from citizens about her attire, or lack thereof. I asked her if she would be willing to put on a shirt. She answered, "absolutely not." I asked her why she was refusing. She explained that she felt the law was discriminating against her. She stated that men are allowed to walk downthe street without a shirt on. She felt that she should be allowed to do the same.

I asked her if she felt she had any responsibility for the multiple children she had exposed herself to during her walk down Main St. She told me it wasn't her responsibility to educate or to change their social inabilities.

A person who is simply not wearing a shirt does not rise to the level of "gross lewdness," the courts have determined.

No cite, naturally. I call your bluff.

It's illegal to do it because it demonstrates contempt for one's neighbors

Strawman. It's illegal because a law has been enacted against it, for whatever reasons drove its passage.

"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." --Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson had that ilk pegged long ago.

[mvpel]

I'll get back to you on the cite. It might have been a Vermont case, now that I think about it.

Did you notice she's carrying a pistol, too?

You quote Jefferson, and I like that. If you don't have a copy of "Light and Liberty," I highly recommend it. On the topic at hand, here's another Thomas Jefferson quote for you:

"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their powers; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Francis Walker Gilmer, June 7, 1816