[...] 8 Reasons Why I Admire Sam Dodson and the Not-So-Disorderly Keene Seven Activists [...]

Anyway, Keep up the great work!

A “public restroom” does not necessarily mean a publicly-owned restroom. It just means it is open for use by the general public. You’re tinkering with words there in a clever but conflated way.

Who owns these schools and campuses? That’s a key piece of context you left out.

You’ll have to explain how my arguments are fallacious if you want to have a genuine discussion. I think you’re reading a lot into what I am saying and basing your conclusions off your suppositions.

George, your conversation with @jay4liberty on Twitter today helped crystallize my thinking. To summarize my understanding, Jay said he believes some forms of civil disobedience are more effective than others, and some may be less effective than other things we could do with our time. I agree. He observed that in many cases CD turns people off, and this is consistent with my own observations. You asked what we could do better, and Jay advised that we better explain the reason for the civil disobedience and that we can be more organized in enlisting the support of community leaders and media.

I agree with Jay’s advice. The best opportunities for civil disobedience are those that most people would immediately agree are righteous. In other words, the story behind our actions is best if it’s self-explanatory or close to it. Stories that resonate with broad audiences are those that are easy to explain via sound bytes and compelling stories of injustice. If the story immediately resonates, support will grow quickly. If not, some people may speculate about what’s in it for the person doing the disobeying, and many will miss the point.

Jay’s advice about enlisting support of community leaders is also important. Is there a leader in the community who is sympathetic to the cause? Build relationships with those leaders ahead of time, ask their advice on plans and enlist their help. This would likely include letting them be the hero who tells the story to the media.

Finally, I would add that in order to be effective in civil disobedience, it’s important for those executing the plans to demonstrate respect for the intent of the rule even as they break it. From what I’ve seen about this case, I agree with you that Sam and the others involved did a great job communicating respectfully and keeping their composure, thereby demonstrating respect for the courthouse and the intent of its rules. It’s important that we do the same.

Every rule has an intent, whether it’s the constitution, or a law, or my reminder to my kids as they run out into the street to play, or an unsigned piece of paper hanging on a wall. In my experience, the intent of most rules is good.

Anytime I run into a rule I don’t understand, I assume good intent, and I ask the person telling me about the rule why it’s there. If they say something authoritarian like, “because I said so” well, that would be compelling to capture on video or audiotape. But if after discussion I agree the intent is good, I show responsibility and respect for rule’s intent even while I’m breaking the rule. If all of us do the same, I believe we will be effective in getting our message out there.

Just my 2 cents…

Following is a copy of my letter:

Dear Sam,
I am humbled by the commitment you have shown in fighting for our freedom.

There have been a number of people sharing their opinions online today about what they think you should do. My best advice is for you to do what you believe is right for yourself. By doing what is right for you, I believe you will be doing what is right for our cause.

I support you, and in peace, love and liberty, I thank you.

Liberty Snippet

Nice work, you handled yourself very well judging by the audio. Kudos.

See you in a few weeks.

State property is either owned by all of us or none of us. In either case, entering with a video camera against the judge’s rules is not entering without the owner’s permission, since the judge is not the owner.

We all own public restrooms. Do you think both men should enter women-only bathrooms? Do you think you should blackmail someone in a public restroom? Although both of these do not violate libertarian law, I see both acts as counterproductive.

How about legalizing hate speech in schools and campuses? I think this violates libertarian law because public property owners should have the right to forbid hate speech, because it offends many racial minorities.

In this case, the judge is establishing his own rules in violation of what the NH and US constitutions say.

Same thing with the enforcement of the law. If the federal government prescribed an anti-immigration law, should you violate it by allowing immigrants to enter?

You just articulated two fallacious arguments.

I oppose stealing from the state. For example, I will never mug any bureaucrat to recover my stolen assets, … Stealing from the state equals mugging a Police Officer or a Tax Collector. Hence, I label theft as a form of “violence,” even theft done to the state.

Without a doubt, theft is violence. The moral rightness of taking something without permission is a question of whether it’s an initiation of force or not. I consider it morally correct, just not strategically smart at this time.

I still label “trespassing” on state property as a form of “violence.” ….. Hence, bringing video cameras into courtrooms might expand the state, like how violence does.

(1) State property is either owned by all of us or none of us. In either case, entering with a video camera against the judge’s rules is not entering without the owner’s permission, since the judge is not the owner.

(2) In this case, the judge is establishing his own rules in violation of what the NH and US constitutions say. So the judge’s rules are invalid even by their own standards.

(3) Will civil disobedience like this expand the state? I hadn’t thought of that and I’m not sure what the answer is. But the first question I ask is: Is it morally correct? That’s what matters most. And I think what they did was morally spotless.

I think the state will continue expanding no matter what is done though and it might actually work to our benefit. The faster it expands, the faster it implodes.

My website is here: http://anarcho-mercantilist.blogspot.com/

As you have noted, we all disagree that “violence” can effectively overthrow the state. “Violence” against the state, in the sense of killing Police Officers or attacking Soldiers, will never work, and will expand the state.

However, I think I go further with that. I oppose stealing from the state. For example, I will never mug any bureaucrat to recover my stolen assets, that they had stolen in the name of “taxation.” I also dislike to steal materials from the so-called “public schools.” If I do that, then the statists will condemn the market anarchists for seizing property, because they believe that it increases their taxes. Stealing from the state equals mugging a Police Officer or a Tax Collector. Hence, I label theft as a form of “violence,” even theft done to the state.

Like you said, I agree that even that the state has no legitimate claim to property, we should oppose violence. However, I still label “trespassing” on state property as a form of “violence.” I will explain my thoughts on this below.

In my High School, the Teachers ban cell phones. If I bring my cell phone to School, they will give me a detention for the first offense, and suspension from the High School for the second and third offenses. If I get too many suspensions, I think the School would eventually expel me. In addition, the Police Officers might seize my property and file a Misdemeanor for Disorderly Conduct, a sentence up to one year.

Allowing video cameras in Courtrooms quite resembles the High School cell phone policy. However, in this scenario, the state bans video cameras instead of cell phones. Leaving this aside, I see no differences with this case to the High School cell phone policy. If I record the Teachers in my High School, and then post the video on the web, then the School, if an Administrator finds out of it, might charge me for Defamation. (I “am” nineteen years old, but I still go to High School. I do not plan to move to NH)

These scenarios closely resemble “trespassing” on state property. I do not condemn all “trespassing,” per se, because I support the “illegal” immigrants “trespassing” on certain forms of state property. Unlike the paleolibertarian Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Thomas Woods, I disagree with their notion that the U.S. citizens, who allegedly owns the state, can prohibit immigrants from using some publicly-funded services, such as roads.

But where do we draw the boundaries between “violent trespassing” and “non-violent trespassing”?

I will list some specific examples which I label as “violent trespassing”:

*Promoting free speech on Schools and Campuses.
*Legalizing drunk driving on roads.

I will list some examples of “non-violent trespassing”:

*Smuggling contraband across the borders.
*Smuggling Mexicans to the United States.
*Practicing agorism even that the state owns our land in the form of Property Taxation.

Because the state owns the Courtrooms, does the state have the right to ban video cameras, just like any other property owner have the right to do? However, the statists will label this a “violent disobedience” or “violent trespassing,” not as a form of non-violent disobedience. Hence, bringing video cameras into courtrooms might expand the state, like how violence does.

However, I disagree with the above. I believe in immediate abolition of all state assets, and not to perpetuate gradualism and reformism. Therefore, I tend to favor the abolition of all statist Courtrooms instead of reforming them.

The cops initiated force against these folks. Even their own posited supreme law admits that freedom of the press may not be broached. The judge’s order to ban videotaping is inconsistent with their own law.

I see the term “freedom of the press” differently. Other than the vague denotation of “freedom” in this phrase, which I view it as a glittering generality, the term “freedom of speech” itself has vague interpretations. For instance, many libertarians might interpret this phrase to as far as legalizing blackmail and voyeurism! However, most statists label blackmail and voyeurism as “violent.” Perhaps the judge reacted to the video recording in the same manner of how he reacts to blackmail and voyeurism.

I finished describing my perspective on this. Anyway, Kudos for you effort on helping to speed up the revolution!

Best wishes,
Anarcho-Mercantilist

Well, as a Canadian Citizen, that might be difficult for me…unless I sneak across in the dead of night, trying to avoid La Migra.

Actually, I hate moving and having just bought a new house in Ottawa a few years ago, I don’t intend to move anytime soon. I’d have a hard time convincing my wife to move at all, let alone to hide in the back of a truck and sneak across the border…

Of course, if any openings for Software Developers and Identity Management specialist come up, let me know.