I am doing no such thing. I’m saying what he is doing is counterproductive and silly. The state is a fact and if you defy the state there will be consequences. So again I ask, what is supposed to result from all of this? A repeal of the trashy yard ordinance? I’m sure you don’t imagine the court closing as a result of this so what then? All I can see is a publicity stunt.
All I see is a figure in the libertarian movement refusing to comply with the state and you belittling them for it.
There is a difference between aboloshing a court and defying a court from a position of weakness. I am belittling him for creating a spectacle in return for no gain. Most Americans think of legalized marijuana and prostitution when they hear the word libertarian. Stunts like Ian’s harm the movement.
Revolutions happen when the ruling class lose faith in their own right to rule. Until that happens defying the state is just going to get you jail time. The commies figured that out a long time ago.
are you never motivated by principle? by what is just? Or is it not that you lack the drive to be Thoreau, but that you lack the courage? Standing up to the bully may have bad consequences for your pocketbook, it may have bad consequences for your teeth, but it can do nothing but good for your sense of honor, self worth, dignity, and soul.
Sure, standing on principle can do all of those things. It can also get you put in jail over a couch.
BTW I wouldn’t count Thoreau or any of the transcendentalists amoung my role models.
I dont see how you can even believe the words you are typing. Just because the judge put him in jail does not mean he was wrong. After committing a “crime” that only violated other peoples views of how his property should look, this man had to go to court. While in court he stood longer than instructed…INSTRUCTED. Why should he have to sit down if he does not want to? Of course he is in court, but that does not make the judge a god like figure. Him standing was in no way obstructing justice other than the judges ego. If the judge had told him not to sit and he wanted to sit and went to jail would you have the same argument? Just because we are told to respect someone does not mean we must, especially if we do not believe in the system which they have perpetuated and created.
The simple fact is that there are no provable damages, and no witness willing to stand in court and lay an accusation against the defendant for having a couch on his front yard. Ergo, the $100 fine was and is erronius, and should not be paid. Claiming that the city (or state) claims damages implies that the city (or state) government has rights, which it does not. The property owner (of the home, and of the couch) have sole rights, not the government. If a neighbor has an issue with the couch being on the lawn, then it is the neighbors duty to address the issue with the property owner.
However, the obvious intent of the entire scenario is to draw attention to the City of Keene’s judge, and his short-fused temper. Watch the video. This judge is obviously prone to violent outbursts, and, after seeing the bailiff moving to arrest the defendant, he is obviously guilty of using his possition to intimidate the defendant.
Another fact that can be deduced form this scenario is that the “libertarians” in question have attracted the attention of the local judge, and said judge has set out to make an example of the Talkshow Host.