CNHT e-blast

[SteveA]

www.lewrockwell.com is pretty good though is has more of a mixture of subjects.

[Eagle]

Hi Steve, How are You?

EC here from over there.

Good to see You over here : )

I check LewRockwel.com regularly...like it!

[CNHT]

Unfortunately, there's not much left we can do to stop CNHT.? They've already managed to get the theft of Souter's home on the March ballot.? I may be able to stop them from trying to take Breyer's home, but I doubt it.

I'm pretty distressed right now, and may fast soon.? ?

Mike dahling, you HAVE to be kidding? Don't you see this as a win-win situation? If we lose, then NH law is great. If we win, we prove a point but we do NOT have to take the property if we don't want to. It's up to the citizens of Weare and Plainfield now.
At least I give you credit for knowing what is REALLY going on, which I can't say about the AP or any other news source.

Also, just think of the PUBLICITY this is getting promoting the idea that taking property by eminent domain is wrong, between the Liberty Hotel idea and the Constitution Park. If you ask Biker Bill he will tell you that it's worth just the publicity alone...no matter what happens.

I respect your opinion but I think you should save your energy for something more universally agreed upon. You are but a small tiny minority who isn't going with this. In other words, we are doing this because 'we can' and that should serve to prove a point and get the issue widely noticed, will it not?

[tracysaboe]

Dreepa, Check-out

http://praxeology.net/anarchy-is-order.htm

Yes, anarchy gets a bad rap, because
a) government schools teach you it means chaos. It doesn't. It simply means, no archy.
b) punk rock, (Although I kind-of Like Corporate Avenger, sometimes, sort-of)
c) violent revolutionaries who call themselves anarchists.

We can't use violent means, to abolish the State -- because that will just put another state in its place.

But I would encourage you to look through the Molenary institute. Anarchy, is basically the belief that people can figure out on their own how to provide, protect, and settle disputes between themselves, with-out some top-down third party controling everything.

"Market Anarchism is the doctrine that the legislative, adjudicative, and protective functions unjustly and inefficiently monopolised by the coercive State should be entirely turned over to the voluntary, consensual forces of market society." http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm

Tracy

[Michael Fisher]

Mike dahling, you HAVE to be kidding?

Judge me by my actions.

Don't you see this as a win-win situation? If we lose, then NH law is great. If we win, we prove a point but we do NOT have to take the property if we don't want to. It's up to the citizens of Weare and Plainfield now.

You've set in motion a falling axe of force that may or may not land on and destroy Souter's home, and you no longer have control of it.  It is out of your hands now.  Even if you don't want to take Souter's home, it's too late now.  This is the nature of government.

Also, just think of the PUBLICITY this is getting promoting the idea that taking property by eminent domain is wrong, between the Liberty Hotel idea and the Constitution Park. If you ask Biker Bill he will tell you that it's worth just the publicity alone...no matter what happens.

No matter what happens?  I like you, Jane, but your actions against Souter can set a precedent that will easily reach back to yourself.

Biker Bill said that even Souter should be protected from eminent domain in the end.

"Certainly, believing strongly in property rights, I'd _prefer_ that these proposals are disallowed/adjudicated illegal. They _should_ be disallowed, even against Souter (because that's the only way _I'm_ protected going forward, but in the mean time, let him sweat)."

Why take the risk of setting this precedent of mob-directed eminent domain?  Why not just protect him, and everyone else, now?  For revenge?  For publicity?  Please reconsider your position.

I respect your opinion but I think you should save your energy for something more universally agreed upon. You are but a small tiny minority who isn't going with this. In other words, we are doing this because 'we can' and that should serve to prove a point and get the issue widely noticed, will it not?

I understand that, as an individual, I am the tiniest minority, but that is only a minor detail.  I believe this revenge against Souter and Breyer is wrong and very dangerous and I am saddened to see my friends partaking in it without considering the negative implications.  Please reconsider your position.