Souter's home to be taken?

[Russell Kanning]

I love it

Maybe we should log his home....it would 'benefit' the community

[Russell Kanning]

I agree BarryD

[Michael Fisher]

Gandhi's principles and methods work, and we have implemented them successfully.  I will not abandon these principles for revenge or any Machiavellian purpose.

If you could bulldoze just one person's house today, and we would all be free tomorrow, would you do it?

I wouldn't.

If I stand alone in my opposition to this, then so be it.  I can not and will not compromise on these principles.

[MSTCrowT]

Ok, I've thought of some proposed rules for the Souter Protest:

1.  We stay off his property, and only on the sidewalk or whatever there is.
2.  If a car happens to pop out or in of the drive-way, we stay a car lane away from it (about 3 yards).  We don't want Justice Souter or anyone else to feel physically threatened, or be able to claim that they felt physically threatened.
3.  We don't yell, swear, make obscene gestures, or anything like that.  A group of well-behave people can be much more unnerving and get our point across than being a silly mob.
4.  If anyone tries to arrest any of the other protesters, we form a human chain around that individual, and get all of us arrested, file a big fat lawsuit for violating our civil liberties (right to protest, freedom of expression, etc.), and retire in the Bahamas.
5.  We don't tell the police anything except we are protesting Souter's voting record on a particular issue.  We don't want to get off message and find out we've suddenly given them a reason to arrest us.
6.  If Justice Souter happens to come out, we make sure that nothing we do or say can be contrued as physically threatening.

Suggestions:

1.  Can anyone case the area, take pictures?  That way, we will know were is a good spot to set up.
2.  Bring a firearm.  We can also assert our right that gun rights are non-negotiable, and we will not disarm ourselves for anyone, especially not an elite.
3.  Don't point the firearm at anyone.
4.  Bring a dog.  Everyone loves dogs.  This will also allow us to reinforce the message that we are mainstream American that will not stand for the erosion of our property rights.
5.  Contact the media, once we've set up a time and date for the protest.
6.  Does anyone know when Justice Souter will be home?  Our protest will be more effective if Justice Souter can actually see people disagreeing with him.

Suggestions for Protest Signs:

1.  Justice Souter Isn't Suited for the Supreme Court
2.  Individual Rights, Not Corporate Welfare
3.  Property Rights, Not Government Back Theft

Also, a list of people who would be willing to show up would be helpful.  I can be e-mailed at mst_crow5429@yahoo.com.  Just put "Souter Protest" in the subject line.  of course, anyone who disagrees Justice Souter can come, not just Libertarians.  So if you know people who are or would be against Souter's ruling who aren't Libertarians, please invite them along.  Thanks.

[Rocketman]

If you could bulldoze just one person's house today, and we would all be free tomorrow, would you do it?

Hmmm, I might bulldoze the White House... but that's owned by my government, not a private residence.

Again, I don't object to the publicity stunt, but I do object to taking the guy's house.

Take deep breaths, Barry.   

[Dave Ridley]

This was on at least one of the TV stations in Boston and the radio talk show host was talking about it on WKBK.

[Michael Fisher]

I saw this on TV today.  I think it was on ABC News.

Here's my post about this from the FSP forums:

Re: Hotel proposed on Supreme Court Justice Souter's land- N.H. attorney needed
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=10267.msg137889#msg137889

How easily we forget that Mr. Souter is a human being with a family.  We do this only because of an opportunity to exploit him and threaten him with the force of government for positive publicity for our cause.  Have libertarians become so desperate that they would openly violate their own principles to win freedom, even though this is not necessary?  I would like to think not.

I truly hope this is nothing more than a joke, though the damage of the threat of force against him has already been done.

If this becomes anything more than a joking sarcastic satire news story, and if a real attempt is made to use eminent domain against Mr. Souter and his family, then I will voluntarily inflict suffering upon myself in order to gain strength for the principle of zero aggression among my friends in the liberty movement.

[Russell Kanning]

Hmmm, I might bulldoze the White House... but that's owned by my government, not a private residence.

Again, I don't object to the publicity stunt, but I do object to taking the guy's house.

.....a house paid for by our tax $
.....he can always quit

[Kat Kanning]

Mike, is this different than Gandhi trying to take over the salt factory?

[jgmaynard]

Or Jesus breaking up the market at the Temple?

JM

[FTL_Ian]

How easily we forget that Mr. Souter is a human being with a family.  We do this only because of an opportunity to exploit him and threaten him with the force of government for positive publicity for our cause.  Have libertarians become so desperate that they would openly violate their own principles to win freedom, even though this is not necessary?  I would like to think not.

Please explain how this is not self-defense against a violent thug. 

If you're the family of a violent thug, for shame.

I understand that self defense can usually only be employed against violence as it happens, but that usually applies to short term violence like murder and rape.  This is long term violence.  As you pointed out, it's only a threat, just like the state has been threatening the homeowners in the New London case.

Look here for a list of thuggery the govt has been involved in to try to get the New London residents off their land:
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/240605newdevelopments.htm

This is effectively a land-rape.  Would you allow your wife to be raped?  What would that prove?

[jgmaynard]

Like I said, I adhere to non-violence as a principle, but when it came time to defend myself and loved ones in my home, I was all too happy to go confront the guy, weapon in hand*.

I'm also committed to no eminent domain, but when the agression is put upon us first, we can either use it to strike back, or sit around and wait til the Feds to set up death camps, talking about philosophy. No thanks.

This is self-defense, plain and simple.

JM

*Of course it was a baseball bat (the only thing I had laying around), but if he hadn't gotten out, I would have done my David Ortiz imitation on his head.

[JonM]

Having the Outlook Manicurist come to Souter's defense might be interesting, though it will likely confuse the those among the populace who have trouble with conplex issues . . .

Of course, Mike is probably too principled to stand outside his house with a sign that says "Even this idiot doesn't deserve to lose his home to eminent domain."  Perhaps one without the idiot part . . .

[Rocketman]

I'll hold the "idiot" sign.   

[FTL_Ian]

Seems to me "idiot" is too nice.  How about "violent thug in a robe"?