Souter's home to be taken?

[shack777]

Quite a prickly situation we've gotten ourselves into, ey porcupines?

On the one hand, supporting the developer who wants to take Souter's home makes us un-principled hypocrites. How can we possibly justify the initiation of force against a peaceful family in New Hampshire, in the name of protecting property rights? Is there a better chance to be idealistically bound to our so proudly (and loudly) proclaimed philosophy? Wouldn't your father tell you to "be the bigger man," and "just walk away"? Do the ends justify the means? Surely Jesus would turn the other cheek.

On the other hand, however, it could be argued that Souter himself has inadvertently taken this action against his own property rights. He "fired the weapon," so to speak, not realizing that it was inside the blast radius. You can't blame the gun for the actions of its owner. Mr. Clements has no Power in this matter. Souter holds the power -- and Clements is playing strictly by the rules...

What if, due to his connections and Supreme Power and Authority, this is our only opportunity to exchange blows with Mr. David Souter, "Supreme Court Justice, Defender and Interpreter of the Constitution"?

But what about Gandhi? What would Jesus do? What about our rock-solid philosophy of non-violence and non-aggression? Is this truly self-defense, or just retaliation and revenge? Is there something wrong with revenge?

The real question here is: Does he deserve it? See, we're not talking about some average, uneducated Joe Shmo, who thinks that imminent domain is okay, sometimes -- we're talking about a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. This is out-right treason, and he'd be lucky to get away with his life, much less his property, if these were the days of the Boston Tea Party or the American Revolution.

A scientist creates a virus in his laboratory, then releases it into the air to infect the general public. Is it wrong for the infected to spit it back into his face? He has created a Monster, and now we should protect him from it?

IMO, Justice Souter's house should be lit up like the fourth of July, in a spectacular display of colorful explosions, with the national anthem playing in the background, and the smiling faces of true patriots glowing in the limelight. This is justice, Justice. Now drop your gown and bend over. Oh, what's that your Honor? You'd prefer to lift it? Why of course, you may lift it instead.

Following is an excerpt from a story that on the surface appears completely unrelated... but the message is clear.

Crews fight fire with fire near town
Burns buffer Black Canyon City; I-17 stays open

Judi Villa
The Arizona Republic
Jul. 2, 2005 12:00 AM

Firefighters deliberately set ablaze thousands of acres of desert on Friday to stop the "Cave Creek Complex" fire from marching any closer to Black Canyon City.

The burnouts, designed to rob the fire of potential fuel, sent thick plumes of white and black smoke into the air but did not force the closure of Interstate 17. No evacuations were necessary, and officials don't expect any road closures during the holiday weekend. The fires were set about a mile east of Black Canyon City along a three-mile stretch of desert.

"Obviously the stakes are high," said Incident Commander Jeff Whitney. "The fire is so close right now to Black Canyon City that we have no choice. The fire has forced our hand."

Fighting fire with fire can be a risky gamble, but Whitney said it's also an effective tool. When the conflagration reaches the charred areas, it should burn itself out.

[Ron Helwig]

Why have we not heard about this happening to the other 4?
Where do they live?

[Russell Kanning]

Why have we not heard about this happening to the other 4?
Where do they live?

Because they don't live in NH

[Ron Helwig]

Where do they live?

Found some info:

http://bureaucrash.com/uploads/supremes.pdf

From http://bureaucrash.com/modules/weblog/weblog-tb.php/42

[KBCraig]

Where do they live?

Found some info:

http://bureaucrash.com/uploads/supremes.pdf

From http://bureaucrash.com/modules/weblog/weblog-tb.php/42

Ginsberg lives on New Hampshire Ave.!

So... One in Arlington, the other three in DC. *feh*... who'd want their property?

Kevin

[davemincin]

Hey,

Worked the Fair in Andover today for the NHLP....and can say with some authority,
lot's of NH folks are real fired up about taking Souter's place for the public good!

[Gard]

Quite a prickly situation we've gotten ourselves into, ey porcupines?

On the one hand, supporting the developer who wants to take Souter's home makes us un-principled hypocrites. How can we possibly justify the initiation of force against a peaceful family in New Hampshire, in the name of protecting property rights? Is there a better chance to be idealistically bound to our so proudly (and loudly) proclaimed philosophy? Wouldn't your father tell you to "be the bigger man," and "just walk away"? Do the ends justify the means? Surely Jesus would turn the other cheek.

On the other hand, however, it could be argued that Souter himself has inadvertently taken this action against his own property rights. He "fired the weapon," so to speak, not realizing that it was inside the blast radius. You can't blame the gun for the actions of its owner. Mr. Clements has no Power in this matter. Souter holds the power -- and Clements is playing strictly by the rules...

What if, due to his connections and Supreme Power and Authority, this is our only opportunity to exchange blows with Mr. David Souter, "Supreme Court Justice, Defender and Interpreter of the Constitution"?

But what about Gandhi? What would Jesus do? What about our rock-solid philosophy of non-violence and non-aggression? Is this truly self-defense, or just retaliation and revenge? Is there something wrong with revenge?

The real question here is: Does he deserve it? See, we're not talking about some average, uneducated Joe Shmo, who thinks that imminent domain is okay, sometimes -- we're talking about a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. This is out-right treason, and he'd be lucky to get away with his life, much less his property, if these were the days of the Boston Tea Party or the American Revolution.

A scientist creates a virus in his laboratory, then releases it into the air to infect the general public. Is it wrong for the infected to spit it back into his face? He has created a Monster, and now we should protect him from it?

IMO, Justice Souter's house should be lit up like the fourth of July, in a spectacular display of colorful explosions, with the national anthem playing in the background, and the smiling faces of true patriots glowing in the limelight. This is justice, Justice. Now drop your gown and bend over. Oh, what's that your Honor? You'd prefer to lift it? Why of course, you may lift it instead.

Following is an excerpt from a story that on the surface appears completely unrelated... but the message is clear.

Crews fight fire with fire near town
Burns buffer Black Canyon City; I-17 stays open

Judi Villa
The Arizona Republic
Jul. 2, 2005 12:00 AM

Firefighters deliberately set ablaze thousands of acres of desert on Friday to stop the "Cave Creek Complex" fire from marching any closer to Black Canyon City.

The burnouts, designed to rob the fire of potential fuel, sent thick plumes of white and black smoke into the air but did not force the closure of Interstate 17. No evacuations were necessary, and officials don't expect any road closures during the holiday weekend. The fires were set about a mile east of Black Canyon City along a three-mile stretch of desert.

"Obviously the stakes are high," said Incident Commander Jeff Whitney. "The fire is so close right now to Black Canyon City that we have no choice. The fire has forced our hand."

Fighting fire with fire can be a risky gamble, but Whitney said it's also an effective tool. When the conflagration reaches the charred areas, it should burn itself out.

Shack... howdy...

I like your thought process -- the kinds of interesting questions I enjoy in discussion. In this case, they are easy to answer. Agression can be answered with equal force. (Locke might say we have a duty to respond, due to the source of our natural rights, but that's another tangent, and I've been moving away from Locke due to his misinterpretation of the "state of nature" [no consideration of free market exchange]) Souter initiated the agressive action through his decision. We are fully justified to support retaliation.

[shack777]

I agree. An eye for an eye -- that's justice.

The man is supposed to be interpreting the constitution, not re-defining it. He simply knows better than this. This kind of betrayal is not acceptable. The 5 justices responsible for this deserve nothing less than to lose their property, not to us, or to some developer, but to their own irresponsible actions. They can blame themselves. If this is the only way to bring accountability back into our political system, then so be it.

In fact, I've heard about a beautiful ranch in Crawford, Texas, that could potentially bring in millions in annual tax revenue, if we turn it into a casino, or a grocery store... or even a gas station, for all I care. Make it a homeless shelter, then Bush can stay there even after we take it.

These people are disgusting traitors, and I only hope that they die a traitor's death.

...and yet we can't decide whether we are going against our principles to support throwing Souter out of his house... They love it. They can trample us, and we still come to their defense... They can take more than half of our life's labor and waste half that, tear down our homes, take away every single right "protected" by the constitution, warp the minds of our children, send them away to die in wars we don't believe in, and yet some of us are willing to defend them in the name of "non-violence."

Justice will be served. To those who trample on others, or to those who stand aside while others are being trampled, in the name of non-violence.

[Ron Helwig]

Souter initiated the agressive action through his decision. We are fully justified to support retaliation.

While I certainly agree that using force against Souter is a valid and justified response to his participation in this aggression, I would not say he initiated it. He is a co-conspirator and has aided and abetted the initiators (the town officials).

[Michael Fisher]

The definition of justice is "morally right".  Therefore, justice is in the eye of the beholder.  Justice depends on a specific morality.

If "an eye for an eye" is your morality, then taking Souter's home is justice from your point of view.

If the golden rule is your morality, then unilateral forgiveness is justice from your point of view.

This debate has been very useful to me.  It helps to hone the arguments necessary to explain my action.  Thanks for opposing me. 

[AlanM]

The definition of justice is "morally right".? Therefore, justice is in the eye of the beholder.? Justice depends on a specific morality.

If "an eye for an eye" is your morality, then taking Souter's home is justice from your point of view.

If the golden rule is your morality, then unilateral forgiveness is justice from your point of view.

This debate has been very useful to me.? It helps to hone the arguments necessary to explain my action.? Thanks for opposing me.?

Mike, I don't see how unilateral forgiveness springs logically from the Golden Rule. If it is your morality, I can see that you would not seek to take his house, because you wouldn't want your house taken, but forgiveness has nothing to do with it. Cold hard reality has something to do with it.

[erich]

The definition of justice is "morally right".? Therefore, justice is in the eye of the beholder.? Justice depends on a specific morality.

If "an eye for an eye" is your morality, then taking Souter's home is justice from your point of view.

If the golden rule is your morality, then unilateral forgiveness is justice from your point of view.

This debate has been very useful to me.? It helps to hone the arguments necessary to explain my action.? Thanks for opposing me.?

Mike, I don't see how unilateral forgiveness springs logically from the Golden Rule. If it is your morality, I can see that you would not seek to take his house, because you wouldn't want your house taken, but forgiveness has nothing to do with it. Cold hard reality has something to do with it.

It sounds like Mike is adding an assumption to his logic, that everyone wants forgiveness all the time.? I can see why this might seem to be a non-controversial assumption, but I am not sure that it is necessarily true.? However, I must say that this should be a "safe" assumption,? and I have great respect for anyone who can consistently incorporate this into their daily actions.

[erich]

I base my point on the following quote being the Golden Rule.? And judging from some posts on the FSP forum, I do not think this is the same Golden Rule that Mike has in mind.? What I have always heard in the Golden Rule is a message of consistency, not necessarily universal forgiveness, however, I think that consistency IS an expression of universal love, which I endorse.  And "love" here is strictly agape,  not eros, nor philios:

"Treat others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same exact situation."

as expounded in this short essay:

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm

[AlanM]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This is the Golden Rule as I was taught it.
One thing the Golden Rule does not help us with is dealing with an action we find wrong, perpetrated on us by another. At least not completely. It implies we should not reciprocate in a manner in which we would not accept if the shoe were on the other foot.
SSJC has taken a stance. If you use the reasoning of the Golden Rule, then they accept the consequences that the thing they have endorsed is acceptable to be done to them. Yet if I do not accept their original premise as valid, am I then morally prevented from reciprocating in kind? A paradox.

[Michael Fisher]

Mike, I don't see how unilateral forgiveness springs logically from the Golden Rule. If it is your morality, I can see that you would not seek to take his house, because you wouldn't want your house taken, but forgiveness has nothing to do with it. Cold hard reality has something to do with it.

I guess even the Golden Rule can be subjective, but by that rule, I mean unilateral love and forgiveness. ?If I do not specify this, then people claim such things as "if I were Souter, I would want my house to be bulldozed". ?That type of statement shows just how subjective the Golden Rule can be, which is why I must define it from my point of view. ?*shrug*