Souter's home to be taken?

[AlanM]

If I ignore people, because I wish to be ignored, is their an obligation for others to ignore me? To accede to the treatment I have shown a desire for? Or, because they wish to be friendly, and so act friendly to me, am I obligated to return their friendship? The Golden Rule does NOT eliminate disharmony, but gives a framework only, IMHO, for our actions. It is a general rule, but not an all-encompassing rule.

[erich]

"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.

At 7 pages of input, I will make only one last comment on this thread:

I think where people find the Golden Rule breaks down is when they try to fill in the blank with a concrete action, like buldozing a home.? As long as people are individuals and have different preferences, it will be impossible for a Golden Rule which refers to concrete actions to be a vehicle for advancing love and good relationships among people.? The blank has to be filled in with an abstraction, like "Be nice to them" or "Give them things THEY want for themselves, like you would hope they would give you things YOU want for yourself".? In this case Souter's great moral risk is that he demostrates a preference for the value and alleged good to the community that emminent domain takings produce.? I have to argue that demonstrating this preference in his ruling begs those who follow the Golden Rule to follow his demonstrated preference to its absurd logical end.? That if the city decides it is good for it, that his home should be bulldozed; he will get his reward in the form of appraised value compensation and the satisfaction of helping the local government.? To me it is the loving thing to do for the community, and for him as a member of the community, to teach the lesson of where Souter's ruling's logical ends lead.

As I have always maintained, the desired effect of this is a recanting of the flawed legal position by those who made precident of it and forgiveness of those officials who make a meaningful turn away from it.? This may be the source of some misunderstanding on this issue.? I want Souter to meaningfully turn away from his bad decision and save his property and that of his countrymen.? I am not out to *punish* him, but to shed light on the situation for the world to see, and show the error of this bad policy via natural consequences.

[tracysaboe]

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. 

I agree. This is a very very bad idea. THe NH Underground shouldn't support this endevor.

And quite frankly, any "good" that's marketed only to libertarians, isn't going to do that well. Their just isn't enough market share.

It certainly couldn't be a profitable business -- except on the teet of government eminent domain.

Reall, my big feal is that is will create a government beurocracy that is capible of taking people's homes. You think this is going to be a one-time thing? That's not how government works.

People here should really read the recent Lew Rockwell blog.

Tracy

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

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.

We're supposed to treat others as we would want to be treated. We wouldn't want somebody to steal our home -- so we shouldn't steal theirs.

Many people have perverted it into. "Well, he did this, so that's how I thought he wanted to be treated." but that's a perversion of the principle. We're suppost to treat others how we would like to be treated whether or not it's how he would like to be treated, and regardless of his moral code.

Tracy

[shack777]

The "golden rule" seems to break down when applying it to situations like these, simply because of our misapplication of the "rule." See, the Golden Rule isn't "forgive and forget," it's, "treat me like you'd want me to treat you." This can never be applied after someone has already been mistreated, for obvious reasons -- that's where justice comes into the equation.

The "golden rule" is a guideline -- a rule that applies when determining how to treat people, in general. It's about respect, trust, dignity and love, but mostly respect. It is not about deciding how someone should be punished for a crime, after the fact -- otherwise, there would never be any punishment for any crime. The Golden rule should apply before the crime has been commited. It's something for the criminal to think about, not the victim.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That's justice. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

Justice is not subjective. Justice is balance. Justice is truth. Justice is moral.

Forgiveness is not immoral, but it is amoral. It is a choice. It is mercy.

There is an old saying that comes to mind --

"Grace is when God gives you something you don't deserve. Mercy is when God doesn't give you something you do deserve."

...I would add that, "Justice is when God (or anyone else) gives you exactly what you do deserve." (an equal and opposite reaction)

[Michael Fisher]

If I ignore people, because I wish to be ignored, is their an obligation for others to ignore me? To accede to the treatment I have shown a desire for? Or, because they wish to be friendly, and so act friendly to me, am I obligated to return their friendship? The Golden Rule does NOT eliminate disharmony, but gives a framework only, IMHO, for our actions. It is a general rule, but not an all-encompassing rule.

That actually makes sense. ?The golden rule is subjective, so its parameters must be specified. ?Every religion cites the golden rule, but each teaches it in a different way. ?My golden rule, then, is unilateral love and forgiveness whenever possible, because that is how I would like to be treated.

The book "The Joy in Living" by Mother Teresa says this on a page I just opened it up to:

"We know that if we really want
to love, we must learn to forgive.
Forgive and ask to be forgiven;
excuse rather than accuse.
Reconciliation begins first,
not with others but with ourselves.
It starts with having a clean heart
within..."
-Mother Teresa

[shack777]

Allow me to add that forgiveness is only for those who wish to be forgiven, by confessing their transgressions and requesting forgiveness.

Forgiveness is not for those who refuse accept responibility for their actions, whether the action was a simple mistake or a more serious offense.

Think about it -- I'm not a christian anymore, but for those who are --

God give forgiveness to those who repent. Those who admit the error of their ways and aplogize. For those who don't, well, they get "justice."

[Dave Ridley]

Forwarded to me by Howard Wilson

-----Original Message-----
From: nhlibertarians@yahoogroups.com [mailto:nhlibertarians@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of mottoncouthUSA@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 12:34 AM
To: nhlibertarians@yahoogroups.com
Subject: NH Libertarians Forum: Hotel Lost Liberty Revisited over 1,000 times


Dear Group:
I found this link to a webpage where you can pledge to spend 7 days in Hotel Lost Liberty once completed.  This apparently helps establish credibility of the proposal, and shows that the project indeed will contribute to the local economy.  I wonder if there are any merchants in Weare that accept American Liberty Dollars. 

Anyways, here is the link.

http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel

Sincerely,
Jeremy Robert Furbish
AT-NH2ME2000
FSP-MN2NH2004
www.freestateproject.org
come blaze a trail to liberty!

[tracysaboe]

Mike, I finally got caught up on the Thread over at the FSP boards, and ended up making a flury of posts. You might want to take a look.

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=10267.150

Tracy

[Integrity]

   I think is is a great Idea,  what good medicine , Justis Souter seems to think that it is ok,  But it  is left short  this should be franchised,     there a four more Judges in other states to go, ???

[John]

The guy I learned most about forgivness from also points out that I can forgive you while at-the-same-time responding - and punching you right in the nose.
If I/you choose to live, it is sometimes nessesary that I/you respond in defence.  Yet, I/we can do it without hate - I can forgive you for the error of your ways --- without giving up my right to self defence.

Something I learned elsewere: Perhaps this relates a bit to the principles of Aikido?
If you come at me with full brute agresive force, and I redirect your energy so that your (silly/stupid/unfortunate/forgiven head smashes right into the wall, it is just a redirection of your energy.  You would only have been directed toward the distruction you seek . . .

I could still "feel" very sory for you - and even forgive you.  But, to forgive is not the same thing as forget.  We/I have one set of principles to protect:  I have a right/responcibility to protect Life & Liberty, . . . and I try to afford myself the "luxury" of doing so without hate.

I'm no angel.  I'm no saint.  I just try to do the right things.
I'm no warrrior.  I just have principles that I MUST defend.

Here I am - still - standing in the middle of the road - all of you are right in some ways.
Can you see me leaning?

[Michael Fisher]

"In the old days, a swordsman would let an enemy slice the surface of
his skin in order to cut into his enemy's flesh; sometimes he would
even sacrifice his flesh in order to slash through to the enemy's bone.
In Aikido, such an attitude is unacceptable.  We want both attacker
and defender to escape unharmed.  Rather than risk injury to attain
victory, you must learn how to lead your partner.  Control an opponent
by always putting yourself in a secure, safe place."
-Morihei Ueshiba

"In my Aikido, there are no opponents, no enemies.  I do not want to
overwhelm everyone with brute strength, nor do I want to smash
every challenger to the ground.  In true budo there are no opponents,
no enemies.  In true budo we seek to be one with all things, to return
to the very heart of creation.  The purpose of Aikido training is not
to make you simply stronger or tougher than others; it is to make
you a warrior for world peace.  This is our mission in Aikido."
-Morihei Ueshiba

In Aikido, there are no enemies, just as is the case with Gandhi's principles of nonviolence.  In both systems, someone may end up hurting themselves if they attack you, but you must do everything you can to first protect yourself from harm, then protect the attacker from harm if at all possible.

[Michael Fisher]

"If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends.  You talk to your enemies."
-Mother Teresa

"Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend".
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Always forgive your enemies... nothing annoys them so much."
-Oscar Wilde

"When you are offended at any man's fault, turn to yourself and study your own failings. Then you will forget your anger."
-Epictetus

"There is no revenge so complete as forgiveness."
-Josh Billings

"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong."
-Mahatma Gandhi

"To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover that the prisoner was you."
-Lewis B. Smedes

"Sin with the multitude, and your responsibility and guilt are as great and as truly personal, as if you alone had done the wrong."
-Tyron Edwards

"Compassion is the basis of morality."
-Arnold Shopenhauer

"Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality.  This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."
-Martin Luther King Jr.

I propose that we forgive and forget what Mr. Souter has done, not the system he used to do it.  An evildoer can be forgiven, but a system of perpetual evil should not be forgiven until it is stopped, and should never be forgotten.

Our fight is not with Mr. Souter, it is with the system of eminent domain which existed long before Mr. Souter and may continue to exist long after we are dead if we do nothing to stop it.

[jgmaynard]

Well, that's not really it, Mike...... It is not personal, really - Let's say we get Souter to move - If it were personal, we would follow him wherever he went, taking home after home from him. I don't think anyone wants that, or would even suggest it. We're using the system to fight the system, NOT to harass five judges into a life of heck.

But what it might do is to get legislators to pass sweeping protections from emminent domain protections NOW, seeing the backlash from the public that has resulted, then millions of familuies can be spared the agony of loss of property.

The question I think you need to ask yourself (and I mean this in a completely respectful way) is
IF this could stop emminent domain in its tracks, and
IF it could save, say, five million familes from loss of their homes and
IF your opposition to it were to work to stop Souters home from being taken

Have you then saved five families, or do you hold partial responsibility for 4,999,995 familes losing their homes?

Please understand I mean this with the greatest respect, but I think it is something that needs to be considered.

JM

[Ron Helwig]

Let's say we get Souter to move - If it were personal, we would follow him wherever he went, taking home after home from him.

Hey, great idea!

If I was elected President, immediately after being sworn in I would say "Don't sit down yet Chief Justice. You are under arrest. The charges against you are secret and under the auspices of the PATRIOT act I don't have to tell you. You are hereby to be flown to Guantanamo along with your co-conspirators."