Souter's home to be taken?

[Michael Fisher]

This is a special case in which the property owner has said it is OK.?

He didn't say it was okay to take his home, only that taking in general is okay.

[Michael Fisher]

Here's my sign for tomorrow:

PROTECT EVEN
YOUR ENEMY
FROM OPPRESSION

That is, if I can get it to fit on my sign.   

[Lloyd Danforth]

This is a special case in which the property owner has said it is OK.?

He didn't say it was okay to take his home, only that taking in general is okay.

I fail to see how HIS home is different from Suzette's home.

However, I'll be visiting you on your side of the road Sunday

[shack777]

To take Souter's home is to make a mockery of his purely political decision, which all but destroys property rights in America.

If he fights it, he is a hypocrite, and we can use this to our advantage. If he doesn?t, then the Justice gets served

Souter is guilty of a "crime" against the American people, our form of government, and the very principles that brought him to power. He deserves to be punished, just as any other criminal should. Any person who commits such an offense against another individual or group, and refuses to own-up to it (by at least responding to the charges against him, one way or the other), NEEDS to be punished in the same manner and to the same extent as he has harmed others. This is the essence of Justice. To protect a thief from the natural consequence of his actions is to condone thievery? especially if he refuses to give his accusers the dignity of even a response.

I can understand forgiving those who trespass against you, but only if they admit that what they have done is wrong and pledge never to do it again. In Souter?s case, he should publicly apologize and rescind his ?vote? in the matter.

Souter is a powerful person, and I don't think he realizes, first-hand, the impact this decision will have on the people of this nation... I hope he doesn?t realize, that is. Souter thinks that he is more powerful than the American people. I think it's time we tell him, and every other justice, senator, and congressman (as this will surely scare them all from supporting similar usurpations), that they are not immune from their own tyranny, hypocrisy and corruption.

If for no other reason, Souter deserves to lose his home to his own foolish mistake, for the lesson he (and those like him) will learn.

[John]

I agree that souter "deserves" it!
I don't care what that little jerk deserves.

We deserve better!  I stand against his opinion.

We will soon see who stands with him - and who stands oposed.
I stand against Eminent Domain.

Please join me in Weare.
Please stand on the right side of this issue.  The world may (or may not) be watching you.

This is a big day.  Please stand on your principles.   Your principles are your fondation.  Don't let your fondation be shaken by the moment.

I'm going to learn a lot about my friends today.

[shack777]

Hi shack777, welcome to the forum!

I think that you are wrong about forgivness.? Your first error is in the understanding of the thought "vs." feeeling thing.

Forgivness is in fact a thought and a choice.? The feeling follows.

All feelings are the result of the thought proccess (or, in some cases, the lack thereof.)

It is true that choosing to forgive is the first step in forgiving someone. But unless you feel it, you haven't forgiven them.

"I can try to forgive you, but I don't know if I ever truly can."

[Gard]

HI...

I see what the commentators on both sides are saying, and wanted to add a few thoughts.

First, whether Souter gave his permission to take his personal property in Weare, or not, is irrelevant. His decision was about a specific case, obviously, but the effect it has is, as are most political decisions, general in its application. He has therefore taken aggresive action against all property owners, whether he is the one attempting to take property or not. He became complicit in every case that will appear from the moment his opinion in Kelo was handed down. His is a position different from an average citizen who might condone theft. He is complicit in its allowance, in its protection. He is, in effect, part of an aggressive mob, and telling all those who oppose theft that if they stand in the way of such takings, they will be prosecuted, punished, with state force.

Attempting to take the land of Souter is, by its nature, a defensive position, even if the people trying to take it are not those losing land in the Kelo case. The abstract threat posed to all of us allows us preemptive action. If somone threatened one of us, or all of us, by saying he was going to sanction and protect anyone who attempted to take our land, we would consider him a criminal due to the threat, consider our property in danger, and would be justified in taking action to protect that property.

But here is a question. If Souter had ruled on a life or death case, wherein a government wanted to take the lives of innocent citizens never charged with any crimes, and he said that the taking of an innocent life was alright if that taking was for some government tax benefit, would it be justified to take Souter's life? Ruminate on that. I'd be interested to read your responses.

-- Gard

[shack777]

Sure, their deaths have inspired millions, but what good does that do them?? It shouldn?t matter to you if your death inspires others ? unless you?re a vain, self-righteous hypocrite.

Are you listening to yourself?? ???

If I choose to use my life to help others, then I'm a vain, self-righteous hypocrite?? So be it.

If you choose to spend your life helping others and expect nothing in return then you are an altruist... that's a whole different conversation.

If you choose to spend your life antagonizing victims of crimes, and trying to make people think that their anger and desire for justice are immoral, then you are a misguided, over-zealous idealist.

In performing either of the above, or both simultaneously, if your subconscious goal is not ultimately to help others, but to become a martyr for a cause, then you are a vain, self-righteous hypocrite.

Understand that I am not calling any member of this board any names. I am simply trying to illustrate that even otherwise heroic actions can be saturated in vanity and self-lust.

"Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent, but the tests that have to be applied to them are not, of course, the same in all cases. In Gandhi's case the questions one feels inclined to ask are: to what extent was Gandhi moved by vanity - by the consciousness of himself as a humble, naked old man, sitting on a praying mat and shaking empires by sheer spiritual power - and to what extent did he compromise his own principles by entering politics, which of their nature are inseparable from coercion and fraud?" ----- George Orwell, 1949

http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/ShootingElephant/reflectionsgandhi.html

[shack777]

Bravo, Gard

[AlanM]

HI...

I see what the commentators on both sides are saying, and wanted to add a few thoughts.

First, whether Souter gave his permission to take his personal property in Weare, or not, is irrelevant. His decision was about a specific case, obviously, but the effect it has is, as are most political decisions, general in its application. He has therefore taken aggresive action against all property owners, whether he is the one attempting to take property or not. He became complicit in every case that will appear from the moment his opinion in Kelo was handed down. His is a position different from an average citizen who might condone theft. He is complicit in its allowance, in its protection. He is, in effect, part of an aggressive mob, and telling all those who oppose theft that if they stand in the way of such takings, they will be prosecuted, punished, with state force.

Attempting to take the land of Souter is, by its nature, a defensive position, even if the people trying to take it are not those losing land in the Kelo case. The abstract threat posed to all of us allows us preemptive action. If somone threatened one of us, or all of us, by saying he was going to sanction and protect anyone who attempted to take our land, we would consider him a criminal due to the threat, consider our property in danger, and would be justified in taking action to protect that property.

Explain to me how taking Souter's house by the very process we describe as wrong is a defensive position. It is nothing more then revenge. Is it all right to steal from a thief? To rape a rapist?

But here is a question. If Souter had ruled on a life or death case, wherein a government wanted to take the lives of innocent citizens never charged with any crimes, and he said that the taking of an innocent life was alright if that taking was for some government tax benefit, would it be justified to take Souter's life? Ruminate on that. I'd be interested to read your responses.

-- Gard

[KBCraig]

HI...

I see what the commentators on both sides are saying, and wanted to add a few thoughts.

First, whether Souter gave his permission to take his personal property in Weare, or not, is irrelevant. His decision was about a specific case, obviously, but the effect it has is, as are most political decisions, general in its application.

I don't believe it was about a specific case; SCOTUS cases seldom are. The majority ruling was clear: absent laws to the contrary, governments may take private property through eminent domain, in order to provide "public use" however the seizing authority defines that term.

He has therefore taken aggresive action against all property owners, whether he is the one attempting to take property or not. He became complicit in every case that will appear from the moment his opinion in Kelo was handed down. His is a position different from an average citizen who might condone theft. He is complicit in its allowance, in its protection. He is, in effect, part of an aggressive mob, and telling all those who oppose theft that if they stand in the way of such takings, they will be prosecuted, punished, with state force.

Excellent summary of Souter's status.

But here is a question. If Souter had ruled on a life or death case, wherein a government wanted to take the lives of innocent citizens never charged with any crimes, and he said that the taking of an innocent life was alright if that taking was for some government tax benefit, would it be justified to take Souter's life? Ruminate on that. I'd be interested to read your responses.

If Souter were to be targeted in the same way as those innocent people, then, yes; his ruling would apply to him as well. In the eminent domain issue, he does have the same status as Kelo, et al.; he owns property that someone else wishes to use for greater "public use".

If I could be in Weare, I'd be on both sides of the road, with a two-sided sign. Souter, and others like him, must be put on notice that they are not immune from their actions. And still, the actions they endorse are wrong, and must be fought wherever they appear.

On liberty-leaning forums such as this one, I've cheered the taking of Souter's home, because I believe few here actually support such an action. On other forums, I've argued against it, because those forums are where people need educating about our principles.

Good to see you posting, Gard. I can't get your station or streaming, so I hope you'll report back here with some of the discussion that takes places on your show.

Kevin

[Michael Fisher]

But here is a question. If Souter had ruled on a life or death case, wherein a government wanted to take the lives of innocent citizens never charged with any crimes, and he said that the taking of an innocent life was alright if that taking was for some government tax benefit, would it be justified to take Souter's life?

Of course it wouldn't be justified to take his life.

But that is only a consistent application of the terrible idea of "equal revenge" against judges.? Judges who do NOT aggress against anyone, but who only make opinions on a piece of paper.

In fact, we are all responsible for the government that gives their opinions any power, so we share some of the guilt of their decisions.

[Dave Ridley]

I won't get too deep into this debate since debate is not action, but here are the analogies that speak to me when it comes to this whole Souter Hotel business.

The first analogy is that comes to mind is the situation that existed in Western Europe during the "phony war..." the 8 months of relative calm which followed Germany's invasion of Poland.  Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at the time and wanted to lay waste to German shipping in the Rhine.  He had nursed into being an innovative fluival mine which could be released in French waters, upstream from Germany, and then allowed to float into the Reich.   Long before the Germans invaded France, the Old Man pronounced his "Operation Royal Marine" (release of the mines) ready for action.  But higher authorities wouldn't go along.   Fluivals would provoke the Germans, they said, escalate the war, might kill civilians, might float into Holland if the destruct timers failed.   So Churchill's Royal Marine Mines sat useless in a warehouse or some such for months, as the German ships came to and fro carrying their Panzers, troops and civilians into whatever spots the Fuhrer thought best for them.

And then one day the grey clad men and their machines came charging into France...not a one of them delayed or bothered by Mr. Churchill's "provacative" little mines.  France authorized their release into the Rhine after the invasion began, and they wreaked havoc on Germany's shipping - after it was too late to make any difference.

Then, as now, there was a failure to make use of every weapon appropriate to the situation.  The situation then was war, a war in which marine mines were already in extensive use by the Germans.  Today the situation is a political and PR struggle.  Weapons available to us include eminent domain. Our opponents, government officers who have betrayed their oaths, our rights and our liberties, wield it with near exclusivity and impunity.  Now we, the people, have the opportunity to reverse engineer this "captured weapon" and loose it upon one of their rivers, to attend some small discomfort - not upon a mix of people but directly upon a key perpetrator. Without introducing new "weapons" into the conflict, without threatening or perpetrating violence against anyone's person, we may if we chose take up one of the spears left in our comrade's side and thrust it back toward the aggressor.

The government is supposed to fear the people.  We are not now - and perhaps will not ever be - at a point where physical violence is the appropriate way to re-plant this fear in its mind.  As Claire Wolfe said we're past the spot where working in the system will save us but not at a point where you run into the woods with a rifle and try to overthrow the government.   Using government's powers against government officials seems like a proportionate and appropriate response, a happy medium between playing their game and playing the game of the bloodthirsty.  And I am pretty sure if the Old Man were with us in this circumstance, and had the chance to fight back this way, he would do it.

[jgmaynard]

Even if that means that helping Souter, who is partly responsible for this decision, may cause suffering to millions?

JM

The ends do not justify the means. The ends do not justify the means. The ends do not justify the means.

A right is a right is a right is a right.

That's your opinion. it is not mine.

Let's imagine that a terrorist organization were building nuclear weapons in a factory, which would murder MILLIONS of people, if the factory were allowed to continue operations. Hundreds of American cities decimated, millions of children dying in agony of radiation poisoning....

Now... As the very first bomb came out of the factory, you had one chance... ONE chance... to set of that first bomb in the factory itself, saving millions of families from destruction. Would you set it off?

In my opinion, it would be highly immoral not to do so....

To be partially responsible for millions of people suffering, just to "save" five aggressors, is wrong, IMNSHO.

And here we are not even talking about any violence whatsoever, simply showing them that the tyranny they vote for can be used against them, as well.

You're entitled to your opinion, that is simply mine.

JM

[AlanM]

Even if that means that helping Souter, who is partly responsible for this decision, may cause suffering to millions?

JM

The ends do not justify the means. The ends do not justify the means. The ends do not justify the means.

A right is a right is a right is a right.

That's your opinion. it is not mine.

Let's imagine that a terrorist organization were building nuclear weapons in a factory, which would murder MILLIONS of people, if the factory were allowed to continue operations. Hundreds of American cities decimated, millions of children dying in agony of radiation poisoning....

Now... As the very first bomb came out of the factory, you had one chance... ONE chance... to set of that first bomb in the factory itself, saving millions of families from destruction. Would you set it off?

In my opinion, it would be highly immoral not to do so....

To be partially responsible for millions of people suffering, just to "save" five aggressors, is wrong, IMNSHO.

You answered your own question when you refered to them as aggressors. Yes, you have the right to stop aggression.
The big question is to decide HOW to stop aggression. It makes no sense, to me, to argue that ED is wrong, then use it to show it is wrong.

And here we are not even talking about any violence whatsoever, simply showing them that the tyranny they vote for can be used against them, as well.

You're entitled to your opinion, that is simply mine.

JM