Kelo Report, Part 1

[Dreepa]

I am sick of the CT politicos saying they are outraged.
If you are so outraged then pass a state law to prohibit the stealing of people's homes.

[Russell Kanning]

I shouldn't read this earlier in the morning cuz it just makes me pissed.

"But the New London Development Corporation says it has every right to take over these homes because the agency took possession of them through eminent domain back in 2000, a move eventually backed by the US Supreme court this summer."

Think of it this way ..... supposedly the NLDC took their houses in 2000 and they are still living in them.
Do you have to pay property taxes on a house the NLDC owns?

[Dreepa]

I would guess not.
did they have to pay capital gains on the houses for the escrow money?

[FTL_Ian]

I emailed the seven homeowners today suggesting they arm themselves, and send out a press release 30 days out from the eviction deadline threatening to shoot anyone who attempts to enforce the eviction.  One responded saying they were not leaving!

[Lloyd Danforth]

I think that any of us who are not likely to even attend a protest over this should probably keep our suggestions to ourselves.
In CT the threat of violence you suggest is probably legal grounds for confiscating their weapons.

[president]

Maybe Ian can go up to CT and defend the houses.
Let's make a press release for it.

[FTL_Ian]

I think that any of us who are not likely to even attend a protest over this should probably keep our suggestions to ourselves.
In CT the threat of violence you suggest is probably legal grounds for confiscating their weapons.

Fuck that.  I suggested it on-air tonight.

I think more people need to suggest that they will defend their rights with violence.  The government must again fear the people.

[Lloyd Danforth]

What the Ft trumbull people need is several thousand people to commit to go to their neighborhood and occupy it until the New London development corp agrees to drop their plan to take the properties. Not Lip Service!

[TackleTheWorld]

I think more people need to suggest that they will defend their rights with violence.? The government must again fear the people.

I agree with Ian.  If you are not going to use force to defend your home from intruders, when are you?  If you wait 'till your broken naked body is thrown into a December snowbank, you won't have much strength.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Even the threat of armed violence will rachet up the response to a Reno-Clinton wacko-Waco Rule of Law response.

No one should have to die to stop this taking.

A pledge should be made by the people of Connecticut to not support Pfizer or any NLDC tenant business that moves in to the stolen 90 acre complex.? Just as the people of New York should boycott all businesses affiliated with the NY Times new hq under construction.? From a world wide news impact a protest at the Times construction site simultaneously with the Ft. Trumbull eviction attempt would? impact pols. nationwide to get off their fat asses and do something quickly.

The "fuck that" response is indicative of all talk radio.? Incite the violence and sit back and watch gleefully.? ?

Willing to provide temporary safe haven in NH to the Kelo 7 if they decide to lease their properties to "holdover tenants" near the end so that they are not involved in the violence that may occur if the shit truly hits the fan.

Good non-violent protesters may get entangled with other groups willing to use deadly force.? This is not going to be easy.

Agree with Lloyd.? ?Unless your ass and podcast is live on the line from Ft. Trumbull go "fuck" yourself.

What are the chances of a picket line in front NLDC for 45 days.? Can we rotate 10 people a day down to Ft. Trumbull to get the NLDC to cut out the Kelo 7 property and give it back to the rightfull owners.? Let's put NLDC out of business and render them totally ineffective.? They will be the laughing stock of the world.? Do we have the names of every member of the NLDC?? ?Let's turn up the heat.?

I see little hope for any of the rational suggestions above.  During the larger of the protests over this, there were so few people, they kept us corralled on the sidewalk in front of city hall.  If enough people gave a damn about this the city should have been gridlocked!

I'm thinking that if the FT Trumbull people depend on the help of outsiders, they're screwed.  I doubt that most of them are as willing  to shoot authorities as some on this forum are for them to, but, if they do, they will be screwed and dead.

[president]

I think that any of us who are not likely to even attend a protest over this should probably keep our suggestions to ourselves.
In CT the threat of violence you suggest is probably legal grounds for confiscating their weapons.

Fuck that.  I suggested it on-air tonight.

I think more people need to suggest that they will defend their rights with violence.  The government must again fear the people.

Put your bullets where your mouth is. 

[FTL_Ian]

The "fuck that" response is indicative of all talk radio.  Incite the violence and sit back and watch gleefully.   

Please.  I would rather not see this come to violence, but these landowners have pledged to not give up their properties.  I've spoken with a number of them.  They mean business.  They believe their homes are their castles.  They've taken it this far, and are not going to back down.  Threatening violence is a legitimate response to threatened violence.  I suggested legal avenues be explored first, so please don't lump me in with the rest of talk radio.  The fact is, if they really want to evict these people, they are going to have to use force.  I'm all for creative solutions and protests, but if it comes down to it, blood may be spilled.  This is not a Waco situation, unlike Waco, these are regular people, not a wacky cult, so it will be difficult for the media to spin the story in favor of the government.  Opinion polls after the Supreme Court decision showed 90+% in favor of the landowners.  I can't see that number going down much because they threaten the state with violence.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Opinion polls after the Supreme Court decision showed 90+% in favor of the landowners.? 

If this is true, where are the protesters?  A thousand or so, perhaps even several hundred people willing to stop authorities from entering these people's properties would go a lot further then the threat of violence.
The whole world (I hope) will be watching, I doubt they will arrest hundreds of people.

[FTL_Ian]

Opinion polls after the Supreme Court decision showed 90+% in favor of the landowners.   

If this is true, where are the protesters?  A thousand or so, perhaps even several hundred people willing to stop authorities from entering these people's properties would go a lot further then the threat of violence.
The whole world (I hope) will be watching, I doubt they will arrest hundreds of people.

The 80% 20% rule is always in effect, Lloyd.  While it is a wonderful fantasy to believe all those who would vote in a poll would actually do something more concrete, alas it is merely a fantasy.

First, not everyone even voted in the poll, but of those 90% that did, most of them are busy with their own lives, and as horrible as they think the land grab is, more horrible would be losing their jobs.  Then they couldn't put food on the table, or keep the power on.  They are so busy with life, because they are working half the time just to pay taxes!  So, there's no way you'll get them to show up at a protest.

So, about 20% of the 90% are even prospects to show at a protest, and 20% is awfully liberal when it comes to activism.  If you could successfully contact all 20%, you may get at most 20% of the 20% to actually show up at your protest if you're lucky and the issue is really hot.  Of course, you don't know who those 20% are, so you can't actually contact them, therefore you promote the event through typical Liberty channels, and maybe manage to get some press coverage of the plans.  So, since you're promoting through the usual channels, you'll get the usual activists, plus a small amount of concerned newbies.

Of course all of this is one reason why there exists an FSP.  Because us activists are sick of being the only person or two at a protest or outreach event...  I really hope hundreds of people show up to defend Ft. Trumbull, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Michael Fisher]

The other day, I met a brilliant man who did not yet know about libertarianism, but understands the concept of the soveriegn individual and most of austrian economics. ?He taught me a good lesson about nonviolence when I told him about the outlaw manicure event, the Souter protests, etc.

He said that I may be saying you don't want a fight, but I probably do, just like a cop. ?Cops get the job and claim they "don't want a fight", but that's exactly what they want.

I have to make sure that, in my own heart, I really do not want a fight, and that I will protect even my enemy from oppression and violence. ?Actions like the Souter eminent domain protest helped me to solidify this stand. ?I will never use or propose violence except as protection from an immediate threat of death or injury.

Look at the protestors in Ireland. ?This week, when their parade route was banned, instead of using nonviolent noncooperation and holding their parade regardless of the ban, they decided that it would be better to kill government agents and destroy and burn everything in sight. ?They COULD have had enormous public support after being mass-arrested for a peaceful parade, especially after their earlier vow of nonviolence. ?Instead, they chose to feed the government with violence, fire, destruction, and death. ?In the end, the government will win. ?They will lose. ?End of story.

Even the threat of violence feeds the government.

This is not a question of pacifism, it's a question of what works. ?Against governments, nonviolent noncooperation works best, IMO. ?Nonviolent noncooperation undermines violent cooperation, the nature of governments. ?Governments see acts of nonviolent noncooperation and wonder who to shoot and what excuse to make up for shooting them. ?It's beyond their comprehension that people will refuse to the death to be governed.

The only problem with nonviolent noncooperation is that someone must be willing to inflict self-suffering for freedom.

Nonviolent noncooperation ideas for these people in CT:

-Organize a march through various cities to bring thousands of people to the city hall and do a blockade.

-Organize a march through various cities to bring thousands of people to the homes as a show of solidarity to protect them.

-Nonviolent fasting, by members the families or others. ?This could be done if jailed or after their homes are taken away.

-If they are arrested for trespassing on their own property, organize a march to bring thousands of people to the jail where they are being held and peacefully protest.

-Peacefully blockade the police to stop the families from being arrested. ?When police come to arrest the families, surround the homes with people and form a border around the property. ?Stand in their way and tell the police they'll have to arrest you, too. ?Do not compromise, even under the threat of death.

-After the families are gone, blockade the property when the bulldozers come. ?Stand in front of them to protect the homes, even under the threat of death.

If you refuse to compromise in a nonviolent noncooperation event, the government has nothing to gain and everything to lose if it is done properly. ?By protesting properly, I mean noncooperating without anger, hatred, or malice in your heart toward the agents of the government. ?They are only people. ?This is about systems and methods, never about the people.

The more imprisonment, pain, injury, or death they inflict without cause, the more severe the consequences will be for the government. ?Remember, when the government arrests, hurts, or kills you in full view of the public, the government LOSES.