Lauren Canario arrested in New London

[Peter Borah]

The arrest was certainly immoral. I agree with that. I also agree that Lauren can do whatever she likes regarding civil disobedience. If she feels better by getting arrested, good for her.

However, portraying this as an effective protest is probably inaccurate. She was in fact trespassing, which as a violation of private property rights is against even libertarian principles. Yes, the legitimate (original, not ED) owners would have to complain for her to be required to leave, but nonetheless she was tresspassing. That just looks bad.

Check the comments on the digg.com story if you don't agree that that's how the public sees this.

[Russell Kanning]

The "public" does not determine morality.

If there is a rightful owner of that property .... it is that family that recently caved to the government. They do not have a problem with her being there.

If you are ultimately fall back on what is politically correct .... I cannot agree with you.

[lildog]

If there is a rightful owner of that property .... it is that family that recently caved to the government. They do not have a problem with her being there.

But once that family accepted money and willingly signed over that land, they are no longer the owner.  Now they should never have been put into that position in the first place but saying they are still the owner after they've accepted money isn't right either.

[Kat Kanning]

That is not technically true.  They were given a certain amount of time to remove everything from the building.  That time has not yet expired.

[lildog]

That is not technically true.  They were given a certain amount of time to remove everything from the building.  That time has not yet expired.

Based on the fact that they were bording up the building I'd have to say you are either incorrect or the owner agreed to an earlier date then you're aware of.

[slim]

I have been reading this thread and listening to the bickering back and forth. I think we can all agree that Eminent Domain is wrong and should never be used. Lauren is getting free press and public attention, as the saying goes there is no such thing as bad press. Lauren is doing what she thinks is right and I respect her decision. If someone does not agree with what she is doing get up and perform some activity that gets the same amount of press or more.

[FrankChodorov]

I think we can all agree that Eminent Domain is wrong and should never be used.

what is the philosophical justification for it?

[d_goddard]

I think we can all agree that Eminent Domain is wrong and should never be used.

what is the philosophical justification for it?

Everybody sing!

%This land was YOUR land,
but now its MY land%

[Lloyd Danforth]

If there is a rightful owner of that property .... it is that family that recently caved to the government. They do not have a problem with her being there.

But once that family accepted money and willingly signed over that land, they are no longer the owner.  Now they should never have been put into that position in the first place but saying they are still the owner after they've accepted money isn't right either.

Willingly?

[JonM]

What Lloyd, you question the legitimacy of negotiation at the point of a gun?

[lildog]

If there is a rightful owner of that property .... it is that family that recently caved to the government. They do not have a problem with her being there.

But once that family accepted money and willingly signed over that land, they are no longer the owner.  Now they should never have been put into that position in the first place but saying they are still the owner after they've accepted money isn't right either.

Willingly?

They could have accepted the money and not signed.

[Spencer]

I think we can all agree that Eminent Domain is wrong and should never be used.

what is the philosophical justification for it?

The philosophical justification is that the king granted the right to the land to the landowner and could, therefore, nullify the grant at his whim.

[Incrementalist]

Any other fairy tales you want to use to make your point?

That statement explains your ideology far better than anything else you could have said.

Howso?

Except that your point is specifically that we should avoid doing what we know is right if we find that the right thing to do is politically inexpedient.  That's what I call "selling your soul".

That's not what selling your soul is, so I can understand your confusion.  "Selling your soul" is when you lose sight of your endgame based on desire for something else, usually through opportunity offered by a third party.  My point is not to fight a battle that won't get you anywhere - an entirely different concept, both morally and logically.  If your goal is just to live your life as you see fit, that's fine and dandy.  But there's an entity standing in your way.  So in order to live your life as you see fit WITHOUT THAT ENTITY STANDING IN YOUR WAY, you need to fight.  In order, then, to live your life as you see fit without said interference, you need to alter your tactics.  No longer can you simply do what you feel is right, because that won't necessarily bring you closer to your goal.  You need to eliminate the entity standing in your way.

You want to know what's funny, Incrementalist?  What's funny is that what's "right" usually also ends up being the most pragmatic thing to do.  One thing I'm finding to be true is that even people who disagree with you politically will RESPECT AND LIKE you if you do what is right.

I appreciate the work of many who do what they think is right.  But there's no use taking a bullet for a lost cause, no matter how "right" it is.  Better to allow the cause to be lost and save yourself for a cause that stands a chance.  Much as war is diplomacy by other means, politics and political activism is war by other means.  Retreat is not an immoral tactic.  It's used to conserve resources for use in battles that can be won.

[Michael Fisher]

I can NOT BELIEVE there are people arguing that she was trespassing! 

Although the victims sold out to the government, it was under extreme duress. That property was literally stolen by the government. She was on land that no one morally owns, the "property owner," which does not exist, did not ask her to leave, and the government has no moral right to the stolen property.

Even if the government "owned" the property, that would make it public property, and she would still not be trespassing.

PLEASE, IF THERE IS A VICTIM HERE, STAND UP AND BE COUNTED!

...

I didn't think so.
I know BS when I see it. -->

[Incrementalist]

there are more cost effective ways to do this.

Here's the crux -- only LAUREN can decide what the cost is. She's the one doing the paying.

Yes, and as I mentioned earlier Lauren's personal motives are commendable.  But the movement decides what is lost and what could have been gained.  Of course, the idea of a "movement" is directly against the ZAP/anarchist ethic, so I'm barking up the wrong tree.