Opposing individual perps rather than institutions

[Dave Ridley]

One of the New london resisters had an idea I wanted to pass along...

He says we all ought to rethink the idea of just speaking out against institutions and companie...he thinks it's better to single out key individuals.   He says only a tiny number of people are really behind the eminent domain abuse in most places, so they should be named and focused on, rather than the coprs or bureaucracies which they hide behind.   What do you guys think of that idea?

[error]

Often it is a greedy, corrupt politician -- or several of them -- driving these sorts of abuses.

They absolutely should be named and publicly shamed.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Easier to intimidate individuals

[error]

From Cato's Letters No. 15:

That men ought to speak well of their governors, is true, while their governors deserve to be well spoken of; but to do publick mischief, without hearing of it, is only the prerogative and felicity of tyranny: A free people will be shewing that they are so, by their freedom of speech.

The administration of government is nothing else, but the attendance of the trustees of the people upon the interest and affairs of the people. And as it is the part and business of the people, for whose sake alone all publick matters are, or ought to be, transacted, to see whether they be well or ill transacted; so it is the interest, and ought to be the ambition, of all honest magistrates, to have their deeds openly examined, and publickly scanned: Only the wicked governors of men dread what is said of them; Audivit Tiberius probra queis lacerabitur, atque perculsus est. The publick censure was true, else he had not felt it bitter.

Freedom of speech is ever the symptom, as well as the effect, of good government. In old Rome, all was left to the judgment and pleasure of the people; who examined the publick proceedings with such discretion, and censured those who administered them with such equity and mildness, that in the space of three hundred years, not five publick ministers suffered unjustly. Indeed, whenever the commons proceeded to violence, the great ones had been the aggressors.

Guilt only dreads liberty of speech, which drags it out of its lurking holes, and exposes its deformity and horror to day-light.

[Dave Ridley]

whoops I left off the first sentence of the initial post... just went back and inserted it.

[Dave Ridley]

So who are some of the most blatant perps that we can affect, and what if anything should we do about it?

[David]

This is a toughie.  These are the arguments I have in my head.  Here are both sides written out.

Go after the perps.  It is the individual who pushes forward with legal thefts and restrictions in business, ect..  In the process of stopping someones use of power, we interfere in their personal agenda anyway.  So to try to avoid making enemies is a waste of time.  You can't make allies out of those that want to hurt you.  It is the individual that is responsible for his/her actions.  When you combat any normal crime, you do so at the point of responsibility.  Exp. drunk drivers don't cause wrecks, in is John Doe and his truck that ran the stop sign that hit Lucy.

Go after institutions.  By not going after the perps, you have a chance, according to Dr. King of making allies.  The problem of just focusing on the perps is that many of their ideas are widely held beliefs.  It is not the perp, but the legitimization of force that we want to challenge, in other words the belief.  Also, going after the individual leads you open to the charge of being politically motivated.  Without the power structure to support the powerseekers, no one, not even hitler could have been as destructive as they are.  Going after perps is like opposing clinton for allowing the massecre at waco, once his term was over he was simply replaced by someone worse, who massecres people in Iraq.

This is the actual approach I lean to:
Gov'ts greatest strenght is their use of force and threats of force upon innoscents.  Inherit in this is that it creates victims. 
Anytime you have very limited numbers and funds, you must out of neccessity focus your efforts in the most narrow way possible.  Much of what the gov't does is not really bad if they did not use force and fraud to do it. 
Our point of focus should be the legitimization of the initiation of force.   
If we can delegitimize the use of force, we will see less of it.  To do this we will have to show the effects of first strike force and fraud.  This must happen at an emotional level. 

[lildog]

One of the New london resisters had an idea I wanted to pass along...

He says we all ought to rethink the idea of just speaking out against institutions and companie...he thinks it's better to single out key individuals.   He says only a tiny number of people are really behind the eminent domain abuse in most places, so they should be named and focused on, rather than the coprs or bureaucracies which they hide behind.   What do you guys think of that idea?

Great idea!

Often times if its a politican, if you can bring this type of stuff to light you can make changes by getting that person tossed out on their back sides!

[error]

Going after bureaucratic institutions is good for exposing those institutions for what they are, but the problem won't be a bureaucracy in every case, but traceable to a single politician. In those cases, that single politician should be publicly censured, and should "feel it bitter."

[Dave Ridley]

<<Our point of focus should be the legitimization of the initiation of force. >>

Ive been thinking along those exact lines too.  You don't need to stop the bad law from being passed, or that bad person from coming to a position of power, if you can make it impractical for them to initiate force.

[Spencer]

Pfizer could be severely damaged with a national boycott campaign.

How about a Michael Moore style documentary involving Pfizer and its executives?

By the way, here's some nice Pfizer-isms:

The following are from Pfizer's "Vision & Values"

INTEGRITY
We demand of ourselves and others the highest ethical standards, and our products and processes will be of the highest quality.

RESPECT FOR PEOPLE
We recognize that people are the cornerstone of Pfizer's success, we value our diversity as a source of strength, and we are proud of Pfizer's history of treating people with respect and dignity.

COMMUNITY
We play an active role in making every country and community in which we operate a better place to live and work, knowing that the ongoing vitality of our host nations and local communities has a direct impact on the long-term health of our business.

PERFORMANCE
We strive for continuous improvement in our performance, measuring results carefully, and ensuring that integrity and respect for people are never compromised.

[Spencer]

I stand corrected (assuming that the following "Pfizer Statement on Eminent Domain" is to be believed):

Contrary to some recent media reports, eminent domain has played no part in the development by Pfizer of its Global Research and Development Headquarters in New London CT. In fact, our offices, completed in 2001, were built on an industrial "brown field". Pfizer worked with the State on remediation and clean up of the polluted site—formerly an abandoned mill and a scrap yard.

The recent Supreme Court ruling concerned an appeal by homeowners of property, located in a nearby neighborhood. They objected to the use of eminent domain by the City as part of its redevelopment plan. Pfizer was not a party to that litigation, had no stake in the outcome of the case and has no requirements nor interest in the development of the land that is the subject of the case. Pfizer will not acquire any property there.

We at Pfizer have been dismayed to see false and misleading claims appear in the media that suggest Pfizer is somehow involved in this matter. Pfizer continues to be a good neighbor in Southeastern Connecticut, as it has for over 50 years. Our decision to expand here and help revitalize an industrial site in an economically depressed city was motivated by our desire to share the benefits of our economic success with the community where we work and live.

We have brought considerable benefit to New London and met or exceeded all our promises to the City and the State. We brought 1500 jobs to New London. We are now the city's largest single taxpayer and we are, by far, the most generous contributor to philanthropic causes. In New London and elsewhere, our actions are guided by strict adherence to the law, by strong ethical standards and by civic responsibility.

[tracysaboe]

This could be expedient. However, over the long term, I don't believe it will make much of an impact in unraveling the institution.

We ARE against the intitution's themselfs. They, by their nature, attract and creat ecorruption and perversion. Going after the individuals, send a message that "Now that the bad person is out, government will work now." And that message is nonsense.

However, in defending individuals in NH from government attacks, you need every angle possible to help defend their person, liberty and property. So you might need to resort to attacking the individual tyrant for expediency in helping said individual.

Tracy

[Russell Kanning]

They are lying.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Probably.  I think Pfizer was the impetus for the theft, but, ended up building that complex to the south.  I think now it is more about condos and hotels. (Hmm...check into a hotel for a 3 day stay with a suitcase full of herring?).
As it is unlikely that the powers that be won't change their minds and make things right for the victims, unless the project runs into an incredible amount of bad luck, we will who builds what over the grave of that neighborhood.
(hmm....in three days I could bury the herring behind the drywall, patch and paint the wall and maybe even get the 'just painted' smell out....)