Breyer and the State

Maybe I'm more spiteful than you, but I don't really have a problem with doing it out of spite. On the other hand, using the proceeds to make the Kelo defendants whole does seem vastly superior.

No no, this is very simple: rights are based on moral agency and the assumption of reciprocity. Those who choose not to respect rights don't get theirs respected in return. Ethically, as far as I'm concerned, doing this to Souter and Breyer is totally kosher because they've signalled their unwillingness to respect property rights. Making these pinheads understand the consequences of their actions in an up-close-and-personal way will go a long way in making state power much less attractive to them.

I do prefer your idea of giving their property to the plaintiffs, but if they intended to do that then they wouldn't actually have any chance of winning.

Souter, etc., have explicitly opted into a system where the majority may apropriate property. In the same way that Lysander Spooner did not accept the US Constitution as a social contract ("Constitution of no Authority"), Souter, etc., ARE explicitly opting in to such a system.

(They are also asserting that the rest of us are bound to such a system, which (a) goes even further; (b) is an immoral act of agression; (c) is not particularly relevant to this conversation.

Having opted in to the system, and having explicitly condoned the extent of the system, Souter has, in a very real sense, signed a contract saying that we have his permission to take his house.

Imagine a freely entered contract for a hippy commune, built on private land (something that no libertarian should be averse to the existance of). Clause 1 is something about the Earth-Mother. Clause 2 is the dress code (naked, bodypaint, or tie-dye ONLY), ... clause 50 is the building code on the commune (all structures have to be "organic")...and clause 191 is "upon a majority vote of commune members, any structure may be torn down and replaced with a communal pot farm.

No, imagine a hippy who signs that contract, receives a "deed" to his property, builds his geodesic dome home, and then finds that 80% of the other hippies want t o replace his dome with fields of waving pot.

On what basis can he object?

Now, someone who owns a house abutting the commune, and who did not sign the incorporation papers would have a good argument as to why his house could not be torn down.

...but Souter's actions are analgous to someone who not only signs the contract, but argued that clause 191 allows, despite the explicit wording, the destruction of a hippy house for purposes other than pot growing.

Why, exactly, should we not look at Souter's signature on the paper, then seize his house and knock it down?

This sounds a lot like the Shelling point stuff Micha linked to before.

Scott, if you can't blame Breyer for the expansive reading of the takings clause that he voted for in Kelo, who can you blame? Is it possible to slide this far into socialism with nobody to blame at all?

Can we not justly retaliate against those who steal our freedom? If this is not a measured and proportionate retaliation, what would be? Writing a letter? Voicing strong disapproval on a blog?

Classic tit for tat seems to be the same thing as two wrongs making a right. Which they may very well do.

Now that I think about it longer, I think you have the better of the argument.

No, it's classic tit for tat. It's like advocating tolerance for everyone but the intolerant, or violence only toward the violent. Unconditional tolerance or nonviolence is not sustainable, and unconditional respect for rights (for those who disrespect them) is unilateral ethical disarmament.

That's a fair point, but it sounds awfully similar to "two wrongs making a right," which I'm not entirely sure they do.

I shall consider recuperation of the Kelo family with the Breyer property. With 167 acres, there is plenty of room to hide a few more cabins...:wink:

Mr McIntosh is entirely right. One might argue that the Kelo majority opinion describes a list of acceptable terms of sale of the property of the Kelo Five, and so eminent domain of their property cannot be construed as force any more than someone stopping by with a truck when I put a couch on the curb with a "FREE" sign on it. I personally would be against applying Kelo to anybody but the Kelo Five as well as the defendants (New London, NL officials, New London Development Corp, its directors and officers, etc).

The general public tend to look at us libertarians as pedants and boors when we rant about how others are not complying with our principles. They have a point. I think the potential for effective political theater is far better served when we merely hold statists up to their own standards and find them wanting (or squealing). As a result of this story, quite a few folks have commented in what a joy it was to discover that libertarians have a sense of humor...

I just want to point out, in case somebody missed it, that the commenter above, Mike Lorrey, is one of the parties who first proposed seizing Justice Breyer's land.

Ayup, thats me.

I want to point out that there are still three more Justices worth going after. I know Justice Kennedy has property in Sacramento, so Patri and the Bay area folks might want to organize something. Justice Stevens has property somewhere in the Chicagoland area, and possibly in Springfield, Il as well. Ginsberg is a NYC gal. All of the Kelo Five have property in the DC area as well. A few of the most vengeful folks I've heard from have suggested that these justices are so dumb that it may take making them all move every six months for the message to sink in...

Some have speculated as to what would happen if Souter appealed an eminent domain action on his house all the way to the SCOTUS. Being a party, he of course could not judge his own case, leaving 8 justices. If Breyer were a party in a similar case, he'd have to recuse himself, then the number is down to 7, and the vote would be 4-3 in favor of Souter, returning the definition of eminent domain back to its original intent....