RoR: Forum

Well, what opportunities are there now to exploit for freedom lovers? Local actions!

--Brant

Post 21

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 5:18pm

Kelo et al v. City of New London. This case should become as emblazoned a household name as Roe v. Wade or any other momentous case. Without any belittlement to 9/11, this does what the thug terrorists never could do: nullifies mans ability to exist qua man in the one nation on earth where he could come closest to doing so. This IS FUNDAMENTAL. Who is John Galt? Will we ask questions? scream like a mystic at the powers that be? Or, as Brian mentioned, will we finally step away from the screaming and the rhetoric and remove our sanction of this most fundamental evil? At some point, true courage will have to take the place of bitching and moaning.

Post 22

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 6:57pm

Brian-

You're fond of dropping the name Irwin Schiff. I'm familiar with him. I've read one of his books and other smaller writings.

About ten years ago near my hometown a group of tax protestors were arrested while in a meeting, resulting in fines and jail times for most of them. They were basing their group's ideas off those of Schiff.

Taxes are theft. They are immoral and unjustifiable. If you can avoid them, bully for you. Attempting to avoid robery by informing the thief that his actions are illegal, however, is fruitless lunacy.

Congratulation if Schiff's obsession over legal minutae has worked for you thus far to keep your money. The IRS doesn't have the manpower to pursue everyone immediately, and in keeping under the radar you've been lucky. Certainly luckier than Irwin Schiff himself - who has incurred substantial fines and even jailtime while repeatedly losing legal battles with the government.

Post 23

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 7:28pm

I have spent the better part of the day considering what action could realistically be taken in response to this travesty. The only thought that comes to me is that this is such a grievous injustice that it might actually act a rallying cry for a broad segment of the population. I would suggest that every libertarian-oriented organization get mobilized behind an effort to create a constitutional amendment that would guarantee individual property rights in clear, unambiguous terms. If this legislation could be put forward by someone such as Ron Paul, and if enough noteworthy persons could make enough noise and generate enough press, then there might be a small chance of actually getting something passed.

I believe that this is a watershed event in the US. If the public doesn't rise up against this ruling and complain loud, long and hard, then I think we are destined for a rapid acceleration towards a total loss of freedoms that has already taken a giant leap in the post 9/11 years.

I intend to begin writing letters to everyone I can think of that might be in a position to exercise influence over the politicians and press and I would encourage everyone else to do the same. Please share any other concrete ideas you think of.
--
Jeff

Post 24

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 8:11pm

Jeffery,

    I was at work today when I got this news. I am appalled, and even a bit scared by this ruling. As far as what other organizations have been doing, I can tell you that I received a flurry of emails from every Libertarian-oriented organization that I am a member of. I have also been all over the web and on the phone to my closest acquaintances in this movement, and outrage is an understatement. I will be writing letters as well... I am also brainstorming for other ways that I can express myself. Just know that this is no small issue in the world of freedom-loving individuals. This has the potential to be huge, I believe... just judging from the amount of email and calls that I have gotten alone.

   I think one of the biggest things we can to is to start talking to our non-O'ist friends and co-workers, and even our families. Take some time to explain what this means: most people are rightly preoccupied with their own lives, and most are under the false thought that the government always follows the rules: that they would never seriously injure our liberties. But this is so black and white: the government can collude with business and take over your home, your property... this could be any one of us. This may be enough to move them to action... some at least. But you still have to overcome the "it-will-never-happen-to-me-" syndrome.

   I think this is a tragic consequence of the entangling of business and government... some have said that business should use any means possible (like colluding with local/state governments) to get around the rules that stagnate them (which are ridiculous of course)... I ask you... are you still comfortable with that level of closeness? A true capitalist (one that believed capitalism was philosophically and morally correct) would not take help from the government, just like I would never accept a welfare check. Luke said that this furthers the idea that capitalism is bad because business & government collude to oppress the poor... YES, but the problem is, even the capitalists in the world have come to be okay with some socialist ideals (like bedding with the government)... they are woven into the fabric of society at this point. It has become acceptable to accept a leg up on the taxpayer's dime, or now, their very home. But it's not totally socialist either... because it will still hurt the poor more than the wealthiest among us. The wealthy can fight it with great lawyers, and their homes are more likely to be in less-vulnerable areas. And the Left will see this and point it out, and we will become more evil in everyone's eyes. Basically, this is bad for capitalism all around... and the capitalists that I am sure lobbied for this do not even know it. All the more reason to act and act quickly.

This is a black day.

~Nicki

Post 25

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 8:32pm

Hi Jeff,

Send me the E-mail addresses of some politicians that get it and I'll join your letter writing campaign...

Post 26

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 10:41pm

Robert:

I did send an email to Ron Paul. You can contact him through his web site at: Dr. Ron Paul. Tomorrow I will do some additional research, try to determine whom else would be useful to contact and will report here when I have some names. In the mean time I suggest writing letters to the editors of your local papers.

Nicole:

Keep us informed if you hear anything interesting from your other sources.
--
Jeff
(Edited by C. Jeffery Small
on 6/23, 10:41pm)

Post 27

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 12:42am

Be all you can be -- that is the motto (and don't ever forget the fervent criticism of your OWN NATION that that entails).

Considering my previous warnings of the "crony capitalism" that resonates in Harkin, Halliburton, Enron, etc -- I have to say: I told you so. Bush & Co. have the means and opportunity to give capitalism a bad name -- and they are doing just that (republicans control congress and the administration -- and this is some of the bullshit they propagate).

Machiavello-NeoCon-Straussians (Wolfowitz, etc) are swine in human clothing. It is proper for us to distrust and fear them. It is not proper to compromise and appease. We are threatened just as much from the Right as from the Left. Eternal vigilance is the price we must pay. Wake up, true-believers!

Ed

Post 28

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 1:58am

A copy of my personal letter to Ron Paul (on this issue):

---------------
Dear Representative Paul,

I intellectually disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling on "eminent domain" -- Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

This is, undeniably and inescapably, a violation of property rights. Property rights (and the rule of law enforcing them) are the lifeblood of human value production. I will not say more than this, because nothing more is needed to make this clear, unmistakable point.

Ed
---------------

Ed

Post 29

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 6:15am

What the hell does the right have to do about this? They hate this more then we do! Yeah it was Thomas and Scalia who voted for that crap right?

Give me a break, Republicans are far from libertarians but at least they have a good concept of what property rights are and how they should be protected. And if you really don't believe that, why did you contact Ron Paul, a man I think is one of the greatest Republicans in Congress right now.

You wanna blame someone, blame the five pieces of despictable human filth that voted against Kelo; Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens

Post 30

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 8:01am

Clarence, thank you for the clarification. I was not exercising full mastery over the words which I had typed.

Again, I want to thank you for criticizing me on this matter. Somewhat blinded by rage, I needed to be criticized thus -- in order to get my head straight on this matter.

Also, thanks for listing the names of the "five pieces of despictable human filth." Seeing their names afforded me a concrete target at which my previously-blind rage can now be directed.

Ed

Post 31

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 9:00am

Ed Hudgins wrote about Kelo here: http://ios.org/mediacenter/articles/ehudgins_rff-kelo-fascism.asp

Post 32

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 12:03pm

Thanks James!

Ed

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 12:41pm

This is a thoroughly depressing moment. I actually live in New London, within walking distance of the area in question. A few months back the New Hampshire Free State Project libertarians organized a protest that took place in New London. Guess that didnt help much.

What can we do?

Brian Lovett said:

"Yes, but just how sick does it really make you? Sick enough to actually DO something about it, or just talk about it? "

What are you doing about it?

I can write letters to people. What difference will that make? I can complain about the horrific injustice of it, will that overthrow a supreme court ruling?

When they come to kick that couple out I want to stand in their way. I'd like to see all libertarians and objectivists there, not moving until international media attention is focused on it. Days, weeks, months, thousands of people. Hell, the people in the Ukraine ousted an entire corrupt administration and negated a corrupt election. Surely we can do something about a mere supreme court ruling. Of course, we still have to go to work and pay our bills.

Michael F Dickey

Post 34

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:02am

With all of the corruption that the Founding Fathers sought to forestall, and that is now plaguing us in all 3 federal branches, I doubt they, except perhaps Franklin, anticipated the insane corruption of language that has made virtually anything constitute a "public" purpose.

I have some long-term suggestions:
1) Support IRV. The Bipartisans have largely rigged the voting game to exclude competition, although they have always had the power to allow for some form of preferential voting system such as Instant Runoff Voting. If you want to remove the incentive for people to waste their vote on the lesser of two evils, treating each election as if it were the last, instead of as being part of a process of change, let them express their real wishes at the voting booth, where it counts.
2) Stop calling modern pseudodebates "debates". Any event with little or no interaction, and especially with no deep interaction, shouldn't be dignified with a term more elevated than "joint press conference" or "televised squabble" or "broadcast buffet".
3) Support the initiative/referendum process, where questions are brought to the ballot by voters rather than by elected politicians. When judges or elected politicians abuse their power to interfere with the proper operation of initiatives or referenda, or their power to put questions on the ballot and thus create a backlash against ballot questions in general, complain or vote against them. Where initiatives or referende do not exist, support their implementation.

Post 35

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 1:05pm

Well - perhaps not all is lost - consider......... in giving 'just compensation', may they now consider the value of the land as it will be for the new confabulation which will be put on the plots as envisioned, not any old measure of land worth? And would not that remove any real advantage given to the 'powers that be' on their commie manifestation? Sort of 'hoisting them on their own petard'?

After all, if they have to give them 'just compensation' where is all this money going to be coming from, if they had it not to begin with?

And if there is objection, claiming an outragious amount being called for, might that not be grounds for another lawsuit - after all, economics works both ways......

Post 36

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 2:45pm

Michael F Dickey said: �When they come to kick that couple out I want to stand in their way. I'd like to see all libertarians and objectivists there, not moving until international media attention is focused on it. Days, weeks, months, thousands of people. Hell, the people in the Ukraine ousted an entire corrupt administration and negated a corrupt election. Surely we can do something about a mere supreme court ruling.�

If you go out there and stand in their way, THAT will be doing something. If you bring others with you, THAT will be doing something. If you stay there days and days, THAT will be doing something. I hope that you will report back to us what it was like to take REAL ACTION against our terrorist government.

Michael F Dickey said: �Of course, we still have to go to work and pay our bills.�

You could use your vacation time. You could call-in sick (that would be the truth, as this decision makes us all sick � except, of course, for the socialists on this list). You could give money to others to take-off work so that they can go stand in the way. Remember Brown v. Board of Education? Governor, Orval Faubus, standing in the doorway, literally making himself an obstacle to implement the US Supreme Court�s decision?

Be advised � in no way do I compare Kelo v. City of New London as similar to the USSC�s ruling in Board v. Board of Ed. To me, Kelo v. City of New London is on par with Roe v. Wade.

- B.

�I quit when the court of appeals reversed my ruling. The purpose for which I had chosen my work, was my resolve to be a guardian of justice. But the laws they asked me to enforce made me the executor of the vilest injustice conceivable. I was asked to use force to violate the rights of disarmed men, who came before me to seek my protection for their rights. Litigants obey the verdict of a tribunal solely on the premise that there is an objective rule of conduct, which they both accept. Now I saw that one man was bound by it, but the other was not, one was to obey a rule, the other was to assert an arbitrary wish - his need - and the law was to stand on the side of the wish. Justice was to consist of upholding the unjustifiable. I quit - because I could not have borne to hear the words 'Your Honor' address to me by an honest man.� -- Judge Narragansett, Atlas Shrugged

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post 37

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 4:50pm

Check out the Institute for Justice and the Castle Coalition for information about this and other eminent domain cases as well as efforts being made towards continuing the battle for property rights.

Post 38

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 10:34am

Thanks Bob!

I have just been "knight"-ed at the Castle Coalition. I hope that they give me a lance and a horse and a broadsword. I think they will ...

I was also pleased to see that the Institute for Justice has local (state) chapters. I had heard of them before, but for some unchecked reason, I've been fearing anything based in the cesspool (DC). Witnessing outgrowth to the states has calmed my nerves about IFJ. I can now begin to deal with them rationally.

Ed

Post 39

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 8:59pm