The mistake you're making here is affording a predator rights equivalent to those of civilized men, rather than observing that rights are conditional upon behavior. For instance, your right to liberty ends upon you lifting my wallet -- at which point your very life is my putty to play with.

Souter cannot morally claim a right which he will not extend to others (e.g., we do not possess rights merely on account of possessing deoxyribonucleic acid bent and twisted "just so" ). Souter, via E.D. law, has essentially asserted that ALL property is de facto state property merely leased to individuals (and withdrawn from them) at state discretion. In doing so, Souter thereby forswears a claim to "his" property. Perhaps he'd argue otherwise if you got in his face -- but he'd so so from a position of gross hypocrisy.)

I understand all that and I essentially agree with it. However, it still doesn't change my opposition to the Lost Liberty Hotel idea.

Here's why: it seems to be rooted in nothing but spiteful revenge and serves no useful purpose in terms of the fight for liberty. How is this action going to reverse the State's stance on eminent domain? It isn't.

With that said, I see no good reason to support such action. This is not quite the same as having to flush one's crap down into State run sewers. We all crap and have to flush it somewhere, but we don't all have to respond to repugnant legal decisions by resorting to violent revenge rooted in petty feelings such as spite.

Stealing Souter's property will not magically end the eminent domain problem. What it will do is make a few rage-filled people feel better about themselves, and by means of using government force to achieve something that has no practical use.

If you feel that revenge is called for and that the shit is so deep that using force is necessary, why don't you literally just start shooting the bastards? And to think, you don't even need to crawl to the State for any help with that.

I'm just not into revenge for revenge's sake.