>>> Billy: Michael? Recall what Ragnar did with the goods

He sank them -- not really an option with real-estate. Suffice to say that Ragnar took it upon himself to see that the state was deprived of assets funded via theft.

Souter's property, like the goods on the ships, is likewise theft-funded via his tax-paid salary, and not intrinsically different than anything else a statist might purchase with stolen money. That Souter's property is clearly the rewards of a career in statism, however, renders it, IMO, more suitable to the designs of justice than a ship full of "aid" (but see below).

>>> Freeman: 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.

You don't see a disincentive rearing up to face judges in future ED trials if Souter is slammed?

>>> How is this action going to reverse the State's stance on eminent domain? It isn't.

How did dumping the East India Co's tea in the harbor reverse the Crown's various stances?

Were Ragnar's activities untaken with those ends in mind?

No.

-- You're wallowing in "will this work?" pragmatism to the exclusion of matters of justice. (This is where the "see below", written above, is directing you to.)

>>> If you feel that revenge....

In my experience, the word "revenge" is muttered by a shrinking-violet bystander who ought be minding his own business instead of poo-pooing B for punching A's nose after A punches B.

>>> ...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?

You utter that, aghast, as if it might be immoral. -- It wouldn't be.

To the extent that Souter keeps his hide intact and is merely punished in exact and fitting proportionality to his own crimes -- is, I say, not only a fitting irony, but sheer generosity.

The bastard is, after all, one of the Gang of Nine that run this velvet-glove dictatorship.