DEFENSE OF THE SOUTER TAKING

If a burglar breaks into your home in the dead of night while you are asleep and steals your TV set and is subsequently caught - he's in deep shit.

What about a thief who steals not just your TV set, but your whole house, and not just your house but your land too, and not just your real estate but everyone's home and the land it sits on?

Is this not millions of times as heinous as the burglar who stole only your TV set?

Suppose your TV set was one of those new-fangled big-screen TVs with a 3-Dimensional screen which the thief sold in order to buy a shack.

The shack is the converted proceeds of the thief's loot. And you are the injured party.

Would you not be righteous in taking possession of his shack?

And would you be anti-libertarian if you had the cops help you? Any other means would subject you to greater legal sanctions than the loss of your property. Aside from vigilantism, it's the only game in town.

Souter is a villainous traitor to the principle of Private Property - without which there can be no other rights.

He deserves to have his home taken by the means he foisted on all citizens. Should he not be subject to the same law as the rest of us?

Let us not nit-pick at picayune distinctions. Let us not cavil at justice.

Many rotten laws get enacted because those who enact them are themselves not subject to them. Witness the Social Security program. Subjecting Souter to his own ruling might just impress the powers that be that we are mad as hell and we're not going to take this anymore.

In closing, a few time-honored concepts come to mind: "his just deserts", "a dose of his own medicine", "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", "fight fire with fire", "hoist by his own petard" and "poetic justice".

R!