Having scanned through this discussion and gleaning the arguments on both sides of this "Lost Liberty Hotel" issue, I must say that I agree with those supporting the action.

There has been much talk of principles being objective or subjective, but whichever way you look at it, one should properly define the principle under discussion.

The non-pacifist version of that principle is, to rephrase it a bit, "One must never initiate force against another person; however, defensive or retaliatory force against one who has already initiated force, is permissible."

I think it should be pretty clear that because David Souter used his legal power to approve massive and widespread force-initiation of a certain type, and thus has made himself an accessory to all such initiations, then he leaves himself morally wide open to defensive or retailiatory force.

Now, one might simply shoot him in the head, and be morally justified, but I think we would all agree that this would he a horrible tactic. Most people believe in some form of proportionality in the use of retaliatory force, and killing the bastard would only evoke waves of public sympathy for the villain and damage the cause of the assassin.

In considering retaliatory measures, I think the most effective action would be one which is proportionate to the offense, and especially one which hoists the offender on his own pitard.

You might object that "it is always wrong to use government force against someone," and any good libertarian might find doing so distateful, but consider the following scenario:

You return home from a short shopping trip and find your spouse and children have been murdered by a robber. "Defensive force" is out of the question because the evil deeds have been done and the perpetrator has left the scene. What do you do?

Some might hire a private detective to find the killer(s) and exact private revenge. But I think most of us would call the cops, in the expectation that government force would be used to locate, arrest, and punish the killers.

So in fact, except perhaps for the most hard-core among us, libertarians _do_ believe in using government force against people, in justifiable retaliation for a prior initiation of force.

I think the "Lost Liberty Hotel" idea falls within the bounds of justifiable retaliation. It is proportionate to the offense, and may even advance liberty by putting these buffoons on notice that the rights they are eviscerating are also their own.

--Scott Bieser