>>> Billy: The whole point of Ragnar's mission was to return values to their rightful owners.

It is not any more possible to acertain which taxpayer gets exactly how much from the repossession of Souter's house than it was for Ragnar to deliver gold bars (or shavings thereof) to the said-same millions. Rather, some went to those he knew -- and the rest, one is compelled by logic to assume, went toward the maintenance of his "repo" operation.

Assuming that the possibility existed, however, would your objection remain?

(IMO, I couldn't care less, as no thief has a right to his spoils -- and I say "'Bully' to you, Sir!" to the first person who can wrestle it from him.)

>>> Freeman: Isn't the new owner simply going to be the owner of stolen land, making his claim to property rather unjust?

If the legitimate owners (i.e., the aggragate millions of swindled taxpayers all "contributing" to Souter's livelihood) all desire to step forward and claim a toothpick and a pinch of soil from the estate -- then let them do so. But you and I both know that's not going to happen -- so is Souter morally entitled to the rewards of tyranny on those grounds?

Of course not.

>>> I tend to believe that two wrongs don't make a right.

The erroneous premise here is that a second "wrong" is occuring.

But it is not a moral crime to liberate stolen assets from a thief, regardless of the possibility of returning the property to its original owner, since the very first element of justice is to deprive force-initiators of their spoils.

>>> Cat: If anyone has actually taken the property, it's news to me - there seems to be little likelihood of that.

Doubtlessly; the State, after all, will stay the swing of its hammer before smashing its own thumb. -- But that, too, serves a pragmatic purpose in more clearly marking, in the minds of the currently credulous, the line between ruler and ruled. Shit: I'm down with anything that presses things to a head -- I'm not looking forward to this horsecrap still going on when I'm ninety.