Thank You, Garry Reed!

Sunni,

In recent weeks I've given some thought to this subject, and it occurs to me that perhaps the vital issue here for me is the question of whether principles are personal and subjective, or ABSOLUTE and objective. If one considers principles a personal, individual matter, it seems natural to extend respect to differing viewpoints even when one disagrees with them. If one considers them absolute, it seems appropriate to subject differing viewpoints to harsh criticism, ridicule, and even to penalize the "moral offender" when one disagrees strongly enough with an aberrant viewpoint.

The problem with considering principles absolute is, "who decides?" What infallible source of wisdom can one turn to as a final arbiter regarding the correctness of fixed moral principles? Can a human being truly respect individual authority, while believing that the final authority rests with some greater or exterior source apart from the individual? Isn't that the crux of the dilemma that many libertarians encounter with governments, as well as religions based on coercive authoritarian principles?

The distinction between saying "You're wrong," and saying, "I disagree with you," seems like an essential distinction for libertarians to acknowledge, or "pro-freedom" people if you prefer. People tend to discuss disagreements reasonably and intelligibly - while discussing issues in terms of absolute "right" and "wrong" tends to discourage or prohibit reasonable or friendly debate, in my observation.

Just my two cents... :)

In recent weeks I've given some thought to this subject, and it occurs to me that perhaps the vital issue here for me is the question of whether principles are personal and subjective, or ABSOLUTE and objective. If one considers principles a personal, individual matter, it seems natural to extend respect to differing viewpoints even when one disagrees with them. If one considers them absolute, it seems appropriate to subject differing viewpoints to harsh criticism, ridicule, and even to penalize the "moral offender" when one disagrees strongly enough with an aberrant viewpoint.

You're right, and it's a good idea to respond with statements such as "i disagree" instead of always going with the "you're wrong" strategy.

In the case of principles though, I think it is pretty clear cut as to what constitutes theft and the initiation of force and what doesn't. In this case, those who support the "lost liberty hotel" idea just don't happen to value a principled defense of liberty as much as those who find the proposal objectionable.

People who generally support the Libertarian Party and have a more pro-politics brand of libertarianism also fall into this category. There's nothing wrong with such a philosophy and it doesn't necessarily deserve scorn, but it does certainly differ from those who hold more anti-politics and principled views.

And I've been wondering about Brad Spangler's blog too.

He hasn't completely fallen off the map though since I've seen him leave comments elsewhere lately.

As usual, my dear Cat, you provide lots of bases for exploration ... I'll limit myself to just a couple, as I'm already late to begin dinner preps (Enchilada Extravaganza again, with chocolate mousse for dessert).

I think that principles are personally held, and therefore are subjective, but to be meaningful, must be rooted in reality. Thus, to me it makes no sense to call oneself a libertarian -- which is generally understood to mean one who upholds the non-aggression principle -- and to support eminent domain proceedings against anyone's home. Other people apparently don't see the contradiction here that I, and others, do. But then, principles are often shown to have slippery slopes in reality too ...

Thanks for the note, Freeman; we must've been typing at the same time. I, too, have seen him around, and am hoping that he'll wander back through here and provide and ETA for his blog to return, or somethin' ...

You're right, Sunni: the ultimate arbiter is reality. If you run enough laps around this mulberry-bush, you will occasionally have a good laugh at various commie types who equate the fact of existence with religion for the purpose of sneering it off as an objective referent "out there" (beyond any individual's subjective estimation) grounding "the notion" of objective rights. In his book, "Achieving Our Country -- Leftist Thought In Twentietth Century America" (1997), Richard Rorty takes a slightly more elevated tone in establishing the pedigree of this whole line of thought, citing John Dewey (p. 29), which ought to chasten anyone who has ever uttered the word "pragmatic" in the least favorable connotation. Dewey was "antiauthoritarian", don'tchaknow, and Rorty (correctly) points out that Dewey rejected the idea that human beings had to pay any sort of attention to reality.

It routinely shocks people when I point out to them that philosophy has been teaching for over a hundred years that there is no such thing as reality, but it's really just that simple. It shouldn't take a PhD to point out the necessary implications. On the other hand, whole legions of PhD's are now failing to figure it out, so there you go. Go figger it.

It should be borne in mind that there is a categorical difference between axioms (like "existence" ) and principles. The latter can be analyzed to constituent concepts: the former cannot. This is why this is important:

The whole point of logic (the rules of thought) is integrity of thought: a valid continuity from axiom to implication. The "individual authority" to be respected is the ability to abstract from axiom (reality) to implications -- which can (but not necessarily) become "principles", depending on contextual applications. For example: the necessary ability of humans to use their minds in order to conduct their lives only assumes the character of a "principle" -- a truth upon which other truths stand or fall -- when it becomes important to underpin its implications in something like politics, when it's under threat. Otherwise, it's merely an interesting fact.

And this is why it is crucial to not merely "disagree", but to positively point out when someone is wrong in their thinking: when their logic is not integral.

Facts are facts. And there really is an ultimate standard against which to judge them. Nobody is doing anyone any favors to ignore this.

I have no idea how that smilie ended up in that comment.

And I can't tell you how I despsise those things.

Took care of the smiley for you, Billy -- it was an artifact of how the software renders the quotation marks behind the scenes. Ya know, you'd be in my pantheon except for despising smileys ... [and now how'm I gonna let him know I'm kidding about the despising smileys part, since he hates 'em?]

Thank you Luv. I appreciate that. The thing had turned up at a crucial point, rendering (presumably) irony where I least needed it.

And since I'm ricocheting topic-bits, I'll let you know that I'm usually pretty adept at sifting context for kidding.

I've always held that emoticons (and all their descendents) are for people who don't take the effort to make themselves clear in words. Real writers don't need 'em.

Onward, then.

Critics of Souter's potential come-uppance should address what differences they have (if any) between said come-uppance and Ragnar Danneskjold 's seizure of statist assets on the high seas in "Atlas Shrugged".

What's next -- it's unethical to shoot Redcoats because putting holes in them amounts to vandalism of their uniforms?

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, but I can point out a key difference based on your description.

By "statist assets", are you referring to assets that are claimed by the State as being their property? If so, then then such assets are clearly different from the privately owned assets of private individuals.

We're talking about Souter's private property here, not government property. His property is no different than your own, and the government has no right to coercively steal it. "Libertarians" who advocate the use of violence (i.e. government) to coercively steal property from an individual such as Souter are lowering themselves to the behavior of the freedom denying statists that they claim to oppose.

What's next... advocating the arrest and imprisonment of the Drug Czar's children if they are caught with some dope?

I do not think that being a libertarian requires adhering to the famous "non-aggression principle" (for an explanation of this, check out this column by Ali Massoud on the subject. However, I still oppose the use of government coercion to steal one's private property. My principles simply won't allow for the support of such actions.

If you think Souter needs such a come-uppance and have no problem with such seizure taking place, then why don't you gather up a bunch of like-minded people and carry out such an action yourselves instead of relying on the State to do so?

(Grr... stoopid smilies...)

Oh, I dunno ... they seem to pop up in the best places for delicious irony. I think I'm becoming fonder of 'em! (Although knowing how to avoid that inopportune popping up could have a lot to do with it ...)

Michael?

Recall what Ragnar did with the goods.

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.

"He sank them..."

You need to read it again, mate.

The whole point of Ragnar's mission was to return values to their rightful owners. There is nothing about that principle in the cases involving these two judges.

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!

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

I must say that after reading all of these comments and thinking it over, I find myself much more sympathetic to those who support this action than I did before. I do have a couple of additional comments though.

1) A couple of you have now mentioned that this action would put the justices "on notice". While this would indeed be true, it in itself guarantees nothing. This act changes nothing other than that it may scare the judges a bit.

2) It seems to me that such aggressive action is justified if it serves to correct a wrong, thus providing justice.

How does this act accomplish this? What is going to happen to Souter's property? Isn't the new owner simply going to be the owner of stolen land, making his claim to property rather unjust?

I tend to believe that two wrongs don't make a right. I still don't see how justice will be served by this action. As Billy Beck mentioned in regards to the Ragnar character: "The whole point of Ragnar's mission was to return values to their rightful owners. There is nothing about that principle in the cases involving these two judges."

So, while I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic with those who support this action against Souter, I'm still not sold on why I should support it.

Freeman, I don't recall ever saying that I "support" the action in question - it would feel inappropriate for me to support it, and I'd not suggest that you should! However, criticizing other people's actions also seems inadvisable to me simply because they offend my individual principles - as this action might if I were to consider it within my personal 'jurisdiction' to pass judgment on.

Actively objecting to it feels counterproductive to me - it seems like both poetic justice, and a highly effective "theatre" demonstration. Abstaining from criticism does not necessarily imply support, and often it simply means minding one's own business - and really, the minding of other people's actions and the taking of other people's property are both favorite techniques of the state. Who better for the purposes of an educational "theatre" demonstration than Souter, under the circumstances? If anyone has actually taken the property, it's news to me - there seems to be little likelihood of that. ;)

I just found this article because of comments on Knapp's blogathon - and am relieved that there are now three of us.

I welcomed Garry's article strongly and hope to write something similar on the LP site over the next few days.

To the best of my knowledge (until I found this entry), he and I (http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/001138.html) were the only ones within the libertarian movement to protest such an action. You two did it far better at it than I did - as you tackled the key issue while I barely mentioned it.

BTW - I've been worrind about Brad Spangler, too. I'll pop Tom Knapp an e-mail, as they live in the same general area.