Lost Principles Hotel

[RS Davis]

Lost Principles Hotel
by Garry Reed

The ongoing account of the Lost Liberty Hotel may be the ultimate definition of comeuppance. Take your choice of these choice clichés:

Turnabout is fair play

Your chickens have come home to roost

He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword

What goes around comes around

Or, as the Advocates for Self-Government's Liberator Online labeled it, "Talk about poetic justice."

It all began when Supreme Court adjudicator David Souter cahooted with the majority in the Kelo case, which essentially said that any gang of low level lowlife liberty-loathing government-huggers can heist anybody's home and hand it over to business bigwigs because they'll pay more taxes than humble homeowners.

The last "i" had barely been dotted on the document when real estate magnate wannabe Logan Darrow Clements disclosed his designs on the prime piece of property currently occupied by the Souter home. Since economic development will garner greater tax rates than a residence, Clements wants Souter's hometowners to invoke eminent domain and tear down the arbitrator's abode so Clements can construct the Lost Liberty Hotel in the homestead's stead.

The name of Clements' hostelry honors Hizzonor's decision. It will feature the aptly appelled "Just Desserts Cafe" and a museum memorializing lost liberties. Instead of Gideon Bibles, overnight guests can cop a copy of Ayn Rand's bible, "Atlas Shrugged."

The hotel has hogged the headlines from coast to coast to coast (Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, The Greater Baton Rouge Business Report, where Executive Editor JR Ball has cast Clements into "the pantheon of my personal heroes") as well as well away from our coasts (Taipei Times).

On its face, the Lost Liberty Hotel has the scent of delicious retribution – the enabler of eminent domain abuse hoisted by his own petard. Serves him right! The "reap what ye sow" morality (another cliché) sends a powerful message that resonates with many.

But it’s not a libertarian message.

In his Liberator Online article, "Talk about poetic justice," James W. Harris concluded with this rhetorical remark: "Will future Advocates events be held at The Lost Liberty Hotel? Could be. Stay tuned!"

It's likely impossible to find a meeting hall in this country that wasn't put together with some sort of politically poisonous real estate skullduggery. Eminent domain. Seizures. Confiscations. Annexations. Urban renewal. Zoning. Land use planning. Tax abatements and rebates. Kickbacks. Claim jumping. Sustainable development. "Treaties" with Native Americans. There's little we can do about any of that now. But how can a league of libertarians like the Advocates justify picking a meeting place specifically because the land on which it's built had been stolen from its previous owner?

But if that sounds a tad unlibertarian, it's nothing compared to Clements.

Clements' web site (freestarmedia.com) proclaims him a media mogul wannabe with a TV show "in development" that will feature anti-government David and Goliath stories. One of the no-kidding suggested scenarios for his show: "Perhaps a government has threatened to use its eminent domain power to take someone's home and sell it to a shopping mall developer. Viewers can deluge the city council with mail, faxes and e-mail asking for repeal of the decision or show up to stop the bulldozers."

What? Doesn't Goliath Clements himself want to use government eminent domain power to take David (yes, "David") Souter's home and sell it to a developer? Guess Clements wants to be both David and Goliath simultaneously. Is that the lesson this hypocritical huckster learned from reading Ayn Rand?

Libertarians should never succumb to the egalitarian idea of justice that says everyone should get screwed equally. That's a concept of collectivism. Libertarians demand that everyone’s rights be protected equally. Thievery through eminent domain is still thievery whether it’s your house or David Souter’s that’s being stolen. Logan Darrow Clements belongs in nobody’s Hall of Fame for going after Souter’s house. He’s just like every other eminent domain whore; only his target is different.

Libertarians should be the first on the ramparts, standing between Souter’s entry hall and the wrecking ball, brandishing placards that proclaim "Eminent domain is theft" and "Don’t tread on anybody." The legitimate libertarian message is this: Even if Supreme Court Justice David Souter won’t protect our property rights, we’ll damn well protect his.

If Clements really wants his Lost Liberty Hotel to stand for something, he should purchase the property, not steal it like any commonplace political punk. To quote yet another cliché: two wrongs don't make a right.

It's time for alleged libertarians to relearn the lessons of liberty.

- by Garry Reed[/b]

[RS Davis]

That's the best thing you've written since Scrooge McDuck Capitalism! And it is the first time you've changed my mind on an issue. Of course, that was the first time I went into a reading disagreeing with you, so...

Great stuff, Garry!

- Rick

[Garry Reed]

LET THEM EAT DIRT!
Rick, I received an email from Stephen Gordon and a link to his excellent article that agrees with my position but offers an alternative means of protest for activists. Full article is here: www.freeliberal.com/archives/001138.html

"If it’s property they want, it’s property they’ll get"
By Stephen Gordon

EXERPT:
Real property (land) is composed primarily of dirt. The entire incident in Kelo is over who possesses a bunch of dirt.

The people in the area in which I live are proud of their soil – as is the case in most other places. Perhaps this eminent domain issue may be remedied by providing the landgrabbers a lot of dirt – enough dirt so they won’t have to steal it from the poor and the elderly again.

Radio talk show host Neal Boortz recently stated, “All property isn't dirt”. However, in this case, it is. Let’s give ’em some!

Some addresses to which you may mail your dirt are:

Dave Goebel
Chief Operating Officer
New London Development Corporation
165 State Street, Suite 313
New London, CT 06320

Richard M. Brown
City Manager
City of New London
181 State Street
New London, CT 06320

Justice John Paul Stevens
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

Justice David H. Souter
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

Justice Stephen G. Breyer
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

[Garry Reed]

Another email from an agreeable person:

Garry,
while I agree with you that if Clements or Lorrey actually attempted to
carry through with the threatened 'taking' that they would be violating
libertarian principles, I believe that Mr. Clements & Mr. Lorrey are
actually engaging in a bit of guerrilla theater, or perhaps even the use of
naked sarcasm. In short, I think these are humor pieces, trying to make a
point.

On the other hand, they may be serious, in which case the only justification
I can come up with is that they regard their action as the use of 'violence
or threat of violence' as a form of self-defense. That argument goes like
this:

Kelo 'authorizes' a government to take from one private party for another
private party, and authorizes governmental agencies to use the threat of
force to enforce these takings;

Libertarians believe that one should not initiate violence, but can use
force to respond to force or threat of force initiated by another;
Here's where it gets sticky - rather than defending against this taking by
going after the takers personally, these fellows are trying to get the
initiator of force (a government entity) to do the dirty work for them.

I don't agree with the argument above, but I can see that someone might make
it. As stated at the top, I prefer to believe these are humorous attacks on
the idea of 'taking'. Getting folks to laugh at our putative masters seems
a decent way to spread the liberty meme.

Regards,
Frank

[Garry Reed]

I agree with virtually everything Frank says in that I love guerrilla theater, sarcasm. Irony, slapstick, puns, pre-teen body noise humor, anything that laughs at or ridicules our coercive enemies. The one aspect of this I don't like is the message. Demanding protection for our enemy's property puts us on the moral high ground. Even pretending to take someone's property makes us indistinguisable from all of "them." If y'all disagree, state your case!

[Garry Reed]

What, do I have to run this whole discussion myself? Okay, just so you know I'm not stuffing the results, here are some emails I received earlier which include both neutral and negative stances. I've kept people anonymous since they were writing to me and not posting on a forum, except in the case where one person had already positioned himself publically. Here goes:

Firstly, it is offensive that folks like you take it upon yourselves to appoint yourselves the final arbiter of what is or is not in compliance with libertarian principles. I don't recall you being elected to this position. It is entirely unlibertarian to judge others interpretation of libertarian principles. We are all individuals, not your mind clones. Get off your high horse.

Secondly, here is why pursuing eminent domain against Souter and
Breyer, or any other of the Kelo Five, is compliant with libertarian principles:

a) too many so-called libertarians interpret the ZAP as a pacifist
principle. It is not, it specifically places a duty upon those
aggressed against to use appropriate and proportionate force in self defense. Doing so is not initiating force, despite what some simple minded pedants would claim.

b) if you put a couch on the curb with a 'FREE!' sign on it, is someone initiating force if someone comes by, accept your invitation, and loads your couch on their truck? Of course it isn't. Nor is it an initiation of force in an economic transaction if someone posts a price to their property and says that anyone can purchase it for that price, and people take them up on the offer. Get real.

The Kelo Five have clearly stated that in their opinion, under the
Constitution, anyone can buy anyone elses property at any time for
'fair market value' for any public use, a 'use' including the ability
to pay more taxes or employ more people than the previous owner,
without the original owner being free to refuse the offer. This is an offer for sale, clearly stating that the Kelo Five believe that even THEIR property can be purchased under such an arrangement.

While a libertarian would be right to conclude that assuming the offer extends to anyone elses property but the Kelo Five, and perhaps those attorneys and corporations on the side of New London in the Kelo case, on the principle that Kelo, as it applies to Kelo's property, is an unconstitutional and unjust decision of the court, the decision remains an offer of acceptable terms of sale by the five justices who concurred on the Kelo majority opinion.

That all being said, I sincerely hope that the NH legislature and the US Congress close the loophole of expanding the definition of 'public use'. Better yet, I hope they see the light and outlaw eminent domain entirely. Given the number of powerful friends that Souter and Breyer have on both sides of the aisle, I hope the actions of myself and Mr. Clements (and the support we both have received from the public) communicates to the power elites on a personal level how much the Kelo decision offends the sensibilities of the American people, and that they take action to prevent its enforcement against anyone, including Souter and Breyer.

As you can see, I have very clear understanding of the libertarian
principle. I do not append to it anything else, unlike some people who latch their pacifism or socialism or other sentiments onto it. I also do not shy away from exercising the self-defense duty that the ZAP requires for it to have meaning. I also deny the armchair libertarians the right to judge me, just as I won't judge how they choose to implement the libertarian principle in their own life, short of not judging me. Star chambers, litmus tests, and public denounciations of other libertarians is not libertarian.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-William Pitt (1759-1806)

Reed's response:
Hmmm. You tell me that I have no business defining libertarianism for others and then you spend six or seven paragraphs defining libertarianism for me. Does that make you pedantic and high horsy too, or do those terms apply only to people who disagree with you? Actually, I've received far nastier emails in the past so thanks for your restraint. And I don't want to get into an email volley so if you're interested in pursuing this discussion further I'd like to direct you to a web site run by my friend RS Davis who maintains The Loose Cannon Libertarian Forum where my original articles and discussions are posted:
freedomfiles.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=FreeCannon
Thanks for writing.
Garry Reed

Hi Garry,
I just wanted to say that I disagree with your opinion on this. You are correct that libertarians should not iniate coercion. But I think you are wrong about the Souter thing. It is simply responding with force to meet force. While it would be wrong for me to physically attack someone. It would not be wrong for me to physically attack someone who was attacking me or was attacking another innocent party. Souter falls into the category of someone attacking another.
Jim

Hi Garry,
As always, I enjoy your articles. You make good points about the
attempts at retribution against Souter and Breyer. And I honestly don't know where I stand. Consider this argument: there are times when a person's rights can be revoked. We revoke a suspected criminal's right to liberty for a day or two by putting him in jail. A judge can then order him held for months without bail - before he's convicted of any crime. If you're attacked, you can defend yourself using any means that plausibly seem necessary. Our founding fathers used violence to oppose British laws.

The government has initiated force against homeowners. Souter and Breyer are clearly participating in the use of force. Isn't Clements just using a rather genteel form of self-defense? If we can shoot a burglar or violently overthrow a repressive government, can't we suggest that a government official's property be taken from him?
- Bob

Re: www.freecannon.com/LostPrinciplesHotel.htm
The way I see it, David Souter sat behind his fortified walls and fired a shot that was in its effect thousands of shots into the lives of peaceful, land-owning citizens. We are all the actual or potential receivers of that salvo. We all have the right to shoot the same back at Mr. Souter. His active participation in this injustice is not just a wound to many living, it is a wound that keeps on wounding across generations. The sacrifice of his own home is a minuscule payback, and one richly deserved.

Yes, turnabout is fair play. IMHO. ;->
JdL

[Garry Reed]

NOTHER DAY, NOTHER EMAIL ...

Hi Garry,
About your article ...

Please tell me who initiated force (the coercive action)? The libertarians or the justices?

Contrary to your belief, the Libertarian pledge permits a response to force.

Hughes4lp

Reed replies:
Politicians in legislatures created laws empowering themselves to coercively take some people's property to benefit others. The Justices confirmed their power to do so. That makes the Justices complicit. If politicians take YOUR house against your will and sell it to a strip mall developer, that's coercion. If a libertarian uses that same law to take YOUR house against your will and sell it to a hotel developer, that's coercion. If the law is wrong for one, it's wrong for both. And, yes, contrary to many people's assumptions, I actually do know the difference between coercion and self-defense. Self-defense happens when both you and Justice Souter sit on your own front porches with shotgun in hand and defy the takers. Doing exactly the same thing that your coercive enemy does by claiming that your means are justified by morally higher ends cannot magically transform coercion into self-defense.
Garry

[karl]

great stuff indeed! even though there is a part of me that would dearly love to see souter lose his home by his own decision being used against him, i do agree that is not a libertarian cause. the only case that could be made for that, is revenge is real, if not socially desireable. it may be possible to create enough social and political unrest to have the supremes reverse themselves with one of those emerging moral insights they seem to get every now and then.

karl

[RS Davis]

karl said:

great stuff indeed! even though there is a part of me that would dearly love to see souter lose his home by his own decision being used against him, i do agree that is not a libertarian cause. the only case that could be made for that, is revenge is real, if not socially desireable. it may be possible to create enough social and political unrest to have the supremes reverse themselves with one of those emerging moral insights they seem to get every now and then.

karl

I definitely was delighted by the irony, but Garry pulled me back to earth.

- Rick

[RS Davis]

Garry said:

Firstly, it is offensive that folks like you take it upon yourselves to appoint yourselves the final arbiter of what is or is not in compliance with libertarian principles. I don't recall you being elected to this position. It is entirely unlibertarian to judge others interpretation of libertarian principles. We are all individuals, not your mind clones. Get off your high horse.

That's retarded. I could interpret libertarianism to mean, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," but I'd be wrong. Individualism does not mean there is no Truth.

- Rick

[RS Davis]

Garry said:

Reed replies:
Politicians in legislatures created laws empowering themselves to coercively take some people's property to benefit others. The Justices confirmed their power to do so. That makes the Justices complicit. If politicians take YOUR house against your will and sell it to a strip mall developer, that's coercion. If a libertarian uses that same law to take YOUR house against your will and sell it to a hotel developer, that's coercion. If the law is wrong for one, it's wrong for both. And, yes, contrary to many people's assumptions, I actually do know the difference between coercion and self-defense. Self-defense happens when both you and Justice Souter sit on your own front porches with shotgun in hand and defy the takers. Doing exactly the same thing that your coercive enemy does by claiming that your means are justified by morally higher ends cannot magically transform coercion into self-defense.
Garry

Agreed. One of the creeds of the LP should be, "Immoral means are never justified by their ends." I think, while not often explicitly stated, it is a bedrock principle of the movement.

Sorry I haven't been around. I lost my internet for awhile. I'm using the one at work right now, but soon it'll be back at home, too. Once it is, I will post the articles I've missed.

- Rick