Supreme Court: Cities May Seize Homes

[Evangelical Capitalist]

What other legal avenues are there?  Once it's out of the Supreme Court, there are none.

If I were in this situation, I'd probably take the "Rearden" approach: I can't stop you from taking my property, but don't expect me to lift one finger to help you make it appear legitimate.

[softwareNerd]

I do not forsee America being free again until some date in the distant future when an armed conflict might come down on the side of individual liberty.

It was not armed conflict that brought this about; why do you think armed conflict will reverse it?

[The Wrath]

If I were in this situation, I'd probably take the "Rearden" approach: I can't stop you from taking my property, but don't expect me to lift one finger to help you make it appear legitimate.

Or the D'Anconia approach. Right before they take it away, burn it down and dump toxic waste all over the property. If they want it, they're gonna have to work for it.

[The Wrath]

It was not armed conflict that brought this about; why do you think armed conflict will reverse it?

Armed conflict didn't bring about the American Revolution either. Armed conflict is the result of problems, not their cause.

[softwareNerd]

Armed conflict didn't bring about the American Revolution either.

I'm not sure if you mean this as irony or if it is to be taken at face value. If the latter, I agree that the American revolution was a driven by philosophy. If you meant it ironically then, are you saying that the American revolution was an example of a few people who were right, acheiving their ends through armed conflict without convincing a large number of others of the rightness of their cause?

Don't get me wrong, this decision is infuriating. Action is imperative. However, violence would be self-sacrificial and useless.

[The Wrath]

Is it any more self-sacrificial than people who died during the Revolution?

BTW, I meant that statement in the sense that the American Revolution began because of political oppression, not because of military aggression by the British.

[HaloNoble6]

The people in the Revolution fought and died knowing they had a chance of winning their war with arms. Can you say the same of yourself in the situation of defending your house from 5 SWAT teams?

[Capitalism Forever]

However, violence would be self-sacrificial and useless.

Let's stick with "force." "Violence" is a loaded word.

I don't think it would be useless, and therefore not self-sacrificial, either. As long as the citizens endure force without any resistance, the statists are emboldened to use further force against them. Let the citizens just give a hint that they might resist, and the would-be tyrants will be much less eager to continue with their abuses.

[Samoht]

Here in Arkansas a local radio host (libertarian) focused on this today, and will again tomorrow. The majority of the callers held the same view: The USA as explained in the constitution is dead, and several called for an armed uprising. Seriously folks, an armed march on Washington DC.

One of the examples of local abuse mentioned around here included Clinton's library and local mall. Both were built on land taken by force from local business and homeowners who were paid "market value." The people who took the land were also the ones who decided what the market value of their home was so, surprise surprise, their property was appraised immediately before the imminent domain theft and valued at a much lower percentage than previous years. One mechanic was paid less for his commercial property than he paid in property tax the year before.

Then there are those who have their homes taken from them at around one half of what they paid for it, leaving them homeless with a mortgage.

People nation wide are terrified, angry, upset, and are taking notice of what is going on around them for the first time in a long time because of the Supreme Courts edict that our property (not just land according to the ruling, but all property) is ours only so long as the local mayor, governor, or other local or federal political leader allows us to keep it.

I implore all of you who read this to email your local, state, and federal leaders now and demand a state and federal constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to own and retain their own property. (This link will give you the names and contact info, but there may be easier sights to use http://www.statelocalgov.net/index.cfm)

However, I am having trouble wording this appropriately myself and hope that some of you may have advice on the most effective and rational arguments that can be used.

[Capitalism Forever]

The people in the Revolution fought and died knowing they had a chance of winning their war with arms.  Can you say the same of yourself in the situation of defending your house from 5 SWAT teams?

No. But if a sizable portion of American citizens organized an armed protest against the encroachments on their rights, and an opinion poll among the U.S. military made it clear that an overwhelming majority of them sympathize with the citizens, wouldn't that provide an incentive for the power-lusters to reconsider their stances?

Remember that we won the Cold War without firing a shot, even though we were facing one of the world's greatest military powers at that time, second only to us. Why couldn't we similarly win the present cold war against an enemy that is, in material terms, practically unarmed?

The only weapon the statists wield is OUR overestimation of their power.

[HaloNoble6]

I was thinking this very same thing while showering earlier, that while one citizen who has arrived at a value judgement whereby he considers it necessary to at least put up an armed defensive posture has no chance, a number of these kind of people with enough media attention could do the trick.

[The Wrath]

That's what I'm getting at. After my initial reaction, I decided it would be better to start off defending my home, lay down arms when threatened with lethal force and allow myself to be arrested. This would certainly start up some kind of movement, if it got enough media attention.

[The Wrath]

No. But if a sizable portion of American citizens organized an armed protest against the encroachments on their rights, and an opinion poll among the U.S. military made it clear that an overwhelming majority of them sympathize with the citizens, wouldn't that provide an incentive for the power-lusters to reconsider their stances?

Remember that we won the Cold War without firing a shot, even though we were facing one of the world's greatest military powers at that time, second only to us. Why couldn't we similarly win the present cold war against an enemy that is, in material terms, practically unarmed?

The only weapon the statists wield is OUR overestimation of their power.

The problem I see with this is that the military is very duty-driven. They may be on the sides of the citizens, but they will obey the orders they are given...and the citizens aren't the ones giving orders.

[Capitalism Forever]

They may be on the sides of the citizens, but they will obey the orders they are given

Do you really believe that the good Americans in the military would open fire on the good Americans that do not happen to be in the military, whose only "crime" is that they insist on their property rights?

Americans are not like Germans; they do not follow orders blindly.

and the citizens aren't the ones giving orders.

Nor are the statists the ones giving the orders. Even if a President were evil enough to order a massacre of American citizens, the order would have to traverse the entire chain of command, and every officer who received the order would have to be evil enough to pass it on to his subordinates. Such an amount of corruption is hardly possible in an organization whose aim and whose main source of pride is the defense of liberty.

[softwareNerd]

Some plaintiffs in this case say they are not moving until the sheriff and the bulldozers force them out. Perhaps the TV crews will get some shots as they did in the Elian Gonzalez affair. I applaud them if they can start a discussion about how far government can go. At any rate, they would make clear that it is the force of weapons that makes them move.

However... this is not a case of the lonely citizen against the all-powerful state. Consider this: if these people's neighbors -- the other citizens of New London -- wanted to act differently, they could. It is their neighbors who are seizing their property. It is too easy for people to look at the supreme court and blame the court; but, make no mistake-- the court was not the primary mover. The court failed in its duty to protect rights -- like a policeman who does nothing about a crime he sees. However, it is not the court who is the criminal here.

The State government could easily have a law that prohibits the City of New London from taking property under this situation. The City of New London could have its own laws prohibiting such a taking. Even without a law, the people of New London could be so taken aback by such an action that their mayor and council would be putting their future at risk by attempting it.

The fight is ultimately an ideological one, where you convince your neighbor that he should not rob you. Many of these neighbors probably think they did nothing wrong: after all they gave those people compensation, and the houses were not in the best of condition, and their town needs the new development.

If I am allowed wishful thinking, I would love to see a large company like Wal*Mart put out a statement saying that they will never set up a shop in a situation where a city has done this type of "taking".

[Groovenstein]

Here's a link to the full opinion for those wishing to read it:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23...4pdf/04-108.pdf

Some gems from the majority:

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government."

"In affirming the City's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation."

Actually, Justice Stevens, you do, having again elevated the wishes of the majority over the rights of property owners. I would hate you less if you just outright advocated government ownership of property in its entirety. At least that would be honest.

From O'Connor's dissent:

"We give considerable deference to legislatures' determinations about what governmental activities will advantage the public."

Have you considered that maybe your so-called public advantage isn't a valid criteria for evaluating these actions? At least she follows it up with:

"But were the political branches the sole arbiters of the public-private distinction, the Public Use Clause would amount to little more than hortatory fluff. An external, judicial check on how the public use requirement is interpreted, however limited, is necessary if this constraint on government power is to retain any meaning."

Well, it's nice to see you haven't entirely disregarded the necessity of judicial review.

As to an earlier poster's suggestion that perhaps these victims should dump waste and such on their property, that's a foolish decision if they wish to keep living. If they've decided enough is enough, that's fine. But if they haven't, they should keep their property in good condition so as to get whatever "just" compensation they can. Not to mention that I don't know if the government officially "owns" this property yet, because if it does, they may face criminal charges for destroying it.

[The Wrath]

Do you really believe that the good Americans in the military would open fire on the good Americans that do not happen to be in the military, whose only "crime" is that they insist on their property rights?

Americans are not like Germans; they do not follow orders blindly.

Nor are the statists the ones giving the orders. Even if a President were evil enough to order a massacre of American citizens, the order would have to traverse the entire chain of command, and every officer who received the order would have to be evil enough to pass it on to his subordinates. Such an amount of corruption is hardly possible in an organization whose aim and whose main source of pride is the defense of liberty.

I believe that if there were a rebellion in this country, the military would obey orders and fight the rebels. I'm not suggesting they would massacre unarmed Americans. I'm saying they would engage rebels in combat.

[HaloNoble6]

I think you should think twice before calling the volunteers of our military mindless.

[The Wrath]

I never said they were mindless. Read the Milikan psychological study and you'll know why I believe what I do. People will often obey orders from a legitimate authority even when they believe that what they are doing is morally wrong.

[HaloNoble6]

Obeying orders they know to be wrong is a quality of mindlessness.

[The Wrath]

If I sounded like I was insulting the men and women of the military, I apologize. However, I believe that many of them, like most Americans, have become increasingly dependent on the government. Most Americans have the mindset that it's the government's job to make everything alright, and I see no reason to believe why the military would be any exception.

Question:

If you think there would be 5 SWAT teams willing to take me out just because I'm trying to defend my home, what makes you think the military wouldn't do the same?

[HaloNoble6]

It is my opinion that there is far more mindlessness in police departements than there is in the military. Perhaps it is because I lived in Miami for a long time.

[Samoht]

The conversation is wandering off topic. The current argument should, perhaps, be moved to a new post leaving this thread for the S.C.'s current actions. Now, to add to the current topic: Look at American history, from the Whiskey Rebellion to the slaughter of women and children on legally defined reservations during the Indian wars to the Bonus Army march on Washington DC to the National Guard opening fire on in Oklahoma during the Vietnam war to the armed taking of Elian Gonzales (all of which involved armed action from the government against unarmed law abiding citizens in violation of the constitution), soldiers followed orders. If next week millions of Americans marched on Washington to demand the right to property (which we no longer have) and a general gave an order to use lethal force to stop them the military would. Why you may ask? Because in the military to hesitate is death and the only way an army can run effectively is through trust of the ones in power.

[HaloNoble6]

This is a good point, thanks for those historical points. I think the question would be how out-landish would the order be. Were those events you mentioned, in the context they occurred, very controversial and considered perhaps exceedingly immoral?

[Lemuel]

(No response to the direction of the thread...)

I'm reminded of the scene in Atlas Shrugged where the feds broke into Galt's lab and it all crumbled to dust.

I'm not particularly surprised by the S.C. decision; I am, however, very disappointed.

The corruption of freedom in this nation is amazing; far more amazing is how few the outraged voices seem to be.