More responses to Kelo

Yup, that's right. More responses to the Kelo decision. But hey, important shit like this deserves lots of attention.

A brief stop over at The Progress Report allowed me to see two more responses of interest. The first is from the Green Party. Given the overwhelming statist influence within that party, it's quite refreshing to hear representatives of that party refer to the Kelo decision as legalized theft.

The other piece of commentary comes from Fred Foldvary. In June 23, 2005: The Day Liberty Died, Foldvary makes a number of important comments, two of which deserve to be quoted here. On the issue of private property:

The core of liberty is private property. Private property means that the owner may control the use and transfer of the property. The forced taking of property from the rightful owner is theft, an evil act which government should outlaw, not perpetrate. Just because the thief does something good with the stolen loot does not make the theft right. This principle applies equally to private theft and theft by government. The excuse for government is the protection and security of persons and their property. Government not only commits an evil act by forcibly taking property, but also delegitimizes itself.

And on such collectivist whooey as "the public good":

The greatest enemy of liberty is the concept of the “greater good” or “common good” or the “public good.” The evils committed by Nazis, totalitarian communists, fascists, and other evil governments have been in the name of the greater good. It is the ultimate in the end justifying the means. Evil in the name of good ignores a fundamental moral principle: good never offsets evil. A thief who benefits society with his loot still commits an evil act.

Moreover, there is no “greater good” other than liberty. What is good is subjective, and there is no logical way to measure conflicting subjective values. With liberty, each person may pursue his own subjective valuation of what is good. The concept of “good” is meaningless when applied to society or to anything other than the subjectively held good of an individual being. Society does not think or feel; only individual persons do so, and so “good” is strictly individual.

I couldn't have possibly said it better myself.

Finally, Sunni Maravillosa chimes in on the "Lost Liberty Hotel" idea. I got a laugh out of this story at first, but then it quickly hit home to me that it just ain't right for someone who defends private property rights and is opposed to state coercion to actually put such an idea into action. As Sunni put it in her post:

So why are freedom-loving individuals cheering this on with the "Lost Liberty Hotel" idea? It strikes me as being born of a childish desire for revenge ... which is natural; liberty lovers aren't necessarily above such human desires. But it's using the tool of the state, which to me goes against everything freedom is about. I've written on this before, and so won't get into it deeply again today.

The state's power is the only tool I've been able to think of since my mind started down this path this morning that isn't morally neutral. We won't -- we can't -- succeed in expanding liberty if we're willing to wield it when it suits us.

She also provided the most recent cartoon by Russmo, which is a good one:

(click to enlarge)