Eminently Appropriate

By P. M. Jaworski -
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, has plenty of people upset. They include a London Darrow Clements who was clever enough to try to figure out a way to use eminent domain on one of the Justices that voted in favour of the eminent domain ruling. He found one in Justice David Souter.

So what's he up to? He's put forward a proposal to take just that Justice's home and replace it with the Lost Liberty Hotel. Ha. But does he have a case? Well, maybe not, but he does say this:
"This is not a prank" ... "The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
The Boston Herald likes the idea.

Board of Selectmen, you say? So I did a little digging and found the email addresses of the five Board of Selectmen. I penned each of them a letter, a copy of which is posted below:
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:42:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Peter Jaworski" Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com.
Subject: Lost Liberty Hotel
To: dadada@weare.nh.gov

Dear Member of the Board of Selectmen,

My name is Peter Jaworski, and I'm a resident of Orono, Ontario, Canada.

I wanted to send you an email to encourage you to support the proposal for the Lost Liberty Hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road.

Should the Hotel become a reality, I will visit it each year. At least once. And I will come with friends.

Also, if possible, I will host the Liberty Summer Seminar (http://www.libertyseminar.org) in the Lost Liberty Hotel every other year. The event draws between 50 to 75 attendees, mostly Canadians, and mostly from areas outside of Weare. This is likely to continue.

I'm certain that many people, just like myself, would also make use of the Hotel, would spend time in Weare, which would be great for tourism, and good for tax revenues as well.

Sincerely,

Peter Jaworski,
Director, Liberty Summer Seminar,
MA (Philosophy), University of Waterloo,
MSc (Philosophy & Public Policy), London School of Economics.

Comments

  1. Anonymous3:39 PM

    So much for poetic justice. Justice Souter’s influence in his community shielded him from his own ruling. No other rational justification can be found.

    Thankfully, the legislative branch is now busy at work attempting to shield private property rights from the Supreme Court ruling. It seems that the two may have switched roles, with the House defending the Constitution, and the Supreme Court writing new laws.

    I thought I saw Alice the other day! Or maybe it was Justice Souter –skipping in Wonderland, immune to and above the laws he passes.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more