Clements' Taking

Logan Darrow Clements, young libertarian and former 2003 California Recall gubernatorial candidate, was in the news recently, trying to use eminent domain to seize the property of U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, in order to score political points:

"This is in the tradition of the Boston Tea Party and the Pine Tree Riot," Organizer Logan Darrow Clements said, referring to the riot that took place during the winter of 1771-1772, when colonists in Weare beat up officials appointed by King George III who fined them for logging white pines without approval.

"All we're trying to do is put an end to eminent domain abuse," Clements said, by having those who advocate or facilitate it "live under it, so they understand why it needs to end."

There is a legitimate issue here. Indeed, just listening to the news regarding the particular Connecticut eminent domain case, my impulse was to side with the conservatives. Nevertheless, an opponent of Clements sees things differently:

State Rep. Neal Kurk, a Weare resident who is sponsoring two pieces of eminent domain legislation in New Hampshire, said he expects the group's proposal to be defeated overwhelmingly.

"Most people here see this as an act of revenge and an improper attack on the judicial system," Kurk said. "You don't go after a judge personally because you disagree with his judgments."

Indeed, there is a regrettable impulse, at least on the part of conservatives in California (such as California State Senator Tom McClintock), to see eminent domain controversies, such as the recent one involving Yolo County and the Rumsey Rancheria (as I blogged about here last year) as just another handy wedge issue, which can be cynically manipulated, whatever the local nuances, to score lazy Culture War points.

I'd be more impressed with Clements if he tore after some conservatives for a change. He is a follower of Ayn-Rand style libertarianism, which places a very high value (too high in my opinion) on individual freedom-of-action (note I don't say freedom here: it's as much freedom of economic action as it is freedom of thought). The thought of making a sacrifice for the common good seems anathema to him, and the idea of eminent domain must strike him as particularly horrible, but perhaps it's better to let him speak for himself....

Here is a portion of an E-Mail from him, sent shortly after the Recall election(dated 10/21/03), to other Recall candidates on our mailing list, attacking, making a caricature of (and thus misrepresenting) the views of one of the liberal Democratic candidates in the election. It's written in the heat-of-the-moment, and a window into what his philosophy is:

When will socialists like yourself come to realize that socialism is disgustingly unethical. I’m sure you already realize that it is a miserable failure everywhere in the world. But I’m not against socialism because “it doesn’t work”, I’m opposed to it because it makes “society” the standard of value and sacrifices individuals to this new god called “society”. Under socialism individuals become pawns of the government who can tell them what to do, take as much of their money as it wants....or kill them if it is “good for society”. Problem is that “society” is nothing more than a word to denote a group of individuals. So history shows us that socialism amounts to one individual (or group of individuals) using the power of the government to rob, imprison or murder another individual (or group of individuals).

You socialists fear “big corporations” that provide us with food, housing, cars, software, clothing, medicine and everything else but you don’t fear “big government” which has murdered over 100 million people in the last 100 years (read “The Black Book of Communism” written by former socialists) and stolen more money from people than all the thieves in the world in all of history. A thief might steal a car stereo, some jewelry or a few hundred dollars. Governments take 50% to 80% of the income of their subjects. In socialist nations they steal entire factories and entire industries. Hillary Clinton tried to put one fifth of the US economy under socialism with her delicately named “single payer” health care plan.

What governments do: start wars, murder people, imprison people, steal our money, take away our freedom
What “big bad corporations” do: produce all the things to keep us alive, make us happy and save our life

Who do you and your ilk think are the real villains in our world?... the mass murders, destroyers and thieves which are governments? No, the companies that sell you the car you drive, the toothpaste you use and the milk you drink. What a pathetic lot of misguided fools you all are.

It’s funny how socialists like yourself often favor gun control but all of your programs require guns because they all function by force. Force people into social security, prohibit people from freely trading by force, prohibit competition with public transportation by force, take their money by force, force employers to do this, force workers to do that, force, force, force...its the way the wheels turn (or don’t) under socialism. You will need a lot of guns to implement your plans since none of them involve free choice and all involve force.

I won’t defend the Republicans. Many Republicans are as bad as Democrats, some are worse. I’m an Objectivist who just ran on their ticket. I’ll defend Objectivism though and if you’d care to take a swipe at it here’s where you can get more information about this philosophy. Take your best shot!
Www.objectivistcenter.org