A New Architecture, Couture,

[MrBenjamatic]

Here we go...

As it is something of a tradition in Objectivist scholarship, I feel no shame in quoting my previously published writings.

Carol and I are civilized enough to have a respectful disagreement during philosophical conversation. I'm merely here to have my premises checked. I have absolutely no intention to fight anyone, only to have polite, civilized and respectful philosophical conversation. That's all. I can't fathom how a civilized, respectful polite approach to philosophical discussion can result in being "punched out". Please correct me if I'm wrong. I never did understand what you meant by punching myself out of the first round if not by being vulgar, disrespectful and rudely fighting others. It has been construed by Carol that in writing this I am calling you vulgar and rude. I do not consiter you to be vulgar or rude and I thought I should make this clear. Also, my question a couple sentences back was intended to question your premises and not to bite.

[caroljane]

Here we go...

As it is something of a tradition in Objectivist scholarship, I feel no shame in quoting my previously published writings.

Carol and I are civilized enough to have a respectful disagreement during philosophical conversation. I'm merely here to have my premises checked. I have absolutely no intention to fight anyone, only to have polite, civilized and respectful philosophical conversation. That's all. I can't fathom how a civilized, respectful polite approach to philosophical discussion can result in being "punched out". Please correct me if I'm wrong. I never did understand what you meant by punching myself out of the first round if not by being vulgar, disrespectful and rudely fighting others.

PDS is not vulgar, disrespectful or rude. He's just a lawyer, I believe a litigator in fact. They have an idiosyncratic way of debating and the ability to enjoy the debates of others.

[MrBenjamatic]

Licensing laws, essentially, are created by collective despot and wanna-be slave-drivers who want obedience for the sake of obedience, who want power for the sake of power, who shackle genius for the sake of shackling genius, who enforce slavery for the sake of slavery, who are evil for the sake of evil. I could speak for a very long time on their epistemology and how they got that way but that should be the topic for another discussion. They say that they create these shackles which they call laws to protect the "public interest, health, safety and welfare". The argument of my case: if the "public interest, health, safety and welfare" requires slavery -and it does according to their laws- then the public interest, health, safety and welfare be damned!

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court.

Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court?

[PDS]

Here we go...

As it is something of a tradition in Objectivist scholarship, I feel no shame in quoting my previously published writings.

Carol and I are civilized enough to have a respectful disagreement during philosophical conversation. I'm merely here to have my premises checked. I have absolutely no intention to fight anyone, only to have polite, civilized and respectful philosophical conversation. That's all. I can't fathom how a civilized, respectful polite approach to philosophical discussion can result in being "punched out". Please correct me if I'm wrong. I never did understand what you meant by punching myself out of the first round if not by being vulgar, disrespectful and rudely fighting others.

When a fighter enters the first round of a match, it is possible to "punch oneself out" by throwing too many punches, with too much energy, far too fast. When this happens, by the second or third round, the fighter has nothing left in terms of energy, and his arms are worn out.

The phrase has nothing to do with civility or being vulgar or disrespectful.

If you are still here posting in a month, or if this thread is still going strong, I promise to apologize. Fair enough?

[MrBenjamatic]

Here we go...

As it is something of a tradition in Objectivist scholarship, I feel no shame in quoting my previously published writings.

Carol and I are civilized enough to have a respectful disagreement during philosophical conversation. I'm merely here to have my premises checked. I have absolutely no intention to fight anyone, only to have polite, civilized and respectful philosophical conversation. That's all. I can't fathom how a civilized, respectful polite approach to philosophical discussion can result in being "punched out". Please correct me if I'm wrong. I never did understand what you meant by punching myself out of the first round if not by being vulgar, disrespectful and rudely fighting others.

When a fighter enters the first round of a match, it is possible to "punch oneself out" by throwing too many punches, with too much energy, far too fast. When this happens, by the second or third round, the fighter has nothing left in terms of energy, and his arms are worn out.

The phrase has nothing to do with civility or being vulgar or disrespectful.

If you are still here posting in a month, or if this thread is still going strong, I promise to apologize. Fair enough?

I would agree with you if I was new to Objectivism. I have, however, been diligently studying Objectivism for over a year and a half and I've had as many philosophical debates as I could for as long as I could. You would not know that though. As for energy, I've been this passionate about my work since age 5 and my work is the purpose which brought me here. I haven't tired yet, save once or twice while living in Kent. If slavery and government threats of guns and force can't tire me, this philosophical discussion website surely won't.

P.S. There's absolutely no need to apologize for a prediction ;)

[caroljane]

Licensing laws, essentially, are created by collective despot and wanna-be slave-drivers who want obedience for the sake of obedience, who want power for the sake of power, who shackle genius for the sake of shackling genius, who enforce slavery for the sake of slavery, who are evil for the sake of evil. I could speak for a very long time on their epistemology and how they got that way but that should be the topic for another discussion. They say that they create these shackles which they call laws to protect the "public interest, health, safety and welfare". The argument of my case: if the "public interest, health, safety and welfare" requires slavery -and it does according to their laws- then the public interest, health, safety and welfare be damned!

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court.

Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court?

i

I don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case.

[MrBenjamatic]

Licensing laws, essentially, are created by collective despot and wanna-be slave-drivers who want obedience for the sake of obedience, who want power for the sake of power, who shackle genius for the sake of shackling genius, who enforce slavery for the sake of slavery, who are evil for the sake of evil. I could speak for a very long time on their epistemology and how they got that way but that should be the topic for another discussion. They say that they create these shackles which they call laws to protect the "public interest, health, safety and welfare". The argument of my case: if the "public interest, health, safety and welfare" requires slavery -and it does according to their laws- then the public interest, health, safety and welfare be damned!

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court.

Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court?

i

I don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case.

Do you know why?

[caroljane]

Licensing laws, essentially, are created by collective despot and wanna-be slave-drivers who want obedience for the sake of obedience, who want power for the sake of power, who shackle genius for the sake of shackling genius, who enforce slavery for the sake of slavery, who are evil for the sake of evil. I could speak for a very long time on their epistemology and how they got that way but that should be the topic for another discussion. They say that they create these shackles which they call laws to protect the "public interest, health, safety and welfare". The argument of my case: if the "public interest, health, safety and welfare" requires slavery -and it does according to their laws- then the public interest, health, safety and welfare be damned!

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court.

Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court?

i

I don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case.

Do you know why?

Licensing laws, essentially, are created by collective despot and wanna-be slave-drivers who want obedience for the sake of obedience, who want power for the sake of power, who shackle genius for the sake of shackling genius, who enforce slavery for the sake of slavery, who are evil for the sake of evil. I could speak for a very long time on their epistemology and how they got that way but that should be the topic for another discussion. They say that they create these shackles which they call laws to protect the "public interest, health, safety and welfare". The argument of my case: if the "public interest, health, safety and welfare" requires slavery -and it does according to their laws- then the public interest, health, safety and welfare be damned!

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court.

Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court?

i

I don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case.

Do you know why?

Licensing laws, essentially, are created by collective despot and wanna-be slave-drivers who want obedience for the sake of obedience, who want power for the sake of power, who shackle genius for the sake of shackling genius, who enforce slavery for the sake of slavery, who are evil for the sake of evil. I could speak for a very long time on their epistemology and how they got that way but that should be the topic for another discussion. They say that they create these shackles which they call laws to protect the "public interest, health, safety and welfare". The argument of my case: if the "public interest, health, safety and welfare" requires slavery -and it does according to their laws- then the public interest, health, safety and welfare be damned!

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court.

Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court?

i

I don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case.

Do you know why?

Because most cases like this are decided by a judge or panel of judges, not a jury. Judges must go by the book, by the interpretation of the law as it exists, and usually have heard passionate speeches on every side, their job being to weigh the passion and the letter and spirit of the law.,I know there are plenty of judges who have agendae and will love a passionate speech when it ties in with their own passions. But even on judges there are checks and balances.

[caroljane]

Philip, I do not know why i a am moved to quote these lines to you.

"And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow, with smiling bastards lying to you everywhere you go,

Take heart and put forth all your heart and arm and brain..."

I think you are doing it, as best you can.

[caroljane]

Stan Rogers was the writer.

[MrBenjamatic]

Philip, I do not know why i a am moved to quote these lines to you.

"And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow, with smiling bastards lying to you everywhere you go,

Take heart and put forth all your heart and arm and brain..."

I think you are doing it, as best you can.

Till death. If the maggots want to stop me they'll have to kill me. I mean that literally.

[MrBenjamatic]

Licensing laws, essentially, are created by collective despot and wanna-be slave-drivers who want obedience for the sake of obedience, who want power for the sake of power, who shackle genius for the sake of shackling genius, who enforce slavery for the sake of slavery, who are evil for the sake of evil. I could speak for a very long time on their epistemology and how they got that way but that should be the topic for another discussion. They say that they create these shackles which they call laws to protect the "public interest, health, safety and welfare". The argument of my case: if the "public interest, health, safety and welfare" requires slavery -and it does according to their laws- then the public interest, health, safety and welfare be damned!

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court.

Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court?

i

I don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case.

Do you know why?

Licensing laws, essentially, are created by collective despot and wanna-be slave-drivers who want obedience for the sake of obedience, who want power for the sake of power, who shackle genius for the sake of shackling genius, who enforce slavery for the sake of slavery, who are evil for the sake of evil. I could speak for a very long time on their epistemology and how they got that way but that should be the topic for another discussion. They say that they create these shackles which they call laws to protect the "public interest, health, safety and welfare". The argument of my case: if the "public interest, health, safety and welfare" requires slavery -and it does according to their laws- then the public interest, health, safety and welfare be damned!

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court.

Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court?

i

I don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case.

Do you know why?

Licensing laws, essentially, are created by collective despot and wanna-be slave-drivers who want obedience for the sake of obedience, who want power for the sake of power, who shackle genius for the sake of shackling genius, who enforce slavery for the sake of slavery, who are evil for the sake of evil. I could speak for a very long time on their epistemology and how they got that way but that should be the topic for another discussion. They say that they create these shackles which they call laws to protect the "public interest, health, safety and welfare". The argument of my case: if the "public interest, health, safety and welfare" requires slavery -and it does according to their laws- then the public interest, health, safety and welfare be damned!

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court.

Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court?

i

I don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case.

Do you know why?

Because most cases like this are decided by a judge or panel of judges, not a jury. Judges must go by the book, by the interpretation of the law as it exists, and usually have heard passionate speeches on every side, their job being to weigh the passion and the letter and spirit of the law.,I know there are plenty of judges who have agendae and will love a passionate speech when it ties in with their own passions. But even on judges there are checks and balances.

Actually this case will include, as I was told by the District Court today, a jury. I haven't filed suit yet as I'm editing the case which I will hand in, however I did call and check. I agree that emotion should not be taken into account in making a verdict; if it were the winning party could win by merely making an angrier face than the other party. I'll probably get a tad bit emotional when discussing my right to offer to trade the architecture I've been diligently pursuing since age 5, as, I think, that's unavoidable. However, I do know that sensory evidence which proves that a violation of human rights has been committed by the defendant should justly be taken into account. I'm sure you agree.

[caroljane]

O Philip! "Sensory evidence", from one witness only, almost never proves anything to a jury much less than a judge, who always gives evidential instruction to juries.

I would really like to agree with you but I cannot.

t

[caroljane]

Will you have supporting witnesses for your arguments when you go to court?

[MrBenjamatic]

O Philip! "Sensory evidence", from one witness only, almost never proves anything to a jury much less than a judge, who always gives evidential instruction to juries.

I would really like to agree with you but I canno.

t

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough, and, as I remember you're not an Objectivist so you might not agree with me. When I say sensory evidence I mean I've used, as a guide, the legislation regulating architecture from the villains websites. My other evidence is not sensory its one single brilliant axiom: a thing is itself, and it's corollary axioms: contradictions cannot exist, either-or. The laws of logic are what I directly base rights off of and the laws of logic are absolutes, they apply to every single piece of sensory evidence that ever existed. The laws of logic are the most self-evident facts I could ever bring to court and I am. I can't wait!

I need no supporting witnesses. I have proved by the laws of logic that my rights have been violated and the AAC legislation further proves it. My case consists of proving each law to be based on the false and the wrong and thereby is evil and I prove how and why each law violates my rights.

[caroljane]

O Philip! "Sensory evidence", from one witness only, almost never proves anything to a jury much less than a judge, who always gives evidential instruction to juries.

I would really like to agree with you but I canno.

t

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough, and, as I remember you're not an Objectivist so you might not agree with me. When I say sensory evidence I mean I've used, as a guide, the legislation regulating architecture from the villains websites. My other evidence is not sensory its one single brilliant axiom: a thing is itself, and it's corollary axioms: contradictions cannot exist, either-or. The laws of logic are what I directly base rights off of and the laws of logic are absolutes, they apply to every single piece of sensory evidence that ever existed. The laws of logic are the most self-evident facts I could ever bring to court and I am. I can't wait!

I need no supporting witnesses. I have proved by the laws of logic that my rights have been violated and the AAC legislation further proves it. My case consists of proving each law to be based on the false and the wrong and thereby is evil and I prove how and why each law violates my rights.

I respectfully disagree, I think you do need supporting witnesses, expert witnesses. The other side will have plenty.

[Reidy]

You say you'll be filing a constitutional challenge in U.S. District Court. Does the legal system work that way? My understanding is that constitutional challenges are the business of appeals courts and that a plaintiff has to lose in trial court - has to be convicted of a crime, lose a lawsuit, etc. - in order to file an appeal. The plaintiff says, in effect, yes, I broke the law (or what have you), but the law is unconstitutional. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Another point: don't you have to show some palpable loss (not possible or hypothetical) to have standing to sue? How did you come to have standing? What will be your next move if the court tells you that you don't?

[caroljane]

You say you'll be filing a constitutional challenge in U.S. District Court. Does the legal system work that way? My understanding is that constitutional challenges are the business of appeals courts and that a plaintiff has to lose in trial court - has to be convicted of a crime, lose a lawsuit, etc. - in order to file an appeal. The plaintiff says, in effect, yes, I broke the law (or what have you), but the law is unconstitutional. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Another point: don't you have to show some palpable loss (not possible or hypothetical) to have standing to sue? How did you come to have standing? What will be your next move if the court tells you that you don't?

Yes-- it is the regulatory laws, which he hasn't broken, which aim to prevent Ben from practising as an architect. The architectural groups he names, have never done anything to him, They just exist. He seems to be saying, their existence violates his rights.

[MrBenjamatic]

You say you'll be filing a constitutional challenge in U.S. District Court. Does the legal system work that way? My understanding is that constitutional challenges are the business of appeals courts and that a plaintiff has to lose in trial court - has to be convicted of a crime, lose a lawsuit, etc. - in order to file an appeal. The plaintiff says, in effect, yes, I broke the law (or what have you), but the law is unconstitutional. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Another point: don't you have to show some palpable loss (not possible or hypothetical) to have standing to sue? How did you come to have standing? What will be your next move if the court tells you that you don't?

I was told by two lawyers that I had to file in in a District Court. I was told by one shortly after I was beginning my case that I must file it in the court of appeals. I was told by the two lawyers that one has to lose in the district court in order to file at the Court of Appeals. I've called the courts but no one will offer legal advise about where to file which is incredibly impractical. I most certaintly will commit civil disobedience if I have to though I know I deserve money for my involuntary services as a slave and as my rights were vigorously violated and that the law still forces me down in the position of a slave. You asked in the last sentence of you're first paragraph: Correct me if I'm wrong. I hope you are and that I can gain and keep the money I deserve however freedom is a much greater value that any amount of money. Honestly, with so many contradicting legal advise, I can't say who is right and who is wrong. I recieved an email from a man with legal knowlege though my legal vocabulary is in short supply so I couldn't understand much but I'll try to look the terms up. I hope he can help- what a horrid hassle it would be to wait 2 years till trial and to find out I filed in the wrong court.

The palpable loss is of my rights. I was utterly sleep deprived, so much in fact that I was hallucinating and couldn't walk straight without concentrating and the like. The sleep deprivation was caused by the architecture program projects and ALL architectural programs are regulated and enslaved by the AAC (AIA, AIAS, NCARB, NAAB, ACSA). I was originally going to sue Kent State for my sleep deprivation and the violation of my rights however I think its too late, or so I've been told.

[MrBenjamatic]

You say you'll be filing a constitutional challenge in U.S. District Court. Does the legal system work that way? My understanding is that constitutional challenges are the business of appeals courts and that a plaintiff has to lose in trial court - has to be convicted of a crime, lose a lawsuit, etc. - in order to file an appeal. The plaintiff says, in effect, yes, I broke the law (or what have you), but the law is unconstitutional. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Another point: don't you have to show some palpable loss (not possible or hypothetical) to have standing to sue? How did you come to have standing? What will be your next move if the court tells you that you don't?

Yes-- it is the regulatory laws, which he hasn't broken, which aim to prevent Ben from practising as an architect. The architectural groups he names, have never done anything to him, They just exist. He seems to be saying, their existence violates his rights.

Their existence doesn't violate my rights. Its they who creates the laws which initiates force against me if I call myself an architect in public or accept a commission without involuntarily serving them. They forbid me to be an architect for my own sake without giving or asking for help. If I don't serve them, they'll have me arrested because they claim the right to force a man who has forced no one because that man didn't but might force others.

Do I make sense?

[MrBenjamatic]

OH! Are you saying that force has to be committed against me in order to consiter it a crime. I get it. But is it not the law (which threatens to initiates force against me) that is enforced by the government and must be, under the threat of force, followed by all. Such force is in my way. Do you see a contradiction here?

[caroljane]

You say you'll be filing a constitutional challenge in U.S. District Court. Does the legal system work that way? My understanding is that constitutional challenges are the business of appeals courts and that a plaintiff has to lose in trial court - has to be convicted of a crime, lose a lawsuit, etc. - in order to file an appeal. The plaintiff says, in effect, yes, I broke the law (or what have you), but the law is unconstitutional. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Another point: don't you have to show some palpable loss (not possible or hypothetical) to have standing to sue? How did you come to have standing? What will be your next move if the court tells you that you don't?

Yes-- it is the regulatory laws, which he hasn't broken, which aim to prevent Ben from practising as an architect. The architectural groups he names, have never done anything to him, They just exist. He seems to be saying, their existence violates his rights.

Their existence doesn't violate my rights. Its they who creates the laws which initiates force against me if I call myself an architect in public or accept a commission without involuntarily serving them. They forbid me to be an architect for my own sake without giving or asking for help. If I don't serve them, they'll have me arrested because they claim the right to force a man who has forced no one because that man didn't but might force others.

Do I make sense?

But they haven't had you arrested or forced you to anything. Nor did they force you to join the architecture program.

[MrBenjamatic]

You say you'll be filing a constitutional challenge in U.S. District Court. Does the legal system work that way? My understanding is that constitutional challenges are the business of appeals courts and that a plaintiff has to lose in trial court - has to be convicted of a crime, lose a lawsuit, etc. - in order to file an appeal. The plaintiff says, in effect, yes, I broke the law (or what have you), but the law is unconstitutional. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Another point: don't you have to show some palpable loss (not possible or hypothetical) to have standing to sue? How did you come to have standing? What will be your next move if the court tells you that you don't?

Yes-- it is the regulatory laws, which he hasn't broken, which aim to prevent Ben from practising as an architect. The architectural groups he names, have never done anything to him, They just exist. He seems to be saying, their existence violates his rights.

Their existence doesn't violate my rights. Its they who creates the laws which initiates force against me if I call myself an architect in public or accept a commission without involuntarily serving them. They forbid me to be an architect for my own sake without giving or asking for help. If I don't serve them, they'll have me arrested because they claim the right to force a man who has forced no one because that man didn't but might force others.

Do I make sense?

But they haven't had you arrested or forced you to anything. Nor did they force you to join the architecture program.

I'll have to call the legal advisor who I spoke to as it is essentially the rules of filing suit which matter. I can see where you're coming from and I don't agree however, I'll consiter, upon discussing it with the legal advisor, committin civil disobeience this week by calling the AIA or another AAC member and call myself an architect, advertise and ask if they would please give me a commission. Then there can be no dispute as to whether I would be forced against my will if I broke their laws.

Actually once I finish my case which should be in at most 20 days.

[caroljane]

You say you'll be filing a constitutional challenge in U.S. District Court. Does the legal system work that way? My understanding is that constitutional challenges are the business of appeals courts and that a plaintiff has to lose in trial court - has to be convicted of a crime, lose a lawsuit, etc. - in order to file an appeal. The plaintiff says, in effect, yes, I broke the law (or what have you), but the law is unconstitutional. Correct me if I'm wrong

I was told by two lawyers that I had to file in in a District Court. I was told by one shortly after I was beginning my case that I must file it in the court of appeals. I was told by the two lawyers that one has to lose in the district court in order to file at the Court of Appeals. I've called the courts but no one will offer legal advise about where to file which is incredibly impractical. .

It would hardly be practical of them to advise you to go out and break the law so you can appeal your conviction.

[MrBenjamatic]

You say you'll be filing a constitutional challenge in U.S. District Court. Does the legal system work that way? My understanding is that constitutional challenges are the business of appeals courts and that a plaintiff has to lose in trial court - has to be convicted of a crime, lose a lawsuit, etc. - in order to file an appeal. The plaintiff says, in effect, yes, I broke the law (or what have you), but the law is unconstitutional. Correct me if I'm wrong

I was told by two lawyers that I had to file in in a District Court. I was told by one shortly after I was beginning my case that I must file it in the court of appeals. I was told by the two lawyers that one has to lose in the district court in order to file at the Court of Appeals. I've called the courts but no one will offer legal advise about where to file which is incredibly impractical. .

It would hardly be practical of them to advise you to go out and break the law so you can appeal your conviction.

You hold I have to be forced in order to have grounds to sue as opposed to having laws which absolutely threaten force (which is enforced to be carried out as a law). Then you say that it would be impractical for an Objectivist (sorry I didn't mention that part) advisor to advise breaking the saw so I would be forced so to have grounds to sue. If their legal threat of force is not a crime unless they initiate it and if it's improper to break the unconstitutional laws forcing me not to be an architect, how on earth do you hold I would end up in a courtroom?