Iron Man

[Selene]

Bob:

A question:

You are arguing that any ingestion of carbon monoxide and other impurities is anti-life, damaging to an individual's health and irreversible, correct?

Adam

[Chris Grieb]

I was just look at the IMDB web site where they have movie grosses. I noted that Iron Man is the top movie in receipts for the whole beating the new Indiania Jones. Iron Man is continueing to get good grosses even through it has been out four weeks.

Hey Bub... Stay on topic!

The topic is Iron Man.

[bmacwilliam]

Bob:

A question:

You are arguing that any ingestion of carbon monoxide and other impurities is anti-life, damaging to an individual's health and irreversible, correct?

Adam

Wha???

I'm asserting that cigarette smoke is damaging to one's health in a dose-dependent way and the even one cigarette has immediate negative effects. It is not relevent whether all effects are irreversible or not. The dose-dependency is the key concept here.

Bob

[Selene]

Bob:

"The assertion is based on the immediate delivery of carbon monoxide and thousands of other (many carcinogenic) chemicals into the lungs/blood stream. Carbon monoxide just as an example immediately lowers the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. One cigarette will have an easily measureable negative effect."

This was part of your statement in answering my question as to what factual support you had for your "assertion".

So your stunned "Wha?" apparently means that you forgot what you stated above.

Your broad brush generalization leads me to believe that you would also make all gas and diesel engines and all furnaces as immoral and therefore illegal.

Therefore, in the centralized state of Bob, we would be morally pedaling our bicycles to work at the hand loom factories or the basket weaving centers because all modern industrial facilities would be illegal.

For want of a match the cigarette was not lit and for want of an engine, our freedom was lost.

Happy cave dwelling to our society.

Bob's moral dictatorship would probably not allow us to heat the caves with fire because of the emissions of carbon monoxide from the fires.

Adam

[bmacwilliam]

Bob:

"The assertion is based on the immediate delivery of carbon monoxide and thousands of other (many carcinogenic) chemicals into the lungs/blood stream. Carbon monoxide just as an example immediately lowers the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. One cigarette will have an easily measureable negative effect."

This was part of your statement in answering my question as to what factual support you had for your "assertion".

So your stunned "Wha?" apparently means that you forgot what you stated above.

Your broad brush generalization leads me to believe that you would also make all gas and diesel engines and all furnaces as immoral and therefore illegal.

Therefore, in the centralized state of Bob, we would be morally pedaling our bicycles to work at the hand loom factories or the basket weaving centers because all modern industrial facilities would be illegal.

For want of a match the cigarette was not lit and for want of an engine, our freedom was lost.

Happy cave dwelling to our society.

Bob's moral dictatorship would probably not allow us to heat the caves with fire because of the emissions of carbon monoxide from the fires.

Adam

You obviously have little interest in rational discussion. You cannot seem to separate things that have utility and purpose like diesel engines from things like cigarettes that have no useful purpose other than short-term hedonic pleasure.

I'm not really interested in continuing a discussion like this when you seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension or simply don't read at all.

Bob

Edited June 5, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[Laure]

Bob, I understand the distinction between a useful diesel engine, and a useless cigarette. But, I really, really don't want the government deciding what is "just a hedonistic pleasure" and being free to ban such things. What if we get some real Puritans in office? There goes our ice cream, our motorcycles, our hot tubs, our movies, etc., etc. Eventually, something you like is going to be on the list of banned hedonistic pleasures. Why not just let everyone "pick their own poison"? What's it to you?

[bmacwilliam]

Bob, I understand the distinction between a useful diesel engine, and a useless cigarette. But, I really, really don't want the government deciding what is "just a hedonistic pleasure" and being free to ban such things. What if we get some real Puritans in office? There goes our ice cream, our motorcycles, our hot tubs, our movies, etc., etc. Eventually, something you like is going to be on the list of banned hedonistic pleasures. Why not just let everyone "pick their own poison"? What's it to you?

I understand. But there's two things to remember though. Ice cream, motorcycles, etc., have useful and non-harmful application. That's one thing. Movies? Well, I don't think it should be 'legal' for a child to see a XXX movie for example.

But the second thing is I DO NOT think it should be illegal to smoke. I think it should be illegal to sell/profit from tobacco. It's an important difference. If a person is foolish enough to smoke, so be it, but to profit from addiction is just about as low as one can get.

I have one question too, that I asked earlier, and that's how immoral does something have to be before it should be illegal?

Bob

[Alfonso Jones]

Bob, I understand the distinction between a useful diesel engine, and a useless cigarette. But, I really, really don't want the government deciding what is "just a hedonistic pleasure" and being free to ban such things. What if we get some real Puritans in office? There goes our ice cream, our motorcycles, our hot tubs, our movies, etc., etc. Eventually, something you like is going to be on the list of banned hedonistic pleasures. Why not just let everyone "pick their own poison"? What's it to you?

I understand. But there's two things to remember though. Ice cream, motorcycles, etc., have useful and non-harmful application. That's one thing. Movies? Well, I don't think it should be 'legal' for a child to see a XXX movie for example.

But the second thing is I DO NOT think it should be illegal to smoke. I think it should be illegal to sell/profit from tobacco. It's an important difference. If a person is foolish enough to smoke, so be it, but to profit from addiction is just about as low as one can get.

I have one question too, that I asked earlier, and that's how immoral does something have to be before it should be illegal?

Bob

My answer - there is no extent. Legality has got to do with protecting people from the initiation of force by others.

I would argue that it is immoral for someone to waste their mind by not developing it, learning, and seeking to grow. That for them to do so is immoral. But it would not occur to me that a law should be passed to prevent those actions.

Rand's answer on the nature and role of morality, found in The Objectivist Ethics, was:

"What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.

The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?

Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?"

Bill P (Alfonso)

[bmacwilliam]

Bob, I understand the distinction between a useful diesel engine, and a useless cigarette. But, I really, really don't want the government deciding what is "just a hedonistic pleasure" and being free to ban such things. What if we get some real Puritans in office? There goes our ice cream, our motorcycles, our hot tubs, our movies, etc., etc. Eventually, something you like is going to be on the list of banned hedonistic pleasures. Why not just let everyone "pick their own poison"? What's it to you?

I understand. But there's two things to remember though. Ice cream, motorcycles, etc., have useful and non-harmful application. That's one thing. Movies? Well, I don't think it should be 'legal' for a child to see a XXX movie for example.

But the second thing is I DO NOT think it should be illegal to smoke. I think it should be illegal to sell/profit from tobacco. It's an important difference. If a person is foolish enough to smoke, so be it, but to profit from addiction is just about as low as one can get.

I have one question too, that I asked earlier, and that's how immoral does something have to be before it should be illegal?

Bob

My answer - there is no extent. Legality has got to do with protecting people from the initiation of force by others.

I would argue that it is immoral for someone to waste their mind by not developing it, learning, and seeking to grow. That for them to do so is immoral. But it would not occur to me that a law should be passed to prevent those actions.

Rand's answer on the nature and role of morality, found in The Objectivist Ethics, was:

"What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.

The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?

Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?"

Bill P (Alfonso)

So, would failing to pay for services rendered under a valid contract be construed as some kind of force? Or would it be immoral, but perfectly legal just not to pay?

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

I understand. But there's two things to remember though. Ice cream, motorcycles, etc., have useful and non-harmful application. That's one thing. Movies? Well, I don't think it should be 'legal' for a child to see a XXX movie for example.

But the second thing is I DO NOT think it should be illegal to smoke. I think it should be illegal to sell/profit from tobacco. It's an important difference. If a person is foolish enough to smoke, so be it, but to profit from addiction is just about as low as one can get.

So, put the kid in the slammer?

How does one smoke if no one's profiting? You've just theorectically expanded the war on drugs.

Some people are addicted to French Fried potatoes. Immoral MacDonalds?

A smoker who owns stock in the tobacco company that makes his cigarettes is immoral twice over? Or not at all?

I've made money in Phillip Morris stock. I don't smoke. I'm "about as low as one can get"?

Would you deny smokers a standard product by major, public companies, or would you consign them to smoking God really knows what if not genuine "HorseShit" cigarettes? How "moral" would that make you? "10,000 Die In China from Bad Smokes!"

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Bob, I understand the distinction between a useful diesel engine, and a useless cigarette. But, I really, really don't want the government deciding what is "just a hedonistic pleasure" and being free to ban such things. What if we get some real Puritans in office? There goes our ice cream, our motorcycles, our hot tubs, our movies, etc., etc. Eventually, something you like is going to be on the list of banned hedonistic pleasures. Why not just let everyone "pick their own poison"? What's it to you?

I understand. But there's two things to remember though. Ice cream, motorcycles, etc., have useful and non-harmful application. That's one thing. Movies? Well, I don't think it should be 'legal' for a child to see a XXX movie for example.

But the second thing is I DO NOT think it should be illegal to smoke. I think it should be illegal to sell/profit from tobacco. It's an important difference. If a person is foolish enough to smoke, so be it, but to profit from addiction is just about as low as one can get.

I have one question too, that I asked earlier, and that's how immoral does something have to be before it should be illegal?

Bob

My answer - there is no extent. Legality has got to do with protecting people from the initiation of force by others.

I would argue that it is immoral for someone to waste their mind by not developing it, learning, and seeking to grow. That for them to do so is immoral. But it would not occur to me that a law should be passed to prevent those actions.

Rand's answer on the nature and role of morality, found in The Objectivist Ethics, was:

"What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.

The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?

Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?"

Bill P (Alfonso)

So, would failing to pay for services rendered under a valid contract be construed as some kind of force? Or would it be immoral, but perfectly legal just not to pay?

Bob

Of course - if you contract for services and then refuse to pay or just fail to pay, you have violated the contract - and that is force. It should certainly be illegal.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[bmacwilliam]

Bob, I understand the distinction between a useful diesel engine, and a useless cigarette. But, I really, really don't want the government deciding what is "just a hedonistic pleasure" and being free to ban such things. What if we get some real Puritans in office? There goes our ice cream, our motorcycles, our hot tubs, our movies, etc., etc. Eventually, something you like is going to be on the list of banned hedonistic pleasures. Why not just let everyone "pick their own poison"? What's it to you?

I understand. But there's two things to remember though. Ice cream, motorcycles, etc., have useful and non-harmful application. That's one thing. Movies? Well, I don't think it should be 'legal' for a child to see a XXX movie for example.

But the second thing is I DO NOT think it should be illegal to smoke. I think it should be illegal to sell/profit from tobacco. It's an important difference. If a person is foolish enough to smoke, so be it, but to profit from addiction is just about as low as one can get.

I have one question too, that I asked earlier, and that's how immoral does something have to be before it should be illegal?

Bob

My answer - there is no extent. Legality has got to do with protecting people from the initiation of force by others.

I would argue that it is immoral for someone to waste their mind by not developing it, learning, and seeking to grow. That for them to do so is immoral. But it would not occur to me that a law should be passed to prevent those actions.

Rand's answer on the nature and role of morality, found in The Objectivist Ethics, was:

"What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.

The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?

Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?"

Bill P (Alfonso)

So, would failing to pay for services rendered under a valid contract be construed as some kind of force? Or would it be immoral, but perfectly legal just not to pay?

Bob

Of course - if you contract for services and then refuse to pay or just fail to pay, you have violated the contract - and that is force. It should certainly be illegal.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Right, that's what I thought. Sure, I agree that contracts should be legally enforceable, but to call a contract violation an act of force is ridiculous stretch. Basically anything can be 'force' then. How could you possible define 'force' so it could include everything you need it to include?

Bob

Edited June 6, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[Dragonfly]

Please omit all those nested quotes, a single-level quote is almost always sufficient.

[Brant Gaede]

Right, that's what I thought. Sure, I agree that contracts should be legally enforceable, but to call a contract violation an act of force is ridiculous stretch. Basically anything can be 'force' then. How could you possible define 'force' so it could include everything you need it to include?

Bob

You don't know Objectivism 101 but presume to lecture us about this? This is an Objectivism site, after all. You are either ignorant or disingenuous on this. Since Rand addressed this address what she said. I really resent adults with training wheels on their bikes thinking they are participating in The Tour de France.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Of course - if you contract for services and then refuse to pay or just fail to pay, you have violated the contract - and that is force. It should certainly be illegal.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Right, that's what I thought. Sure, I agree that contracts should be legally enforceable, but to call a contract violation an act of force is ridiculous stretch. Basically anything can be 'force' then. How could you possible define 'force' so it could include everything you need it to include?

Bob

Bob -

I thought you were at least somewhat familiar with Rand's writings. I must infer that I was wrong, from your post above.

Think about it: If I contract to pay you $1.00 in return for you giving me an ice cream cone, and give you the $1.00, and you promptly say "got you!" and walk away --- that is an exercise of force on your part. Just because I have no visible bruises does not alter whether force is present or not. I suggest reading a little Rand - perhaps the two nonfiction essay collections, Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. That way, you will understand some of the basics which undergird much of what is said. Whether you agree or disagree, at least you can do so in a more informed fashion.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[bmacwilliam]

Right, that's what I thought. Sure, I agree that contracts should be legally enforceable, but to call a contract violation an act of force is ridiculous stretch. Basically anything can be 'force' then. How could you possible define 'force' so it could include everything you need it to include?

Bob

You don't know Objectivism 101 but presume to lecture us about this? This is an Objectivism site, after all. You are either ignorant or disingenuous on this. Since Rand addressed this address what she said. I really resent adults with training wheels on their bikes thinking they are participating in The Tour de France.

--Brant

I have read Rand and I disagree with her. Your best answer is "You're wrong because Rand said...". Guess what? Rand's wrong on a lot of things.

Deception is not force, force is force. A contract violation is not force, force is force.

This is typical of Objecivist positions - pervert a definition of something into meaninglessness (because the argument falls apart otherwise)and pretend you're saying something intelligent. Same thing as man qua man, life qua man - complete crap.

Still waiting for the definition.

Bob

Edited June 6, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

Think about it: If I contract to pay you $1.00 in return for you giving me an ice cream cone, and give you the $1.00, and you promptly say "got you!" and walk away --- that is an exercise of force on your part.

Bill P (Alfonso)

No it's not. I touched nobody, nor did I force anybody to do anything whatsoever in any other way. But that's still force is it? Nonsense. Define force.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

Right, that's what I thought. Sure, I agree that contracts should be legally enforceable, but to call a contract violation an act of force is ridiculous stretch. Basically anything can be 'force' then. How could you possible define 'force' so it could include everything you need it to include?

Bob

You don't know Objectivism 101 but presume to lecture us about this? This is an Objectivism site, after all. You are either ignorant or disingenuous on this. Since Rand addressed this address what she said. I really resent adults with training wheels on their bikes thinking they are participating in The Tour de France.

--Brant

I have read Rand and I disagree with her. Your best answer is "You're wrong because Rand said...". Guess what? Rand's wrong on a lot of things.

Deception is not force, force is force. A contract violation is not force, force is force.

This is typical of Objecivist positions - pervert a definition of something into meaninglessness (because the argument falls apart otherwise)and pretend you're saying something intelligent. Same thing as man qua man, life qua man - complete crap.

Still waiting for the definition.

Gee, Bob. Why are you here? I'm not saying Rand was right about fraud being an example of the initiation of force, but you should simply state her argument(s) then bring on your criticism or refutation. If you don't at least do that you're just blowing hot air. Let's see: Fraud is not the initiation of force but it's okay to initiate force in any case as long as it's initiated against the purveyors of cigarettes? It's okay to initiate force as long as the initiation serves my understanding of what's moral? This turns morality into moral relativism. Anything goes if you have the power to make it go. Now, I happen to think that's "complete crap." You are also using "man qua man" as a stolen concept. Rand primarily refered to an inidividual, thinking, productive mind. You merely refer to physical health and well being. But it's still man qua man. It's just that your understanding of that is grossly delimited and constipated.

--Brant

Edited June 6, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[bmacwilliam]

Gee, Bob. Why are you here? I'm not saying Rand was right about fraud being an example of the initiation of force, but you should simply state her argument(s) then bring on your criticism or refutation. If you don't at least do that you're just blowing hot air. Let's see: Fraud is not the initiation of force but it's okay to initiate force in any case as long as it's initiated against the purveyors of cigarettes? It's okay to initiate force as long as the initiation serves my understanding of what's moral? This turns morality into moral relativism. Anything goes if you have the power to make it go. Now, I happen to think that's "complete crap." You are also using "man qua man" as a stolen concept. Rand primarily refered to an inidividual, thinking, productive mind. You merely refer to physical health and well being. But it's still man qua man. It's just that your understanding of that is grossly delimited and constipated.

--Brant

One thing at a time.

"I'm not saying Rand was right about fraud being an example of the initiation of force, but you should simply state her argument(s) then bring on your criticism or refutation."

Why? All I asked for was a definition of force. IIRC, Rand used the term 'physical force' as was quite clear about what she meant.

So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.

No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice.

It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.

So, if fraud, deception, and any other possible source of contract violation is indeed force, then we need a definition. If it is not, then we need some other immorality limit let's say, on what should be legally enforced.

Or, in other words. Bill P has to show how EVERY contract violation is force, or admit that contract violations should not be legally enforced because he stated.

"My answer - there is no extent [of immorality that should be legally enforceable]. Legality has got to do with protecting people from the initiation of force by others. "

So, let's hear it.

Bob

Edited June 6, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

While I wait for definition of force, I'll address directly what Rand said about the subject.

"A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of the owner. (Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government, Ibid., p. 130.)"

and

"Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner's consent, under false pretenses or false promises."

First of all, is consent obtained under false pretenses equivalent to physical force?

No way.

If it was, then failing to pay a prostitute would be rape, even if explicit consent (but under false pretenses) was given. Sex is the service. But now this is sex without consent - equivalent to physical force and not just a contract violation? It's rape? The violator is guilty of not just of fraud and must repay the original fee plus damages, but he's guilty of rape as well? Nonsense.

Fraud is wrong, but's it's fraud, not force.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I have never been comfortable with the logical twisting involved in calling fraud force. This is an excellent line of inquiry and you are spot on in asking for clear definitions.

If it can't be defined clearly, then it needs to be revised.

There is another implication that has always made me uneasy with this. If a person obtaining a physical value by fraud is committing an act of initiating force, then a person obtaining any physical value whatsoever from another is using force to get it. Trade constitutes force according to that standard. That premise is not a good one to contemplate and leads to a very dark place.

Goods are distributed by physical acts. This is true. But a physical act is not force in the sense people normally mean in these discussions.

There is a strong distinction between the hostile use of force and simply initiating a physical act like hauling something from the place of one person to that of another. I agree with you that hauling is not initiating force, whether custody of the thing was released by trade or fraud. Nor is keeping something initiating force.

In some cases, I even think initiating force to be a good thing. Boxing comes to mind. So does getting back goods obtained by fraud.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

While I wait for definition of force, I'll address directly what Rand said about the subject.

"A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of the owner. (Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government, Ibid., p. 130.)"

and

"Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner's consent, under false pretenses or false promises."

First of all, is consent obtained under false pretenses equivalent to physical force?

No way.

If it was, then failing to pay a prostitute would be rape, even if explicit consent (but under false pretenses) was given. Sex is the service. But now this is sex without consent - equivalent to physical force and not just a contract violation? It's rape? The violator is guilty of not just of fraud and must repay the original fee plus damages, but he's guilty of rape as well? Nonsense.

Fraud is wrong, but's it's fraud, not force.

Bob

Bob -

I'm not succeeding in figuring out what you are trying to get at. Let's say we take the things which an Objectivist would call force, and break them down into "physical force" and "other force." So, your example of the defrauded prostitute becomes that she is a victim of "other force." What is the point, then? I trust you are not going to argue that the "other force" (call it fraud, call it whatever) ought be legal, or am I wrong? Is this anything more substantial than arguing about words - whether to call some forms of force (broad sense) by the same term as the term used for violent physical force?

Peikoff said (in OPAR):

Just as "the physical" in the present issue is not limited to the violent, so it is not limited to the direct use of force.(73) An example of the indirect use of force would be the gaining of someone's property by fraud. In such a case, any consent the owner has expressed is nullified; the owner did not consent to the transfer of goods that actually occurred. Morally, the crime here is indistinguishable from plain robbery; the difference is only one of form. (The task of defining the many <opar_320> forms of physical force, direct and indirect, including all the variants of breach of contract, belongs to the field of law.)

If all your objection amounts to is you wanting to restrict the use of the word "force" to violent physical force, and not the broader context, then, in order to understand Rand and the many who follow her, you will need to consistently remember that you are using the word in a different way. YOu can't impute your meaning to her writing and then discover "problems" in Objectivist ethical/legal theory. And I, for one at least, can't figure out what you hope to gain by insisting that some forms of force (broader sense) are only fraud, not "force (narrow sense)."

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bill,

I am curious as to how you define the word force. We should keep in mind that a dictionary usually presents more than one definition, so I am actually asking how you define the concept "force" as you understand it in Objectivism instead of the word. Also, what on earth is "indirect force"? The threat of it?

Like, for instance, penalties given in law? Here is something to chew on. If, as Rand implies, consent is a requirement for defining the use of indirect force, I personally did not give my consent to place the laws on the books. So if consent is the standard, all laws that provide penalties (that would penalize me and enforce those penalties by force for infringing them) are immoral by definition. They exist by virtue of indirect force (as defined by consent).

I have not come across a definition of force in Objectivist or libertarian literature that satisfies me, i.e., that explains the usage of mixing up property laws with initiating force. I am also not content, like Peikoff, to let some undefined "field of law" define something so important at some undefined time in the future. In my thinking, that is a cop-out. That is refusal to address the issue in order to swallow the principle whole and not even digest it. My way is that when things get fuzzy and complicated, let's simplify them. Let's go back to the beginning and build the concepts up again.

I have no problem with condemning fraud, but, as I said, I am not comfortable with what I discern as word games to justify it. There are real enough reasons without resorting to that, so, to me at least, the concepts need to be clarified. And they can be. All it takes is checking premises and thinking the matter through.

I believe this is something where the fundamental principle in Objectivism is true, but the scope is too broad. There was an unfortunate misfire (loading too many referents into the concept for the distinguishing characteristics to bear) that has resulted in reams of literature trying to twist the concept of force into all kinds of shape. This literature gets really Kantian in method and most of it concludes and proves nothing. So rather than throw away the principle and bash Rand, like Bob seems to want to do, I want to look at it in depth and limit it to its proper scope. (And I hope Bob will join in with this spirit. He has a very good mind.)

This is important.

One unfortunate result of the word-twisting is that statists point to the lack of common sense in this kind of libertarian reasoning and use this to justify ignoring the NIOF principle altogether while they increase the government's power. Statists like the fuzziness.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill,

I am curious as to how you define the word force. We should keep in mind that a dictionary usually presents more than one definition, so I am actually asking how you define the concept "force" as you understand it in Objectivism instead of the word. Also, what on earth is "indirect force"? The threat of it?

Like, for instance, penalties given in law? Here is something to chew on. If, as Rand implies, consent is a requirement for defining the use of indirect force, I personally did not give my consent to place the laws on the books. So if consent is the standard, all laws that provide penalties (that would penalize me and enforce those penalties by force for infringing them) are immoral by definition. They exist by virtue of indirect force (as defined by consent).

I have not come across a definition of force in Objectivist or libertarian literature that satisfies me, i.e., that explains the usage of mixing up property laws with initiating force. I am also not content, like Peikoff, to let some undefined "field of law" define something so important at some undefined time in the future. In my thinking, that is a cop-out. That is refusal to address the issue in order to swallow the principle whole and not even digest it. My way is that when things get fuzzy and complicated, let's simplify them. Let's go back to the beginning and build the concepts up again.

I have no problem with condemning fraud, but, as I said, I am not comfortable with what I discern as word games to justify it. There are real enough reasons without resorting to that, so, to me at least, the concepts need to be clarified. And they can be. All it takes is checking premises and thinking the matter through.

I believe this is something where the fundamental principle in Objectivism is true, but the scope is too broad. There was an unfortunate misfire (loading too many referents into the concept for the distinguishing characteristics to bear) that has resulted in reams of literature trying to twist the concept of force into all kinds of shape. This literature gets really Kantian in method and most of it concludes and proves nothing. So rather than throw away the principle and bash Rand, like Bob seems to want to do, I want to look at it in depth and limit it to its proper scope. (And I hope Bob will join in with this spirit. He has a very good mind.)

This is important.

One unfortunate result of the word-twisting is that statists point to the lack of common sense in this kind of libertarian reasoning and use this to justify ignoring the NIOF principle altogether while they increase the government's power. Statists like the fuzziness.

Michael

Now this is frustrating - I just wrote a long response, and the post doesn't show up... I'll write more tersely this time.

This will be brief, with more full thoughts later.

Suppose we define:

force(Rand) = the sense of the word as used by Rand

force(violent physical) = the more restricted sense which appeals to those who don't want to use the broad sense

force(other) = those things contained in force(Rand) but not in force(violent physical).

Easy examples of force(other) cited and often discussed by Rand and others include fraud, for instance.

Now, what do we hope to attain by precisely defining the three terms above:

1) Presumably, greater clarity on the NIOF principle, or articulation of a second principle other than NIOF to deal with force(other). (I assume that at least some would want to restrict NIOF to force(violent physical) and have another principle regarding force(other).)

2) Avoid using the word "force" for situations involving fraud but not violent physical force. For some this use seems to be a distraction.

Is this the intent and concern? I'm assuming that NOBODY is wanting to declare that force(other) should not be forbidden by law (modulo getting to a satisfactory definition, of course.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bill,

My own intent and concern is to avoid mis-identifying reality. Overloading a hot-button word gives birth to all kinds of maladies.

For instance, if taken literally with the overload in place, the only logical conclusion one can come to is that government is evil and should be abolished. Then stare in wonder at Rand's injunction to choose (apparently in some kind of non-volitional manner) to delegate one's ability to use force to the government and provide it with a monopoly. This is exactly the way the anarcho-capitalists think and judge. I can't fault their logic from such premises, either (although I do disagree with them on the need for government, which I hold stems from man's nature, but the part not covered and even denied in Objectivism).

And that is just one malady. There are several others (even some that are especially horrible, like countless unending boring threads that often turn snarky on Objectivist and libertarian Internet forums ).

But let's start at the beginning with just one point. You wrote: "force(Rand) = the sense of the word as used by Rand."

Are you able to put Rand's broad usage into a classic Objectivist definition with genus and differentia? I have tried and I keep failing. The closest I got was including the concept of consent, but that fizzles out too easily (like with the case of law, which I mentioned).

The more I try to understand Rand's meaning of force and peg it to a clear definition, the fuzzier it gets. What is the fundamental differentiating characteristic of force if it is not physical? And if it is, what is the difference between a normal physical act and force? If there is none, what is the problem with initiating force to get things done and produce stuff? If you don't initiate physical acts, how do you do anything? Initiating physical acts against human beings? We get back to consent.

Then we come to sex. Did Roark initiate force against Dominique when he took her? How about other cases of Rand's rough sex scenes? I remember some of the main characters getting pleasure out of their bruises and tastes of blood.

And so it goes. In fact, I could go on about this all day. There is a reason I want to simplify it.

Michael