Peter

Were those punch lines dubbed in or was that what was really said? Rogen seems so childish. I still worry about Russian nuclear subs able to strike America. I am sure the land locked in Russia know we can flatten them in a nuclear exchange. Where I live we should fear the Atlantic shelf being detonated which would create a massive tidal wave drowning any place under a certain number of feet, and of course there are military bases near Philly, DC, Norfolk and Dover AFB that would be prime targets. And I worry about circulating and recurring rounds of radiation being dumped on us. I watched the last Prime video episode of Jack Ryan tonight, and there was a confrontation between a U.S. and Russian ship.

Thanks William. I remember Ayn Rand accepted her Social Security payments though I assume philosophically . . . sort of . . . was against it . . . in a purely capitalistic society. I think Social Security offers a safety net. My Mom was all for it, and had stories about old folks living in poverty back in the 1930's? Later in life my Mom had SS and my Dad had a pension from the Navy, which my Mom then received after his death. My Dad's early death from lung disease was from working in the Philadelphia Naval Ship Yard back in the 30's and 40's. You had to wear a mask at all times but he would periodically pull his mask off to say something or smoke a cigarette . . . but the cigarettes didn't kill him though they didn't help his decline. Asbestos played a part in his death, but he was not allowed to sue the Navy or the Government.

TG, that's why I was defending her. I just don't like her style or hatred for other people, ethnicities, etc. Well . . . I have never liked the British House of Commons either, where similar antics are routine. Did anyone see Mitt Romney blasting that congressman who lied on his record. One channel had a lip reader deciphering what Mitt said and I seem to remember "you are a disgrace . . ."

Time to recharge your batteries? "Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and that which cannot remain silent." - Victor Hugo YouTube: Rachmaninoff – “Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini,” 18th variation

The left wing media will be showing Georgia congresswomen M.T. Green for a long time heckling President Biden. She looks like a high schooler at a losing football game. But, Dude, what was she so irate about? From INSIDER: Marjorie Taylor Greene and other Republicans yell 'liar' as Biden accuses them of wanting to cut Medicare and Social Security . . . Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene joined fellow Republicans in shouting down President Joe Biden during the State of the Union, a raucous moment that underlines the tension on key economic issues. "You lie, you lie," Greene shouted from the back of the House chamber. She was far from the only House Republican who was outraged at Biden's suggestion that the GOP would end Medicare or Social Security, massively popular federal programs.

You are what you are in your brain. But your “self” is certainly influenced by your body type, shape, sex, and chemistry. Your brain is influenced by upbringing and the predominant culture you have experienced like growing up in a small place or a city. TV and radio, social media, also determine what our current state of being is. And big influences can come from what you read, and how you were influenced by Ayn Rand, as with many of us here. Welcome. Become what you want to be.

(Reuters) - Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who served as White House press secretary under Donald Trump, will deliver the Republican response to President Joe Biden's State of the Union address next week, party leaders announced on Thursday . . . Elected last year, in January, she became the first woman to lead the state of Arkansas . . . .

Oh, what fun it is to ride / glide / speculate, into an easy victory. But, if he ran, who would DeSantis run with? Who would Trump run with? Might it be someone who could counter-play our female democratic Vice President, Camal Harris? Could it be a woman like Noam who is a woman governor of South Dakota, or . . . From RedState: . . . .The challenge for the GOP is going to be in the general election. As more people are migrating from other states in large numbers into Florida and South Dakota, DeSantis and Noem could position themselves to smooth sailing in 2024. It is vitally important to win the majority of swing states and all the GOP-controlled states. . . . The DeSantis-Noem ticket could bring Trump supporters, never Trumpers, Independents, and moderate Republicans, as well as some moderate Democrats in swing states to vote for them in November. From Wikipedia: Tulsi Gabbard is an American politician, United States Army Reserve officer and political commentator who served as the U.S. representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district from 2013 to 2021. Gabbard was the first Hindu member of Congress and also the first Samoan-American voting member of . . . Nimrata Nikki Haley (née Randhawa; born January 20, 1972[1]) is an American diplomat and politician who served as the 116th and first female Governor of South Carolina from 2011 to 2017, and as the 29th United States Ambassador to the United Nations for two years, from January 2017 through December 2018. From MSN: Elise Stefanik, who easily won a fifth term representing the North Country in Upstate New York, is one of the top House Republicans after rising in the ranks as a staunch Trump supporter . . . Youngkin, Cruz? Who do you think would provide the best ticket in 2024 . . . and who could then run for Prez in 2028, Marc and everyone else?

How does this sound? “Welcome President Trump and Vice President Ron DeSantis.” Governor Ron DeSantis is around 44 years old. I thought I would find a few facts about him to judge his ability to be a good Vice President or President. Ooops, I thought his name sounded Hispanic, but it is Italian. And I think I have been sounding his last name with an O as in DeSantos. Peter Clipped from Wikipedia: DeSantis was born on September 14, 1978, in Jacksonville, the son of Karen (née Rogers) and Ronald Daniel DeSantis. He is of Italian descent: all of his eight great-grandparents were born in Italy, and they were originally from comuni in the provinces of L'Aquila, Benevento, Avellino and Campobasso. . . . After high school, DeSantis studied history at Yale University. He was captain of Yale's varsity baseball team and joined the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity. He was an outfielder on the Yale baseball team; as a senior in 2001, he had the team's best batting average at .336. While attending Yale he worked a variety of jobs, including as an electrician's assistant and a coach at a baseball camp. DeSantis graduated from Yale in 2001 with a B.A. magna cum laude. After Yale, he taught history and coached for a year at Darlington School. He subsequently attended Harvard Law School, graduating in 2005 with a Juris Doctor cum laude. . . . In 2004, during his second year at Harvard Law, DeSantis was commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Navy and assigned to the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG). He completed Naval Justice School in 2005. Later that year, he reported to the JAG Trial Service Office Command South East at Naval Station Mayport, Florida, as a prosecutor. From a different news source: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was asked by Fox News host Tucker Carlson what his priorities would be if he were president today and he replied without hesitation that topping his agenda would be illegal immigration. “If you somehow got appointed president this afternoon what would your priorities be?” Carlson asked the Republican governor. “I would secure the border, first of all,” he noted. “This is created because of what Biden did.” . . . . “Looking at what President Trump had to deal with, you know this bureaucracy of ours — there’s a lot of problems in that. And I think you need to be able to bring accountability to people in the bureaucracy. I mean if Donald Trump is elected president, he tries to do policy, and the bureaucracy tells him to go fly a kite, that’s not representative government. And I think we’ve allowed this to fester for years and years, and I think it’s at the point now where, even if a Republican wins the election, the other party still maintains control of the apparatus of the executive branch. And that can’t be the way this goes. You go in, you [should] have the ability to implement the agenda,” he contended.

Interesting. Dan Satterfield is our local, chief meteorologist. I will be watching to see what the trail of possible catastrophes, takes. It looks like it will bypass Delmarva but you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, as Bob Dylan sang. Right now, the wind is from the northwest. Peter From MSN: A suspected Chinese spy balloon will move eastward down across the central U.S. states and toward southeast Missouri in the coming hours, weather modeling suggests . . . . The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) HYSPLIT model, a system for computing air parcel trajectories, predicted that the balloon would be somewhere over southeast Missouri by 7 a.m. ET on Saturday . . . . By 7 a.m. ET on Friday, it will have just crossed the border into Nebraska, crossing into Kansas sometime after 7 p.m. ET on Friday evening. Overnight, it is expected to move across northeastern Kansas and into central and southern Missouri by Saturday morning . . . . The initial assumptions were made by Dan Satterfield, chief meteorologist for WBOC in Maryland, who also used NOAA modeling to demonstrate that the balloon likely traveled on wind currents from mainland China. end quote

Hunter Biden claims the laptop "they" are searching isn't his. And his lawyer wants to know who is leaking info from the laptop that isn't his.

That Communist Chinese balloon sailing across the northern skies of America could be loaded with viruses, bacteria, or toxins that will kill us or livestock and crops.

Another thought. The Philippines will may do well strategically and financially.

Interesting. Don’t worry world. America is still here. When I was growing up in a military family, I had friends in Naval housing who had lived in Guam, Panama, and the Philippines, etc. Peter US Gets Access to More Philippine Bases as China Tensions Linger Story by Andreo Calonzo and Cecilia Yap • 56m ago (Bloomberg) -- The US is set to expand its access to more Philippine military bases, paving the way for greater American presence in the Asia-Pacific as tensions with China over Taiwan and the South China Sea persist. The two countries plan to “accelerate the full implementation of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the full agreement to designate four new agreed locations in strategic areas” of the Philippines, according to statements from Manila and Washington. The four locations were not named. The new sites “will allow more rapid support for humanitarian and climate-related disasters in the Philippines, and respond to other shared challenges,” the governments said. The nations also agreed on “the substantial completion of the projects in the existing five agreed locations,” with the US allocating over $82 million toward infrastructure investments at those sites. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is currently in Manila for a meeting with his Philippine counterpart Carlito Galvez. They are scheduled to hold a joint briefing this afternoon. Austin is the latest of US official to visit after Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have also made official trips to Manila in the past months and assured the Philippines of support. The US has a seven-decades-old mutual defense treaty with the Philippines, its former colony. The two allies also have a deal allowing the US to rotate troops and build facilities on Philippine bases. Five military bases in the Philippines were selected in 2016 where the US can store defense equipment, refuel aircraft and build facilities. Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has also sought greater political and economic cooperation with the US after relations were strained under his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte. Early in his presidency, Marcos said he can’t envision his nation’s future without the US. He also recently said that he hopes Washington will maintain its South China Sea presence. Manila and Washington have warmed ties as China ramps up its presence in the disputed sea. Beijing has maintained that its actions in contested waters are legitimate. end quote.

I like living in civilization, and in America. I am OK with mayors and county commissioners, elected school boards, longevity, etc. Remember our ideal Ayn Rand reported to HUAC? And she lived in New York City with its own laws and boroughs, and she seemed grumpy but happy. Rhyme time. Hunker in your bunker. You are so profound in your compound. Stay alive, and don't drink and drive.

Here he comes again, looking better than a body has a right to. Isn’t that the lyrics from a Dolly Parton song? Is she talkin’ bout DJ? Hmmm? Nikki Haley for VP? From HuffPost: . . . Trump is also preparing for challenges from other Republicans, including former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who also served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in his administration. “I talked to her for a little while, I said, ‘Look, you know, go by your heart if you want to run,’” Trump said, adding that Haley had previously said she wouldn’t run in 2024 if it meant challenging Trump. New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday he is also mulling a run. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Vice President Mike Pence are also thought to be weighing a presidential bid. This weekend Trump held events in South Carolina and New Hampshire, marking his first campaign appearances since he announced his candidacy in November. “I’m more angry now and I’m more committed now than I ever was,” he said . . . .

Aaah. American politics and a free press. I haven't looked up any polls today, but DeSantos won't get the nomination unless President Trump is beset by a catastrophe. I only got one request for funds from El Presidente today. Remember, computer logs will never forget your web address! I think the more, bad press he gets will indicate that Trump is doing swimmingly against Biden or any other demoncratic candidate in 2024. And at this point I think DeSantos is running for VP. So, we shouldn't hear too, too much growling between Dee and DJ. Can you imagine writing a name like DeSantos and having to go back to caps after two letters? What a waste of finger power. You know Ron DeSantos is going to get a shortened nickname when his name is written. Saying his name his fine though. I don't even know Ron's true ties to Hispanolia>spelling?. He would garner some votes if he can say hello in Spanish.

??? I concisely expressed the personal view of everyday and rare activities from my little o' brain. It's all about the individual in the long run though we agree to abide by the Constitution of the U.S.A. NO more questions would be fine . . . though comments about any of my posts are welcome, SL.

The newest liberally slanted news stories are saying Trump is losing his momentum and X, Y, Z, Z1, Z10 are all vying to be the next Republican candidate for President.

I did not look up “official objectivist public policy” or 'public health" to quote to you. I was expressing my opinion and personal perspective based upon my own views that are very much shaped by Objectivist scholars and the originator, Ayn Rand. I completely agree with a government based upon individual rights . . . but obviously that includes that government must enforce the individuals’ rights especially when someone else is infringing upon them. I looked for some old letters using the word “public” as a search engine and found these. The words "public policy" had a few hits too. I hope you enjoy them. Peter From: Neil Goodell To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Re: Rights that Should Not Be Legally Enforced Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:33:01 -0600 I think the issue of "rights" in this thread has failed to make a critical distinction. On June 12, 2001, Frank Forman wrote: What we have here is a kind of implicit social contract, which might say that it is virtuous to go along with the law, which has the merit of being known (for a fee to the lawyers!). The social contract can include for a provision to let the legislature enact statutes to clarify and unify this “public policy." My impression is that Anglo-Saxon law has not been horrifically altruistic. A couple of points here. First, political "rights" must be distinguished from rights derived from social policy/convention/practice/culture. Political rights follow immediately from ethics and serve to establish (1) the limitations imposed upon government's power to interfere with the actions of an individual, and (2) the restrictions against one individual forcibly interjecting themselves into the life/actions of another person. Within the parameters delimited by political rights, rights arising from public policy are largely arbitrary -- by which I mean there is no apriori basis for having a right that states "this" rather than "that." Law per se, is an example of rights arising from public policy. For example: The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) is the governing language for most contract law. And the UCC was written with the specific intent to keep business moving and to promote economic efficiency. To this end clarity, finality, and the near-elimination of torts was/is paramount. Contract law did not have to be this way, and in many countries it isn't, but this fact alone does not make another system "moral" or "immoral," right or wrong. What I am referring to as public policy rights, the government should have little say in whether they are enforced or not -- this is a matter for the individuals involved to decide for themselves. I also think this is largely a specialized area and philosophy has little to say on the subject. Political rights are the proper sphere of philosophy's interest. Matters concerning the use of physical force are fairly easy to characterize. And fraud, a derivative of force, is relatively easy to define, at least in broad strokes. Let me give an example to clarify the difference between the two categories of rights I am talking about: I am building a swimming pool. (I'm not, but let's pretend, it'll help me tolerate +100F temperatures we're having. The pool is wholly on my property. The law states that a pool is an "attractive nuisance" and therefore I, as the pool owner, must take steps to prevent other people from harming themselves if they should trespass on my property. So the building code requires that I build a fence around my pool to keep neighbors' children from drowning. As a matter of philosophy, is it wrong to force me to spend additional money to protect other people from harming themselves, who can harm themselves only if they themselves violate the law in the first place? At first blush the answer might appear to be yes, this is wrong. Yet the law was originally aimed at protecting children, who because of their age and concomitant lack of cognitive development, do not know any better. So a neighbor's two-year-old child slips out of the house, into my yard, falls in the pool, and drowns (because I do not have a fence). Who ought to be held responsible, or legally liable, if anyone should? As a matter of philosophy, I could make an argument either way in this instance: (a) that forcing me to build a fence violates my property rights and is therefore wrong, or (b) that my actions have created a situation whereby people are likely to be harmed, and also attracted to it, and I therefore have a duty to protect others that might come to harm as a consequence of my actions, even if they must violate my rights first (i.e., trespass). Philosophically, both positions are tenable, so which alternative we choose is arbitrary. Our society has opted for (b), with the proviso that my protective actions are limited by the "reasonable person" standard. (I am highly simplifying a very complex idea here so I don't want to have any debates on minutia.) Frank also wrote: >I don't think that ethics can be reduced to virtue and that there are three irreducible aspects of ethics: > 1. Do the right thing (deontology, and with it lots of rules) > 2. Do good (utilitarianism) > 3. Be a good man (virtue ethics) The problems with these formulations are that they omit who the beneficiary of the actions is, and what the standard for deciding "good" or "right" is. When Rand discussed her core virtues, I believe she also asked the question whether a person would need that virtue if they were alone on a deserted island. If the answer was No, she rejected it as a primary virtue. As Frank has described them here, these aspects seem to intimate the existence of a society within which the ethics exist. If that is the case, I would reject all three. And Frank also wrote: >I can't give a good concrete example, still less decide where the line should be drawn, but the foundation of Objectivist ethics and politics, as I have argued many times, rests on virtue. In other words, you have an *enforceable* right when my violation of it harms my character (stealing undermines my sense of self-efficacy) *and* when *your* calling the cops does not harm *your* character. (Even so, disproportionate punishment must be ruled out, since it harms the punishers. Ever notice the tough-guy stance of the Peikoffer bullies?) An unstated assumption in this argument (an argument also used by Peikoff) is that Objectivism is taken as the standard by which another person's character is to be judged, whether they are Objectivist or not. For your own personal use, this is fine, but it is not adequate when it comes to legal matters. A professional robber will not have his or her own sense of self-efficacy undermined according to his or her own standards. At least so long as they continue without being caught. It is only when they are captured that their self-efficacy might be affected. Of course from an Objectivist's point of view the robber only hurts him/herself by stealing. But this makes life-according-to-Objectivism the gold standard for how other people ought to live their lives, and I'm not sure whether I am arrogant enough to make that presumption. To sum up: The subject line "Rights that should not be legally enforced" is a misnomer. First decide whether the right is what I have termed political, or arises from public policy. If it is political in nature, and only one alternative is reasonable in the particular circumstances, then it ought to be enforced. If on the other hand the right is cultural/public policy based, then the individuals involved should decide. There is a parallel in the distinction between criminal and civil law. In criminal law, the government is the prosecutor because the wrong committed is deemed to be against society. Civil matters are conducted between the parties as the harm is seen to be against an individual -- the government does not usually take an active role on one side or the other. (Regulatory agencies and the like mess this up a bit, but they are another matter entirely....) Neil Goodell From: Neil Goodell To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Intellectual Property & Rights that should not be legally enforced Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:03:32 -0600 On June 14, 2001, Brian Fritts wrote: >One question I might pose to Neil is to what sphere would he categorize copyright law. I have struggled with this issue of late, that is, what is the rational role of copyright law, if any, in a free (minarchist) society? > At some level copyright is different than Neil's example regarding the UCC in that portions of the UCC (particularly Article 2 regarding sales) are considered "default" rule and the parties to a transaction may set the terms of their deal or bargain by waiving provisions of the UCC. > The public policy arguments come to mind initially. These arguments usually center around "fair use" doctrines and how long copyright should be protected. Should these rights survive the author or creator? On the other hand, political rights are also an issue. Here one would ask what type of property right is a copyright and trademark. One issue that I struggle with is that one can be sued by the copyright holder even if there is not privity of contract between the copyright holder and infringing party. Let me state at the outset that I am not an attorney, nor do I have any specialized knowledge of matters pertaining to intellectual property. That said... Brian asks how matters of copyright and trademark should be classified under the distinction I previously proposed, that legal rights need to be partitioned into political rights and rights better thought of as pertaining to public policy. As I wrote on June 13, "Political rights follow immediately from ethics and serve to establish (1) the limitations imposed upon government's power to interfere with the actions of an individual, and (2) the restrictions against one individual forcibly interjecting themselves into the life/actions of another person. Within the parameters delimited by political rights, rights arising from public policy are largely arbitrary -- by which I mean there is no apriori basis for having a right that states 'this' rather than 'that.'" Property rights are recognized and protected by our laws (at least in principle if not always in practice). Property of a non-physical nature has traditionally been protected under patent law. From the perspective of political rights, this fulfills the obligation. Brian's question is really directed at defining intellectual property – in other words, is there a philosophical basis for concluding that, say, a book or newspaper, are deserving of copyright protection, yet a webpage is not. Is physicality a necessary component for something to be deemed "property?" What about a dynamic webpage, one created specifically for your internet session, and tailored to your unique cookie / preference / profile settings, a webpage that would never be duplicated anywhere else and is thus unique, a creation not only of the underlying code (and the computer programmers of course), but of the code in conjunction with your unique session parameters -- who owns what, and which part of it is deserving of protection? I don't have an answer to these questions. Scholars and attorneys have devoted large portions of their professional careers to them, and they do not all agree on their answers. To complicate matters more, new types of "intellectual property" are being created at an ever faster rate, and what type of protection should they receive? The entertainment industry is having its own share of growing pains in this area. Writers and actors who signed contracts for a film or a television show, 20 years later the work is released on video, DVD, and the internet. Can a person sign away a property right interest for something that did not exist at the time the contract was signed? Is this "signing away" unlimited in its reach, in perpetuity, and if so, does that make the contract void because essential elements are not definite in their meaning? Not easy questions to answer. Another aspect is enforcement: Of what use is a "right" if it cannot be enforced? This is viewing rights from the perspective of practicality (sort of like owning stock certificates from an out-of-business company). *Should* enforcement be considered at all? (I have seen arguments that this was one of the primary reasons for the current definition of "fair use" in copyright law. Copyright law has adherents on both sides, calling it "legalized theft" on one side, and an illegal "intellectual monopoly" undeserving of protection on the other.) In her discussion of patents, Rand argued that property rights should be enforced for a relatively short period of time because (1) since it was an aspect of the universe (compared to the wholly unique creative work of say a writer) it would be discovered eventually, and (2) human progress should not be held hostage to the whims of an individual (forever). Arguments can be made for or against almost any of these positions. What is important is that (1) property rights per se be recognized and protected, which is all that is required from a political perspective, and (2) appropriate definitions and protections for the various types of property be clearly delineated, and changed as necessary (there is no guarantee that the lawmakers will get it right the first/second/third time because they are not omniscient). So long as this is done, people can devote their time and energy to pursuing whatever type of property they want that will give them the greatest return for their efforts. Neil Goodell From: "Matthew Ferrara" To: objectivism Subject: OWL: It's the wrong question: RE: Taking care of our children Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 16:32:22 -0400 To: Chris, Mike and others who have asked this question a few different ways, I was originally not going to respond but I guess I will: Yes! Creating a child has obligations - but they should NOT fall within the purview of the state to enforce. Let me explain... First, your question assumes the acceptance of a 20th century liberal-activist (and later Conservative Coalition) tenet: that the pro-creation and subsequent rearing of children is to be supported by, regulated by and subsequently enforced by the state. I contend that this is a grave error: Child rearing is, in fact, not - or at least, I should say, it "should not" be, a subject for a just state. So, I claim that your premise is incongruent with Objectivist philosophy: by thinking, perhaps (and I can only guess your minds, here) that since parents pay taxes, which are used to fund children's programs and things like their education, feeding, inoculation, etc., that "the public" (in the guide of the state) should therefore have some say in "enforcing" compliance with this parental funding. This is what the state is doing when it seeks out "deadbeat dads." Of course, this avoids the issue of what we actually do with these deadbeats in practice when they are caught (we incarcerate them, which of course, does not lead to any funding - since they cannot pay from jail). It also sidesteps the political issue of having turned a private matter (procreation and the use of its product, which we can call child-rearing) into an area of regulation and enforcement by the state. The deep assumption here is that the creation of a child is the matter of state-sanction and regulation, instead of a matter between two consenting adults - a form of private contract. For the ultimate results of such an attitude on the part of the state, I refer you to Massachusetts last year where the state jailed a woman who was pregnant because it "thought" she "might" harm the baby *after* it was born. So, once you accept that the state has a say in rearing children, you can move easily and swiftly from deadbeat parents who abandon their "state-duty-to-fund-child-rearing" after birth to incarcerating pregnant women who *might* abandon (or worse) their children after birth (the state can argue it is protecting its future investment, if you like). And during this logical progression, we are left with activists and on-lookers who defend (in fact, encourage and incite) these state actions on television with the claims that "parents should take care of their children! They have a responsibility!".... Secondly, your question stems from an emotional response, not a philosophical primary: when we cry out "shouldn't parents take care of their children" the response is rarely philosophical but usually emotive-knee-jerk. Yes, I personally think they should take care of their children, but for very philosophical reasons, not reasons that would ever be codified into law or put into the processes of law enforcement. And not for sound-bite-style-save-the-children-hogwash either. Taking care of children is a philosophical activity that requires only personal (political) action, not action, intervention, guidance or enforcement by the state. In all real senses, children are the property of their parents until they are capable of taking care of themselves (at which point, the parents agree to separate from the children's lives). They were created by their parents and grown by their care: the are a product of the actions of an adult, and like any creation, they require care. Until this mutual separation, the concept of personal property would justly direct a rational person to take care of their children. I will leave all the mushy, emotionalism to be filled in by anyone who needs to do it (for all the "the love of a child" or the "Neanderthal-level parent-protective responses" or any other Freudian self-deceptions you'd like to insert here, I leave you to your own methods). On rational premises, any rational being would want to and take actions to care for any of his creations, whether it be an invention or a living being. But again, I'd argue that your emotionally-derived question "shouldn't we take care of our offspring" puts the cart before the horse. It's designed to elicit the mindless "yes" response of busy-body persons whose real goal is to tell is *how* to take care of these children, and to back it up with their manipulations of state power. Ask the Amish or polygamists or that fellow (whose name escapes me right now) who was charged with bodily harm of a minor for spanking his children as a form of "taking care of them" and you will see the error - and terror – of the question. Who is to say how - including the financial contributions to be made by them - a parent should "take care" of their children? Who will judge? How will it be enforced? Why? You see, it's a loaded question, and it's load is quite dangerous. Yet its consequences are only one small step removed: If you accept that the state has a duty to enforce the financial commitment of a parent to its offspring, then you can accept that the state has a duty to set standards for or enforce the quality of other "commitments" from parent to child. And thence comes the legislation of content between the parent-child relationship. The real question to be asked is: Does the state have any right to intervene on the part of either parent and/or on the part of children as a whole. I'd say blankly: No. Childbirth, childrearing, procreation and ultimately even consensual relationships (and their consequences) are not the purview of a just state. Of course, I'm willing to accept therefore the consequences: no marriage licenses (since the state should not set the types of contracts individuals may enter into, but should only enforce the terms of any contracts that such individuals may draw up as they see fit), no state funding of schools (since private education exists, and arguably does better anyway, and its educational contents can be set by parents, not by state officials), not even the feeding of children (because as soon as you accept one public dollar on behalf of a child, you must therefore accept public rearing of that child, which means letting whichever busybody gang to be in power at the moment have "say" - backed by law enforcement - over how, where, whether and when you "take care of" your child). That is why I posted my original disagreement of "deadbeat" dads and their hunting by individual citizens or the state. If someone wants to have a child with another person, they should draw up a contract laying out the obligations of all parties. Then, the state may intervene only when such written, freely signed, mutually identified obligations are broken. In the meantime, the creation of new citizen categories such as "deadbeat" and the enlistment of law enforcement officials and private bounty hunters (who, I suspect would not be duly deputized into the law nor properly trained regarding the extent to which they can act against or spying upon other private citizens) should be utterly prohibited. I refer you back to my earlier post, which I reiterate, when I say that it is merely the first link in a logical chain whose reductio ad absurdum can only lead to the expansion of such demonized citizen classes, with everyone watching over their shoulder in case they had been categorized by some bureaucrat recently and had become the potential subject for surveillance by their neighbors. For a simpler metaphor, read or listen to Ayn Rand's lecture regarding the Obscenity Laws and Supreme Court Rulings, which are equally un-specific and uncertain in their creation of standards of what we can read, write, etc. The concept of "deadbeat" dad is equally as bad as items to be deemed obscene because they are "lacking serious moral, scientific, artistic or literary import"... Until we're ready to define WHO (and then WHAT) shall constitute either, I'm not going to endorse having the state seek deadbeat dads any more than I'd want it to enforce it's obscenity rules... I hope you see my hastily-drawn analogy. And I hope you can see why I originally did not respond to Mike Rael (09.01.01) when he asked the same loaded question. I don't think the question is the right one to ask from the start; but since it has come up here so many times now, and directed at my posting specifically, I guess I'm just up for a little self-expression on the matter today... Chris: I've never claimed that creating a child does not come with obligations. However, I differ from most others here by thinking that: 1. The obligation is not under the purview of the state. It is a contract between at least two, if not three, persons individually. It should fall under the area of personal politics, namely that of contracts, which the state would only adjudicate, never set the terms of performance. This is a clear difference between the welfare or activist-state and a laissez-faire model of government. 2. The obligation is assumed at the time of having sex. Both persons enter into a contract when engaging in sex; the contract may be implicit or verbal (not needed to be written) but when two people enter into a mutual set of actions, they do so (if rationally) with full knowledge of the possible and/or likely outcomes. If one outcome is mainly pleasure, then that is their goal. If another likely outcome exists, such as childbirth because neither party uses birth control, then both parties again assume responsibility for the likely outcomes of their actions. They therefore bear duties to the results, ie., the child and it's upbringing. However, the state should neither interfere nor set the terms of such duties. 3. After conception, before or after birth, both or either parties can contractually reinforce or absolve their duties to one another. The mother can ask the father to contractually obligate himself to financial, moral, educational and other support (we call this marriage today, but it could merely be another interpersonal contract). Or she could accept (ask, even) the father's wish not to be involved in any way. Or, if the father wants not to be involved in any way but the mother does, she may sue him, for breach of mutual contract: he willingly entered into a sexual act under circumstances with great likelihood to create a child but then did not wish to live up to the realities and duties of the outcomes. At this point, a personal lawsuit can create a judgement for the father to pay (and it could be in many terms: money, support, involvement, etc). The major malfunction I have with the arguments as been posted and the blanket cries of " doesn't a father have a duty to pay for his child" is that they endorse the intrusion of the state into personal affairs, necessarily empower the state to set the terms and conditions of procreation (see my other posts). Additionally, I think it is a bad precedent (creating citizen classes like deadbeats, which would give the state a precedent to create other, prosecutable classes). Finally, the original posting on this situation was whether or not we want our neighbors, ordinary citizens, being employed by the government or private agencies in the location of and pursuit of such-deemed miscreants. I'd sum it up by paraphrasing Rand: While she said: Life is not one big hospital, I would say, Neither is it one big episode of America's Most Wanted! Matthew Ferrara From: Frank Forman To: objectivism Subject: OWL: RE: Rights that Should Not Be Legally Enforced Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:08:23 -0400 (EDT) [OWL did not receive the post by David Friedman that Frank refers to here. -Moderator] Frank Forman here: Sorry for my delay in responding. I'm spreading myself much too thin and have dozens of messages to respond to. It is a familiar problem, and I hope my case is unusually severe. David Friedman gave the best answer, when he said that rights should not be legally enforced when proving their violation would be impossible or very costly. I would add that rights violations should not be enforced if doing so harms the character of the one whose rights were violated. I'm thinking here of certain swindles that the victim would have avoided if he had better practiced the virtue of alertness. Since he didn't, instead of calling in the cops, he should chalk it up to experiences. I can't give a good concrete example, still less decide where the line should be drawn, but the foundation of Objectivist ethics and politics, as I have argued many times, rests on virtue. In other words, you have an *enforceable* right when my violation of it harms my character (stealing undermines my sense of self-efficacy) *and* when *your* calling the cops does not harm *your* character. (Even so, disproportionate punishment must be ruled out, since it harms the punishers. Ever notice the tough-guy stance of the Peikoffer bullies?) Bone up on negligence law, or just get acquainted with it, to see how complex drawing lines can be, even without trying to ground everything in virtue. Concerns with economically efficient negligence looms large here. I'm still looking for better examples of cases of nonenforceable rights that really are rights and not just exhortations to be of good character. Maybe there are cases somewhere along the moocher-theft continuum that would do. I don't think that ethics can be reduced to virtue and that there are three irreducible aspects of ethics: Do the right thing (deontology, and with it lots of rules) 2. Do good (utilitarianism) 3. Be a good man (virtue ethics) Our ethical structure evolved in a complex fashion through diverse pathways that intertwine our emotions and cognition. This is why no reduction ever feels right and why any long-winded attempt elicits a long-winded response. (Ditto, we have a need to feel "I am in charge" (free will) as well as "The world makes sense" (determinism). The two cannot be reconciled, certainly not on the basis of our current knowledge of neurology.) David brings up something else: On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, david friedman wrote: [snip] >A more difficult case is the one where you have a right but the enforcers choose not to enforce it because it is not in their interest to do so. One example might be a contract in restraint of trade, such as a cartel agreement. Suppose there are only five steel producers. They make an agreement that each will cut output ten percent in order to force up the price. Presumably Objectivists believe they have a right to make that agreement. It doesn't follow that other people have to help them enforce it--and, since its purpose is to make other people worse off, they might not. Thus one could imagine a court system which did not punish such agreements (as > ours does), since they don't violate any rights, but announced in advance that it would not enforce them. Such contracts are not enforced (neither are contracts for gambling debts enforced, which goes back to the Middle Ages) because they go against "public policy." In most cases, "public policy" doctrines grew from the bottom up in common law cases, and I am Hayekian enough to respect this. (Ditto for negligence law.) What we have here is a kind of implicit social contract, which might say that it is virtuous to go along with the law, which has the merit of being known (for a fee to the lawyers!). The social contract can include for a provision to let the legislature enact statutes to clarify and unify this "public policy." My impression is that Anglo-Saxon law has not been horrifically altruistic. Even so, Objectivists may object (pun intended). I welcome further discussion. Frank Forman

Strictlylogical wrote, “What is "public health" as distinguished from personal health? On what principled grounds (according to an Objectivist) would one want such a thing (as opposed to personal health)? end quote I think the issue is complicated like the concept of “coercion” verses “urging” but many things a person does affects the rights of others. Some examples? Pollution. Spreading disease. The nickname “Typhoid Mary,” comes to mind. Crossing borders. Laws are different, and we accept the states or country‘s laws, even a 55 mile per hour speed limit, when we take a transcontinental highway. If someone has leprosy, are they infringing on someone rights if they spread the disease? Of course. Remember the beginnings of Covid. People in public places were aghast when someone was obviously sick and near them. What if you heard, “Welcome Walmart shoppers. On aisle five we have someone coughing, sneezing, and vomiting.” Or what if you said or just thought: Uh, Nurse? Say dental hygienist. Doctor? Shouldn’t you be home in bed? Hey nonstop cougher! Get off the bus!

Captain Kirk sounds happy. William Shatner and Elizabeth Martin reconcile three years after divorce. Story by BANG Showbiz • Yesterday 4:00 AM William Shatner and Elizabeth Martin have reconciled. Almost three years after the 91-year-old 'Star Trek' actor and his 64-year-old spouse divorced, William and Elizabeth have decided to give their relationship another go. Speaking to The Mirror, Shatner said: "'My wife… she is the zest of life. She brings the flavor." When asked what spice she could be compared to, William quipped "Mustard?" while Elizabeth said "Cinnamon". The couple made their first official outing as a couple since their reconciliation at the Living Legends of Aviation Awards in Beverly Hills.

We watched the last show of the season, and "Wednesday" is coming back for another run. Whew. The last episode tonight was way too Tim Burton and too violent.

I know some children of families who are Amish, Mennonite, etc. don't get vaccines AT ALL for religious reasons, so there should be 'rational' and legal reasons to say no too, for the bunch of shots school age children are required to get. My wife still knows a student friend who did not get the polio vaccine around 1961 and lives with a limp to this day. It's a tough call if you are for freedom but also for personal and public health. Peter

I haven't a clue. It probably depends on his health and whatever he does, perhaps tragically wrong, or blissfully right, between now and a year from November 2024. I usually think of that date as the real beginning of a campaign. I do think Governor Gavin from Californication might make a run for the nomination too. edit. and Florida's guv may jump in to out do President Trump for the nomination or to be his VP.