Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’

[George H. Smith]

I never imagined that anyone could construe this remark as you did...

This is obviously because I, and anyone else who understood as I did, are cognitively deficient.

Michael

I wouldn't say "cognitively deficient." I would say careless.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

Blah blah blah.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this. If you believe it's careless and not a reasonable interpretation, be happy.

I've got work to do.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

George, Blah blah blah. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. If you believe it's careless and not a reasonable interpretation, be happy. I've got work to do. Michael

Okay, I'm happy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just for the record, on substance and not personality (and to disrupt the diversionary tactic), I disagree that general principles can have no exceptions.

They are called "general principles, not "all-encompassing principles," precisely because they do have exceptions.

"General" in my careless world means "the majority" with stuff left over (the exceptions).

In the more precise world of superior thought, apparently "general" is a synonym for "every case."

Or maybe it only can be a synonym for "every case" in a pinch. To kinda plug up a logical hole or sumpin...

Boy, do I have some studying to do because that still doesn't make sense to me. This intellectual stuff sure is challenging...

Er...

OK, OK... maybe I just now contributed to the personality stuff instead of disrupting the diversionary tactic in a Spock-like manner.

It's just this obvious stuff gets real boring without jazzing it up a little.

This stuff is just so much stuff that it's nothing but stuff.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Just for the record, on substance and not personality (and to disrupt the diversionary tactic), I disagree that general principles can have no exceptions. They are called "general principles, not "all-encompassing principles," precisely because they do have exceptions. "General" in my careless world means "the majority" with stuff left over (the exceptions). In the more precise world of superior thought, apparently "general" is a synonym for "every case." Or maybe it only can be a synonym for "every case" in a pinch. To kinda plug up a logical hole or sumpin... Boy, do I have some studying to do because that still doesn't make sense to me. This intellectual stuff sure is challenging... Er... OK, OK... maybe I just now contributed to the personality stuff instead of disrupting the diversionary tactic in a Spock-like manner. It's just this obvious stuff gets real boring without jazzing it up a little. This stuff is just so much stuff that it's nothing but stuff. Michael

The "general" in "general principles" does not mean "the majority' of principles, nor does it mean "every case." Rather, "general" qualifies the type of principle involved. It indicates, if in a fairly vague manner, the scope, or range, of the principle.

Principles vary in their degree of specificity. Consider the principle "Rape is a violation of rights." Is this a general principle? Well, there is some room for argument here, since "general" means "Concerned with, applicable to, or affecting the whole or every member of a class or category" (American Heritage).

In this interpretation, "Rape is a violation of rights" obviously qualifies as a general principle, since the judgment applies to every instance of rape. But every principle is "general" in this sense, so to speak of general principles in this sense would be redundant.

This is why I normally use "general principle" to signify a principle at a very high level of abstraction, such as the NIOF principle. The more abstract a principle is, the more general it is, i.e., the greater is its range of application. In this case, I would say that "Rape is a violation of rights" is a specific application of the NIOF principle, which is the general principle.

A lot of this depends on the context. Almost any principle (X) can be designated a "general" principle if we are dealing with subordinate principles that depend on X. We sometimes speak of X as "general" when it is the ruling principle, i.e., when it is the proximate principle to which we appeal to decide a particular case.

Suppose, for example, that a guy says that he raped a woman because "she was asking for it" or "she had it coming." Here the rapist is appealing to subordinate principles (really crappy ones) concerning rape, such as "Rape is permissible if a woman deserved what she got."

In this instance, we would appeal to the general principle "Rape is a violation of rights" -- even though we might not regard the same principle as "general" in other contexts. We would then determine whether our general principle admits exceptions. And if we decide that it does admit exceptions, i.e., if we decide that rape is not always a violation of rights, we would then need to determine whether or not the reasons given by the rapist qualify as legitimate exceptions to the general principle..

I would argue that the principle "Rape is a violation of rights" admits no exceptions. If someone disagrees with me, he would then have the burden (1) to explain why the principle involved should admit exceptions, and (2) to present criteria by which legitimate exceptions can be identified.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I would argue that the principle "Rape is a violation of rights" admits no exceptions.

Ask Rand about Dominique.

I'm still having trouble with general not meaning general except when the person wants it to mean general stuff.

Not only am I careless, I like simple.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

I would argue that the principle "Rape is a violation of rights" admits no exceptions.

Ask Rand about Dominique.

I'm still having trouble with general not meaning general except when the person wants it to mean general stuff.

Not only am I careless, I like simple.

Michael

Rand did not consider the "rape scene" in The Fountainhead to be a real instance of rape.

If you like "simple," then stay away from philosophy.

\Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

Maybe I should.

I have real trouble when people make dogmatic statements, then redefine everything around them. Thus axioms are not really axioms when they don't fit the dogma and general doesn't really mean general and rape doesn't really mean rape.

I think that stuff is bullshit, but who am I but a careless meddler out of my league?

I also have trouble when people decide to get personal when they get questioned about something that looks like a rationalization or contradiction or, hell, doesn't even make sense.

I suppose this is all unsimple "philosophy" to a superior intellect. And if that's the case, it's true. I should stay away from it.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

George, Maybe I should. I have real trouble when people make dogmatic statements, then redefine everything around them. Thus axioms are not really axioms when they don't fit the dogma and general doesn't really mean general and rape doesn't really mean rape. I think that stuff is bullshit, but who am I but a careless meddler out of my league? I also have trouble when people decide to get personal when they get questioned about something that looks like a rationalization or contradiction or, hell, doesn't even make sense. I suppose this is all unsimple "philosophy" to a superior intellect. And if that's the case, it's true. I should stay away from it. Michael

Excellent idea!

You can use "general" to signify a military rank, for all I care. Then whenever you encounter a "general principle," you can salute it.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I would argue that the principle "Rape is a violation of rights" admits no exceptions.

Ask Rand about Dominique.

I'm still having trouble with general not meaning general except when the person wants it to mean general stuff.

Not only am I careless, I like simple.

Michael

Rand did not consider the "rape scene" in The Fountainhead to be a real instance of rape.

If you like "simple," then stay away from philosophy.

\Ghs

There are two huge obstacles to remaking the novel as a movie. The first is the "rape" business, the second is blowing up that housing project. This last having to do with 9/11 and all the current that about that.

Rand didn't really understand rape, but not many did back then compared to today. The only reason it worked at all was the unreality of the novel and the psychologies involved. An actual person like Dominique would likely be grossly traumatized by what happened. In fact post-sex she did behave like she had been very traumatized, draging herself into the bathroom where she stayed until morning, slumped on the floor. There are a lot of sexual fantasies involving being taken by force that are also essentially okay for consenting adults, especially sexual experienced adults. It's not for real life virgins.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I would argue that the principle "Rape is a violation of rights" admits no exceptions.

Ask Rand about Dominique. I'm still having trouble with general not meaning general except when the person wants it to mean general stuff. Not only am I careless, I like simple. Michael

Rand did not consider the "rape scene" in The Fountainhead to be a real instance of rape. If you like "simple," then stay away from philosophy. \Ghs

There are two huge obstacles to remaking the novel as a movie. The first is the "rape" business, the second is blowing up that housing project. This last having to do with 9/11 and all the current that about that. Rand didn't really understand rape, but not many did back then compared to today. The only reason it worked at all was the unreality of the novel and the psychologies involved. An actual person like Dominique would likely be grossly traumatized by what happened. In fact post-sex she did behave like she had been very traumatized, draging herself into the bathroom where she stayed until morning, slumped on the floor. There are a lot of sexual fantasies involving being taken by force that are also essentially okay for consenting adults, especially sexual experienced adults. It's not for real life virgins. --Brant

I will leave Rand's views on rape for others to debate. But Roark's dynamiting of the Cortlandt housing project was a violation of rights, without doubt. Roark's agreement was with Keating. If Keating violated their contract, then Roark should have gone after him, not after the people who built Cortlandt.

I recall that Rand once said that she used the dynamiting of Cortlandt solely for dramatic purposes, or something to this effect.

Ghs.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

That's not how I understand magic wand epistemology.

When you have a rape scene and the author calls it rape by engraved invitation and you issue a dogmatic statement that this doesn't fit. whatya do? You wave your magic wand and say, "That's not rape."

Voila.

Done.

See how easy that is?

Hell, I like simple. I might even try this out.

It's hard when things don't make sense. Magic wand epistemology sure makes short work of that.

I just now introspected and it even feels good.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

George, Maybe I should. I have real trouble when people make dogmatic statements, then redefine everything around them. Thus axioms are not really axioms when they don't fit the dogma and general doesn't really mean general and rape doesn't really mean rape. I think that stuff is bullshit, but who am I but a careless meddler out of my league? I also have trouble when people decide to get personal when they get questioned about something that looks like a rationalization or contradiction or, hell, doesn't even make sense. I suppose this is all unsimple "philosophy" to a superior intellect. And if that's the case, it's true. I should stay away from it. Michael

Excellent idea!

You can use "general" to signify a military rank, for all I care. Then whenever you encounter a "general principle," you can salute it.

Ghs

Two different styles of warfare clash on Battlefield OL!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I would argue that the principle "Rape is a violation of rights" admits no exceptions.

Ask Rand about Dominique. I'm still having trouble with general not meaning general except when the person wants it to mean general stuff. Not only am I careless, I like simple. Michael

Rand did not consider the "rape scene" in The Fountainhead to be a real instance of rape. If you like "simple," then stay away from philosophy. \Ghs

There are two huge obstacles to remaking the novel as a movie. The first is the "rape" business, the second is blowing up that housing project. This last having to do with 9/11 and all the current that about that. Rand didn't really understand rape, but not many did back then compared to today. The only reason it worked at all was the unreality of the novel and the psychologies involved. An actual person like Dominique would likely be grossly traumatized by what happened. In fact post-sex she did behave like she had been very traumatized, draging herself into the bathroom where she stayed until morning, slumped on the floor. There are a lot of sexual fantasies involving being taken by force that are also essentially okay for consenting adults, especially sexual experienced adults. It's not for real life virgins. --Brant

I will leave Rand's views on rape for others to debate. But Roark's dynamiting of the Cortlandt housing project was a violation of rights, without doubt. Roark's agreement was with Keating. If Keating violated their contract, then Roark should have gone after him, not after the people who built Cortlandt.

I recall that Rand once said that she used the dynamiting of Cortlandt solely for dramatic purposes, or something to this effect.

Ghs.

Aesthetically the novel needed that climax. Both of her two great novels are surreal and unreal. But talk about AS displaying the future 50-60 yrs before it happened! She could have written the novel to better fit your objections and still make everything go "Bang!" (I mean, "Boom!")

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I will leave Rand's views on rape for others to debate. But Roark's dynamiting of the Cortlandt housing project was a violation of rights, without doubt. Roark's agreement was with Keating. If Keating violated their contract, then Roark should have gone after him, not after the people who built Cortlandt.

I recall that Rand once said that she used the dynamiting of Cortlandt solely for dramatic purposes, or something to this effect.

Ghs.

Not only did Roark not have a contract with the people who built Cortland, but he actively hid his involvement from them, and his contract with Keating was an agreement to perpetrate the fraud of passing off his work as Keating's (with the purpose of subverting others' rights to not hire him).

The funny thing is that the official ARI position is that Roark's dynamiting of the Cortland project was a "logical necessity" and was "morally legitimate."

J

[George H. Smith]

I will leave Rand's views on rape for others to debate. But Roark's dynamiting of the Cortlandt housing project was a violation of rights, without doubt. Roark's agreement was with Keating. If Keating violated their contract, then Roark should have gone after him, not after the people who built Cortlandt. I recall that Rand once said that she used the dynamiting of Cortlandt solely for dramatic purposes, or something to this effect. Ghs.

Not only did Roark not have a contract with the people who built Cortland, but he actively hid his involvement from them, and his contract with Keating was an agreement to perpetrate the fraud of passing off his work as Keating's (with the purpose of subverting others' rights to not hire him). The funny thing is that the official ARI position is that Roark's dynamiting of the Cortland project was a "logical necessity" and was "morally legitimate." J

I haven't read The Fountainhead for a long time, so I'm hazy on the details. Was Cortlandt a government housing project, or was it privately financed?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I will leave Rand's views on rape for others to debate. But Roark's dynamiting of the Cortlandt housing project was a violation of rights, without doubt. Roark's agreement was with Keating. If Keating violated their contract, then Roark should have gone after him, not after the people who built Cortlandt. I recall that Rand once said that she used the dynamiting of Cortlandt solely for dramatic purposes, or something to this effect. Ghs.

Not only did Roark not have a contract with the people who built Cortland, but he actively hid his involvement from them, and his contract with Keating was an agreement to perpetrate the fraud of passing off his work as Keating's (with the purpose of subverting others' rights to not hire him). The funny thing is that the official ARI position is that Roark's dynamiting of the Cortland project was a "logical necessity" and was "morally legitimate." J

I haven't read The Fountainhead for a long time, so I'm hazy on the details. Was Cortlandt a government housing project, or was it privately financed? Ghs

Has anyone else seen that old episode of "Barney Miller," the one that has an architect and admirer of Ayn Rand who lands in jail for blowing up (or attempting to blow up) a building?

Ghs

[Jonathan]

I haven't read The Fountainhead for a long time, so I'm hazy on the details. Was Cortlandt a government housing project, or was it privately financed?

Ghs

It was a government project, and, prior to agreeing to pass off his work as Keating's, Roark expresses his moral disapproval of the existence of such projects. So, not only was he willing to subvert the rights of others to not hire him (I should mention that he admits that he realizes that no committee, public or private, will hire him), but he was willing to set aside his strong moral objections to the project because the idea of working on it was too thrilling to pass up.

J

[Jonathan]

Has anyone else seen that old episode of "Barney Miller," the one that has an architect and admirer of Ayn Rand who lands in jail for blowing up (or attempting to blow up) a building?

Ghs

I haven't seen it, but it looks as if it is Season 6 Episode 20.

J

[caroljane]

Has anyone else seen that old episode of "Barney Miller," the one that has an architect and admirer of Ayn Rand who lands in jail for blowing up (or attempting to blow up) a building?

Ghs

I haven't seen it, but it looks as if it is Season 6 Episode 20.

J

Has anyone else seen that old episode of "Barney Miller," the one that has an architect and admirer of Ayn Rand who lands in jail for blowing up (or attempting to blow up) a building?

Ghs

I haven't seen it, but it looks as if it is Season 6 Episode 20.

J

Hey thanks, I loved that show but I never saw that episode. Trying to imagine the philosophical observations of Sgt. Fish on this incident.

[Xray]

But Roark's dynamiting of the Cortlandt housing project was a violation of rights, without doubt. Roark's agreement was with Keating. If Keating violated their contract, then Roark should have gone after him, not after the people who built Cortlandt.

The dynamiting of Cortland was also a clear violation of the NIOF principle. For it was no act of self-defense.

Roark acted as wiling participant in a fraud, another violation of an Objectivist principle.

Roark can neither claim breach of contract with the government as the owner of Cortland, as he had no contract with them. Their contract was with Keating. Neither can Roark claim breach of contract with Keating - the contract they had was not a legal contract - it was the opposite.

Imagine the following analogous scenario: Jim has a contract as an autor with a publishing company, but secretely "agrees" with John that John is to write Jim's next book. Which is a clear case of fraud.

John writes the book, but editors later make some text alterations, with which John vehemently disagrees. But being an accomplice in a fraud, he cannot insist on any rights being granted to him, neither on the part of his co-fraudster Jim, nor on the part of the company (who has no knowledge of John's illegal ghostwritership).

John then decides to 'retaliate' by destroying the printing machines of the company that produce the copies of the book.

He feels entitled to do so, claiming 'breach of contract'.

[Xray]

Of course, it might be said that, in the passage I quoted from VOS, Rand speaks of a "society," whereas she denies that Galt's Gulch is a society. Rand sometimes used "society" in a peculiar manner; certainly a community of 1000 people who interact on a regular basis would qualify as a "society" by every standard I know of. Calling it a "private estate" is merely to call it a private -- i.e., a nongovernmental, or anarchistic -- society, if a relatively small one.

Rather than engage is a fruitless debate over the meaning of "society," I am willing to grant Rand's premises for the sake of argument. Say 1000 people are invited by the owner of an estate to live on his land, but that this land legally falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. government. May this "private estate" then secede from the United States, in effect, by ignoring laws they disapprove of and appointing their own arbiter to resolve disputes?

If the O'ist answer is Yes, then the O'ist already has one foot in the anarchistic grave and his other foot on a banana peel.

I think you are correct in your assessment that a Yes would get too close to anarchy.

What would you reply to an Objectivist who answered with No?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think Roark bombing that building shows precisely where Ayn Rand would initiate force.

And call it valid.

Or better, say validity no longer had any meaning at that point.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As an added thought, Roark's bombing is the only instance I can think of right now where the act of an Indian giver is used as the climax of a novel.

(No offense meant to Native Americans...)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I think Roark bombing that building shows precisely where Ayn Rand would initiate force.

And call it valid.

Or better, say validity no longer had any meaning at that point.

Michael

There was no Objectivist philosophy when she wrote that novel, especially the apropos parts. Again, she initiated no force. She wrote a novel.

--Brant