A New Architecture, Couture,

[caroljane]

Have you ever been prescribed any medication?

Yes. Ritalin at the age of six I think. It was the worst feeling. I was hyper concentrated on unimportant things such as unimportant minor details and concepts completely unrelated to that which I wanted and had to do to sustain my life and my work. Due to ritalin I had nervous ticks. I was forced to take it in school so I devised the means to make it appear as if I had swallowed it, which only worked sometimes. I'm prescribed to concerta and vivance though I don't take them; just as with ritalin, I stay up for nights on end and can't focus on that which is important: that which I must do to achieve and sustain my life and my values. My first psychologist tried to prescribe me to a manic pill which she said, upon my asking, would harness my thinking to a degree and relax my mind. I regard anything that does that to be monstrously contemptible.

I've been diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder (due to my selfishness, egoism, "grandeoise" sense of self worth (Dad compared my ego to Louis XIV and he actually believed that pretentious man had an ego), and my not having any friends till college and my inability to follow "social norms". Do you think anti-social personality disorder is a valid disorder and why? I'm curious as you're not an Objectivist. (In case it's not clear I am an avid Objectivist and a civilized person capable of having a respectful disagreement)

I don't know anything of psychology diagnoses or personality disorders. I do know quite a lot about pretending taking pills and not taking themI, in the context os psychiatric disorders.I do know you are very capable of respectful disagreement and a very intelligent, creative person.

[MrBenjamatic]

Thanks!

[caroljane]

Thanks!

You're welcome, very welcome.

But know that the space in which you live and create is provided to you by others, anonymous or known to you, who care for you or don't, according to their values and not yours.

[Selene]

Thanks!

You're welcome, very welcome.

But know that the space in which you live and create is provided to you by others, anonymous or known to you, who care for you or don't, according to their values and not yours.

Whoa! Phillip, do you live at home now? Or, do you have your own place?

[MrBenjamatic]

Thanks!

You're welcome, very welcome.

But know that the space in which you live and create is provided to you by others, anonymous or known to you, who care for you or don't, according to their values and not yours.

Whoa! Phillip, do you live at home now? Or, do you have your own place?

I live at home now which is very recent. I had my own apartment for a year. I adored my apartment: I filled it with plants as I consider the jungle the best architectural background and my walls were so covered with my work which I taped, that the walls were barely visible! It's a long and exciting story, and, as you seem interested, I'll tell it. I left home to attend Kent State University in '08. High school was unbearably boring and I was drawing during class constantly, and, as a result my grades weren't all that great. It's near impossible for me to memorize and learn that which is irrelevant to sustaining my life and gaining and keeping My Benjamin (which is what I've named my firm). My grades didn't cut the minimum for acceptance to the KSU College of Architecture and Environmental Design. Struggling with college classes demanding that I learn contradictions and that which is irrelevent to sustain my life and gain an dkeep my Benjamin, I eventually, with much effort, earned acceptance into the architecture program. For three years I lived in the dorms, by KSU orders Freshman year, by my parents orders for the two that followed. I often compared the dorms, as a result of being forced to inhabit them, to Aushwitz (the concentration camp section and, jokingly the death camp section). I was not allowed to smoke, I was not allowed to have candles to please my sense of smell, I need luxury (that which pleases my senses). This, I held, was unacceptable. Come Junior year, I made a plan to achieve an apartment of my own, something I've wanted desperately since a very young age. Keep in mind my beastly parents destroyed the 78,000 drawings I created from age 5 to 18, and, I have held I have the right to set the price of my work and that he who breaks it buys it. I did get a hefty allowance in college of up to $400 a week; my allowance all depended on my parents mood. By mid-junior year, it was clear to me that I absolutely couldn't stand the college of architecture as it forced me to learn mediocrity and demanded unbridled submission to my professors and the tribe of mediocrity worshiping students all very similar to Peter Keating. Collegiate architectural projects were collectively judged by no standard but the professors whom the students tried to copy and the professor tried to copy others. Projects were graded by the professors though we students were never told by what standards we were being graded. Some projects were quite literally impossible: one project was to fill in the missing measurements of a given floor plan and two elevations after which we were dictated to build a model; the measurements were intentionally illogical and thereby impossible- they were asking us to perform the equivalent of finding the missing measurement of a *rectangle* of 3" x 4" x 5" x ___. We students were assigned so much impossible or near-impossible projects that we lost so much sleep that hallucinations and delusion were not out of the ordinary. I called the architecture building the AMOM or the Architectural Monstrosity of Mediocrities (I think modernism's bosh and all arch. colleges around the globe teach only modern architecture). I absolutely could not remain in the program without literally murdering my professors, which, incidentally, I had to take Valium to prevent. The first thing I did, upon finding the Fountainhead speech online, was read it to my adviser whose instant reply was, "You're going to have to be a slave in order to be an architect". The dean, whom demanded I see him the day after my adviser's appointment (they had obviously talked as he knew about my reading him Rand), said a more "diplomatic" equivalent of the adviser's statement ending with: legally, there can be no such architect as Howard Roark. The only alternative to dropping out was suicide, which is absolutely as evil a decision as remaining in the arch. program. I dropped out without telling my parents. Before I left, I was so hatred-eaten by enslavement, I left my professor a note making clear my solid contempt for his worthlessness and mediocrity and that "the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap". My last project was absolutely Benjamatic architecture, as opposed to the modern **sustainable** architecture I was forced to do and did beforehand. My quote section, which was required to, with "professional" and prestigious quotes, justify my architecture, was filled with Ayn Rand. Keep in mind I slightly knew and was subconscious of the fact that my parents destroyed all of my pre-collegiate work (so much, work in fact, that if I charged $25 dollars each they would owe me $2 million, and I charge more than that per drawing). (I wasn't completely aware that they destroyed them as they evaded the subject when I brought it up and I was always busy with my work to fully grasp and realize it was always disappearing). I had rightfully earned at least $2 million as they had monstrously and consciously violated my rights. I asked Mom and Dad for permission to move into my own apartment, which, incidentally, would be cheaper than the dorms (they didn't care). They said no. I knew then the only way I could achieve it would be necessarily drastic. I made sure the dorm management caught me with alcohol and cigarettes in my room complimented by the odor of having smoked them in the dorm (which I did). In the meeting with KSU dorm supervises I offered a deal: if they told my parents they were kicking me out of the dorms, my parents would continue to pay them in exchange for letting me leave and I even bribed them with further money to let me leave. As I was enslaved by the University as my adviser stated clearly (if I didn't graduate I'd be fined and eventually imprisoned for calling myself an architect or accepting commissions) I knew I was justified in my response: if you don't accept, I have no choice but to destroy the dorm room. They kicked me out, I told my parents and I found an apartment. By that time my parents had already cut my allowance to $100 a month plus food. What I was doing was obliterating any and all financial dependency on my parents; such was the purpose of this pursuit. I desperately looked for a job and eventually found one. I had furthered my life-long pursuit of permanently un-bridling myself from the despots (my parents). But eventually I was fired by Gabriel Brothers as they caught me in a Starbucks when I called off sick (I was actually sick); I also think I was fired as my hatred-driven boss, who clearly regarded himself as a sacrificial animal, was scared of me and hated me for it. Anyway, I didn't find another job and my parents eventually had to take me back home. I'm diligently looking for a job and publishing my court case which I'm about to file (against the gov. collective regulating architecture) and advertising my work in hope to make extra money so to wipe my parents hell out of my way. The story of my collegiate experience is much longer than that and much interesting than this but I'll be publishing it very soon.

[Brant Gaede]

You are living a very dramatic life.

--Brant

[MrBenjamatic]

Its always been adventurous. Only my Benjamatic adventure has long been heavily polluted by the adventure of fighting physical force and altruism (when I regarded myself as villainous).

[PDS]

I have a question: would you be wiling to show us an example of your architecture that has actually been constructed? In other words, something that made it off the cutting room floor?

[MrBenjamatic]

I have a question: would you be wiling to show us an example of your architecture that has actually been constructed? In other words, something that made it off the cutting room floor?

Firstly, if, at present, under modern architectural law, I accepted a commission or even called myself an architect in public I would be fined $1000 at first and eventually sentenced to jail. I am filing suit against those "professional" organizations regulating the field of architecture with a government gun (the American Institute of Architects, The American Instsitute of Architecture Students, The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, The National Architectural Accredidation Board & The American Collegiate Schools of Architecture). Until and unless the case takes longer than an unbearable amount of time to reach a verdict, I will not commit civil disobedience. In the case that I do that, my case will be somewhat similiar to Hank Rearden's. Secondly, I'm not financially able to create anything 3d other than clay sculpture. Investment casting, which is expensive, is a precondition of my architecture. I crave for the day when I'll be able to construct it and watch my work come to life; that will be the best day of my life. I really wish I could show you a non-sculpture example: that would mean I would have earned the present.

[MrBenjamatic]

Now that I think of it, if I get a commission, I can create Benjamatic furniture. There might be red tape in my way which impedes nearly all my other endeavors. If I make decent money off my book my plan is to make at least perfume. I have one in mind (among a few others): deep deep base (pinot noir), deep base (lavender, peach), base (wintergreen mint, gardenia). The only thing that's in my way is red tape; once that's gone all I need is commissions (which I won't be entirely dependent on as if I win the case I'll be winning a VERY VERY large amount of money with which I'll immediately commission myself to begin the construction of Castle Benjamin). Again, I wish I had sensory evidence to give other than sketches and clay sculpture. You can, if your willing, see more of my work on my facebook (without even adding me as a friend): Philip Benjamin Hart.

[caroljane]

MrB, you do need to consider that clients will not commission you if they think you are mentally unbalanced. Mania in others makes people nervous,

[MrBenjamatic]

MrB, you do need to consider that clients will not commission you if they think you are mentally unbalanced. Mania in others makes people nervous,

I hold rationality as the standard of mental health. I know I am able to be completely rational and it is my rational judgement that my work will stand. I know people may refuse to give me commissions as some might conclude mania, if I do in fact have it (my current psychologist says I don't), clouds my rationality. I hold others have the right to to offer me commissions. I also hold that if I am offered a commission I have the right to accept it as I have the right to offer to trade that which is mine and no one else's (my architecture) with no one else's permission. The Altruist Architectural Collective (the "professional" regulators of architecture with gov. help) hold I have niether have the right to offer to trade my architecture with no one else's permission nor the right to accept a commission. Others right to refuse to offer me commissions is the ONLY protection anyone needs against me.

[Reidy]

Who's your lawyer in the suit you mention? Who's the defendants' lawyer? Could you link us to some court docs?

[anthony]

Mr Ben, (How to put it?) This is an incredibly singular vitality you possess. Please - don't burn yourself

out too soon - after all, you're in it for the long haul. Channel, channel all that energy and intellect as much as you can.

Remember, Objectivism is a methodology that you may integrate into your life (if you choose), not a format to be integrated INTO. Also, you are not a character in a novel, nor are others, and if that's sounds insulting it's not meant to be.

And other people? be very careful of those lightning judgments - appreciate who you can, forgive others, and be CONSCIOUS of them, always.

Lofty rationalism misinterprets the essence of rational selfishness, I think.

Over all, the trick is to never let that spark of enthusiasm die out from disappointment or despair.

(There's an author on ADD - Dr. Hollister (sp?) who wrote 'Driven to Distraction' some years ago,

and it's highly worthwhile to check out ; I don't know you, but I think I notice something he called 'hyperfocus'

in your output. Actually, hyperfocus is a marvellous ability (yes, Mozart for one is 'supposed' to have had ADD)

- almost compensating for those periods of dreamy inattention such folk have to put up with. Whether or

not ADD is your particular 'thing', his insights are tremendous, and his practical advice, beneficial.)

[MrBenjamatic]

Who's your lawyer in the suit you mention? Who's the defendants' lawyer? Could you link us to some court docs?

No lawyer will support my case in Ohio as there are no Objectivist lawyers or lawyers dedicated enough to the concept of freedom; a lawyer in Arizona wanted to defend but he is not allowed to practice in Ohio. I will be filing it in the United States District Court in Columbus, Ohio. All cases in which the plaintiff defends himself cannot, by law, be refused by the District Court. The defendent's will probably have a very costly and prestigious lawyer. As for defending myself in court I have to submit a single copy of my case to the District Court and memorize the procedure and the court terms in the book sent to me by the court. As I haven't officially filed suit yet there is not yet public access to the case. Fundamentally, my case rests on the grounds of two arguments: my justification of rights directly by the laws of logic (which can be found at the end of post #1) and my opening questions to the defendent which I'll post below:

Let me begin by asking simple yes or no questions. Answer yes it would be cruel and unusual or no it wouldn't be cruel and unusual. Would it be cruel and unusual to punish a child who stole no cookies from the cookie jar for not stealing cookies but having the ability to steal cookies? Answer yes it would be stupid or no it wouldn't be stupid. Would it be stupid to allow teachers to flunk their students -not because they did fail their classses- but because they didn't but are capable of failing their classes? Answer yes it would be fair or no it wouldn't be fair. Would it be fair for a teacher to give a student detention not because he did skip class but because he didn't but could have if he wanted to? Answer yes it would be a cruel and unusual punishment or no it would not be a cruel and unusual punishment. Would it be a cruel and unusual punishment for a jury to sentence a man, who forced no one, to life in prison -not because he did go on a shooting spree- but because he didn't but could have if he wanted to? Answer yes it would be stupid, cruel and unusual or no it wouldn't be stupid, cruel and unusual. Would it be stupid, cruel and unusual for the government to start the use of force against a doctor who forced no one -not because he did harm his patient and violate his rights- but because he didn't but might by accident or because he is able to do it if he wanted to? Answer yes it would be stupid, cruel and unusual or no it wouldn't be stupid, cruel and unusual. Would it be stupid, cruel and unusual for the government to start the use of force against an architect who forced no one -not because he did build a building which collapsed- but because he didn't but might by accident or because he is able to do it if he wanted to? (The defendents have forbidden me to offer to trade my architecture because I haven't but might build shoddy buildings. Also notice I claim I have the right to offer to trade that which is mine and no one else's. If I had the right to trade, no one could refuse to trade as I would have the right to trade). Answer yes or no. Can you be guilty of doing something you might do and are able to do but didn't do? Answer yes or no. Should you be punished for committing a crime you didn't but might commit? Answer yes it is right or no it isn't right. Is is right for you to be consitered by your government to be automatically guilty and treated as a criminal for crimes you didn't commit? Answer yes it is right or no it isn't right. Is it right for you to be regarded by your government as innocent until proven guilty? (If their answer to the second contradicts the first I shall say: Either you are guilty of committing a specific crime or you are not. Let me ask two rhetorical questions. How can you, in regards to the same specific crime, be guilty and innocent at the same time? If you're not automatically guilty and not automatically innocent, what are you?) The purpose of government courts is to determine whether the defendent is guilty of violating others rights. It is right for the government to deny the rights of he who violates others rights. It is a crime to violate others rights. Any action that does not violate others rights cannot rightly be consitered a crime. When you commit a crime the government duly and justly denies you some of your rights; the degree you violate others rights is the degree the government takes away your rights. You are innocent until and unless proven guilty. You are innocent so long as you do not violate others rights. My point is that you shouldn't be punished for a crime until and unless you commit it. So long as you respect -not violate- others rights, the government has no right to take away your rights. You can only violate others rights by force. Answer yes it is just or no is isn't just. Is it just to punish by force a man who forced no one -not because he did force others- but because he might and is able to but didn't force others? Government rightfully has a monopoly on the use of force. Criminals can only be punished by force as force is the only way to harness their rights. If no force was used in prison the criminals could walk out without resistance. How could you violate anothers right to property without forcing them? They could walk away and you couldn't force them. Answer yes it is just or no it isn't just. Is it just to force a man for committing crimes he didn't commit? Answer yes it is just or no it isn't just. Is it just to to force a man for committing crimes he is able to commit but didn't commit? Answer yes it is just or no it isn't just. Is it just to to force a man for committing crimes he might commit but didn't commit? By what right can you knowingly force a man in retaliation for commiting a crime he is able to and might but didn't commit? If all crime consists of violating others rights by and only by force -as rights can only be violated by force- can a man who forces no one be a criminal? Is the man who forces the unforceful man a criminal? I say no, a man who forces no one is not a criminal; I say yes, the man who forces the unforceful man is a criminal. Your regulations say yes, a man who forces no one is a criminal; your regulations say no, the man who forces the unforceful man is not a criminal.

That extrodinarily simple questionnaire is bound to point out their contradictions. If none of their answers contradict each other either they support my case or they admit that clearly their regulations are tyrannical. I will be publishing my book once I finish editing it for the last time. Its almost perfect. The cover of the book, I think, is bound to attract attention and more importantly I'm in love with it and have found three self-publishing companies willing, unlike some, to publish a book with tasteful nudity:

The latest cover of my book of my case: The Benjamin Suit: The Diary, Testimony and Summation of a Fountainhead. Top left: Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of happiness. The Benjamin Suit: The Diary, Testimony & Summation of a Fountainhead - Philip Benjamin Hart. Middle quote: "All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come" - Victor Hugo. Top Right: The ...

Laws of Logic: A is A, Non-Contradiction, Either-or. Bottom: In Reason I Trust (will be changed to: By Reason I Think, On Reason I Act). Don't Tread On ME (Under the Liberty Snake). On Goddess Liberty's hand (sitting) is the sign of the dollar: the US monogram (a U overlapping an S).I've found publishers who will publish this cover as is, I refused to settle for another cover, this is perfect. I'm sure, haha, I'll be sued by a gaggle of misanthropes in which case I have a logical irrefutable case against them.

[MrBenjamatic]

Mr Ben, (How to put it?) this is an incredibly singular vitality you possess. Please - don't burn yourself

out too soon - after all, you're in it for the long haul. Channel, channel, that energy and intellect as much as you can.

Remember, Objectivism is a methodology that you may integrate into your life (if you choose), not a format to be

integrated INTO. Also, you are not a character in a novel, and if that's sounds insulting it's not meant to be.

And other people? be very careful of those lightning judgments - appreciate who you can, forgive others, and be

CONSCIOUS of them, always.

Lofty rationalism misinterprets the essence of rational selfishness, I think.

Over all, the trick is to never let your spark die out from disappointment or despair.

(There's an author on ADD - Dr. Hollister (sp?) who wrote 'Driven to Distraction' some years ago,

and it's highly worthwhile to check out ; I don't know you, but I think I notice something he called 'hyperfocus'

in your output. Actually, hyperfocus is a marvellous ability (yes, Mozart for one is 'supposed' to have had ADD)

- almost compensating for those periods of dreamy inattention such folk have to put up with. Whether or

not ADD is your particular 'thing', his insights are tremendous, and his practical help beneficial.)

I've been going at this speed this passionatly since I was 5. My spark has yet to go out even after knowing I have a 1-5 year legal battle ahead of me that I may lose due to others -not ignorance- but refusal to know. And I'm well aware I'm not a character in a novel, I understand why you would think I thought I was. Other than for school I never read more than three books (before discovering Rand) and, until a year and a half ago, I hadn't heard of Ayn Rand. Afer I dropped out of the architecture program and beginning on my court case, I was trying to find another architect who agreed with me by looking up architect quotes. I found Ayn Rands quote, "A building has integrity just like a man or just as seldom". When I first read that I thought Ayn Rand was a male architect and I had already began working on my courtcase and had already been in my virtuous architectural pursuit for at least 15 years (I started when I was five). The quote that sealed my dedication to discovering just who this Ayn Rand fellow was,

“In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours.”

Again, I can see why you would think I was trying to be Howard Roark as I have a great deal in common with him and have a lawsuit. But, again, I've been in the pursuit of architecture at least 15 years before even knowing that Ayn Rand existed. Incidentally I read The Fountainhead for the first time a year ago, half a year after I'd been working on my case; I was too busy with The Benjamin Suit to read a book.

As for forgiveness: I regard it as evil. Ask yourself if you've ever forgiven someone for being good. What then is forgiveness if not the sanction and support of evil.

Best,

PBH

*I looked up hyperfocus and this is what I found: Hyperfocus is an intense form of mental concentration or visualization that focuses consciousness on a narrow subject, separate from objective reality and onto subjective mental planes, daydreams, concepts, fiction, the imagination, and other objects of the mind. As I accept the laws of logic as irrefutable axiomatic absolutes, as I accept reason as an objective absolute and as I know this is an objective reality, I thereby am not, by this description, experiencing hyperfocus. I think, however, that hyperfocus is experienced by such artists as Salvador Dali and David Lynch and perhaps even Profokiev: all are surreal.

[caroljane]

Is it a fair understanding of your case that you challenge the constitionality of professional architectural organizations?

[MrBenjamatic]

Is it a fair understanding of your case that you challenge the constitionality of professional architectural organizations?

Yes. I hold I have the right to offer to trade that which is mine and no one else's with no one else's permission. If you care to see my full justification of individual rights (which is completely new and not the same as Ayn Rands) read the end of post #1. All "professional" regulators hold the commerce clause as the justification of their "right" to regulate trade. That violates my right to offer to trade that which is mine and no one else's without permission. The commerce clause in an enumeration in the Constitution. The 9th amendment clearly states, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". In modern and clearer rhetoric, the enumeration in the Constitution is not to deny rights retained by the people (made clear by the bill of rights which is made clearer by my logical, axiomatic justifcation of the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness). In order to call oneself an architect and accept a commission, one is forced serve the Altruist Architectural Collective (The American Institute of Architects (AIA), The American Institute of Architecture Students (AIAS), The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), The National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB), The American Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA)). As punishment for disobeying the laws forcing one to serve the AAC, one is forced to pay a fine and eventually will be forced into a prison cell; that is, of course, if one vocally calls oneself and architect to an audience of one or more persons and/or accepts a commission. I would not have served the AAC in college (it is NAAB that dictates what is to be taught in ALL colleges) had I not been forced to. My servitude was NOT voluntary. The 13th amendment states clearly, precisely and openly, "niether slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction". My Constitutional argument is not only bulletproof, I also have more founding father quotes than most plaintiffs have up their sleeve. My justifying individual rights directly, clearly and understandably with the irrefutable laws of logic is a bulletproof argument. The focus of the minds of the jury and the judge, however, are not bulletproof. The only thing which could possibly go wrong in court is the jury and or judge refusing to think.

[caroljane]

What if they choose to think about the right to life of your potential client, who could reasonably expect to be safe in a house built by an architect? What if they see his right as superseding your right to practise architecture?

Analogies are a slippery slope but...,, if you are best, deftest, safest driver in the world, do you have a right to drive without bothering to get a license? Does the state have a right to fine or jail you if you do, even though you never cause an accident?

Believe me, I see your passion. In most trades there are nonaccredited individuals with more skill and talent than the course graduates. I know English teachers who are better than I, they work as volunteers or private tutors because the school boards can't hire them without the right certification.

[MrBenjamatic]

What if they choose to think about the right to life of your potential client, who could reasonably expect to be safe in a house built by an architect? What if they see his right as superseding your right to practise architecture?

Analogies are a slippery slope but...,, if you are best, deftest, safest driver in the world, do you have a right to drive without bothering to get a license? Does the state have a right to fine or jail you if you do, even though you never cause an accident?

Believe me, I see your passion. In most trades there are nonaccredited individuals with more skill and talent than the course graduates. I know English teachers who are better than I, they work as volunteers or private tutors because the school boards can't hire them without the right certification.

I recommend you to read the second paragraph of post #65 which I wrote to Reidy. That is my answer. Do you have any arguments against it?

Also, a license, by its definition, is permission. A government license is a mask they use to cover slavery. Only a slave may act on permission. Permission can be revoked at any time. Rights can be exersized without permission. In addition, government issued licenses may only be achieved by servitude to the government or a government sanctioned body. If you would NOT have volunteered such service to the government (or a institution it supports) had their laws not threatened you with force (if you didn't serve them), that would, obviously, classify as being involuntary servitude.

[caroljane]

But surely, licensing laws rest ultimately on the principle of individual right to life, in that they aim to protect individuals from potential death or harm . I know you think that they should just protect themselves...but you have taken yourself into the setting of the law as it is interpreted currently in the US. Not an area I know much about.

[MrBenjamatic]

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

[caroljane]

Writing is the only trade I can think of,except maybe salesmanship, where the practitioner can practise and earn reputation (sometimes even money) purely by demonstrating their skills, no licensing needed That is not because it not an important or honourable trade. It is because the law deems, except in such areas as hate speech and so forth, that bad or unskilled writing does not have much potential to inflict harm on its readers. Though a good case could be made to the contrary.

[caroljane]

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

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

[PDS]

Here we go...

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