Rand's Kind of Censorship!

[Jonathan]

On April 29, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Peter said:

 

Common decency, current laws, precedent, and unwritten but understood, common law are facts.

Yes, such things are facts. As is the existence of many other instances in which government initiates force. We're having a philosophical discussion. Under the philosophy of Objectivism, the initiation of physical force is banned from human interactions.

 

Quote

Amped up speakers blasting rock and roll, as Jonathan mentioned, is a potential, physical harm. But are being drunk and rowdy, disorderly conduct, nude bathing and fornication just peachy as long as you do them in your own front or back yard? We are assuming here that there is no “neighborhood agreement” that the landowner signed, so, does anything go? Not on this planet. Not anywhere.

 

 Then you disagree with Objectivism's opposition to the initiation of physical force. You prefer to initiate force in some instances.

 

Quote

You need to talk your theories on psychological effects over with a realtor, a surveyor, the county commissioners, or the local sheriff. Buy and own some property. Build on in. Live on it. Your perspective might change from the doctrinaire and philosophic, to the factual. You can’t do on your property as you please. And that is a good thing.

Then the initiation of physical force is acceptable to you.

Now, given the choice between your views and those of the average statist, the statist is much better, since he is advocating using the initiation of physical force as a means of taking money from some people and giving it to others so that they may survive. Lives are actually on the line in such circumstances, where the only thing on the line under your philosophical position is your (or others') tender sensitivities.

 

Quote

I have argued before that if you have a view of a mountain, the seashore, or something you like then no one should be allowed to build to block your view . . . if you were there first. And once again I would add, “within reason.” This is what litigation, zoning, and coming to the nuisance laws are about. I would rather have some limits and that sentiment is not in conflict with libertarianism.     

 

I had thought that the banning of initiatory force was considered the standard of what is "within reason." You seem to have a different view. What is your standard? Your feelings? Rand's feelings?

J

[Jonathan]

On April 29, 2016 at 1:24 PM, anthony said:

It is this sort of atom-splitting argument which does the cause of freedom no good: Sound is "physical" (therefore is "an initiation of force") - whereas, sight is "psychological", (and not). I have news for you, they are both psychological in their effects on a mind. Even faint noise (eg. someone's music, distant hammering) is disturbing/intrusive/offensive, if it continues for hours.

No, Tony, the act of identifying reality does not become "atom-splitting" when you don't happen to like the reality that is being properly identified.

Loud sounds can have a physical effect on others' property. They can make walls and floorboards rumble. They can have a physically disruptive and even damaging effect on others and their property.

Pictures of nude people cannot have the same effect on walls, floorboards or people, etc.

Get it yet? Understand. It's really quite simple.

People may object to loud sounds despite any intellectual content that the sounds may or may not deliver. The sounds do not have to be intelligible in order to be physically disruptive. See, the sound could be a loud bang, and not someone yelling obscenities that you don't like. On the other hand, people object to nude pictures specifically because of the content, and not at all because of any physical effect (such as shaking walls or floorboards).

These are realities, despite your wishing them not to be.

 

Quote

Does anybody think that by-laws and city ordnances will become void in a capitalist-individual rights future? Wouldn't a minimal gvt. still have to legislatively pre-empt some of the damage and harm some irresponsible idiots and jerks - who will always exist - could cause? Or does one believe that individual rights automatically makes *everybody* responsible, sane and rational? I dislike legislation intensely, but the pre-emptive rules and standards of behavior for people in public (or seen or heard in a public place) aren't initiation of force.

Laws against displaying whatever image you wish on your own property ARE the initiation of force. Such laws would have to be abandoned under and Objectivist system.

Heh. It's highly amusing watching you discover how much you dislike Objectivism.

No wonder that you evaded answering the questions that I asked in an earlier post:

Quote

 

On April 28, 2016 at 8:23 PM, anthony said:

So? what's your problem? (Can you make any argument that doesn't incur "initiating force" repeatedly?)

 

You need to explain why you disagree with the NIOF principle.

What metaphysical, epistemological and ethical basis do you have for rejecting it? Explain where you think that Rand erred in arriving at the NIOF principle. Demonstrate that it can be a "principle" yet, at the same time, you can follow Rand in deviating from it at whim.

Are there also any other principles of Objectivism that you outright reject or arbitrarily make whimsical exceptions to? Can an A be a non-A only when Rand mistakenly identified a non-A as an A? Is she the only person who is exempt from the laws of identity and of non-contradiction? How did she acquire that exemption status?

 

 

J

[Peter]

Jonathan asked: What is your standard? Your feelings? Rand's feelings? end quote

Ever heard someone say, "How dare you?" Uh, Jonathan. I notice that your logo is of an obvious villain trying to harm someone. Common decency? I know that is a nebulous term drawing on a knowledge of the way things are and have always been, but you know obscenity when you see it, as a Supreme Court Justice said. What do people in most cultures, going back thousands of years, DEMAND not happen? Some supposedly victimless crimes can get the perpetrator jail time.

If you don’t have a list I can’t ever make you see that demanding common decency is NOT the initiation of force. Hmmm? Trump sucking all the oxygen out of the room and making fun of somebody’s looks, or saying Cruz’s father killed JFK? Trump stomping on the American Constitution or flag. That joke is not funny. Can you speculate as to why it is offensive?

Some real examples. Threatening. Bullying. Body odor. Propositioning someone. Slander and libel. Obscene gestures which could be the usual single digit or a pop star imitating sexual acts. Some language in front of minors. Beating your horse or dog. Exposing yourself in public. Nude sunbathing (follow the rules on that one.) Criminal conspiracy even if it has not been enacted. Desecrating graves or bodies.

Peter  

I searched and found the following. From the website In Brief. Outraging Public Decency. What constitutes outraging public decency?

Public Decency

Public decency constitutes a level of behaviour which is generally accepted in the public and is not obscene, disgusting or shocking for the observers. In order to preserve public decency there are certain statutory and common law controls which are imposed on the individuals in order to prevent outraging public decency.

What constitutes public decency?

Outraging public decency is an indictable offence. Any person who carries out an act of obscene nature in the public can be charged with this offence. There is no need for the intention to affect disgust or annoy the public or not by his or her actions. By ‘in the public’ it is meant that there is a possibility that more than one person sees these actions. If this behaviour takes place in the private, a person cannot be charged with this offence. Conviction on indictment or fine or imprisonment on summary conviction is a maximum of 6 months or a fine. A person can be found guilty of conspiracy to outraging public policy if that person makes an agreement with another person to engage in an obscene conduct. There are many other statutory offences which can constitute outraging public decency, they are listed below.

Other related offences for obscene behaviour

A person will face criminal liability for publication of defamatory, seditious, blasphemous or obscene matters. Any publication of an obscene article is also an offence. By obscene it is meant that it is of such a nature which would have a depriving or corrupting effect on an observer; reader or a person who hears about it. It is also prohibited to possess such an obscene article for gain. A person can be charged with an offence even if he or she sends an obscene message to someone through public telecommunication systems.

Connection with Human Rights

European Convention of Human Rights protects the right of freedom of expression, the prohibition on publishing articles could possibly constitute infringement of such a right however this right is subject to an important exception. The right must be necessary in a democratic society and must be in accordance with law. Such a publication would represent danger to public, publishing such article would most definitely have a corrupting effect on people therefore this is prohibited by the statute.

It is also common law offence to bathe uncovered in a public place. It is not an excuse if other people normally bathe at this place also uncovered. Sexual activity in the public place can also constitute outraging public decency, and it is an offence to engage in sexual activity in a public lavatory. A person could be liable for a maximum of six months imprisonment for summary conviction or a fine. An indecent exposure of any part of the body can also constitute an offence. A person who intentionally exposes his genitals to someone causing him distress may be liable for conviction on indictment for a maximum imprisonment of 2 years and on summary conviction a maximum of six months or a fine. It is also an offence to keep disorderly house where disorderly behaviour is taking place. Disorderly behaviour was held to include indecent performances or exhibitions which if carried out at a public place would amount to outraging public decency. The penalty for this offence depends on the discretion of the court; it can be fine or imprisonment. Exhibiting ‘human earrings’ made from freeze-dried human foetuses in art gallery were held to constitute outraging public decency. It is an offence to expose a dead body near a public highway as this would outrage public decency. It is prohibited to detain a dead body and prevent a burial in a decent manner. A person charged with such an offence can be liable for imprisonment or a fine. A person’s fatal remains must also be held in a decent way so that it does not amount to outraging public decency . . . .

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

No, Tony, the act of identifying reality does not become "atom-splitting" when you don't happen to like the reality that is being properly identified.

Loud sounds can have a physical effect on others' property. They can make walls and floorboards rumble. They can have a physically disruptive and even damaging effect on others and their property.

Pictures of nude people cannot have the same effect on walls, floorboards or people, etc.

Get it yet? Understand. It's really quite simple.

People may object to loud sounds despite any intellectual content that the sounds may or may not deliver.

 

J

OK. So only when your decibel meter is maxing out and your walls are rumbling may you call it a "physical" disturbance and call the police? Yeah, I might not happen to "like the reality" of a neighbor's parties which go on the whole night  (at a far lesser volume than your silly physical standard) but the guy who's party it is, is evidently also not 'liking the reality' of respecting that the peace of others' is being disturbed. Who's 'dislike of reality' takes precedence?

That's when "initiation of force" and the rights of property become a club you can beat people up with. Some society you'll get - as I've said. Freedom doesn't come without self-responsibility. It sure won't come with irresponsibility.

(And remember that this is not any "censorship" issue. You can still throw a party; nothing stopping you putting up potentially offensive pictures - but just with a little respect for others. Put up a sign, show your stuff in privacy, tell your neighbors about it in advance, avoid partying every night, end at a certain time etc. etc. This is all about courtesy, doncha know?).

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Jonathan asked: What is your standard? Your feelings? Rand's feelings? end quote

Ever heard someone say, "How dare you?" Uh, Jonathan. I notice that your logo is of an obvious villain trying to harm someone. Common decency? I know that is a nebulous term drawing on a knowledge of the way things are and have always been, but you know obscenity when you see it, as a Supreme Court Justice said. What do people in most cultures, going back thousands of years, DEMAND not happen? Some supposedly victimless crimes can get the perpetrator jail time.

If you don’t have a list I can’t ever make you see that demanding common decency is NOT the initiation of force. Hmmm? Trump sucking all the oxygen out of the room and making fun of somebody’s looks, or saying Cruz’s father killed JFK? Trump stomping on the American Constitution or flag. That joke is not funny. Can you speculate as to why it is offensive?

Some real examples. Threatening. Bullying. Body odor. Propositioning someone. Slander and libel. Obscene gestures which could be the usual single digit or a pop star imitating sexual acts. Some language in front of minors. Beating your horse or dog. Exposing yourself in public. Nude sunbathing (follow the rules on that one.) Criminal conspiracy even if it has not been enacted. Desecrating graves or bodies.

Peter  

I searched and found the following. From the website In Brief. Outraging Public Decency. What constitutes outraging public decency?

Public Decency

Public decency constitutes a level of behaviour which is generally accepted in the public and is not obscene, disgusting or shocking for the observers. In order to preserve public decency there are certain statutory and common law controls which are imposed on the individuals in order to prevent outraging public decency.

What constitutes public decency?

Outraging public decency is an indictable offence. Any person who carries out an act of obscene nature in the public can be charged with this offence. There is no need for the intention to affect disgust or annoy the public or not by his or her actions. By ‘in the public’ it is meant that there is a possibility that more than one person sees these actions. If this behaviour takes place in the private, a person cannot be charged with this offence. Conviction on indictment or fine or imprisonment on summary conviction is a maximum of 6 months or a fine. A person can be found guilty of conspiracy to outraging public policy if that person makes an agreement with another person to engage in an obscene conduct. There are many other statutory offences which can constitute outraging public decency, they are listed below.

Other related offences for obscene behaviour

A person will face criminal liability for publication of defamatory, seditious, blasphemous or obscene matters. Any publication of an obscene article is also an offence. By obscene it is meant that it is of such a nature which would have a depriving or corrupting effect on an observer; reader or a person who hears about it. It is also prohibited to possess such an obscene article for gain. A person can be charged with an offence even if he or she sends an obscene message to someone through public telecommunication systems.

Connection with Human Rights

European Convention of Human Rights protects the right of freedom of expression, the prohibition on publishing articles could possibly constitute infringement of such a right however this right is subject to an important exception. The right must be necessary in a democratic society and must be in accordance with law. Such a publication would represent danger to public, publishing such article would most definitely have a corrupting effect on people therefore this is prohibited by the statute.

It is also common law offence to bathe uncovered in a public place. It is not an excuse if other people normally bathe at this place also uncovered. Sexual activity in the public place can also constitute outraging public decency, and it is an offence to engage in sexual activity in a public lavatory. A person could be liable for a maximum of six months imprisonment for summary conviction or a fine. An indecent exposure of any part of the body can also constitute an offence. A person who intentionally exposes his genitals to someone causing him distress may be liable for conviction on indictment for a maximum imprisonment of 2 years and on summary conviction a maximum of six months or a fine. It is also an offence to keep disorderly house where disorderly behaviour is taking place. Disorderly behaviour was held to include indecent performances or exhibitions which if carried out at a public place would amount to outraging public decency. The penalty for this offence depends on the discretion of the court; it can be fine or imprisonment. Exhibiting ‘human earrings’ made from freeze-dried human foetuses in art gallery were held to constitute outraging public decency. It is an offence to expose a dead body near a public highway as this would outrage public decency. It is prohibited to detain a dead body and prevent a burial in a decent manner. A person charged with such an offence can be liable for imprisonment or a fine. A person’s fatal remains must also be held in a decent way so that it does not amount to outraging public decency . . . .

Yeah, I understand all of the above. It ain't Objectivism.

J

[Jonathan]

4 minutes ago, anthony said:

OK. So only when your decibel meter is maxing out and your walls are rumbling may you call it a "physical" disturbance and call the police? Yeah, I might not happen to "like the reality" of a neighbor's parties which go on the whole night  (at a far lesser volume than your silly physical standard) but the guy who's party it is, is apparently also not 'liking the reality' of respecting that the peace of others' is being disturbed. That's when "initiation of force" and the rights of property become a club you can beat people up with. Some society you'll get - as I've said. Freedom doesn't come without responsibility. It sure doesn't come with irresponsibility.

As I've been saying, it's amusing watching you discover how much you dislike Objectivism. You're just pissed about it! You're ridiculing the consistent application of the NIOF principle!

Totally hilarious!

 

4 minutes ago, anthony said:

(And remember that this is not any "censorship" issue. You can still throw a party; nothing stopping you putting up potentially offensive pictures - but just with a little respect for others. Put up a sign, show your stuff in privacy, tell your neighbors about it in advance, avoid partying every night, end at a certain time etc. etc. This is all about courtesy, doncha know?).

Oh, it's "not censorship" if you can still express your views or show nude images in private? Hmmm. Then it's also "not censorship" to ban public speeches, protests, gatherings, etc., since you can still do those things in private! Under your little half-baked theory, the government could ban all offensive ideas from being expressed verbally, visually or in writing in public, including all political discussions, and it could rightfully limit the exchange of such ideas to special isolated rooms/cells/cages where only those who wished to be exposed to them would. Everyone else would be protected from having to listen to it or read about it. After all, the government's doing so would not actually be "censorship" since you could still write, say or show pictures of anything you want as long as you were in the room/cell/cage.

J

[Peter]

Jonathan wrote: Yeah, I understand all of the above. It ain't Objectivism. end quote

I object to your use of farce. Stop your misunderstanding and minimalist !!NIOF!!, or I will need to use farce in kind. “Judge, you had to be there to understand why I punched that guy.”

Of course the retaliatory use of force is objective. Nuisance laws fit quite well under, in descending order; Objectivism, Politics, NIOF, and then the retaliatory use of force. But philosophy cannot be shut up in an ivory tower or exist in a vacuum. Real World efficacy must be demonstrated. A philosopher and their philosophy must factor in history, culture, current law, common law, and precedent. The exception to cultural factors are axioms, logic (and mathematics.)

An everyday example is to ask yourself WHAT IS ONE SITUTATION when you would utilize the retaliatory use of force, (and no one is physically assaulting you) and once you have that, work out a general principle.

Peter  

[Jonathan]

22 hours ago, Peter said:

Of course the retaliatory use of force is objective. Nuisance laws fit quite well under, in descending order; Objectivism, Politics, NIOF, and then the retaliatory use of force.

Bullshit. Nuisance laws involving "offensive," "loathsome" images or verbally expressed ideas are not examples of retaliatory force. They are examples of the initiation of force. A is A, remember? Force means force. Objectivism doesn't play word games where something non-physical counts as something physical. There is no physical force involved in someone's displaying something that you find upsetting on their property.

If your (or Ayn Rand's, of Tony's) being offended by certain words or images qualifies as someone's having used physical force against you, then all words and images that anyone and everyone else finds to be offensive also qualify as the initiation of physical force, and therefore nothing may be presented publicly; all ideas and images should be limited to being presented privately where those who don't wish to see them don't have to. That's where your theory logically leads.

Well, that is, if it's applied consistently. But that's the trick, isn't it: You want to exempt yourself from having the nuisance law "principle" applied to you (and Rand and Tony)? You, and not others, should be in charge of deciding what's "offensive," "loathsome," and a "nuisance"?

J 

[Peter]

Jon A. Than wrote: You, and not others, should be in charge of deciding what's "offensive," "loathsome," and a "nuisance"? end quote

Correct-a-mundo! Fire! Get out of the theatre now! If that is a hoax, it is a crime. And I like the movie rating system too. But I am quite willing to allow others to put their two cents in, as long as the restrictions on speech and action are in line with precedent, rationality and commonly held sensibilities, and that hard to define, almost nonsensical truism called common sense. “Nuisance laws” are not about restricting free speech, or artistic expression but they are about an emergency situation. “Mommy! Look at what that man is doing!”

Don't worry. I have more to say. Gotta go. Jonny be good.        

Peter   

[anthony]

On 2016/05/04 at 8:31 PM, Peter said:

Jonathan wrote: Yeah, I understand all of the above. It ain't Objectivism. end quote

I object to your use of farce. Stop your misunderstanding and minimalist !!NIOF!!, or I will need to use farce in kind. “Judge, you had to be there to understand why I punched that guy.”

Of course the retaliatory use of force is objective. Nuisance laws fit quite well under, in descending order; Objectivism, Politics, NIOF, and then the retaliatory use of force. But philosophy cannot be shut up in an ivory tower or exist in a vacuum. Real World efficacy must be demonstrated. A philosopher and their philosophy must factor in history, culture, current law, common law, and precedent. The exception to cultural factors are axioms, logic (and mathematics.)

An everyday example is to ask yourself WHAT IS ONE SITUTATION when you would utilize the retaliatory use of force, (and no one is physically assaulting you) and once you have that, work out a general principle.

Peter  

Peter, I haven't heard a reply from anyone regarding my chat about a young individual untrained to drive a vehicle, taking one out while under the influence, and driving at high speeds. If you can help. All I need to know is this: are any of the three laws which would limit those actions (and any other preventative laws) going to be considered government "initiation of force"? a. by Objectivists b. by libertarians c. both d. neither. ? It seems to me, if so, that common sense flies out the window. The ~potential~ of initiation of force by that driver has to be higher priority, I assume. How do you stand here?

"Well, she got her Daddy's car and she cruised through the hamburger stand, now/ Seems she forgot all about the Library like she told her old man now/ And with the radio blasting drove through it just as fast as she can now/ And she'll have fun fun fun til her Daddy takes the T-Bird away".

(A great old song jumped to mind).

If one pegs everything to the Non-Initiation of Force Principle, good sense and rationality may take a back seat, I fancy. Not only about potential threats to public safety, like above. I only had to hear an explanation of the "physical" - i.e. force-initiating - level required of a neighbor's noise, in order to make an official complaint and so justify police ending the disturbance, to see how nonsensical a rationalization about initiation of force can get.

This pettiness, out of touch with real situations and people is not encouraging to outsiders, I believe. I think if NIOF is posed, as it in fact is, as a derivative of the individual's freedom of action (which property rights, and all rights, are founded on) leaving aside the full justification Objectivists are well versed in - all the way back to metaphysics and epistemology - THEN it will make sense to most everybody and be persuasive to the greater populace. I.e.:One's freedom to act, implies - not preventing anyone else from acting from their free will - therefore - not initiating force. People understand that. As further consequence, I am sure this is more likely to enhance simple consideration for others, and their differences in taste, experience, maturity (etc) to one's own.

 

 

[Jonathan]

14 hours ago, anthony said:

Peter, I haven't heard a reply from anyone regarding my chat about a young individual untrained to drive a vehicle, taking one out while under the influence, and driving at high speeds.

Here's an idea, Tony: Try to think in principles, especially Objectvist principles; try to think about the positions that Objectivism takes on issues like property rights, road ownership, and the use of others' property with their voluntary, contractual consent. Think really hard and try to work it out for yourself! Hint: the answer isn't to accept an artificially limited set of options and get tricked into supporting a statist solution which employs rights-violating actions.

 

14 hours ago, anthony said:

If one pegs everything to the Non-Initiation of Force Principle, good sense and rationality may take a back seat, I fancy.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying: you're discovering that you oppose Objectivism, especially the NIOF principle (and you also especially oppose logic and rationality). You want to reserve for yourself the "right" to initiate force against others. You're not an Objectivist, nor even a fan of Objectivism. Rather, you're a parrot of Rand, but only of Rand at her worst and most irrational and self-contradictory.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I personally would be able to still call myself an Objectivist if there weren't so many other Objectivists or Objectivist hanger-ons spouting nonsense. You can be an Objectivist and be rational about it if you accept the logical extremes qua philosophy. Practically speaking, of course, we can't get there from here but the journey there--toward there--is required. For instance, we will always have government and government violating the NIOF principle. So what? What we don't have is the real big biggy: the cultural-intellectual impulse to move toward more and more freedom. The psychological import would be over-whelmingly positive. Then the City-On A Hill is in the head where it belongs and which existence really is possible.

The right not to be offended is not the right not to be physically attacked. The first is a so-called "positive" right and the second "negative"--or, the first is no right at all. Rand got it much more right than wrong, but here we are on Objectivist Living (OL) with Anthony and Peter getting everything wrong. The biggest, basic wrong is not using logic correctly--that is, even trying to use logic it would seem. It's as if Rand--who is that? Never heard of her. She's just irrelevant flotsam, only a name to be mentioned from time to time. Jesus H. Christ! She really did invent a philosophy in toto. So she wasn't original about this or that. I'm talking about the whole enchilada! If you can't honor that don't pretend you do. You're probably a conservative in drag. Rand herself was in some respects. Me too, I admit. Essentially, that's where I started. A conservative implicitly at least accepts many of the mores of society. Cuturally I'm a WASP, Christian but not a Catholic. I'm an atheist but prefer something more positively descriptive so I use "pantheist" instead. You just won't find me in a church down on my knees. I will go to a church for a funeral.

--Brant

[anthony]

I have an idea for you too, J.

Try to think in terms of inducing real facts and creating your own concepts, instead of tiresomely citing a fixed rule and maxim. Then you'll grasp what logic and reason actually is and conceptualize your ~principles~ by your self.

But try again: convince me another way of how to escape a neighbor's noisy parties without getting the law to "initiate force", or having to relocate houses. Your first, that the noise has to fulfill the criterion of "physical force" and the physically damaging effect of sound waves, before one has recourse to the law's "initiation of force", is too irrational to contemplate. 

[Peter]

Tony wrote: One's freedom to act, implies not preventing anyone else from acting - therefore not initiating force. People understand that. As consequence, I am sure this is more likely to enhance simple consideration for others, and their differences to oneself. end quote

Brant responded: Rand got it much more right than wrong but here we are on OL with Anthony and Peter getting everything wrong. end quote

Say what, Brant? If you are living in the wilderness, or on Mars with no other people around, certain activities are not morally or legally dubious. But when living in any society where there are other rights bearing people who are affected by your actions, then rules of conduct should be objectively defined - even though it is a *gray area.*  

Peter

Some oldies to illustrate the gray areas. WILLIAM  DWYER" To: <Atlantis> Subject: ATL: Re: Roll Call (i.e., definition of force) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:32:38 -0700

Joe Duarte asked, [D]oes anyone have a good definition of force? The non-initiation of force principle is key to the objectivist ethics and politics. I'd like to know exactly what we mean by force. I heard that Kelley defined it in one of his works - does anyone know which one? I can't find it.

Joe, I don't know about Kelley's definition, but "force" in a libertarian/Objectivist context refers to the negation of a person's will or choice; it means compulsion.  In this sense, two people engaged in the sport of boxing or wrestling are not using "force" against either; since their participation is voluntary. The ~initiation~ of force, for an Objectivist or a libertarian, is gaining a value from its owner without his or her consent, which is why fraud is a form of force. Thus, the initiation of force presupposes the concept of property rights, which is a point that Kelley has made.  For example, if I physically remove you from a particular place against your will, I have used "force" against you.  But I have not ~initiated~ force against you if the place is my property and you are occupying it against my will.  Thus, in order to determine whether or not an act of force qualifies as the ~initiation~ of force, one needs to have a prior understanding of the property relations obtaining between the two parties involved in its exercise.

For whatever it's worth, Peikoff defines "physical force" as "coercion exercised by ~physical~ agency, [e.g.,] by punching a man in the face, incarcerating him, shooting him, or seizing his property."  So what, then, do we mean by "coercion"?  My dictionary defines "coerce" as "to restrain or dominate by nullifying individual will," which comports with my earlier definition of "force". Peikoff also defines the ~initiation~ of physical force as "~starting~ the use of force against an innocent individual(s), one who has not himself started its use against others." [OPAR, 310]

My dictionary also lists several synonyms of "force" and makes some interesting distinctions, e.g., "compel, coerce, constrain..."  "Coerce comes closest to what Objectivism means by "physical force".  Accordingly, "coerce suggests overcoming resistance or unwillingness by actual or threatened violence or pressure." I hope this helps.  It is the best I could do off the top. Bill

From: "George H. Smith" To: "Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Jury duty conflicts Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:08:38 -0500. You should absolutely vote "not guilty" if the person is accused of a victimless crime. Jury nullification was widely accepted in colonial America as a means of reining in the power of the British Crown. And, in most respects, the levels of injustice we face now are far greater than existed in colonial America.

Suppose you lived in Nazi Germany and the question was whether someone had enough Jewish ancestry to qualify him as a Jew for legal purposes. If you know that this person, if convicted, would suffer unjust punishment for something that is none of the government's business, then you have a moral obligation to vote "not guilty."

Or suppose the issue involved a runaway slave in ante-bellum America. We tend to think of such historical cases as nearly self-evident, yet we also tend to forget that our present is the history of the future -- and that history, as Lord Acton said, is "a hanging judge."

Ghs

From: "Doris Gordon" To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Jury duty conflicts Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:09:35 -0400

DT: If I'm on a jury, and it's my job to vote on whether to declare a person guilty of violating a crime that should not be a crime, should I vote "guilty" because I believe the person did the "crime" or "not guilty" because I believe there was no crime.

DG: I was once almost caught in such a dilemma when called for jury duty. The case was about someone accused of selling drugs.  I was annoyed at myself for not being able to recall much of what I had heard about jury nullification.  But then the judge posed a number of questions to the potential jurors, questions that are designed to avoid seating people that would be unsuitable according to the standards of the legal process as the court sees it.

I don't recall the judge's actual question, but I think it might have been whether anyone had any political or religious reasons for not being able to make an impartial decision.  My lone hand shot up in the back of the room. He called me up front so that he could speak to me privately.  I told him I was a libertarian and gave him a short explanation of my views.  He didn't seem to grasp what I was saying, so he asked me again.  Frustrated, he gave up and told me to collect my $15.00 for the day and go home.

This doesn't, of course, answer the question of what to do if one is on a jury.  But I thought, given the judge's question, it might have been risky for me to be on this particular case.

Doris Gordon

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:29:41 -0500.

a.d. smith wrote: "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force.

"I was wondering how my fellow Atlanteans would reply to this argument I think I did a fairly good job in elucidating the differences between physical force and "economic coercion," but I could have done better. What would you guys have said in this situation ?

I find that well-constructed examples and counter-examples can sometimes communicate the distinction better than abstract arguments, or at least serve as an introduction to them. Many years ago, during a college seminar on Marxism, my professor gave the following popular example: Suppose I am stranded in the middle of the desert, and I run across the only oasis in my vicinity. It is privately owned, and the owner tells me that I must (a) work for him at fifty cents per hour, or (b) stay off his property. And since he is charging $5,000 for the food and water that are required to sustain my life during the remainder of my journey, this means that I am being economically coerced -- indeed, enslaved -- since I must either accept the offer or face certain death.

I responded by changing one condition of the example. The same oasis owner has more money than he knows what to do with, so (as before) he tells me that I must take a job to earn my supplies, but he now offers me $10,000 per hour instead of fifty cents. So now I can earn what I need in 30 minutes (during which the owner, who is starved for intellectual companionship, only requests that I talk to him about philosophy) and even walk away with a handsome surplus.

The professor then protested, "But that's not a realistic example."

"Neither is your example," I replied, "but that's not the point. The purpose of the example is to isolate the key elements that generate what you call economic coercion. If your example, in which I am economically coerced to work for 50 cents an hour is valid, then so is my example where I am economically coerced to work for $10,000 per hour by discussing philosophy. I didn't change anything essential in the hypothetical; all I did was change some details, which should be irrelevant to the point you are making. So if you claim that my example doesn't qualify as economic coercion, then why doesn't it? I will die just as surely if I turn down the offer for $10,000 as if I refuse to work for fifty cents. What's the difference? According to your definition, I am being coerced in either case -- but it sounds a little strange to say that I am being 'forced' to work at the higher wage. You are loading the example in your favor by including very low wages, but the amount of the wage is immaterial to the point you wish to make. Surely the validity of your argument should not depend solely on its emotional appeal, so it should make equal sense to take about a wage-slave who is forced to discuss philosophy at $10,000 per hour."

I don't remember my exact words, of course, but the preceding is a fair representation of my argument. It took the discussion in some interesting directions that might otherwise have been overlooked – such as whether the CEO of a multinational corporation is also economically "coerced" to accept his multi-million dollar salary -- and the discussion ended when the Marxist professor said, "Well, I'll have to give some additional thought to your example."

That's about as close to an unconditional surrender as a student is ever likely to get from a professor. Ghs

[Peter]

We can agree that sound can be the initiation of force. But are employing other senses also the potential initiation of force (though not openly violent?) Touching? Of course. Smell? Damn right. Laser light to the eyes. Sure. Even airline pilots complain about that. Then we enter a grayer area. Are you initiating force if you stop someone else’s annoying activity? Are you anti liberty if you support the authorities or police, or federal regulators who stop the following activities?

Using animals to fight and kill other animals for betting and for entertainment? Speeding on a public road? Propagandizing and brain washing?

There IS a disparity of freedom between men and women. Should aborting a fetus potentially be a crime? Is a fetus a non-person? If there is no person, there is no crime. But should alcohol consumption, smoking, and climbing ladders be illegal for pregnant women if we accept the common sense idea that an unborn child does have some rights, or value, or legal status? As rare as late term abortions are, they are the litmus test for women's and baby's rights.  Saying that a fetus has rights that supersede the mother's, or that a fetus is simply tissue, are both philosophically and medically untenable positions. Objectivity is required to define the issue.

I further respect the libertarian argument that once government is used to support civilization, there might be a slippery slope where it prosecutes victimless crimes (i.e., behavior for which there is no complainant) thereby restricting rights. Here, I would differentiate between activities that on balance protect our rights, and those that on balance trample upon our rights. Note the subtle libertarian difference between the arguments of those who would legislate morality (ostensibly to build civilization), and those who restrict activities that unleash barbarism. The former apply the force of law to build civilization and further morality. The correct argument is to restrict certain barbarous activities, and agree to the government’s use of retaliatory force, solely to protect against gray areas of aggression.

Do you have a right to be silly in public, or go against the norm? Of course. I would not favor legislation against that. I still would not advise burning an American flag in front of a group of Teamsters. If the punches go to a jury trial the teamsters will be exonerated.

Peter

[anthony]

The conservatism of any one person is not the issue, or any, Peter, or me - or Rand - being "offended". The aim is general, to a population. The intent I'm sure was clear in Rand's statement if one thinks about it, not her own disgust (that was her btw remark), but the least disruptive way all persons in civilized society can get along together, if only at this superficially, social level. Obviously, we will always have every type, from highly conservative - to permissive liberals, all together in one country. Neither should dictate to the other. Between them is a huge and changing combination of maturity, tastes and mores, therefore at this simple level accepted norms should be taken into account. It is an area too superficial for morality and individual rights, and simply about acknowledgment of differences between one and another..

Brant, as I say too, one doesn't have the right to not feel offended.

But it does not mean one MUST ENJOY being offended - or appreciate being 'educated' by those with more experienced (or more jaded) standards of what is obscene and is not.

A reminder to J., "a nude image" per se, doesn't constitute obscenity nowadays. This is not Victorian England.

[Roger Bissell]

A free society would have communities in which, by restrictive covenant, certain non-rights-violating nuisances were considered to be breaches of contract (covenant) and thus actionable by security/police and arbitration/court - as well as communities in which those nuisances were basically ignored. And people could freely choose which kind of community they wanted to live in and feel secure knowing that both their freedom and their comfort would not be overridden by zealots or boors. 

Currently, we have a mix of such communities, as well as traditional towns, villages, cities, etc., in which various groups contend for their particular limits (or lack of same) on non-rights-violating nuisance behavior - much as they contend over how and to what extent the public schools should provide children with information on sex and reproduction - or how liquored up drivers should be allowed to be or how fast they should be allowed to drive on the public streets and roads.

As long as there are public institutions and services, and as long as there is public financing of any of them, there will be such battles or contests, and someone will be "democratically" or bureaucratically or federally screwed, while someone else's preference is honored. Even in a minarchist society, where we have stripped away nearly all of the statist stuff, I fully expect there will still be complaints by purist libertarians with nothing better to do. That will truly be heaven on earth, but I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

Your best bet, in all of this, is to pick the least bad combination of +/- stuff, try to "work within the system" to make it even less bad, but to put your primary focus on creating positive value and not obsessing over what's wrong with the world. Life is too short.

REB

[Jonathan]

23 hours ago, Peter said:

Fire! Get out of the theatre now!

So, you're saying that someone's publicly displaying pictures that Ayn Rand would find to be "offensive" and "loathsome" is the same thing as panicking people by telling them that their lives are in immediate danger, thus potentially causing a stampede in which people get hurt or killed? Your theory is that there's a history of lots of people ending up horrifically wounded or dead due to having encountered "offensive" and "loathsome" pictures displayed publicly?

Heh.

J

 

[Peter]

Jonathan wondered if about the illegality of, “". . . offensive" and "loathsome" pictures displayed publicly?”

I like Roger’s analysis. I am always referring to public instances and not private. It depends on the sensibilities of the people in that community. It depends on WHO views or experiences the offensive material. If it is a child or an Amish person, those are classes of observers who *deserve* two sets of public standards. What is considered indecent in Minneapolis or Saint Paul, compared to indecency in San Francisco? What was a crime in 1950 rural America and rural America in 2016? I am not against revisions to laws supporting common decency. I am in favor of getting rid of archaic laws too.

Your logo of a filthy offensive monster of a man is instructive. If someone leaps out to scare someone on the street or in the cardiac ward of a hospital, then place does matter. The sentiment that “there oughta be a law,” is not just in the province of old Aunt Matilda or a redneck.

Peter

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

But try again: convince me another way of how to escape a neighbor's noisy parties without getting the law to "initiate force", or having to relocate houses.

Why would I want to convince you of a position that I don't hold?!! WTF? Moron!

Tony, can you avoid a picture displayed on someone's property? Can you look away? Yes, you can.

Can you do the same with sounds that are causing your walls to shake? No, you can't. You can't turn off your ears like you can close your eyes. You can't turn away from loud sounds to make them stop having a physical effect on you and your property. See? See how loud sounds have an actual real physical effect where offensive images do not? God, what a retard.

 

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Your first, that the noise has to fulfill the criterion of "physical force" and the physically damaging effect of sound waves, before one has recourse to the law's "initiation of force", is too irrational to contemplate. 

Heh. What do you image that the term "physical force" means?!!! It means physical force! It doesn't mean your being upset about something that someone else said, wrote or displayed!

Anyway, once again you're rejecting the NIOF principle while claiming that you're rationally adhering to reality and practicing consistent metaphysics, etc. But, so far, that just puffing and posing, since you still haven't backed it up with anything; you're still evading my earlier questions:

Quote

 

You need to explain why you disagree with the NIOF principle.

What metaphysical, epistemological and ethical basis do you have for rejecting it? Explain where you think that Rand erred in arriving at the NIOF principle. Demonstrate that it can be a "principle" yet, at the same time, you can follow Rand in deviating from it at whim.

Are there also any other principles of Objectivism that you outright reject or arbitrarily make whimsical exceptions to? Can an A be a non-A only when Rand mistakenly identified a non-A as an A? Is she the only person who is exempt from the laws of identity and of non-contradiction? How did she acquire that exemption status?

 

Put on your big-boy-philosophers pants, quit dodging and evading, and answer the questions.

J

[Jonathan]

34 minutes ago, Peter said:

I like Roger’s analysis.

I do too. Notice that he's not agreeing with Rand's mistaken opinion, but with Objectivist principles. He's proposing voluntary-consent solutions which respect individual and property rights, and which don't initiate force.

 

34 minutes ago, Peter said:

Your logo of a filthy offensive monster of a man is instructive. If someone leaps out to scare someone on the street or in the cardiac ward of a hospital, then place does matter. The sentiment that “there oughta be a law,” is not just in the province of old Aunt Matilda or a redneck

My avatar is the character "Reality" from this South Park clip:

 

 

In today's world, reality is a villain. The same is often true in online Objectivist fora, so I adopted the character as my avatar since I very much enjoy tearing down people's unrealities.

J 

[Brant Gaede]

Cruel.

When do they hit you with their evaporator rays?

--Brant

goodbye, Reality, goodbye

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Why would I want to convince you of a position that I don't hold?!! WTF? Moron!

Tony, can you avoid a picture displayed on someone's property? Can you look away? Yes, you can.

Can you do the same with sounds that are causing your walls to shake? No, you can't. You can't turn off your ears like you can close your eyes. You can't turn away from loud sounds to make them stop having a physical effect on you and your property. See? See how loud sounds have an actual real physical effect where offensive images do not? God, what a retard.

 

Heh. What do you image that the term "physical force" means?!!! It means physical force! It doesn't mean your being upset about something that someone else said, wrote or displayed!

Anyway, once again you're rejecting the NIOF principle while claiming that you're rationally adhering to reality and practicing consistent metaphysics, etc. But, so far, that just puffing and posing, since you still haven't backed it up with anything; you're still evading my earlier questions:

Put on your big-boy-philosophers pants, quit dodging and evading, and answer the questions.

J

Yow. "Look away"... Can one un-see what one has seen? Need I explain that sight and sound are indeed different, yet they are both senses, which have in common a consciousness of one's percepts and concepts. And that one's lasting impression and evaluation of a single "offensive" sight might then be quite similar to a continuous "offensive" noise? You might know that it only takes a few instants to perceive and identify something, visually. You've no doubt heard of 'the visual memory'. But maybe you don't understand what "offensive" can mean to another's consciousness. Is there anything you consider obscene?

The end effect of both on a mind - seen or heard - is, or may be, equally offensive.  I can't tell if you are deliberately being concrete bound.

 

[Jonathan]

17 minutes ago, anthony said:

Yow. "Look away"... Can one un-see what one has seen?

What relevance does that have? You don't have the right to not see something offensive. Your being unable to unsee it is no one's concern, and is irrelevant to the discussion.

20 minutes ago, anthony said:

Is there anything you consider obscene?

Yes, your idiocy is obscene! It's loathsome. Your constant display of sheer stupidity over the course of several years is repugnant. There is no pornography in existence, nor that could ever exist, that could match the detestable, nauseating offensiveness of your "ideas."

Anyway, once again you evaded the questions. Here they are again:

You need to explain why you disagree with the NIOF principle.

What metaphysical, epistemological and ethical basis do you have for rejecting it? Explain where you think that Rand erred in arriving at the NIOF principle. Demonstrate that it can be a "principle" yet, at the same time, you can follow Rand in deviating from it at whim.

Are there also any other principles of Objectivism that you outright reject or arbitrarily make whimsical exceptions to? Can an A be a non-A only when Rand mistakenly identified a non-A as an A? Is she the only person who is exempt from the laws of identity and of non-contradiction? How did she acquire that exemption status?

J

[anthony]

Amid all the noise and smoke, I notice not a word in reply to what I said on senses and consciousness. You evaded that, big time. Simple, now. The consciousness is what gathers, identifies and integrates things seen and heard. Etc. Perceptually and conceptually, sight and hearing are equal. Then if you allow, as you admitted, for a neighbor to have "the initiation of force" against him for a noise disturbance--well-- you have tacitly accepted that anyone displaying disturbingly obscene images should receive the same treatment!! (If you are logical and conceptual).

See? You are as much for "censorship" as Rand. Or would you rather cherry pick your subjective preference: pictures over noise?

You also sneak in some false agenda about where I "disagree with the NIOF principle"-or- where I "think that Rand erred in arriving at the NIOF principle". What!? Who said?

And then - anyhow, that Rand contradicts her own principle. Very mixed up, you are, make up your mind.

It is precisely my respect for that principle, and its antecedent the freedom of action, which brings me to oppose your nit-picking over "censorship". It's exactly such petty, cheese-paring over superficial, social matters which undermines the gravity of NIOF.