Rand's Kind of Censorship!

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

 

Yes, your idiocy is obscene! It's loathsome.

J

Well, J, you may "look away". Or initiate opposition against me, you've been good at that.

[Peter]

Miles Stevenson wrote on OWL in 2004: I don't consider myself an Objectivist, because as I understand it, it's an "all or nothing" philosophy. Or in other words, if you don't agree with ALL of the fundamental ideals of Objectivism as defined by Ayn Rand, you are not an Objectivist. end quote

To twist OL's Jonathan’s insistences on their head, I ask, if a person thinks there is NO gray area or possibility that the non initiation of force principle IS nuanced then can that person still be an Objectivist? A non-revisionist Objectivist? (Joke: is he a redneck Objectivist?) I maintain that what Rand wrote is unchangeable as Nathaniel Branden and Leonard Peikoff noted, but Ayn Rand also insisted that like science, Objectivism, was *contextual.* The philosophy including hers but building and following hers, must be based on what is known at that time.

Peter

[Peter]

Tony wrote: 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? end quote

Good questions Tony. I have been thinking about it. I agree that laws based on age, and mental state (insanity, and inebriation) are retaliatory in nature, and that psychic harm is definable. Those new, in car, breathalyzers for convicted drunk drivers are retaliatory in nature. A cop confiscating a drunk’s keys is retaliatory. Insistence on clothing in public is retaliatory. Laws against a myriad of activities in public are retaliatory, including banning things that can do psychic harm. Off the top of my head, pictures from WWII come to mind, that should not be allowed in the general *public*. My Dad bought a set of books about the conflict and two pictures were very repugnant. One was of Chinese civilian corpses piled up in front of a building after a Japanese bombing and the other was of the Holocaust which I will not describe.     

Zoning is in a sense retaliatory, protecting a property owner from irritation, loss of value, and psychic harm from building a stinky, toxic chicken processing plant next to your house, is just. Though Robert Campbell once wrote on OL: As one of my brothers puts it, "Zoning delays the inevitable on behalf of the connected." end quote.

Zoning laws are “iffy” but *Coming to the Nuisance* laws are just. Wilens wrote in an article:  . . . when uses of two properties conflict with each other, the use which has priority is the one started first, and the owner has the right to stop others from interfering with this prior use (the “first in time, first in right” rule). end quote

Let me propose some categories, principles or laws in a potential Objectivist government that can be *just*. Anyone is free to do as they please in public as long as they don’t physically harm someone else. Yet, a person should also be free from being *forcibly influenced* by the actions of others in public. It does not take Solomon or a Supreme Court justice to reconcile those two principles. Laws that protect everyone are not the *initiation of force.* But those laws need to be well thought out.

Peter  

[Peter]

Tony wrote: 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) . . . . end quote

The three laws? Sorry, Tony. I can’t stop myself. Here is an *insider niof joke*

Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics: 1) A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3) A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection, does not conflict with the First or Second Law.” And the fourth or zeroth Law. 0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. end quote

That is meant as a joke but I also see those laws as being relevant to a discussion about preventative, protective laws. Remember the robots in discussion were built to be sentient just as humans are sentient, so let me pull a switcheroo. Substitute the word human for robot.

A human may not injure another human, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to certain definable harms. A human should obey the laws within a jurisdiction except when such laws would conflict with the First Law. A human should protect its own existence, as long as such protection, does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.” And the fourth or zeroth Law. A human may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. As always, laws can be enacted that are rational, just and if not universal for all time, then reasonable for this time.

One example of a violation of the zeroth law would be knocking a celestial body like an asteroid into a path with earth even if it will not strike the earth until long after your are dead.  

Peter 

[Jonathan]

20 hours ago, anthony said:

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).

I've already explained that it's not an issue of "identifying and integrating things that the consciousness has seen and heard." Pay closer attention. I instructed you that the initiation of physical force via the medium of sound does not pertain to conceptual content, but rather is an issue purely of physical disturbance. Conversely, "obscene," or what Rand called "loathsome" images, are purely an issue of someone's being upset at conceptual content, since there is no physical effect involved at all.

Please, Tony, try to pay attention to and address people's actual arguments instead of inventing strawman arguments and insisting that your opponents must be saying what you're trying to make them say.

You need lots of repetion, so let's review it one more time: I am not taking the position that sounds with offensive/obscene content can be censored or controlled under Objectivism. Sounds cannot be regulated due to or because of any offensive/obscene conceptual content. My position is strictly one of the issue of sound volume, not content. Volume is a physical issue, where content is not.

 

20 hours ago, anthony said:

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.

I naturally assumed that you oppose the NIOF principle for a couple of reasons: The first is that you're advocating initiating force against people to prevent them from displaying images on their property that you feel are offensive; and the second is that you express disgust and outrage whenever anyone supports their arguments by citing the NIOF principle -- you whine and complain with comments like, "Not the NIOF principle again! Can't you make an argument without the NIOF principle?"

With your clutter-brained irrationality, your dislike of logic, your fondness of creating very badly-constructed strawmen, your inability to volitionally focus, your eagerness to evade, and your detesting of others applying the NIOF principle in defense of individual rights, it's really perplexing why you imagine that you have anything in common with Objectivism.

J

 

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Miles Stevenson wrote on OWL in 2004: I don't consider myself an Objectivist, because as I understand it, it's an "all or nothing" philosophy. Or in other words, if you don't agree with ALL of the fundamental ideals of Objectivism as defined by Ayn Rand, you are not an Objectivist. end quote

To twist OL's Jonathan’s insistences on their head, I ask, if a person thinks there is NO gray area or possibility that the non initiation of force principle IS nuanced then can that person still be an Objectivist? A non-revisionist Objectivist? (Joke: is he a redneck Objectivist?) I maintain that what Rand wrote is unchangeable as Nathaniel Branden and Leonard Peikoff noted, but Ayn Rand also insisted that like science, Objectivism, was *contextual.* The philosophy including hers but building and following hers, must be based on what is known at that time.

Peter

As far as NIOF goes, I think it's pretty easy dividing the physical from the "offensive."

Gray areas? What gray areas? Someone's displaying of an image doesn't become an issue of physical force just because you might dislike it so much that you want to ban it. That would be reversing the logic: "I want to forcibly stop a person from doing X, but the only way under Objectivism to morally force someone to stop doing something is if my use of force is in retaliation to their having initiated force, therefore I have decided to categorize their having done X as an act of initiatory force."

Any college freshman logic student could see through that one. Nothing gray about it.

Objectivism is concerned with identity and identification, and opposed to twisting logic and playing word games in order to come to an irrational, predetermined outcome which allows one to pretend that one isn't initiating force.

J

[Peter]

Jonathan wrote: Objectivism is concerned with identity and identification, and opposed to twisting logic and playing word games in order to come to an irrational, predetermined outcome which allows one to pretend that one isn't initiating force. end quote

It is not a word game. It is as simple as naming coercion as the initiation of force. Once again, *force* in a libertarian/Objectivist context refers to the negation of a person's will or choice. It means compulsion. My nuance is that the perpetrator is forcing others to have a reaction that they do not seek and wish to avoid. You can turn away. You can put your hands over your child’s eyes so they won’t see. Or you can create rational laws that restrict those behaviors YOU do not wish to participate in. That position is not defining life, or art, in general – only very specific actions on the part of an individual that *harm* others.

It can be codified. It is not un-objective. Here is an example. You are free to write what you wish in any public forum or under Michael and Kat’s guidelines here on OL and I am free to read or not read what you write. But it would not be just if you could invade my eyes or my computer and state your case.

Peter    

As I once quoted, William Dwyer wrote on the old Atlantis: 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. end quote

[Jonathan]

9 minutes ago, Peter said:

It is not a word game.

 

It's a word game. You're equivocating in order to attempt to justify your support of the initiatory use of force n this caes.

12 minutes ago, Peter said:

My nuance is that the perpetrator is forcing others to have a reaction that they do not seek and wish to avoid.

It's not "nuance" but equivocation. No actual physical force is involved. The same us true of one's saying or displaying anything that anyone else "does not seek" and "wishes to avoid." No force us involved. If you don't wish to see things on others' property, then don't look at their property. If you don't wish to hear others' opinions in public, then stay home and avoid being offended.

19 minutes ago, Peter said:

It can be codified. It is not un-objective. Here is an example. You are free to write what you wish in any public forum or under Michael and Kat’s guidelines here on OL and I am free to read or not read what you write. But it would not be just if you could invade my eyes or my computer and state your case.

Indeed. And my displaying images on my property is not a case of "invading your eyes." You don't get to claim ownership of all that you look at. See, the way that it works is that the images are out there in reality. No one is physically entering your eyes.

Its weird that you're saying that I can't invade your computer and state my case, but you feel that you can invade my computer when its monitor is displayed in my window on my property, and forcibly prevent my case. Word games. Twisted logic.

27 minutes ago, Peter said:

As I once quoted, William Dwyer wrote on the old Atlantis: 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." 

That's right. The primary element is the physical. It's the part that he and Rand stressed, but which you're trying to leave out. Youre playing the word game of trying to make any kind of influence, including non-physical means, fit the category of physical force.

34 minutes ago, Peter said:

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.

Your dictionary synonyms are irrelevant. That's not the way that philosophy works. Objectivism has a specific meaning of the concept of "initiating force." It's not synonymous or interchangeable with non-physical influences or pressures. It means physical force, period, and not the non-physical pressures that you whimsically want to qualify as being physical. You're playing word games. 

J

 

[Roger Bissell]

On 5/6/2016 at 4:05 PM, anthony said:

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?

 

Tony, it would help to get straight on the parallels between nuisance vs. invasive visual and auditory stimuli, if you want to accurately apply the NIOF principle. You can't equate any and all "offensive" visual stimuli with any and all "offensive" auditory stimuli as equally invasive of your rights and violation of the NIOF principle.

One standard of rights violation via sensory stimuli is: do the stimuli actually physically hurt you, such that it impedes your action or causes you physical discomfort or pain. This seems to be the standard floated by some here. Let's explore it...

If my neighbor sets up a video screen in his back yard that is aimed at my yard and that displays graphic sexual images, and an extremely powerful light that he shines toward my yard. Clearly the latter is or can be physically harmful to me, even in the very brief span of time I see it before managing to turn away. Can you honestly say the same about the sexual images? I hope not. If building a high privacy fence isn't adequate to protect my children (or me) from being offended or shocked or traumatized, and I don't have restrictive clauses in my tenant agreement, then perhaps I and the neighbors could get together and ostracize, picket, publicize, and otherwise embarrass or inconvenience the idiot (non-coercively, of course).

Similarly, if my neighbor sets up an audio system that is aimed at my yard and that broadcasts graphic sexual content, and an extremely loud music speaker that he aims toward my yard. Clearly the latter is or can be physically harmful to me. Can you honestly say the same about the audible sexual content? Again, I hope not. Etc.

I think that a free society would handle all this stuff voluntarily, without needing intervention by security and arbitration agencies, unless actual physical pain were being caused by the visual or auditory stimuli, or contractual agreements were being broken, such as restrictive covenants that tenants and residents sign onto when they join a neighborhood association, membership in which is a legal requirement of their property purchase.

I hope this helps.

REB

[Peter]

Do you still have room for thought? Keep an open mind. Definition.  Sense: Sense is a psychological capacity of organisms that provides data for perception.

Roger wrote: I think that a free society would handle all this stuff voluntarily, without needing intervention by security and arbitration agencies, unless actual physical pain were being caused by the visual or auditory stimuli . . . . end quote

Roger used the words, “would handle.” It “should be” voluntary that people never do certain behaviors in public. But they do. Sights, sounds, smells, taste (I‘m thinking of peppers,) and touch, can all cause physical damage to beings and their nervous systems. But is there such a thing as psychological damage? Should the definition of pain be expanded to include psychological damage? It already has in the mental health field. It already is the law in divorce cases or cases where children are taken away from abusive parents. Until a person exhibits physical damage we may not notice the pain or damage but they sure do. Is that un-philosophical or silly? No. Anyone who has ever been “psychologically but not physically” tormented, bullied, or ridiculed knows the truth. Anyone who knows a child or loved one who has been psychologically damaged knows the truth. Ever heard a kid say the ‘f’ word or something else outrageous? They learned that. There are already quite reasonable laws on the books punishing offenders and protecting human beings from mental abuse.

So, I remain unconvinced that Objectivism requires that we never LEGALLY acknowledge anything as hurtful or that there should never be laws against certain, strictly defined behaviors. The laws are there and they should stay on the books in Galt’s Gulch.  

Peter

From Wikipedia. Psychological pain: Psychological pain or mental pain is an unpleasant feeling (a suffering) of a psychological, non-physical, origin. A pioneer in the field of suicidology, Edwin S. Shneidman, described it as "how much you hurt as a human being. It is mental suffering; mental torment. end quote

[anthony]

6 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

Tony, it would help to get straight on the parallels between nuisance vs. invasive visual and auditory stimuli, if you want to accurately apply the NIOF principle. You can't equate any and all "offensive" visual stimuli with any and all "offensive" auditory stimuli as equally invasive of your rights and violation of the NIOF principle.

One standard of rights violation via sensory stimuli is: do the stimuli actually physically hurt you, such that it impedes your action or causes you physical discomfort or pain. This seems to be the standard floated by some here. Let's explore it...

If my neighbor sets up a video screen in his back yard that is aimed at my yard and that displays graphic sexual images, and an extremely powerful light that he shines toward my yard. Clearly the latter is or can be physically harmful to me, even in the very brief span of time I see it before managing to turn away. Can you honestly say the same about the sexual images? I hope not. If building a high privacy fence isn't adequate to protect my children (or me) from being offended or shocked or traumatized, and I don't have restrictive clauses in my tenant agreement, then perhaps I and the neighbors could get together and ostracize, picket, publicize, and otherwise embarrass or inconvenience the idiot (non-coercively, of course).

Similarly, if my neighbor sets up an audio system that is aimed at my yard and that broadcasts graphic sexual content, and an extremely loud music speaker that he aims toward my yard. Clearly the latter is or can be physical harmful to me. Can you honestly say the same about the audible sexual content? Again, I hope not. Etc.

I think that a free society would handle all this stuff voluntarily, without needing intervention by security and arbitration agencies, unless actual physical pain were being caused by the visual or auditory stimuli, or contractual agreements were being broken, such as restrictive covenants that tenants and residents sign onto when they join a neighborhood association, membership in which is a legal requirement of their property purchase.

I hope this helps.

REB

Roger, You probably haven't followed all this, but I have never said (and do not mean or believe) that anyone's ~rights~ can be invaded or violated, by sound or with imagery. Except by abnormal volume extremes. I may have gone too far on the different senses being equally "offended", but the fact remains that an auditory or visual "offence" can and will register on *some* individual's mind. To clarify, I do not claim any "initiation of force" or "physical pain" has been inflicted upon him. That premise was introduced by some one else.

Over, I've indicated that when one sees - one instantly identifies, judges, integrates (and feels) the contents of an image. It takes but a few moments, and then it's in one's memory, with its emotional effect.

And I've said a few times that this is not, at all, about me and my tastes and standards. Sure, there are some things that disgust me, but I'm big enough to take it. ;) Nor is it necessarily of a free society in some future. No, what about the sensibilities of all the other people one has to live amongst now? My focus is on the infinite interactions of millions of individuals of every age/morality/etc. in a civilised society, today (hardly my country, btw) and how it can function fluidly on the basic social level below individual rights and their possible violations. (With Rand's use of "public spaces", I think we can presume she was concerned about the same thing too, of USA's society, then (and now), while lacking complete freedoms and private ownership).

Indeed, I agree that all those highly rational persons will always be willing and capable -and be much happier- to quickly sort out any problems and conflicts of interest between themselves without the Law.  But many others too are changeably rational, or mostly irrational, and will not. And rest assured, there will be those of the latter kind in that "free society" as well.

I've known several of this type (who has not?) and believe me, your - "ostracizing, picketing, embarrassing" - strategy, does not work on them. They simply couldn't give a damn, they revel in the attention and flaunt their contempt for others' civilised norms. (After all, they are "irrational". QED).

Basically then, in that free society and presently, such an irrational/self-irresponsible person can utilize his private property, individual rights and NIOF as legal justification in his favour, in order to discomfit others .They could well go on long enough to cause to many others lives much disruption, or bodily harm and physical damage (and yes, here they can be arrested - after the harm is done) and emotional/mental distress. Embarrassment doesn't touch such people.

Clearly laid down, specified, limited ~objective law~ (and bye-laws) based ultimately on the inalienable right to life - so, one's right to act - aren't ever going to bring a slippery slope return to Statism, or "initiate force" --  if a society is free, it is not the innocents who should pay, arbitrarily, psychologically or in any way, for even short-lived actions by subjective bullies. Bye-laws holding their more blatantly offensive acts in check, would all the more convince responsibly free men of how moral the nation is and ensure the longevity of a free society. I would think. Conversely, their getting away with increasingly contemptuous behavior could eventually cause a slide the opposite way, into Statist control again.

A total society of individuals has such a range of standards of personal taste which undoubtedly can't be objectively identified, because they vary so hugely, and dependent on too many factors. But it doesn't rule out being able to identify some civilised 'norm' of decent behavior (back to the publicly-placed, purportedly "obscene" pornography). And at times, sure, a law court may be called upon to judge each instant on merit. If it has to. If things go that far. If a person can't be asked nicely, or be reasoned with.

Because, let's remember before we get carried away: all this fuss began with being 'forced' to put up informative or cautionary signs! To label this "censorship" and Initiation of Force, makes a joke by equivalence of the real beast, Statist coercion - to my mind.

(And I'm interested - what do you do about the drunk/untrained/reckless motorist? The guy next door who throws fireworks displays whenever he feels like it? the new neighbor who moves in with his livestock slaughter-house ... and so on. One can't spend one's time in picket lines...)

 

 

[Peter]

A little South African humor for Tony. I heard Michelle Obama referred to Hillary Clinton as “Hilldabeast” when she was Secretary of State.

Tony wrote: Basically then, in that free society and presently, such an irrational/self-irresponsible person can utilize his private property, individual rights and NIOF as legal justification in his favour, in order to discomfit others .They could well go on long enough to cause to many others lives much disruption, or bodily harm and physical damage (and yes, here they can be arrested - after the harm is done) and emotional/mental distress. Embarrassment doesn't touch such people. end quote

That is on the mark. AND? Was Ayn Rand wrong about Rational Anarchism? Or air pollution, smoking, abortion, and a woman president? Dumping Nathaniel and Barbara Branden? Nathan wrote an article called, “The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.” These are some of the issues discussed: The benefits, The hazards, Confusing reason with "the reasonable," Encouraging repression, Encouraging moralizing, Conflating sacrifice and benevolence, Overemphasizing the role of philosophical premises, Encouraging dogmatism.

Is it possible she was wrong about how to apply the non-initiation of force principle in a constitutional government that protects individual rights?

Peter

[Peter]

I started gleaning the article and got re-interested. Some excerpts.

Peter

Nathaniel Branden: In the days of my association with Ayn Rand, we heard over and over again the accusation that we are against feelings, against emotions. And we would say in all good faith, "What are you talking about? We celebrate human passion. All the characters in the novels have powerful emotions, powerful passions. They feel far more deeply about things than does the average person. How can you possibly say that we are against feeling and emotion?"

The critics were right. Here is my evidence: When we counsel parents, we always tell them, in effect: "Remember, your children will pay more attention to what you do than what you say. No teaching is as powerful as the teaching of the example. It isn't the sermons you deliver that your children will remember, but the way you act and live." Now apply that same principle to fiction, because the analogy fits perfectly. On the one hand, there are Rand's abstract statements concerning the relationship of mind and emotion; on the other hand, there is the behavior of her characters, the way her characters deal with their feelings.

If, in page after page of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, you show someone being heroic by ruthlessly setting feelings aside, and if you show someone being rotten and depraved by, in effect, diving headlong into his feelings and emotions, and if that is one of your dominant methods of characterization, repeated again and again, then it doesn't matter what you profess, in abstract philosophy, about the relationship of reason and emotion. You have taught people: repress, repress, repress. end quote  

[Peter]

What’s annoying but not breaking the law? A homeless person pushing a shopping cart that does not belong to him or her (it’s sometimes hard to tell, is that stealing?) with all their possessions in it. Talking to yourself in public. Large silly hats that block the view unless it is at the Kentucky Derby. Autograph seekers after celebrities for a signature and a selfie. Walking with the pockets of your pants outside so that panhandlers will know you have no cash.

Borderline annoying to being a ticketing offence. Cat calls. Hey Baby! That’s one fine ass! Blocking the way. Shouting obscenities. Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, (you cheated!) disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including Led Zeppelin), or using profanity. Let’s bring back drat, darn and so’s your old man.

Totally illegal. Waving a gun, knife or pool cue. Threatening someone. Drunk or drugged in public, if it is obvious. Belligerent and under the influence in public. Failure to obey a police officer. Resisting arrest.

And now I am back to the dilemma of what is visually reprehensible so as to require legal remediation.

Peter

[anthony]

Peter, When you get going, you certainly don't leave any stone unturned. Excellent.

Only looking under one stone for now, but you earlier raised a query of what I loosely call 'psychological coercion', and its possible validity in 'reality' (as its existence in men's consciousnesses) and specifically Rand's take on it. Is there such a phenomenon? I've always thought, and how! (First, to get out of the way one thing - of course- such "coercion" can't ever be protected by individual rights!).

All evidence from Rand's writing points strongly to her affirmation of this emotional/psychological 'coercion'.

A single, quickly found example from The Ayn Rand Letter, her article: "Moral Inflation".

"Guilt is altruism's stock in trade, and the inducing of guilt is its only means of self-perpetuation. If the giver is not kept under a torrent of degrading, demeaning accusations, he might take a look around and put an end to the self-sacrificing".

You note how guilt is its ONLY means of self-perpetuation? Not, as I'd think, State coercion AND guilt. No, the second is the root cause of the former, she appears to say.

Another, I quote often, relates truthfully and corresponds exactly to my experience and introspection: "To be free, a man must be free from his brothers". The explicit level, free from our "brothers'" use of force and fraud against us, is obvious. (And precisely the need of individual rights). But also, underlying, is altruism's cause, our "brothers'" demands, entitlements, emotional blackmail, etc. etc. - all coming together in our consequential guilt.

For sympathizing for others' plights, absorbing without question the collective demands of "duty" we MUST have to them and knowing still we can never "do enough" in our self-sacrifice.

Take away the State and its coercion, and such guilt most definitely and conceivably could remain (lacking a change of morality). Guilt then, (being "guilted" in to something) fits the bill consistently with 'psychological coercion'. Actions follow the mind and morality, but often too, follow commands, psychology, immorality and feelings.

[Peter]

Tony wrote: Take away the State and its coercion, and such guilt most definitely and conceivably could remain (lacking a change of morality). Guilt then, (being "guilted" in to something) fits the bill consistently with 'psychological coercion'. Actions follow the mind and morality, but often too, follow commands, psychology, immorality and feelings. end quote

It used to be the deeply religious and old fashioned altruists who used guilt, but now from whence does their morality cometh? *Guilt * is 'psychological coercion'. It does remain without the American media’s equivalent of posters extolling Lenin, Stalin, or Big Brother.  Liberals in this country love to shame people. They are hypocrites but do not see themselves that way. I mentioned two American movies on the Trump thread Dave and The American President that showcase a liberals thinking, especially the Michael Douglas flick, The American President . And they are very good artistically in my opinion. I was going to specifically recommend them to Greg. Watch them for fun without a commentary going through your head and you will understand how liberals see, and idealize themselves. That is from where they draw their scorn of freedom and rationality.

Back to basics. It is really tough to say I do not wish to be publically exposed to certain sights and then seek to make them illegal. It is the retaliatory use of force, but it must be a very measured response and quest for prevention. Locally, during the summer, the Ocean City Boardwalk has street performers. The usual magicians and singers get the required *permits* but now a scantily clad female, pole dancer has staked out a stretch of the beach. With her lawyers.

New bathroom laws? I don't know if you have our specific brand of liberal bias in South Africa but we have an institutional bias now for certain classes of people. I admit, that before it was biased for the elites or political donors or insiders. But now, because of their race or sexuality some people are allowed to get away with infractions of law and morality. In the case I am specifically thinking about black intimidators and sexual perverts don't lose their job when they inappropriately touch women. They are promoted and isolated because of the fear of legal processes and mob coercion. Black Lives Matter!      

Peter

[Brant Gaede]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

A little South African humor for Tony. I heard Michelle Obama referred to Hillary Clinton as “Hilldabeast” when she was Secretary of State.

Tony wrote: Basically then, in that free society and presently, such an irrational/self-irresponsible person can utilize his private property, individual rights and NIOF as legal justification in his favour, in order to discomfit others .They could well go on long enough to cause to many others lives much disruption, or bodily harm and physical damage (and yes, here they can be arrested - after the harm is done) and emotional/mental distress. Embarrassment doesn't touch such people. end quote

That is on the mark. AND? Was Ayn Rand wrong about Rational Anarchism? Or air pollution, smoking, abortion, and a woman president? Dumping Nathaniel and Barbara Branden? Nathan wrote an article called, “The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.” These are some of the issues discussed: The benefits, The hazards, Confusing reason with "the reasonable," Encouraging repression, Encouraging moralizing, Conflating sacrifice and benevolence, Overemphasizing the role of philosophical premises, Encouraging dogmatism.

Is it possible she was wrong about how to apply the non-initiation of force principle in a constitutional government that protects individual rights?

Peter

Wax on, wax off? You can't have your NIOF and eat it too. The exceptions are operative in society. The Objectivist principle applied is to reduce the exceptions, not use them. Rand fell down sometimes.

--Brant

[anthony]

I'm surprised at all these doubts/distrust in a minimal government, "initiating force" - etc. That g'ment would be a whole different ball of wax, very little like just a reduced form of what we see now. (This nebulous grey mass). One's gotta have confidence in the strength of conviction and principles of freedom in oneself and others. But I understand - up to now we've only known 'government' as the enemy, always grasping more influence. Elected officials in a minimal government will have an entirely different brief - indeed, to keep it limited, do only the basic necessities, also they'd operate under oversight. One could presume they'd be as dedicated to the same ideas. The less a government is called upon to do, the less they have to do. If we the people don't have the commitment to earn it we'll not gain it.

[Peter]

Tony wrote: Elected officials in a minimal government will have an entirely different brief - indeed, to keep it limited, do only the basic necessities, also they'd operate under oversight. One could presume they'd be as dedicated to the same ideas. end quote

I think America’s *vision* started out just like that. The problem arose when representatives representing the people of one state hypothetically said, “America? New Jersey wants something from the federal government: a bridge to New York. It would be good for the whole nation if Federal funds were used.” And so the minimalist Federal Government agreed, AND thought that the whole nation agreed, or assumed they agreed. It never became a referendum. It never became a Constitutional Convention to do an amendment. It was approved in Congress by elected officials.

The slippery slope? I understand that micro voting is tedious so, I suppose I agree that the American Congress CAN use half my tax dollars in a discretionary fund, to complete projects like the Jersey to New York Bridge . . . . and so it goes. It is the minimalist dilemma. Power creep. Any suggestions on an original rewrite of existing Constitutions to stop the creep?    

Peter

[Jonathan]

On May 7, 2016 at 6:46 PM, anthony said:

Clearly laid down, specified, limited ~objective law~ (and bye-laws) based ultimately on the inalienable right to life - so, one's right to act - aren't ever going to bring a slippery slope return to Statism, or "initiate force" --  if a society is free, it is not the innocents who should pay, arbitrarily, psychologically or in any way, for even short-lived actions by subjective bullies. Bye-laws holding their more blatantly offensive acts in check, would all the more convince responsibly free men of how moral the nation is and ensure the longevity of a free society. I would think. Conversely, their getting away with increasingly contemptuous behavior could eventually cause a slide the opposite way, into Statist control again.

Similarly, since the "innocents" shouldn't have to pay in any way for even the short-lived actions of bullies, then we should also lay down clearly specified "objective" "bye-laws" mandating that all citizens must feed other people's hungry children! Free men have the responsibility of being their neighbors' keepers, and therefore we have to mandate that they do so in the name of preserving a free society! Do it for the children! And don't be silly: It's not a "slippery slope" to statism if we create such mandates, and it's not "initiation of force" if we initiate force in order to force others to do what we want, especially if we've decided that what we want is good because it's for the children! Letting other people's children go hungry is contemptuous, and if we don't implement statist control to force people to feed the children, then we'll slide into statist control!

 

On May 7, 2016 at 6:46 PM, anthony said:

And at times, sure, a law court may be called upon to judge each instant on merit. If it has to. If things go that far. If a person can't be asked nicely, or be reasoned with.

Yes, we understand that your theory is that if a person can't be "reasoned with" to stop doing what he has the right to do with his own property, then you want to be able to introduce force into the equation, while pretending that it's not force, when he doesn't obey your authority as official Protector of the Innocents.

 

On May 7, 2016 at 6:46 PM, anthony said:

Because, let's remember before we get carried away: all this fuss began with being 'forced' to put up informative or cautionary signs! To label this "censorship" and Initiation of Force, makes a joke by equivalence of the real beast, Statist coercion - to my mind.

And let's also not make a silly fuss about being "forced" by the state to feed hungry children (and their parents)! To label such compassion "initiation of force" makes a joke by equivalence of the real beast, Statist coercion!!!

J 

[Jonathan]

18 hours ago, anthony said:

I'm surprised at all these doubts/distrust in a minimal government, "initiating force" - etc.

Seriously? You're  surprised that people at an Objectivist online forum would be opposed to your eagerness to initiate force over things that you find to be offensive which are displayed on others' property?

 

18 hours ago, anthony said:

One's gotta have confidence in the strength of conviction and principles of freedom in oneself and others.

How can we have such confidence in others when you're right here advocating the initiation of force? We can't even convince you to abandon your desire to forcibly control others!!!

 

18 hours ago, anthony said:

But I understand - up to now we've only known 'government' as the enemy, always grasping more influence. Elected officials in a minimal government will have an entirely different brief - indeed, to keep it limited, do only the basic necessities, also they'd operate under oversight. One could presume they'd be as dedicated to the same ideas. The less a government is called upon to do, the less they have to do. If we the people don't have the commitment to earn it we'll not gain it.

I'm actually less worried about "elected officials" in a Objectivist-friendly government than I am about you. We don't even live in that ideal society, yet you're already calling on government to violate others' rights. Your mindset is the reason that that society will never exist: most people are just like you -- they want to reserve for themselves the power to violate others' rights in one way or another; they want to be in charge, and to control and punish others with initiatory force, usually while trying to pretend that they're not initiating force but behaving virtuously.

J

[anthony]

And still, I haven't heard one (satisfactory) reply to what can be done in the case of +/- 5 instances of behavior I exampled which could be offensive or potentially harmful to others who can't avoid them: neighbors, or motorists or...I can come up with more, all of which occur in real life.

Millions of actions over an extended period. In all the uncountable inter-actions of people every day, these tiny conflicts and annoyances will mount up tremendously if unresolved--usually between responsible people and those less rational. The upshot, it will be the irrational people coming out on top, holding the power to offend, disturb, upset or generally piss off everyone else more rational, because they just feel like it and can (and will "stand on their rights"). This has to result eventually in friction among people and a larger disruption of a society. Two probable consequences I see: individual rights violations will increase; and later, because of general frustration at their powerlessness, at some point another "slippery slope" -back into statist control- could eventuate. All because some common 'etiquette' laws are dismissed by the nervous types as "censorship and coercion".

From this law, to the Welfare State! is the cry.;)

(Of course I know there are some grey areas all along to be treated very cautiously. If others would admit that it's not all completely black and white, this might get somewhere).

"The slippery slope". Hmm - when all that people have experienced is fear and loathing of the Ogre of Government, one which must be caged up forever at all costs, since if it gets loose - they know -  it's going to gobble up power all over again -- well, then government WILL be seen as 'a necessary evil' at best - or to be disbanded and destroyed altogether.

With the right government, I am convinced nothing could be farther from the truth. Men's nature, men's dealings with each other in real life, call for nothing else but a limited, impartial government, whose solitary purpose is to protect one's freedom of action by virtue of its implicit (and when needed, explicit) power, and is an absolute and 'objective good' to life and thriving. For every rational individual over the course of his lifetime, I'll go so far as saying such government will be his closest ally. 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

And still, I haven't heard one (satisfactory) reply to what can be done in the case of +/- 5 instances of behavior I exampled which could be offensive or potentially harmful to others who can't avoid them: neighbors, or motorists or...I can come up with more, all of which occur in real life.

Millions of actions over an extended period. In all the uncountable inter-actions of people every day, these tiny conflicts and annoyances will mount up tremendously if unresolved--usually between responsible people and those less rational. The upshot, it will be the irrational people coming out on top, holding the power to offend, disturb, upset or generally piss off everyone else more rational, because they just feel like it and can (and will "stand on their rights"). This has to result eventually in friction among people and a larger disruption of a society. Two probable consequences I see: individual rights violations will increase; and later, because of general frustration at their powerlessness, at some point another "slippery slope" -back into statist control- could eventuate. All because some common 'etiquette' laws are dismissed by the nervous types as "censorship and coercion".

From this law, to the Welfare State! is the cry.;)

(Of course I know there are some grey areas all along to be treated very cautiously. If others would admit that it's not all completely black and white, this might get somewhere).

"The slippery slope". Hmm - when all that people have experienced is fear and loathing of the Ogre of Government, one which must be caged up forever at all costs, since if it gets loose - they know -  it's going to gobble up power all over again -- well, then government WILL be seen as 'a necessary evil' at best - or to be disbanded and destroyed altogether.

With the right government, I am convinced nothing could be farther from the truth. Men's nature, men's dealings with each other in real life, call for nothing else but a limited, impartial government, whose solitary purpose is to protect one's freedom of action by virtue of its implicit (and when needed, explicit) power, and is an absolute and 'objective good' to life and thriving. For every rational individual over the course of his lifetime, I'll go so far as saying such government will be his closest ally. 

You are flopping around in a philosophical mosh pit.

If you want to criticize Objectivism first state the Objectivist position--then go from there.

If you want to eat Objectivism and have it too, you can't.

The way you celebrate "real life" is statist solutions to your perceived problems.

You are astoundingly and blatantly a conservative.

The Founding Fathers did not celebrate government, especially the non-Hamiltonians. They feared it. You love it. What we all have in common--x the anarchists--is the necessity of government. But for a conservative to an Objectivist is a bridge too far. You gotta swim across. But why do that if not your wont? Try Edmund Burke. Not a bad bloke.

--Brant

 

 

[anthony]

You want a society of individual rights - or not? Is that the most fitting to life, or not? If yes, whatever or whomever protects yours is most certainly no enemy to be "feared".

The practical and sustainable is moral, not dreams of Utopias.

I'm neither conservative nor liberal, I don't recognise either, or any half-way, but there exist a few other people outside of me and you, and there's the crux of this argument, I've been saying. It's a big society. Hell will freeze over before everybody is always rational.

Really? Is this the first you've heard of Rand's "morality" of a good government?

[anthony]

What is to be 'feared' first is the ideas of people. It's the same (give or take) in most countries, now. Governments are finally perceived everywhere as not man-made, but as a 'metaphyical given'; in this primitivist mindset, if you see a fruit on a tree, you pluck it and eat it. The Supernatural supplied it. What does it matter where 'the fruit' comes from or who grew it or who owns it. I'm owed it. "Government" is largely the agency and go-between which does the giving and taking and so saves one from feeling any iota of guilt in thinking about the individual who was made to sacrifice it. It wasn't MY force... Concurrent with that is the neurotic psychology which wishes and demands its government to be replacement for mom and dad, and even Deity, combined. From which all good things flow.

The first cause of this type of governance (absent of total individual rights) is ultimately from the people, their 'needs' and their dominant 'philosophy', so ultimately the first cause of Initiation of Force is the majority and their terrible philosophy, not the State except directly. And of course it is man-made, and can be 'made' another way!