Peter Posted January 30, 2023 Author Share Posted January 30, 2023 I did not look up “official objectivist public policy” or 'public health" to quote to you. I was expressing my opinion and personal perspective based upon my own views that are very much shaped by Objectivist scholars and the originator, Ayn Rand. I completely agree with a government based upon individual rights . . . but obviously that includes that government must enforce the individuals’ rights especially when someone else is infringing upon them. I looked for some old letters using the word “public” as a search engine and found these. The words "public policy" had a few hits too. I hope you enjoy them. Peter From: Neil Goodell To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Re: Rights that Should Not Be Legally Enforced Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:33:01 -0600 I think the issue of "rights" in this thread has failed to make a critical distinction. On June 12, 2001, Frank Forman wrote: What we have here is a kind of implicit social contract, which might say that it is virtuous to go along with the law, which has the merit of being known (for a fee to the lawyers!). The social contract can include for a provision to let the legislature enact statutes to clarify and unify this “public policy." My impression is that Anglo-Saxon law has not been horrifically altruistic. A couple of points here. First, political "rights" must be distinguished from rights derived from social policy/convention/practice/culture. Political rights follow immediately from ethics and serve to establish (1) the limitations imposed upon government's power to interfere with the actions of an individual, and (2) the restrictions against one individual forcibly interjecting themselves into the life/actions of another person. Within the parameters delimited by political rights, rights arising from public policy are largely arbitrary -- by which I mean there is no apriori basis for having a right that states "this" rather than "that." Law per se, is an example of rights arising from public policy. For example: The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) is the governing language for most contract law. And the UCC was written with the specific intent to keep business moving and to promote economic efficiency. To this end clarity, finality, and the near-elimination of torts was/is paramount. Contract law did not have to be this way, and in many countries it isn't, but this fact alone does not make another system "moral" or "immoral," right or wrong. What I am referring to as public policy rights, the government should have little say in whether they are enforced or not -- this is a matter for the individuals involved to decide for themselves. I also think this is largely a specialized area and philosophy has little to say on the subject. Political rights are the proper sphere of philosophy's interest. Matters concerning the use of physical force are fairly easy to characterize. And fraud, a derivative of force, is relatively easy to define, at least in broad strokes. Let me give an example to clarify the difference between the two categories of rights I am talking about: I am building a swimming pool. (I'm not, but let's pretend, it'll help me tolerate +100F temperatures we're having. The pool is wholly on my property. The law states that a pool is an "attractive nuisance" and therefore I, as the pool owner, must take steps to prevent other people from harming themselves if they should trespass on my property. So the building code requires that I build a fence around my pool to keep neighbors' children from drowning. As a matter of philosophy, is it wrong to force me to spend additional money to protect other people from harming themselves, who can harm themselves only if they themselves violate the law in the first place? At first blush the answer might appear to be yes, this is wrong. Yet the law was originally aimed at protecting children, who because of their age and concomitant lack of cognitive development, do not know any better. So a neighbor's two-year-old child slips out of the house, into my yard, falls in the pool, and drowns (because I do not have a fence). Who ought to be held responsible, or legally liable, if anyone should? As a matter of philosophy, I could make an argument either way in this instance: (a) that forcing me to build a fence violates my property rights and is therefore wrong, or (b) that my actions have created a situation whereby people are likely to be harmed, and also attracted to it, and I therefore have a duty to protect others that might come to harm as a consequence of my actions, even if they must violate my rights first (i.e., trespass). Philosophically, both positions are tenable, so which alternative we choose is arbitrary. Our society has opted for (b), with the proviso that my protective actions are limited by the "reasonable person" standard. (I am highly simplifying a very complex idea here so I don't want to have any debates on minutia.) Frank also wrote: >I don't think that ethics can be reduced to virtue and that there are three irreducible aspects of ethics: > 1. Do the right thing (deontology, and with it lots of rules) > 2. Do good (utilitarianism) > 3. Be a good man (virtue ethics) The problems with these formulations are that they omit who the beneficiary of the actions is, and what the standard for deciding "good" or "right" is. When Rand discussed her core virtues, I believe she also asked the question whether a person would need that virtue if they were alone on a deserted island. If the answer was No, she rejected it as a primary virtue. As Frank has described them here, these aspects seem to intimate the existence of a society within which the ethics exist. If that is the case, I would reject all three. And Frank also wrote: >I can't give a good concrete example, still less decide where the line should be drawn, but the foundation of Objectivist ethics and politics, as I have argued many times, rests on virtue. In other words, you have an *enforceable* right when my violation of it harms my character (stealing undermines my sense of self-efficacy) *and* when *your* calling the cops does not harm *your* character. (Even so, disproportionate punishment must be ruled out, since it harms the punishers. Ever notice the tough-guy stance of the Peikoffer bullies?) An unstated assumption in this argument (an argument also used by Peikoff) is that Objectivism is taken as the standard by which another person's character is to be judged, whether they are Objectivist or not. For your own personal use, this is fine, but it is not adequate when it comes to legal matters. A professional robber will not have his or her own sense of self-efficacy undermined according to his or her own standards. At least so long as they continue without being caught. It is only when they are captured that their self-efficacy might be affected. Of course from an Objectivist's point of view the robber only hurts him/herself by stealing. But this makes life-according-to-Objectivism the gold standard for how other people ought to live their lives, and I'm not sure whether I am arrogant enough to make that presumption. To sum up: The subject line "Rights that should not be legally enforced" is a misnomer. First decide whether the right is what I have termed political, or arises from public policy. If it is political in nature, and only one alternative is reasonable in the particular circumstances, then it ought to be enforced. If on the other hand the right is cultural/public policy based, then the individuals involved should decide. There is a parallel in the distinction between criminal and civil law. In criminal law, the government is the prosecutor because the wrong committed is deemed to be against society. Civil matters are conducted between the parties as the harm is seen to be against an individual -- the government does not usually take an active role on one side or the other. (Regulatory agencies and the like mess this up a bit, but they are another matter entirely....) Neil Goodell From: Neil Goodell To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Intellectual Property & Rights that should not be legally enforced Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:03:32 -0600 On June 14, 2001, Brian Fritts wrote: >One question I might pose to Neil is to what sphere would he categorize copyright law. I have struggled with this issue of late, that is, what is the rational role of copyright law, if any, in a free (minarchist) society? > At some level copyright is different than Neil's example regarding the UCC in that portions of the UCC (particularly Article 2 regarding sales) are considered "default" rule and the parties to a transaction may set the terms of their deal or bargain by waiving provisions of the UCC. > The public policy arguments come to mind initially. These arguments usually center around "fair use" doctrines and how long copyright should be protected. Should these rights survive the author or creator? On the other hand, political rights are also an issue. Here one would ask what type of property right is a copyright and trademark. One issue that I struggle with is that one can be sued by the copyright holder even if there is not privity of contract between the copyright holder and infringing party. Let me state at the outset that I am not an attorney, nor do I have any specialized knowledge of matters pertaining to intellectual property. That said... Brian asks how matters of copyright and trademark should be classified under the distinction I previously proposed, that legal rights need to be partitioned into political rights and rights better thought of as pertaining to public policy. As I wrote on June 13, "Political rights follow immediately from ethics and serve to establish (1) the limitations imposed upon government's power to interfere with the actions of an individual, and (2) the restrictions against one individual forcibly interjecting themselves into the life/actions of another person. Within the parameters delimited by political rights, rights arising from public policy are largely arbitrary -- by which I mean there is no apriori basis for having a right that states 'this' rather than 'that.'" Property rights are recognized and protected by our laws (at least in principle if not always in practice). Property of a non-physical nature has traditionally been protected under patent law. From the perspective of political rights, this fulfills the obligation. Brian's question is really directed at defining intellectual property – in other words, is there a philosophical basis for concluding that, say, a book or newspaper, are deserving of copyright protection, yet a webpage is not. Is physicality a necessary component for something to be deemed "property?" What about a dynamic webpage, one created specifically for your internet session, and tailored to your unique cookie / preference / profile settings, a webpage that would never be duplicated anywhere else and is thus unique, a creation not only of the underlying code (and the computer programmers of course), but of the code in conjunction with your unique session parameters -- who owns what, and which part of it is deserving of protection? I don't have an answer to these questions. Scholars and attorneys have devoted large portions of their professional careers to them, and they do not all agree on their answers. To complicate matters more, new types of "intellectual property" are being created at an ever faster rate, and what type of protection should they receive? The entertainment industry is having its own share of growing pains in this area. Writers and actors who signed contracts for a film or a television show, 20 years later the work is released on video, DVD, and the internet. Can a person sign away a property right interest for something that did not exist at the time the contract was signed? Is this "signing away" unlimited in its reach, in perpetuity, and if so, does that make the contract void because essential elements are not definite in their meaning? Not easy questions to answer. Another aspect is enforcement: Of what use is a "right" if it cannot be enforced? This is viewing rights from the perspective of practicality (sort of like owning stock certificates from an out-of-business company). *Should* enforcement be considered at all? (I have seen arguments that this was one of the primary reasons for the current definition of "fair use" in copyright law. Copyright law has adherents on both sides, calling it "legalized theft" on one side, and an illegal "intellectual monopoly" undeserving of protection on the other.) In her discussion of patents, Rand argued that property rights should be enforced for a relatively short period of time because (1) since it was an aspect of the universe (compared to the wholly unique creative work of say a writer) it would be discovered eventually, and (2) human progress should not be held hostage to the whims of an individual (forever). Arguments can be made for or against almost any of these positions. What is important is that (1) property rights per se be recognized and protected, which is all that is required from a political perspective, and (2) appropriate definitions and protections for the various types of property be clearly delineated, and changed as necessary (there is no guarantee that the lawmakers will get it right the first/second/third time because they are not omniscient). So long as this is done, people can devote their time and energy to pursuing whatever type of property they want that will give them the greatest return for their efforts. Neil Goodell From: "Matthew Ferrara" To: objectivism Subject: OWL: It's the wrong question: RE: Taking care of our children Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 16:32:22 -0400 To: Chris, Mike and others who have asked this question a few different ways, I was originally not going to respond but I guess I will: Yes! Creating a child has obligations - but they should NOT fall within the purview of the state to enforce. Let me explain... First, your question assumes the acceptance of a 20th century liberal-activist (and later Conservative Coalition) tenet: that the pro-creation and subsequent rearing of children is to be supported by, regulated by and subsequently enforced by the state. I contend that this is a grave error: Child rearing is, in fact, not - or at least, I should say, it "should not" be, a subject for a just state. So, I claim that your premise is incongruent with Objectivist philosophy: by thinking, perhaps (and I can only guess your minds, here) that since parents pay taxes, which are used to fund children's programs and things like their education, feeding, inoculation, etc., that "the public" (in the guide of the state) should therefore have some say in "enforcing" compliance with this parental funding. This is what the state is doing when it seeks out "deadbeat dads." Of course, this avoids the issue of what we actually do with these deadbeats in practice when they are caught (we incarcerate them, which of course, does not lead to any funding - since they cannot pay from jail). It also sidesteps the political issue of having turned a private matter (procreation and the use of its product, which we can call child-rearing) into an area of regulation and enforcement by the state. The deep assumption here is that the creation of a child is the matter of state-sanction and regulation, instead of a matter between two consenting adults - a form of private contract. For the ultimate results of such an attitude on the part of the state, I refer you to Massachusetts last year where the state jailed a woman who was pregnant because it "thought" she "might" harm the baby *after* it was born. So, once you accept that the state has a say in rearing children, you can move easily and swiftly from deadbeat parents who abandon their "state-duty-to-fund-child-rearing" after birth to incarcerating pregnant women who *might* abandon (or worse) their children after birth (the state can argue it is protecting its future investment, if you like). And during this logical progression, we are left with activists and on-lookers who defend (in fact, encourage and incite) these state actions on television with the claims that "parents should take care of their children! They have a responsibility!".... Secondly, your question stems from an emotional response, not a philosophical primary: when we cry out "shouldn't parents take care of their children" the response is rarely philosophical but usually emotive-knee-jerk. Yes, I personally think they should take care of their children, but for very philosophical reasons, not reasons that would ever be codified into law or put into the processes of law enforcement. And not for sound-bite-style-save-the-children-hogwash either. Taking care of children is a philosophical activity that requires only personal (political) action, not action, intervention, guidance or enforcement by the state. In all real senses, children are the property of their parents until they are capable of taking care of themselves (at which point, the parents agree to separate from the children's lives). They were created by their parents and grown by their care: the are a product of the actions of an adult, and like any creation, they require care. Until this mutual separation, the concept of personal property would justly direct a rational person to take care of their children. I will leave all the mushy, emotionalism to be filled in by anyone who needs to do it (for all the "the love of a child" or the "Neanderthal-level parent-protective responses" or any other Freudian self-deceptions you'd like to insert here, I leave you to your own methods). On rational premises, any rational being would want to and take actions to care for any of his creations, whether it be an invention or a living being. But again, I'd argue that your emotionally-derived question "shouldn't we take care of our offspring" puts the cart before the horse. It's designed to elicit the mindless "yes" response of busy-body persons whose real goal is to tell is *how* to take care of these children, and to back it up with their manipulations of state power. Ask the Amish or polygamists or that fellow (whose name escapes me right now) who was charged with bodily harm of a minor for spanking his children as a form of "taking care of them" and you will see the error - and terror – of the question. Who is to say how - including the financial contributions to be made by them - a parent should "take care" of their children? Who will judge? How will it be enforced? Why? You see, it's a loaded question, and it's load is quite dangerous. Yet its consequences are only one small step removed: If you accept that the state has a duty to enforce the financial commitment of a parent to its offspring, then you can accept that the state has a duty to set standards for or enforce the quality of other "commitments" from parent to child. And thence comes the legislation of content between the parent-child relationship. The real question to be asked is: Does the state have any right to intervene on the part of either parent and/or on the part of children as a whole. I'd say blankly: No. Childbirth, childrearing, procreation and ultimately even consensual relationships (and their consequences) are not the purview of a just state. Of course, I'm willing to accept therefore the consequences: no marriage licenses (since the state should not set the types of contracts individuals may enter into, but should only enforce the terms of any contracts that such individuals may draw up as they see fit), no state funding of schools (since private education exists, and arguably does better anyway, and its educational contents can be set by parents, not by state officials), not even the feeding of children (because as soon as you accept one public dollar on behalf of a child, you must therefore accept public rearing of that child, which means letting whichever busybody gang to be in power at the moment have "say" - backed by law enforcement - over how, where, whether and when you "take care of" your child). That is why I posted my original disagreement of "deadbeat" dads and their hunting by individual citizens or the state. If someone wants to have a child with another person, they should draw up a contract laying out the obligations of all parties. Then, the state may intervene only when such written, freely signed, mutually identified obligations are broken. In the meantime, the creation of new citizen categories such as "deadbeat" and the enlistment of law enforcement officials and private bounty hunters (who, I suspect would not be duly deputized into the law nor properly trained regarding the extent to which they can act against or spying upon other private citizens) should be utterly prohibited. I refer you back to my earlier post, which I reiterate, when I say that it is merely the first link in a logical chain whose reductio ad absurdum can only lead to the expansion of such demonized citizen classes, with everyone watching over their shoulder in case they had been categorized by some bureaucrat recently and had become the potential subject for surveillance by their neighbors. For a simpler metaphor, read or listen to Ayn Rand's lecture regarding the Obscenity Laws and Supreme Court Rulings, which are equally un-specific and uncertain in their creation of standards of what we can read, write, etc. The concept of "deadbeat" dad is equally as bad as items to be deemed obscene because they are "lacking serious moral, scientific, artistic or literary import"... Until we're ready to define WHO (and then WHAT) shall constitute either, I'm not going to endorse having the state seek deadbeat dads any more than I'd want it to enforce it's obscenity rules... I hope you see my hastily-drawn analogy. And I hope you can see why I originally did not respond to Mike Rael (09.01.01) when he asked the same loaded question. I don't think the question is the right one to ask from the start; but since it has come up here so many times now, and directed at my posting specifically, I guess I'm just up for a little self-expression on the matter today... Chris: I've never claimed that creating a child does not come with obligations. However, I differ from most others here by thinking that: 1. The obligation is not under the purview of the state. It is a contract between at least two, if not three, persons individually. It should fall under the area of personal politics, namely that of contracts, which the state would only adjudicate, never set the terms of performance. This is a clear difference between the welfare or activist-state and a laissez-faire model of government. 2. The obligation is assumed at the time of having sex. Both persons enter into a contract when engaging in sex; the contract may be implicit or verbal (not needed to be written) but when two people enter into a mutual set of actions, they do so (if rationally) with full knowledge of the possible and/or likely outcomes. If one outcome is mainly pleasure, then that is their goal. If another likely outcome exists, such as childbirth because neither party uses birth control, then both parties again assume responsibility for the likely outcomes of their actions. They therefore bear duties to the results, ie., the child and it's upbringing. However, the state should neither interfere nor set the terms of such duties. 3. After conception, before or after birth, both or either parties can contractually reinforce or absolve their duties to one another. The mother can ask the father to contractually obligate himself to financial, moral, educational and other support (we call this marriage today, but it could merely be another interpersonal contract). Or she could accept (ask, even) the father's wish not to be involved in any way. Or, if the father wants not to be involved in any way but the mother does, she may sue him, for breach of mutual contract: he willingly entered into a sexual act under circumstances with great likelihood to create a child but then did not wish to live up to the realities and duties of the outcomes. At this point, a personal lawsuit can create a judgement for the father to pay (and it could be in many terms: money, support, involvement, etc). The major malfunction I have with the arguments as been posted and the blanket cries of " doesn't a father have a duty to pay for his child" is that they endorse the intrusion of the state into personal affairs, necessarily empower the state to set the terms and conditions of procreation (see my other posts). Additionally, I think it is a bad precedent (creating citizen classes like deadbeats, which would give the state a precedent to create other, prosecutable classes). Finally, the original posting on this situation was whether or not we want our neighbors, ordinary citizens, being employed by the government or private agencies in the location of and pursuit of such-deemed miscreants. I'd sum it up by paraphrasing Rand: While she said: Life is not one big hospital, I would say, Neither is it one big episode of America's Most Wanted! Matthew Ferrara From: Frank Forman To: objectivism Subject: OWL: RE: Rights that Should Not Be Legally Enforced Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:08:23 -0400 (EDT) [OWL did not receive the post by David Friedman that Frank refers to here. -Moderator] Frank Forman here: Sorry for my delay in responding. I'm spreading myself much too thin and have dozens of messages to respond to. It is a familiar problem, and I hope my case is unusually severe. David Friedman gave the best answer, when he said that rights should not be legally enforced when proving their violation would be impossible or very costly. I would add that rights violations should not be enforced if doing so harms the character of the one whose rights were violated. I'm thinking here of certain swindles that the victim would have avoided if he had better practiced the virtue of alertness. Since he didn't, instead of calling in the cops, he should chalk it up to experiences. I can't give a good concrete example, still less decide where the line should be drawn, but the foundation of Objectivist ethics and politics, as I have argued many times, rests on virtue. In other words, you have an *enforceable* right when my violation of it harms my character (stealing undermines my sense of self-efficacy) *and* when *your* calling the cops does not harm *your* character. (Even so, disproportionate punishment must be ruled out, since it harms the punishers. Ever notice the tough-guy stance of the Peikoffer bullies?) Bone up on negligence law, or just get acquainted with it, to see how complex drawing lines can be, even without trying to ground everything in virtue. Concerns with economically efficient negligence looms large here. I'm still looking for better examples of cases of nonenforceable rights that really are rights and not just exhortations to be of good character. Maybe there are cases somewhere along the moocher-theft continuum that would do. I don't think that ethics can be reduced to virtue and that there are three irreducible aspects of ethics: Do the right thing (deontology, and with it lots of rules) 2. Do good (utilitarianism) 3. Be a good man (virtue ethics) Our ethical structure evolved in a complex fashion through diverse pathways that intertwine our emotions and cognition. This is why no reduction ever feels right and why any long-winded attempt elicits a long-winded response. (Ditto, we have a need to feel "I am in charge" (free will) as well as "The world makes sense" (determinism). The two cannot be reconciled, certainly not on the basis of our current knowledge of neurology.) David brings up something else: On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, david friedman wrote: [snip] >A more difficult case is the one where you have a right but the enforcers choose not to enforce it because it is not in their interest to do so. One example might be a contract in restraint of trade, such as a cartel agreement. Suppose there are only five steel producers. They make an agreement that each will cut output ten percent in order to force up the price. Presumably Objectivists believe they have a right to make that agreement. It doesn't follow that other people have to help them enforce it--and, since its purpose is to make other people worse off, they might not. Thus one could imagine a court system which did not punish such agreements (as > ours does), since they don't violate any rights, but announced in advance that it would not enforce them. Such contracts are not enforced (neither are contracts for gambling debts enforced, which goes back to the Middle Ages) because they go against "public policy." In most cases, "public policy" doctrines grew from the bottom up in common law cases, and I am Hayekian enough to respect this. (Ditto for negligence law.) What we have here is a kind of implicit social contract, which might say that it is virtuous to go along with the law, which has the merit of being known (for a fee to the lawyers!). The social contract can include for a provision to let the legislature enact statutes to clarify and unify this "public policy." My impression is that Anglo-Saxon law has not been horrifically altruistic. Even so, Objectivists may object (pun intended). I welcome further discussion. Frank Forman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted January 30, 2023 Share Posted January 30, 2023 People have a right to not get on a train that is headed to Auschwitz, even if anyone says that it is for public health reasons. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictlylogical Posted January 30, 2023 Share Posted January 30, 2023 6 hours ago, Peter said: I did not look up “official objectivist public policy” or 'public health" to quote to you. I was expressing my opinion and personal perspective based upon my own views that are very much shaped by Objectivist scholars and the originator, Ayn Rand. I completely agree with a government based upon individual rights . . . but obviously that includes that government must enforce the individuals’ rights especially when someone else is infringing upon them. I looked for some old letters using the word “public” as a search engine and found these. The words "public policy" had a few hits too. I hope you enjoy them. Peter From: Neil Goodell To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Re: Rights that Should Not Be Legally Enforced Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:33:01 -0600 I think the issue of "rights" in this thread has failed to make a critical distinction. On June 12, 2001, Frank Forman wrote: What we have here is a kind of implicit social contract, which might say that it is virtuous to go along with the law, which has the merit of being known (for a fee to the lawyers!). The social contract can include for a provision to let the legislature enact statutes to clarify and unify this “public policy." My impression is that Anglo-Saxon law has not been horrifically altruistic. A couple of points here. First, political "rights" must be distinguished from rights derived from social policy/convention/practice/culture. Political rights follow immediately from ethics and serve to establish (1) the limitations imposed upon government's power to interfere with the actions of an individual, and (2) the restrictions against one individual forcibly interjecting themselves into the life/actions of another person. Within the parameters delimited by political rights, rights arising from public policy are largely arbitrary -- by which I mean there is no apriori basis for having a right that states "this" rather than "that." Law per se, is an example of rights arising from public policy. For example: The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) is the governing language for most contract law. And the UCC was written with the specific intent to keep business moving and to promote economic efficiency. To this end clarity, finality, and the near-elimination of torts was/is paramount. Contract law did not have to be this way, and in many countries it isn't, but this fact alone does not make another system "moral" or "immoral," right or wrong. What I am referring to as public policy rights, the government should have little say in whether they are enforced or not -- this is a matter for the individuals involved to decide for themselves. I also think this is largely a specialized area and philosophy has little to say on the subject. Political rights are the proper sphere of philosophy's interest. Matters concerning the use of physical force are fairly easy to characterize. And fraud, a derivative of force, is relatively easy to define, at least in broad strokes. Let me give an example to clarify the difference between the two categories of rights I am talking about: I am building a swimming pool. (I'm not, but let's pretend, it'll help me tolerate +100F temperatures we're having. The pool is wholly on my property. The law states that a pool is an "attractive nuisance" and therefore I, as the pool owner, must take steps to prevent other people from harming themselves if they should trespass on my property. So the building code requires that I build a fence around my pool to keep neighbors' children from drowning. As a matter of philosophy, is it wrong to force me to spend additional money to protect other people from harming themselves, who can harm themselves only if they themselves violate the law in the first place? At first blush the answer might appear to be yes, this is wrong. Yet the law was originally aimed at protecting children, who because of their age and concomitant lack of cognitive development, do not know any better. So a neighbor's two-year-old child slips out of the house, into my yard, falls in the pool, and drowns (because I do not have a fence). Who ought to be held responsible, or legally liable, if anyone should? As a matter of philosophy, I could make an argument either way in this instance: (a) that forcing me to build a fence violates my property rights and is therefore wrong, or (b) that my actions have created a situation whereby people are likely to be harmed, and also attracted to it, and I therefore have a duty to protect others that might come to harm as a consequence of my actions, even if they must violate my rights first (i.e., trespass). Philosophically, both positions are tenable, so which alternative we choose is arbitrary. Our society has opted for (b), with the proviso that my protective actions are limited by the "reasonable person" standard. (I am highly simplifying a very complex idea here so I don't want to have any debates on minutia.) Frank also wrote: >I don't think that ethics can be reduced to virtue and that there are three irreducible aspects of ethics: > 1. Do the right thing (deontology, and with it lots of rules) > 2. Do good (utilitarianism) > 3. Be a good man (virtue ethics) The problems with these formulations are that they omit who the beneficiary of the actions is, and what the standard for deciding "good" or "right" is. When Rand discussed her core virtues, I believe she also asked the question whether a person would need that virtue if they were alone on a deserted island. If the answer was No, she rejected it as a primary virtue. As Frank has described them here, these aspects seem to intimate the existence of a society within which the ethics exist. If that is the case, I would reject all three. And Frank also wrote: >I can't give a good concrete example, still less decide where the line should be drawn, but the foundation of Objectivist ethics and politics, as I have argued many times, rests on virtue. In other words, you have an *enforceable* right when my violation of it harms my character (stealing undermines my sense of self-efficacy) *and* when *your* calling the cops does not harm *your* character. (Even so, disproportionate punishment must be ruled out, since it harms the punishers. Ever notice the tough-guy stance of the Peikoffer bullies?) An unstated assumption in this argument (an argument also used by Peikoff) is that Objectivism is taken as the standard by which another person's character is to be judged, whether they are Objectivist or not. For your own personal use, this is fine, but it is not adequate when it comes to legal matters. A professional robber will not have his or her own sense of self-efficacy undermined according to his or her own standards. At least so long as they continue without being caught. It is only when they are captured that their self-efficacy might be affected. Of course from an Objectivist's point of view the robber only hurts him/herself by stealing. But this makes life-according-to-Objectivism the gold standard for how other people ought to live their lives, and I'm not sure whether I am arrogant enough to make that presumption. To sum up: The subject line "Rights that should not be legally enforced" is a misnomer. First decide whether the right is what I have termed political, or arises from public policy. If it is political in nature, and only one alternative is reasonable in the particular circumstances, then it ought to be enforced. If on the other hand the right is cultural/public policy based, then the individuals involved should decide. There is a parallel in the distinction between criminal and civil law. In criminal law, the government is the prosecutor because the wrong committed is deemed to be against society. Civil matters are conducted between the parties as the harm is seen to be against an individual -- the government does not usually take an active role on one side or the other. (Regulatory agencies and the like mess this up a bit, but they are another matter entirely....) Neil Goodell From: Neil Goodell To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Intellectual Property & Rights that should not be legally enforced Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:03:32 -0600 On June 14, 2001, Brian Fritts wrote: >One question I might pose to Neil is to what sphere would he categorize copyright law. I have struggled with this issue of late, that is, what is the rational role of copyright law, if any, in a free (minarchist) society? > At some level copyright is different than Neil's example regarding the UCC in that portions of the UCC (particularly Article 2 regarding sales) are considered "default" rule and the parties to a transaction may set the terms of their deal or bargain by waiving provisions of the UCC. > The public policy arguments come to mind initially. These arguments usually center around "fair use" doctrines and how long copyright should be protected. Should these rights survive the author or creator? On the other hand, political rights are also an issue. Here one would ask what type of property right is a copyright and trademark. One issue that I struggle with is that one can be sued by the copyright holder even if there is not privity of contract between the copyright holder and infringing party. Let me state at the outset that I am not an attorney, nor do I have any specialized knowledge of matters pertaining to intellectual property. That said... Brian asks how matters of copyright and trademark should be classified under the distinction I previously proposed, that legal rights need to be partitioned into political rights and rights better thought of as pertaining to public policy. As I wrote on June 13, "Political rights follow immediately from ethics and serve to establish (1) the limitations imposed upon government's power to interfere with the actions of an individual, and (2) the restrictions against one individual forcibly interjecting themselves into the life/actions of another person. Within the parameters delimited by political rights, rights arising from public policy are largely arbitrary -- by which I mean there is no apriori basis for having a right that states 'this' rather than 'that.'" Property rights are recognized and protected by our laws (at least in principle if not always in practice). Property of a non-physical nature has traditionally been protected under patent law. From the perspective of political rights, this fulfills the obligation. Brian's question is really directed at defining intellectual property – in other words, is there a philosophical basis for concluding that, say, a book or newspaper, are deserving of copyright protection, yet a webpage is not. Is physicality a necessary component for something to be deemed "property?" What about a dynamic webpage, one created specifically for your internet session, and tailored to your unique cookie / preference / profile settings, a webpage that would never be duplicated anywhere else and is thus unique, a creation not only of the underlying code (and the computer programmers of course), but of the code in conjunction with your unique session parameters -- who owns what, and which part of it is deserving of protection? I don't have an answer to these questions. Scholars and attorneys have devoted large portions of their professional careers to them, and they do not all agree on their answers. To complicate matters more, new types of "intellectual property" are being created at an ever faster rate, and what type of protection should they receive? The entertainment industry is having its own share of growing pains in this area. Writers and actors who signed contracts for a film or a television show, 20 years later the work is released on video, DVD, and the internet. Can a person sign away a property right interest for something that did not exist at the time the contract was signed? Is this "signing away" unlimited in its reach, in perpetuity, and if so, does that make the contract void because essential elements are not definite in their meaning? Not easy questions to answer. Another aspect is enforcement: Of what use is a "right" if it cannot be enforced? This is viewing rights from the perspective of practicality (sort of like owning stock certificates from an out-of-business company). *Should* enforcement be considered at all? (I have seen arguments that this was one of the primary reasons for the current definition of "fair use" in copyright law. Copyright law has adherents on both sides, calling it "legalized theft" on one side, and an illegal "intellectual monopoly" undeserving of protection on the other.) In her discussion of patents, Rand argued that property rights should be enforced for a relatively short period of time because (1) since it was an aspect of the universe (compared to the wholly unique creative work of say a writer) it would be discovered eventually, and (2) human progress should not be held hostage to the whims of an individual (forever). Arguments can be made for or against almost any of these positions. What is important is that (1) property rights per se be recognized and protected, which is all that is required from a political perspective, and (2) appropriate definitions and protections for the various types of property be clearly delineated, and changed as necessary (there is no guarantee that the lawmakers will get it right the first/second/third time because they are not omniscient). So long as this is done, people can devote their time and energy to pursuing whatever type of property they want that will give them the greatest return for their efforts. Neil Goodell From: "Matthew Ferrara" To: objectivism Subject: OWL: It's the wrong question: RE: Taking care of our children Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 16:32:22 -0400 To: Chris, Mike and others who have asked this question a few different ways, I was originally not going to respond but I guess I will: Yes! Creating a child has obligations - but they should NOT fall within the purview of the state to enforce. Let me explain... First, your question assumes the acceptance of a 20th century liberal-activist (and later Conservative Coalition) tenet: that the pro-creation and subsequent rearing of children is to be supported by, regulated by and subsequently enforced by the state. I contend that this is a grave error: Child rearing is, in fact, not - or at least, I should say, it "should not" be, a subject for a just state. So, I claim that your premise is incongruent with Objectivist philosophy: by thinking, perhaps (and I can only guess your minds, here) that since parents pay taxes, which are used to fund children's programs and things like their education, feeding, inoculation, etc., that "the public" (in the guide of the state) should therefore have some say in "enforcing" compliance with this parental funding. This is what the state is doing when it seeks out "deadbeat dads." Of course, this avoids the issue of what we actually do with these deadbeats in practice when they are caught (we incarcerate them, which of course, does not lead to any funding - since they cannot pay from jail). It also sidesteps the political issue of having turned a private matter (procreation and the use of its product, which we can call child-rearing) into an area of regulation and enforcement by the state. The deep assumption here is that the creation of a child is the matter of state-sanction and regulation, instead of a matter between two consenting adults - a form of private contract. For the ultimate results of such an attitude on the part of the state, I refer you to Massachusetts last year where the state jailed a woman who was pregnant because it "thought" she "might" harm the baby *after* it was born. So, once you accept that the state has a say in rearing children, you can move easily and swiftly from deadbeat parents who abandon their "state-duty-to-fund-child-rearing" after birth to incarcerating pregnant women who *might* abandon (or worse) their children after birth (the state can argue it is protecting its future investment, if you like). And during this logical progression, we are left with activists and on-lookers who defend (in fact, encourage and incite) these state actions on television with the claims that "parents should take care of their children! They have a responsibility!".... Secondly, your question stems from an emotional response, not a philosophical primary: when we cry out "shouldn't parents take care of their children" the response is rarely philosophical but usually emotive-knee-jerk. Yes, I personally think they should take care of their children, but for very philosophical reasons, not reasons that would ever be codified into law or put into the processes of law enforcement. And not for sound-bite-style-save-the-children-hogwash either. Taking care of children is a philosophical activity that requires only personal (political) action, not action, intervention, guidance or enforcement by the state. In all real senses, children are the property of their parents until they are capable of taking care of themselves (at which point, the parents agree to separate from the children's lives). They were created by their parents and grown by their care: the are a product of the actions of an adult, and like any creation, they require care. Until this mutual separation, the concept of personal property would justly direct a rational person to take care of their children. I will leave all the mushy, emotionalism to be filled in by anyone who needs to do it (for all the "the love of a child" or the "Neanderthal-level parent-protective responses" or any other Freudian self-deceptions you'd like to insert here, I leave you to your own methods). On rational premises, any rational being would want to and take actions to care for any of his creations, whether it be an invention or a living being. But again, I'd argue that your emotionally-derived question "shouldn't we take care of our offspring" puts the cart before the horse. It's designed to elicit the mindless "yes" response of busy-body persons whose real goal is to tell is *how* to take care of these children, and to back it up with their manipulations of state power. Ask the Amish or polygamists or that fellow (whose name escapes me right now) who was charged with bodily harm of a minor for spanking his children as a form of "taking care of them" and you will see the error - and terror – of the question. Who is to say how - including the financial contributions to be made by them - a parent should "take care" of their children? Who will judge? How will it be enforced? Why? You see, it's a loaded question, and it's load is quite dangerous. Yet its consequences are only one small step removed: If you accept that the state has a duty to enforce the financial commitment of a parent to its offspring, then you can accept that the state has a duty to set standards for or enforce the quality of other "commitments" from parent to child. And thence comes the legislation of content between the parent-child relationship. The real question to be asked is: Does the state have any right to intervene on the part of either parent and/or on the part of children as a whole. I'd say blankly: No. Childbirth, childrearing, procreation and ultimately even consensual relationships (and their consequences) are not the purview of a just state. Of course, I'm willing to accept therefore the consequences: no marriage licenses (since the state should not set the types of contracts individuals may enter into, but should only enforce the terms of any contracts that such individuals may draw up as they see fit), no state funding of schools (since private education exists, and arguably does better anyway, and its educational contents can be set by parents, not by state officials), not even the feeding of children (because as soon as you accept one public dollar on behalf of a child, you must therefore accept public rearing of that child, which means letting whichever busybody gang to be in power at the moment have "say" - backed by law enforcement - over how, where, whether and when you "take care of" your child). That is why I posted my original disagreement of "deadbeat" dads and their hunting by individual citizens or the state. If someone wants to have a child with another person, they should draw up a contract laying out the obligations of all parties. Then, the state may intervene only when such written, freely signed, mutually identified obligations are broken. In the meantime, the creation of new citizen categories such as "deadbeat" and the enlistment of law enforcement officials and private bounty hunters (who, I suspect would not be duly deputized into the law nor properly trained regarding the extent to which they can act against or spying upon other private citizens) should be utterly prohibited. I refer you back to my earlier post, which I reiterate, when I say that it is merely the first link in a logical chain whose reductio ad absurdum can only lead to the expansion of such demonized citizen classes, with everyone watching over their shoulder in case they had been categorized by some bureaucrat recently and had become the potential subject for surveillance by their neighbors. For a simpler metaphor, read or listen to Ayn Rand's lecture regarding the Obscenity Laws and Supreme Court Rulings, which are equally un-specific and uncertain in their creation of standards of what we can read, write, etc. The concept of "deadbeat" dad is equally as bad as items to be deemed obscene because they are "lacking serious moral, scientific, artistic or literary import"... Until we're ready to define WHO (and then WHAT) shall constitute either, I'm not going to endorse having the state seek deadbeat dads any more than I'd want it to enforce it's obscenity rules... I hope you see my hastily-drawn analogy. And I hope you can see why I originally did not respond to Mike Rael (09.01.01) when he asked the same loaded question. I don't think the question is the right one to ask from the start; but since it has come up here so many times now, and directed at my posting specifically, I guess I'm just up for a little self-expression on the matter today... Chris: I've never claimed that creating a child does not come with obligations. However, I differ from most others here by thinking that: 1. The obligation is not under the purview of the state. It is a contract between at least two, if not three, persons individually. It should fall under the area of personal politics, namely that of contracts, which the state would only adjudicate, never set the terms of performance. This is a clear difference between the welfare or activist-state and a laissez-faire model of government. 2. The obligation is assumed at the time of having sex. Both persons enter into a contract when engaging in sex; the contract may be implicit or verbal (not needed to be written) but when two people enter into a mutual set of actions, they do so (if rationally) with full knowledge of the possible and/or likely outcomes. If one outcome is mainly pleasure, then that is their goal. If another likely outcome exists, such as childbirth because neither party uses birth control, then both parties again assume responsibility for the likely outcomes of their actions. They therefore bear duties to the results, ie., the child and it's upbringing. However, the state should neither interfere nor set the terms of such duties. 3. After conception, before or after birth, both or either parties can contractually reinforce or absolve their duties to one another. The mother can ask the father to contractually obligate himself to financial, moral, educational and other support (we call this marriage today, but it could merely be another interpersonal contract). Or she could accept (ask, even) the father's wish not to be involved in any way. Or, if the father wants not to be involved in any way but the mother does, she may sue him, for breach of mutual contract: he willingly entered into a sexual act under circumstances with great likelihood to create a child but then did not wish to live up to the realities and duties of the outcomes. At this point, a personal lawsuit can create a judgement for the father to pay (and it could be in many terms: money, support, involvement, etc). The major malfunction I have with the arguments as been posted and the blanket cries of " doesn't a father have a duty to pay for his child" is that they endorse the intrusion of the state into personal affairs, necessarily empower the state to set the terms and conditions of procreation (see my other posts). Additionally, I think it is a bad precedent (creating citizen classes like deadbeats, which would give the state a precedent to create other, prosecutable classes). Finally, the original posting on this situation was whether or not we want our neighbors, ordinary citizens, being employed by the government or private agencies in the location of and pursuit of such-deemed miscreants. I'd sum it up by paraphrasing Rand: While she said: Life is not one big hospital, I would say, Neither is it one big episode of America's Most Wanted! Matthew Ferrara From: Frank Forman To: objectivism Subject: OWL: RE: Rights that Should Not Be Legally Enforced Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:08:23 -0400 (EDT) [OWL did not receive the post by David Friedman that Frank refers to here. -Moderator] Frank Forman here: Sorry for my delay in responding. I'm spreading myself much too thin and have dozens of messages to respond to. It is a familiar problem, and I hope my case is unusually severe. David Friedman gave the best answer, when he said that rights should not be legally enforced when proving their violation would be impossible or very costly. I would add that rights violations should not be enforced if doing so harms the character of the one whose rights were violated. I'm thinking here of certain swindles that the victim would have avoided if he had better practiced the virtue of alertness. Since he didn't, instead of calling in the cops, he should chalk it up to experiences. I can't give a good concrete example, still less decide where the line should be drawn, but the foundation of Objectivist ethics and politics, as I have argued many times, rests on virtue. In other words, you have an *enforceable* right when my violation of it harms my character (stealing undermines my sense of self-efficacy) *and* when *your* calling the cops does not harm *your* character. (Even so, disproportionate punishment must be ruled out, since it harms the punishers. Ever notice the tough-guy stance of the Peikoffer bullies?) Bone up on negligence law, or just get acquainted with it, to see how complex drawing lines can be, even without trying to ground everything in virtue. Concerns with economically efficient negligence looms large here. I'm still looking for better examples of cases of nonenforceable rights that really are rights and not just exhortations to be of good character. Maybe there are cases somewhere along the moocher-theft continuum that would do. I don't think that ethics can be reduced to virtue and that there are three irreducible aspects of ethics: Do the right thing (deontology, and with it lots of rules) 2. Do good (utilitarianism) 3. Be a good man (virtue ethics) Our ethical structure evolved in a complex fashion through diverse pathways that intertwine our emotions and cognition. This is why no reduction ever feels right and why any long-winded attempt elicits a long-winded response. (Ditto, we have a need to feel "I am in charge" (free will) as well as "The world makes sense" (determinism). The two cannot be reconciled, certainly not on the basis of our current knowledge of neurology.) David brings up something else: On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, david friedman wrote: [snip] >A more difficult case is the one where you have a right but the enforcers choose not to enforce it because it is not in their interest to do so. One example might be a contract in restraint of trade, such as a cartel agreement. Suppose there are only five steel producers. They make an agreement that each will cut output ten percent in order to force up the price. Presumably Objectivists believe they have a right to make that agreement. It doesn't follow that other people have to help them enforce it--and, since its purpose is to make other people worse off, they might not. Thus one could imagine a court system which did not punish such agreements (as > ours does), since they don't violate any rights, but announced in advance that it would not enforce them. Such contracts are not enforced (neither are contracts for gambling debts enforced, which goes back to the Middle Ages) because they go against "public policy." In most cases, "public policy" doctrines grew from the bottom up in common law cases, and I am Hayekian enough to respect this. (Ditto for negligence law.) What we have here is a kind of implicit social contract, which might say that it is virtuous to go along with the law, which has the merit of being known (for a fee to the lawyers!). The social contract can include for a provision to let the legislature enact statutes to clarify and unify this "public policy." My impression is that Anglo-Saxon law has not been horrifically altruistic. Even so, Objectivists may object (pun intended). I welcome further discussion. Frank Forman If this is indicative of the clarity of the ideas you hold in your mind, I regret ever having asked you a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 30, 2023 Author Share Posted January 30, 2023 6 hours ago, Strictlylogical said: If this is indicative of the clarity of the ideas you hold in your mind, I regret ever having asked you a question. ??? I concisely expressed the personal view of everyday and rare activities from my little o' brain. It's all about the individual in the long run though we agree to abide by the Constitution of the U.S.A. NO more questions would be fine . . . though comments about any of my posts are welcome, SL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictlylogical Posted January 30, 2023 Share Posted January 30, 2023 Ok this is my comment You speak of the mixed economy and the historical accident of certain legal regimes and the so-called justifications thereof as some kind of basis for a discussion regarding principle. I do not believe that is a valid position. I cannot disagree that those are the things that are, and that there are purported justifications. I do not believe there is any proper prescriptive justification for any public health system.... nor any public education system, nor any public food system, or public hair cutting system, nor any public sanitation system for that matter! I'd be happy with a justice system, a military, and a police force... and an administration to uphold all in line with a proper constitution protecting individual rights. Why don't I want public sanitation? Well, let's start with what I do want. I want the courts to make sure no one throws shit in my backyard. I also want the courts to make sure no one surrounds my house with shit so that I cannot use and enjoy the property I own. I also want courts to respect my street's owner's rights to not have shit dumped on their property, which would incur them costs, which would incur more costs for me as a user of that street. I'd also want to ensure the rights of shit-shipping companies to deal with my neighbor and provide services so that my yard, my street and my nose are shit free. Now, shit IS, and just as there is no free food to make it, there is no free shit-shipping. Any amount of work or infrastructure, any amount of energy spent to maintain and operate any system is expended by someone. I want courts to ensure no one is enslaved in the shipping of shit, but that traders in a free market provide services. Owners, renters, and service providers are free to move, switch markets raise or lower prices etc. Some central planner, in devising HIS version of what sanitation should be will come up with a system which incurs coercion. That is not what I want. Why don't I want public health? Because we need the sanctity of the personal individual relationship between doctor and the patient, the medical services and the customer, to be free from any other consideration than the health and welfare of that person. Any central planning will inevitably screw that up... someone will be sacrificed for statistics, not that someone will die in some natural organic or accidental way, someone will be killed specifically because of the design of that system, some cog or wheel designed to use up a little human "lubricant". So... for substantially the same reasons I do not want a public anything (except for police, justice system and military) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 30, 2023 Share Posted January 30, 2023 15 minutes ago, Strictlylogical said: Any central planning will inevitably screw that up... someone will be sacrificed for statistics, not that someone will die in some natural organic or accidental way, someone will be killed specifically because of the design of that system, some cog or wheel designed to use up a little human "lubricant". Or, some sacrificed in the name of "directed evolution" *cough*Pfizer*cough*... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 30, 2023 Share Posted January 30, 2023 Speaking of governmental overreach: Newsome just got a judicial smackdown for his attempt to censor doctors who dissent from the Covid narrative: (Riddle me this, Batman: how is one supposed to "trust, ask, and listen to their doctor" when the doctors are being censorsed?)Federal Judge Blocks Gavin Newsom’s War Against the Freedom of Speech "On Wednesday, Judge William B. Shubb shot down Newsom’s free-speech-destroying measure, and had strong words for it in his opinion: 'Defendants argue that while the scientific consensus may sometimes be difficult to define, there is a clear scientific consensus on certain issues — for example, that apples contain sugar, that measles is caused by a virus, or that Down’s syndrome is caused by a chromosomal abnormality. However, AB 2098 does not apply the term ‘scientific consensus’ to such basic facts, but rather to COVID-19 — a disease that scientists have only been studying for a few years, and about which scientific conclusions have been hotly contested. COVID-19 is a quickly evolving area of science that in many aspects eludes consensus.'" Federal Judge Blocks Gavin Newsom’s War Against the Freedom of Speech PJMEDIA.COM Newsom is popular among Leftists because he is a socialist and an authoritarian who tramples upon the First Amendment in his lust to... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 Speaking of Covid and censorship, and back to Pfizer: New leaks on YouTube's attempts to censor the recent Pfizer scandal regarding the claims that they are mutating viruses in order to "direct evolution". Via a Project Veritas email blast, with an update scheduled for 8pm tonight: quote: A brave YouTube Insider has just leaked an internal "Urgent Guidance" document sent to employees on how to handle the recent Pfizer #DirectedEvolution video "Effective immediately as of 27 January 2023. YouTube is claiming this "Violates the COVID-19 misinformation policy" More information is coming in by the minute on this rapidily developing story. Stay Tuned for more updates. Be Brave, James O’Keefe P.S. I will be joining Grant Cardone tonight on Twitter Spaces at 8:00PM to discuss these updates. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 BREAKING: @YouTube Insider leaks "Urgent Guidance" document sent to employees on how to handle the Project Veritas @pfizer #DirectedEvolution video "Effective immediately as of 27 January 2023" "Violates the COVID-19 misinformation policy" Imagine being so against so-called "misinformation" while otherwise ignoring a Pfizer employee's claim that they are mutating viruses intentionally to "direct evolution". Evil, much? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 The jig is up, and they know it: "Biden to declare national end to COVID-19 restrictions https://oann.com/newsroom/biden-to-declare-national-end-to-covid-19-restrictions/ #OAN" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 12 hours ago, ThatGuy said: Speaking of Covid and censorship, and back to Pfizer: New leaks on YouTube's attempts to censor the recent Pfizer scandal regarding the claims that they are mutating viruses in order to "direct evolution". Via a Project Veritas email blast, with an update scheduled for 8pm tonight: quote: A brave YouTube Insider has just leaked an internal "Urgent Guidance" document sent to employees on how to handle the recent Pfizer #DirectedEvolution video "Effective immediately as of 27 January 2023. YouTube is claiming this "Violates the COVID-19 misinformation policy" More information is coming in by the minute on this rapidily developing story. Stay Tuned for more updates. Be Brave, James O’Keefe P.S. I will be joining Grant Cardone tonight on Twitter Spaces at 8:00PM to discuss these updates. TG, I just saw that and you beat me to it. Big Tech is scared and their internal documents are showing it. Yeah, Twitter helped a lot by allowing this to spread faster than it normally would, but with alt tech, this news would have spread far and wide regardless. James O'Keefe is going to go down in history as one of the core freedom fighters of our age. He is quintessentially American in the Founding Father sense of the term. Michael 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 31, 2023 Author Share Posted January 31, 2023 23 hours ago, Strictlylogical said: I'd be happy with a justice system, a military, and a police force... and an administration to uphold all in line with a proper constitution protecting individual rights. I like living in civilization, and in America. I am OK with mayors and county commissioners, elected school boards, longevity, etc. Remember our ideal Ayn Rand reported to HUAC? And she lived in New York City with its own laws and boroughs, and she seemed grumpy but happy. Rhyme time. Hunker in your bunker. You are so profound in your compound. Stay alive, and don't drink and drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 Wasn't Rand a Californian when she gave her expert witness testimony to the HUAC ? I think she permanently 'settled' in NYC a few years after the hearings, not important just rosie posie cozie tea.(s crossed and eyes dotted) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 "Pfizer did not immediately respond when asked for comment on Project Veritas’ LED truck."Project Veritas taunts Pfizer with LED truck parked outside drug maker’s NYC office following latest sting "Project Veritas recently published an undercover video featuring a Pfizer honcho discussing 'mutating' COVID virus" Project Veritas taunts Pfizer with LED truck parked outside drug maker’s NYC office following latest sting WWW.FOXNEWS.COM Project Veritas taunted Pfizer with an LED truck parked outside of the drug manufacturer’s headquarters on Tuesday after the journalism... Hah! Gotta love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 Just wait until a plane crashes from this shit. We all know it's coming. As Captain Bob Snow told Tucker, pilots are prohibited to participate in drug trials on pain of losing their licenses. However, the mRNA vaccine they were forced to take to preserve their license was nothing but a massive drug trial with emergency authorization only. Snow had a cardiac arrest six minutes after landing a plane with 200 passengers aboard. And nobody in the authority class wants to know why. Why don't they want to know why? Easy. They have all been bought. I see a plane crash coming from a jab-caused cardiac arrest in a pilot as easily as I see day following night. I believe something like that--with bodies of innocents strewn all over the goddam place--will be the only thing to stop all the propaganda, at least for a pause. Not even a kickass football player going into cardiac arrest on the field in the middle of a major football game interrupted the propaganda. Some bad shit is coming. And I want the people who did this put in prison. Michael 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 "When people say 'follow the science,' often what they’re really saying is 'follow our plan.'" A 75-Year-Old Warning about Those Who Say ‘Listen to the Science’ | Jon Miltimore FEE.ORG “The planners pretend that their plans are scientific and that there cannot be disagreement with regard to them among well-intentioned... Excerpt: Quote The phrase seems harmless enough. The scientific method is highly trusted, and for good reason. It has been a boon to humanity and helped bring about many of the marvels of our modern world. Yet distinguished thinkers new and old have warned us to proceed with caution when confronted with pleas to “listen to the science.” "Never will man penetrate deeper into error than when he is continuing on a road which has led him to great success. And never can pride in the achievements of the natural sciences ... have been more justified than at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries."- F.A. Hayek — Jon Miltimore (@miltimore79) April 7, 2021 Mises: There’s No Ought in Science The economist Ludwig von Mises once observed the problem with using scientific claims to shape the modern world. He suggested that in many cases people invoke science simply to tell people what they must do. “The planners pretend that their plans are scientific and that there cannot be disagreement with regard to them among well-intentioned and decent people,” Mises wrote in his 1947 essay “Planned Chaos.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 18 hours ago, ThatGuy said: "When people say 'follow the science,' often what they’re really saying is 'follow our plan.'" TG, Does that mean this? Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 The mea culpas are starting to come out in the mainstream media. Newsweek just did a doozy of one saying (I paraphrase) "We, on behalf of the science community, are sorry we killed so many innocent people. What can we do to get our credibility back?" “SCIENCE COMMUNITY BETRAYED PUBLIC TRUST ON COVID PURPOSELY” – SAYS NEWSWEEK “Science Community Betrayed Public Trust On COVID Purposely” – Says Newsweek WWW.BITCHUTE.COM It’s still unclear at this point whether there will ever be a complete reckoning with all the misinformation, disinformation and outright lies that were spread by authorities in government, media and the... Here's the Newsweek article Jimmy is talking about: It's Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About COVID and It Cost Lives | Opinion It's Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About COVID WWW.NEWSWEEK.COM Intellectual elitism, credentialism, and classism must end. Restoring trust in public health—and our democracy—depends on it. More and more of this stuff is going to start coming out. It has to. The Predator Class is scared. Three years of persecuting the best scientific experts in the world and murdering innocent people (added to oceans of greed for unearned money and power) created a public distrust that will not be solved by one article. They are going to need a major propaganda effort, right? Bah... Jimmy Dore's comments are devastating. I even learned a new word from his video: credentialist. This means a person who believes you don't have a right to speak in public unless you have the proper credentials as determined by censors. Not even Jimmy noted the following parallel event, but I notice. I didn't see any of these mea culpas while the Predator Class held all the political cards. Now that there is a Republican House and a public turn against them for the near future in politics, they are trying to get ahead of the investigations and punishments for murder by saying they are sorry (while, out of the public eye, they laugh all the way to the bank). Just trust them once again and all will be well, says the big bad wolf. They will take care of you and keep you safe. As you think, but what big eyes you have... As to all those who were killed and injured, an earlier mea culpa in The Atlantic (last October) showed the path they want to take. LET’S DECLARE A PANDEMIC AMNESTY Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty - The Atlantic WWW.THEATLANTIC.COM Let’s focus on the future, and fix the problems we still need to solve. They mean "amnesty" for the murders and grifters, not amnesty for those who screamed bloody murder during the last 3 years. And especially not amnesty for the duped and murdered and injured. Like I said, the Predator Class is scared. And I, for one, want their fear to be the beginning of their punishment and removal from power. Michael 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 3, 2023 Share Posted February 3, 2023 Veritas is not only putting a huge dent in the credibility of Pfizer, it is also going after YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook. Don't think massive numbers of people aren't leaving those platforms over this, or at least, diminishing their interaction to just looking once in a while. They are. Long live independent journalism. Long live alt media. Michael 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 3, 2023 Share Posted February 3, 2023 I have a question about all the Big Pharma ads on TV and Big social media. Has anyone ever seen an ad for a pill for, say, Crohn's disease, gone to their doctor and, when diagnosed with the problem, say they want that pill they saw on TV? Anyone? I can't think of a single person. Not only that, I find the whole thing stupid. I have a theory that these ads exist for Big Pharma to payoff Big Media. It's the cost of doing business for them. If Big Media tells the truth about Big Pharma and doesn't sing the party line in their news reports and celebrity commentaries, Big Pharma will pull the ads. The ads don't convince people to use Big Pharma products. The ad revenue is a bribe. The production values of the ads are for the smokescreen to hide the bribe, not for persuasion. The ads keep Big Media from talking about the dangers of Big Pharma. And without scrutiny, Big Pharma sticks its hands deep deep deep into government money, throws it into the air and sings, "Hallelujah!" It's a con. And it's working. It's time to fix this and get back to honest markets. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 "Trust the science": Bloomberg: "Pfizer's bivalent shot for Covid has shown a potential link to stroke in people 65 and older." Bloomberg, of all places... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I have a question about all the Big Pharma ads on TV and Big social media. Has anyone ever seen an ad for a pill for, say, Crohn's disease, gone to their doctor and, when diagnosed with the problem, say they want that pill they saw on TV? Anyone? I can't think of a single person. Not only that, I find the whole thing stupid. I have a theory that these ads exist for Big Pharma to payoff Big Media. It's the cost of doing business for them. If Big Media tells the truth about Big Pharma and doesn't sing the party line in their news reports and celebrity commentaries, Big Pharma will pull the ads. The ads don't convince people to use Big Pharma products. The ad revenue is a bribe. The production values of the ads are for the smokescreen to hide the bribe, not for persuasion. The ads keep Big Media from talking about the dangers of Big Pharma. And without scrutiny, Big Pharma sticks its hands deep deep deep into government money, throws it into the air and sings, "Hallelujah!" It's a con. And it's working. It's time to fix this and get back to honest markets. Michael This post is why you are our fearless leader. Merci beaucoup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 I've noticed for a long time that when an industry or group of people receive exemption from being sued, their endeavors turn gigantic and then they turn authoritarian and evil. This happened with Big Pharma and with Big Tech Social Media. I suppose if I wanted to start going through all the different people and groups that have liability immunity, I will find many more. How about judges, for instance? Shouldn't they be liable to some degree when their judgments are completely off the rails? Like, say, refusing to accept election fraud evidence in courts all over the country? Anywho, this pattern of granting liability immunity was exported all over the world, especially for Big Pharma during the pandemic. Now it looks like Thailand is going to be the first country in the world to not only rescind that immunity, but rescind the contracts covered by that immunity. In practical terms, that means companies like Pfizer will have to give back all the money they took from the Thai government for the jab and suffer other legal penalties, including criminal liability for acts like murder. And don't forget, Thailand is an enthusiastic practitioner of the death penalty. What happened was that a Thai princess (Princess Bajrakitiyabha, daughter of King Maha Vajiralongkorn and his first wife Princess Soamsawali) took the jab and boosters, then went into a coma. She is still in that coma. The Big Pharma bought-and-paid-for advisors to the Thai royal family said she suffered from a bacterial infection. Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, who has been censored from here to Kingdom come all over the world for blowing the whistle on the jabs, was finally able to meet with the royal family and present evidence that the jab was not a vaccine, but instead an experiment with new technology granted emergency authorization in the US, that Pfizer documents themselves admit to the inefficacy of the jab in protecting people from infection (which they never tested for), also admitting that the jab caused potential heart problems (which is the case of the princess) and other maladies, and so on. What's worse, not only had Pfizer hidden all of this, apparently they sold the jab to the Thai government under false pretenses. And the royal family is royally pissed as The King's daughter lies in a coma. You gotta admit, it takes balls to go into a royal court where the whim of the King is law and outright lie about the reason the Princess is in a coma with heart problems. Pfizer may be evil, but it's got balls. Watch this video to see excerpts of Prof. Bhakdi in an interview talking about this. Thailand drops a BOMBSHELL on @pfizer !!! WWW.BITCHUTE.COM Taken from Telegram and they're PISSED! The narrative is collapsing! Credit to : Redacted Please Share ! Share ! Share Follow the UK Channel » Click here Join in the Chat - UK Chat » Click here I looked around to get the names of the Thai people correct and to see if there were other references to this story. There are several and the number is growing. Check this one out: Week #4 Updates: Thailand to Nullify Pfizer contracts?? Week #4 Updates: Thailand to Nullify Pfizer contracts?? PHARMAFILES.SUBSTACK.COM Watch now (1 min) | and an update to Pfizer's Crisis Week! Quote In an interview with Pascal Najadi, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi gives us an update on the Thai situation that developed in December 2022. To recap, the eldest daughter of the Thai King collapsed in mid-December and is currently in a coma after six weeks. Two weeks later, the Top Thai Neurologist warned of COVID vaccine injuries and the following week, the King's sister experienced heart arrhythmia. In an interview yesterday, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi claimed that the advisors to the Thai government and Royal Family said Thailand would be the first country in the world to nullify the contract with Pfizer. Full interview here. It will be interesting to monitor the development in Thailand because all it takes for the whole vaccine narrative to collapse is for one country to recall the product, which will set the dominos falling. There's a link to the full interview with Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, so why not give it here, too? K O N K R E T - Discussion with Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi NEWS from the Royal Palace in Thailand. K O N K R E T - Discussion with Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi NEWS from the Royal Palace in Thailand. RUMBLE.COM English Language - The Presumption of Innocence applies for President Alain Berset. www.konkret.media Twitter: @Bitcoin1967 https://t.me/PascalNajadiNEWS... Big Pharma went way too far this go around. Now they are going down by a thousand cuts from all over the world. May their government cronies suffer the same fate. Michael 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 6, 2023 Share Posted February 6, 2023 Canadian truckers again. Injuries from the COVID-19 Vaccine Are Now Being Publicly Displayed in Canada Using Trucks Driving Down the Street – Join the Campaign! Injuries from the COVID-19 Vaccine Are Now Being Publicly Displayed in Canada Using Trucks Driving Down the Street - Join the Campaign! WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM Since the launch of the COVID-19 vaccine in Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) reported that 52,203 adverse events had been documented in its system. The Liberal government led by Justin... I love these people. Michael 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now