Sanction of the Victim

[Steve Gagne]

Natural outcome of O-ist property theory. Also, it's now the basis for latest Berne Convention international agreements concerning intellectual property -- patents and copyrights.

Well if it's a natural outcome of O-ist theory that you can blow up buildings if you own the design then there is something wrong with O-ist theory. I don't need to know anything about O-ist theory (or watch the movie) to come to that conclusion.

I don't believe AR was advocating violent acts like that, just using the motif as part of her storytelling. Although when I think of the cast of heroes in Atlas Shrugged, sometimes I'm not so sure.

[Xray]

Natural outcome of O-ist property theory. Also, it's now the basis for latest Berne Convention international agreements concerning intellectual property -- patents and copyrights.

Well if it's a natural outcome of O-ist theory that you can blow up buildings if you own the design then there is something wrong with O-ist theory. I don't need to know anything about O-ist theory (or watch the movie) to come to that conclusion.

Well said, GS.

Roark's blowing up the building is a large red flag indicating to me that the writer lacked empathy and was without much consideration for anyone else.

Roark had no quarrel except with Keating who broke the contract. Yet, Roark's actions were not directed at Keating only, but many others as well. The "collateral damage" involved destroying the work and property of many innocent parties.

Did he ever once consider who owned the property, or the pride the workman had in the construction? No. Literally, nothing else mattered except his "will be done."

Edited November 7, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Natural outcome of O-ist property theory. Also, it's now the basis for latest Berne Convention international agreements concerning intellectual property -- patents and copyrights.

Well if it's a natural outcome of O-ist theory that you can blow up buildings if you own the design then there is something wrong with O-ist theory. I don't need to know anything about O-ist theory (or watch the movie) to come to that conclusion.

Just a rationalization and not a very interesting one at that.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Natural outcome of O-ist property theory. Also, it's now the basis for latest Berne Convention international agreements concerning intellectual property -- patents and copyrights.

Well if it's a natural outcome of O-ist theory that you can blow up buildings if you own the design then there is something wrong with O-ist theory. I don't need to know anything about O-ist theory (or watch the movie) to come to that conclusion.

Well said, GS.

Roark's blowing up the building is a large red flag indicating to me that the writer lacked empathy and was without much consideration for anyone else.

Roark had no quarrel except with Keating who broke the contract. Yet, Roark's actions were not directed at Keating only, but many others as well. The "collateral damage" involved destroying the work and property of many innocent parties.

Did he ever once consider who owned the property, or the pride the workman had in the construction? No. Literally, nothing else mattered except his "will be done."

A hell of a lot better than their "will be done."

--Brant

I'd have blown it up if Howard Roark had been me instead but my tastes in sex are different even though I'd've told Dominique to "take off your clothes" too or maybe just popped her buttons

[tjohnson]

Just a rationalization and not a very interesting one at that.

--Brant

Yep, that's me, a rational human being rationalizing.

[Brant Gaede]

Just a rationalization and not a very interesting one at that.

--Brant

Yep, that's me, a rational human being rationalizing.

Sorry; I was referring to Steve Gagne's "Natural outcome ...."

--Brant

[Steve Gagne]

Just a rationalization and not a very interesting one at that.

--Brant

Yep, that's me, a rational human being rationalizing.

Sorry; I was referring to Steve Gagne's "Natural outcome ...."

--Brant

Rationalization? RATIONALIZATION??? What the heck.....??????

You've got me confused now. I made an offhand comment about an element of the plot of a book that GS now tells me he hasn't read, and that is a "rationalization"...Are you now saying that YOU haven't read it either? (I don't believe that.) Or are you saying that I made it up, that there is no such thing as The Fountainhead, or a plot in the story, or the Berne Convention, or intellectual property rights, or what????

What on earth are you talking about?

[Brant Gaede]

Your idea of Roark's property rights is a rationalization. He owned neither the buildings nor their design as reflected in their construction. Even his moral claim is extremely tenuous. His court victory was effective jury nullification, but that was not what Rand really tried to depict. When the project was rebuilt then he must certainly have had the right understanding and contract. "Repossessing his property" by blowing those buildings up? Nope.

70-80 years ago my grandfather sold a story to The Saturday Evening Post which then chose not to publish it. He sued to get it published. He lost.

--Brant

Yes, I've read the novel

Edited November 8, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Correct Brant:

Essentially, one of the most empowering Constitutional powers that we have which is well rooted in English Common Law.

"His court victory was effective jury nullification, but that was not what Rand really tried to depict."

I would be interested in what you think she was attempting to depict.

Additionally, jury nullification is well represented in American movies, e.g., 12 Angry Men, A Few Good Men, Anatomy of a Murder, Inherit the Wind, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, The Verdict and A Time to Kill, just off the top of my head.

And we have the O.J., first trial, as an example.

Adam