Francisco Ferrer

Here's another hit piece that traces the Chilean land fraud to an alleged lack of morals among libertarians in general: "The owners would never get zoning clearance to build anything there. A fact of which the founder of Galt’s Gulch, Ken Johnson had always been aware. But, Ayn-Rand-Style rational self-interest prevailed, and he proceeded to scam all takers for every dollar they’d throw at him. Wonder where he learned that from? . . . "For the record, though we think shipping every Libertarian in America off to Chile is a fantastic idea. Maybe we should start a crowdfunding campaign to send them there." http://aattp.org/galts-gulch-ayn-rands-libertarian-utopia-implodes-almost-instantly-after-launching/

Your revelation. That the. Radio spectrum. Isn't. Scarce. Is quite exciting! My favorite FM station is at 97.1. There is only one station in my city that broadcasts on that frequency. With your discovery of non-scarcity, it will now be possible for another broadcaster or a million other broadcasters to use that same spot on the radio dial at the same time and not interfere with each other in this city. Apparently "non-tangible" now means "infinitely expandable." The argument for property is that a man has by occupying and developing a part of the earth made that part his own. If I have built a cabin in the wilderness, I am entitled to call it my own and occupy it exclusively. If scarcity is an argument against property, then every time a man built a cabin in the wilderness, he would have to share it with every traveler that happened along. Like 97.1 FM, perhaps the cabin would magically expand to comfortably fit in everyone that wanted to use it! I did not miss the point about copyright that you are referring to. I addressed it in an essay I wrote several years ago.

I am not aware of any standard dictionary that treats "fascist" as a synonym for bully. More importantly, where is the evidence of bullying?

Where is the proof that Hoppe advocates anything like fascism? As for free association, on what basis would people be disallowed from choosing which individuals they want to share the same space with?

That non-ownership of airwaves would mean anyone can use any frequency is obvious. You've called yourself an IP skeptic. I assume that your reason for this is because IP isn't tangible. If that is the case, then you should also oppose property rights in the electromagnetic spectrum. No, intellectual property and property in radio-television frequencies are not comparable. As I said above, "airwaves are definable scarce resources." We cannot stretch the electromagnetic spectrum to allow more stations. It is a finite commodity. On the other hand, IP is not. I do not prevent you or the copyright holder from enjoying your copies of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by printing one or more myself.

From "The Objectivist Ethics" “An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.” While I suppose that there may be altruistic or "selfless" predators who place their victims' welfare above their own, what I actually had in mind is the selfish predator who furthers his own life, without regard to the consequences his actions may have on others, including their rights. For example, the man who forges his late mother's will to make himself her sole beneficiary. To call this behavior "irrational," requires redefining "rationality" to exclude any behavior that is rights-violating, something that even Rand did not attempt. She simply claimed that predators "may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own." However, such a conclusion is not supported by any survey of history, thorough or casual.

Some animals are more equal than others under inflation. From "Inflation and You" by Ludwig von Mises: The most fateful results of inflation derive from the fact that the rise of prices and wages which it causes occurs at different times and in a different measure for various kinds of commodities and labor. Some classes of prices and wages rise more quickly and rise higher than others. Not merely inflation itself, but its unevenness, works havoc. While inflation is under way, some people enjoy the benefit of higher prices for the goods or services they sell, while the prices for goods and services they buy have not yet risen or have not risen to the same extent. These people profit from their fortunate position. Inflation seems to them "good business," a "boom." But their gains are always derived from the losses of other sections of the population. The losers are those in the unhappy situation of selling services or commodities whose prices have not yet risen to the same degree as have prices of the things they buy for daily consumption. These victims, by and large, are the same kind of people, roughly, the middle classes, who are injured as creditors through the depreciation of their bank savings, insurance policies, pensions, etc. The salaries of teachers and ministers, the fees of doctors, go up only slowly as compared to the tempo with which prices of food, rent, clothing, and so on, go up. There is always a considerable time lag between the increase in the money income of the white-collar workers and professional people and the increase in costs of food, clothing, and other necessities.

Which underlines that individual rights is not a code of morality. Next thing, "can I get away with it?" will be the only worthy standard. Actually, the question here is, if egoism is the basis for all subsidiary decisions, then why should the rights of others be given any particular consideration? It's why it's called rational egoism. How can one deal with reality and existence, according to man's nature. Other people are "reality", too. If we start with egoism as the primary value, rational egoism is the course of action that best serves it, regardless of its effect on the rights of others.

Which underlines that individual rights is not a code of morality. Next thing, "can I get away with it?" will be the only worthy standard. Actually, the question here is, if egoism is the basis for all subsidiary decisions, then why should the rights of others be given any particular consideration?

Actually, I have. You have failed to explain how a contract can handle: joint filing for bankruptcy.spousal privilege in trials.access to medical records.power of attorney.right to make funeral arrangements for deceased partner.default inheritance.hospital visitation.right to adopt step childrencustody.visitation rights in prison.right to seek compensation for death of spouse.You have little to no understanding of what you're talking about.Terms of bankruptcy depend on specifics of incorporation and contracts with creditors. Not criminal law and thus not an issue of force/rights violation.A citizen has the natural right not to testify in a trial--of one's spouse or anyone else.Access to medical records are properly determined by patient and doctor--and by a third party if involved in payment. Not criminal law.All adult citizens have the natural right to delegate any right, including power of attorney. Not criminal law.Unless designated otherwise in a will, right to make funeral arrangement goes to closest survivor of the deceased: 1. spouse, 2. adult child, 3. parent. Not criminal law.Default inheritance, hospital visitation, visitation rights in prison: 1. spouse, 2. adult child, 3. parent. Not criminal law (unless terms of visitation are part of the process of punishment).Child custody and adoption of step children are based on which potential guardian is best able to provide care and/or choice of child. Not criminal law.Claim: "You have little to no understanding of what you're talking about." Like the typical statement in your posts: unproven assertion. On pots and kettles: I do not base my conclusions on gut reactions. Rejecting an idea because one finds it "repulsive" or "an abomination" does not follow any rule of logic. Adults are permitted to engage in sex with other adults because they alone can determine if such action is in their best interest (and if they are endangered by it). A child cannot and thus is not able to give consent. On spam not being physical: if someone overwhelmed your inbox with 100,000 messages, would you think it was done by magic? Would you not understand that there are electronic signals involved which exist in the physical world? On automobile liability: If you choose to drive on a highway where there are no regulations, limits or provisions for responsibility in accidents, then you are completely on your own. On robbery, burglary, pick pocketing, looting, shoplifting, and embezzlement being separate charges: yes, they are, and no one has suggested otherwise. The punishment should fit the crime. All those crimes would all be prohibited under laissez-faire, and victims would stand a far better chance of being restored than under incompetent and corrupt statist rule. On defamation: Since only the individual thinker may be said to have any right to what goes on in his own mind, a person may not legitimately claim that he is entitled to have a certain reputation established or restored, for that would literally mean that the plaintiff in a defamation case would have a right to a certain opinion of himself in other people's minds. Since no such right exists, defamation laws are illegitimate. On ownership of airwaves: Like land, airwaves are definable scarce resources that can be peacefully exploited provided that there is a systematic approach to determining ownership. If we say no one can own land, then every farmer who sows a field must be prepared for a used auto salesman parking cars on it. Every person who builds a home must be prepared for someone to knock it down to drill for oil. Similarly, every broadcaster would have to be prepared to be jammed or overridden by any random radio pirate.

If one person threatens another or acts in a way that suggests intent to do violence, that is a valid basis for legal intervention. However, harassment is often defined as any behavior one finds disagreeable. If a man in a public place puts a hot dog between his legs and smiles at a woman (the basis of an actual sexual harassment lawsuit), she may be offended but she is not entitled to collect any damages or legally force the man to change his behavior. Regarding pollution, I have already used the example of a homeowner and a coal-burning power plant. The homeowner is entitled to air quality on his property of approximately the same condition as at time of acquisition. He may take the offending power plant to court and, if successful, force it to cease and desist expelling coal smoke and to compensate the homeowner for previous violations of his property rights. You have provided no reason why this remedy should be regarded as insufficient. On marriage: You have given no reason why a couple cannot write, sign and be legally bound to follow the terms of a marriage contract. On identity theft: You have given no reason why prosecuting a man for fraudulently presenting himself as the owner of a bank account or other assets is insufficient to deal with the problem of identity theft. "Property cannot handle the issue of harm." What kind of harm? Broken arm? Broken window? Injured pride? "Failure to deliver cannot be handled with the charge of theft." True, it's breach of contract. Spam? It is trespass. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_chattels On the definition of force: Mine comes from Merriam-Webster. If you prefer another definition, help yourself. Of course, you are also free to attempt to prove that the referenced definition is "not normal." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/force On serving alcohol to minors: I have already explained elsewhere how children cannot give consent to drink, have sex, etc. because they are below the age of consent. Therefore, certain interactions with them may be regarded as involuntary and thus an act of force. On automobile speed, intoxication and accidents: adjudication of disputes would depend on the terms imposed by the owners of the road and the drivers that use it. Vandalism is an act of force because it constrains the owner's use of his property. If the owner of a house does not want swastikas spray-painted on the side, the vandal has forced a change in property on the owner. On sabotage: The above applies. On catch-alls. Yes, "right-violation" is a good term to use for all cases in which one person's actions with regard to another should be prohibited by law. On blackmail: No one claimed that laws against blackmail criminalized thought. I never even used the term "criminalize thought." Fallacy of the strawman. On the airwaves: The government has already assigned property in radio-TV frequencies: the government owns it all and licenses certain frequencies on a limited basis. If you think you currently have a right to broadcast anytime, anywhere, build a large transmitter and start transmitting on the same frequency as an FCC-licensed station. We'll see how long you last. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/south/2014/05/14/enforcement-against-pirate-radio-hurts-underserved-communities-advocates-say/3p7CuAZhPMhBbcUWafTETL/story.html

The video made more sense (dare I say was more rational?) than I expected from Dennis Prager. No one has been able to overcome the prudent predator argument to show that respecting the rights of others is always in one's self-interest. Thus, a man could be both rationally self-interested and a violator of others' rights.

I have defined "force" and provided instances of it that should be prohibited under an objective system of law. I have also shown why a system of 100% private property, including self-ownership, would lead to the removal of many so-called crimes from the legal code. To respond by calling it "simplistic" or "bizarre" or "awkward" or "jackass" is not a logical refutation. And no one said that in a case of identity theft the victim was not the person whose identity had been used. The example I gave of a looted bank account ("You clean out my bank account, you owe me.") clearly treated the legitimate owner of the account as the victim.

On personality rights: Wikipedia defines the term as "the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity." This is exactly how I have used the term in the discussion. Since you make no effort to define your own use of "personality rights," your criticism amounts to hot air without content. On property rights in the electromagnetic spectrum: The fact that a radio frequency is not "tangible" or visible to the human eye has no bearing on our ability to assign ownership of it to a particular individual or group. Currently frequencies are temporarily licensed by the government, which is the ultimate owner. Under laissez-faire they would be in the hands of private owners--just as most lots in Manhattan are today. As Ayn Rand wrote, "The airways should be turned over to private ownership. The only way to do it now is to sell radio and television frequencies to the highest bidders (by an objectively defined, open, impartial process)--and thus put an end to the gruesome fiction of 'public property.'" On harassment: Perhaps in some liberal utopia, annoying TV commercials or pink flamingos in a neighbor's yard would constitute "harassment." Under objective law, a complainant would have to demonstrate that the alleged perpetrator used force or the threat of force against her person or her property. On emotional damage. You want some people to be able to cry for legal remedies under the rubric "emotional damage"--but not others. Yet you provide no objective criterion for determining what qualifies for legal intervention. This is law by whim. On falling apples: Unless Apple Grower John has made prior arrangements with Neighbor Bob, John may not trespass into Bob's yard to collect the fallen fruit, nor may he use threats to get Bob to return the fruit. To do so is to initiate force. "Property in humans is an abomination." What angry god handed down this commandment? Your emotional reaction to something is not the basis of law or ethics. Photon invasions? If A can establish with objective evidence that light from B's land caused bodily harm or property damage, then he has a case. This is the law today. Wikipedia defines "identity theft" as "a form of stealing someone's identity in which someone pretends to be someone else by assuming that person's identity, usually as a method to gain access to resources or obtain credit and other benefits in that person's name." This is exactly what would happen if someone fraudulently logged into another person's bank account and cleaned out his savings--as stated in my example. On defamation: If A merely states that B is a thief, A has exerted no force or threat of force against B. People are free to believe or disbelieve A. B is not entitled to a legal remedy to protect his reputation, because reputations exist only in the minds of others, and only the individual thinker may be said to have any right to what goes on in his own mind. On blackmail: If I see the mayor of the town enter a motel with a prostitute, I am free to publish that information in the newspaper. There is no force or threat of force involved. If I offer the mayor the opportunity to quash the article by paying me $1,000, there is still no force or threat of force involved. On the use of the word "coercion" to describe activities of the North Korean government: If using a word correctly makes you feel awkward, perhaps you can perform some mental exercises to reduce the unpleasantness. On the purpose of tax revenues: I am fully aware that the government does not sit on tax revenues. In my community they use the stolen loot to jail people for victimless crimes and teach children lies about American history. Disagree? Call me a "jackass" again. That will convince any intelligent reader!

"Non-initiation of force" doesn't touch upon corporations versus sole proprietorships, bankruptcy, child custody, marriage, trusts, and probate because those areas do not relate to criminal law. Personality rights: Name, image and signature should not be used deceitfully to deprive people of their property, which is fraud. Some libertarians would say images are copyrightable, but I acknowledge that I am an intellectual property skeptic. Electromagnetic spectrum rights are forms of property just like real estate and can be defended the same way. Warrants/subpoenas may or may not be legitimate depending on the particulars of the case. Harassment: If a bothersome person keeps knocking on your door when you've asked him to leave--that's trespass. Call the cops. Emotional damage: I'm emotionally hurt that you reject my ideas on this forum. Therefore, you owe me $10,000. That kind of emotional damage? Restraining orders: Perfectly legitimate in response to a threat, which, like violence, constrains a person and makes him act in a way contrary to what he would do otherwise. Stalking: There is nothing immoral about following a person on public thoroughfares. On the other hand, if there is a clear intent to do harm, that is a threat (see above). The case of an apple falling from your neighbor's tree into your yard: If you can show damages and convince a jury, sue him. Rules that create property: Good for all of us. Identity theft: You clean out my bank account, you owe me. Defamation/libel, blackmail: You do not own what other people think of you. Selling or offering for sale the withholding of information is not immoral. "Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force." (Wikipedia) Perhaps you think that folks in North Korea are all acting according to their own individual preferences and that government exerts no force or threat of force on them?

The correct principle, in my view, is that people have a right to expect that things like air and water will not be disturbed from their natural state by which I mean that a person has a right to expect that his air will be just as clean today as it was yesterday, or at least close. This is similar to the right to an easement which is certainly a concept of property law. However, Francisco goes too far when he says that the air "is rightfully mine." No, the air doesn't belong to a particular person nor does an easement, generally. An easement is an exception to an ownership right. However, in this case, there was no property in the first place. In fact, my position is that a property owner has a right to expect that the air (or water) within his property remain relatively in the same condition as it was at the time of the owner's acquisition--which is little different from what you state in the first sentence above. Now if a person cannot say air "is rightfully mine," he would have no moral or legal power to hold air apart from general use or resell it to someone else. The entire industry of manufacturing oxygen tanks would have to be shut down as they are created by taking in large quantities of air from the atmosphere, compressing it, purifying it, and holding it in cylinders for sale. How does the tax work? Do the revenues collected from polluters go to the victims of pollution? Or do the revenue collectors simply keep the tax?

There shouldn't have been the scene. It was quite unnecessary to the plot, unlike the plot awkwardnesses involving Galt's identity - and the quandary of something having to be done about notifying Rearden that Dagny was still alive after her plane crash, or not notify him and let him suffer. By Rand's own strictures on the requirements of plot, the guard scene has no need to be there. Suppose it hadn't been there. Would anyone have thought, oh, there should have been a scene with Dagny being sent off to take an entrance alone and a stray guard who hadn't been tied up and gagged with the others popping up for Dagny to shoot him? I don't think so. I think the scene was an indulgence on Rand's part to make a point about a "subhuman." (Did she explicitly use that word in the scene?) Ellen Shooting the guard is of one piece with the Taggart Transcontinental tunnel disaster. Some people deserve to die because they don't think like Objectivists.

No, no one said anything about number of pages. Jerry Biggers, on 15 Sept 2014 - 4:51 PM, said: "I can't think of another novelist, including several philosophers who were novelists, that injected such long and detailed philosophical passages into their novels." So it is entirely possible that by "long" Mr. Biggers meant not pages but number of minutes in the audio version. The Objectivist Reference Center estimates the timing of the speech at 180 minutes. Therefore, to be accurate I should have said, I have yet to encounter a full three-hour philosophical treatise in the middle of an audio novel. And, while I did read The Brothers Karamazov, I do not believe there is any one speech in it that would require three hours to read aloud.

I've read two novels by Mann and a half dozen by Dostoevsky and did not encounter a 56-page philosophical treatise in the middle of the narrative. I believe Atlas is unique in that respect.

Then, that's where we differ. I lean toward the ideal because it's, well, ideal.

Interesting thread about this at http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5075 So the Men That Made Atlas into a Movie think Dagny's shooting a guy in the heart is too coldblooded. Obviously, the presumption is that they've improved Atlas.

The example served only to show that defensive force is not the same as aggressive force. You want an internet example; here 'tis: 1. A steals B's online bank ID and loots his account. 2. Cops track A down and seize funds in A's account. Force in 1. and 2. are not equivalent. In any case, no claims were made about the efficiency of government cops in stopping crime or recovering losses. That is an issue for another thread, in which you will no doubt find me standing by your side.

SPOILERS ALERT. You have been warned. Quick observation about AS 3 from a viewing last night. As in previous installments, the casting is dreadful. The only reasonable hypothesis is that the task of finding actors was turned over to an agent who was forbidden to know anything about the original author's descriptions. Laura Regan is the worst of the Dagnys. There is not the slightest hint of the fictional character's moral certitude, courage, intransigence and seriousness. If there were a role for a dim-bulb kindergarten teacher in Galt's Gulch, Regan would be ideal. But she is clearly not railroad executive material; this is not a woman who looks comfortable hopping aboard a moving locomotive, staring down a top level bureaucrat, or even reading a timetable. And, poor thing, the costume designer put her in high heels to fly her private jet. No wonder she crashed. Kristoffer Polaha as John Galt could be a Weight Watchers "before" model. What happened to the angular planes we associate with Rand's heroes? The most altruistic thing one can say about Polaha's performance is that he comes across a nice young man. "My name is Kris and I'll be your waiter tonight. Would you guys like to hear about our starters?" There is no sense of Galt's mental powers, charisma, or sexual energy. And as for sex, the copulation scene below the Taggart Terminal looks like a parody of an Obsession commercial. Smirking, Dagny jumps on a table and hikes her evening gown. If she had said, "Wanna play doctor, Johnny?" it would have fit the mood perfectly. Polaha proceeds like the waiter uncorking Chenin Blanc. Camera goes all soft focus on us and the mediocre score is cranked up a notch. The other love interest, Francisco d'Anconia, grew up with Dagny but here looks old enough to be her father. The actor's only asset is a Portuguese accent, which, for the three thousand or so people who care about the final installment, is passably close to Spanish. Speaking of accents, what happened to Ragnar Danneskjöld? The "talent" they picked for the modern Viking looks and sounds like someone you'd find behind a beer mug at a Steelers tailgate party. You know the movie is headed for disaster from the get-go. A tubby John Galt rises at a Twentieth Century Motors meeting and says he'll stop the motor of the world. The scene is photographed and performed with such flatness that one would have to conclude the filmmakers intended to squash any possibility of tension and drama. We spend most of the AS 3's mere 98 minutes on Midas Mulligan's Hidden Valley Ranch, which curiously does not have a single interior or exterior touched by architectural modernism. I guess Roark is dead by now. Galt hires Dagny as his maid and gives her an advance of three gold coins, each approximately one-half ounce. They go into the village to shop. Dagny gets a small croissant and drops one of the gold pieces on the counter. No change. So much for the battle against inflation among striking capitalists. We finally leave the Valley so that Galt can deliver the Basic Principles of Objectivism on TV to the masses gathered at the display window of an ancient appliance store, and be tortured, rescued, and revived in order to pronounce the immortal final words, "This is not the end but the beginning." In the filmmakers' version of things, the rear entrance to State Science Institute is located in a grimy back alley in Manhattan and guarded by a lone nerdy night watchman. (None of the uniformed thugs in the movie look big or strong enough to pass the Armed Services physical.) Dagny engages in a bit of small talk, then shoots him dead and breaks in with Ragnar, Frisco, and Hank (who makes a brief cameo in the person of Rob Lowe) to release Galt from Floyd Ferris's torture device. The device is nothing more than an old fashioned parilla, that is, a grill with electrodes attached to it. It's been around for as long as there have been evil people, box springs, and 100 or more volts in one location. Why Dr. Robert Statler would be "shocked" to see his "research" turned into something so simple is anyone's guess. What exactly did he think he invented? The rheostat? The film is interrupted, jarringly, by black and white stock footage over which a solemn voice attempts to fill in newbies about what happened previously in Clunkers 1 and 2. Often, what is said bears little relevance to the scenes that precede and follow. Is this any surprise given that the three screenwriters have between them zero previous experience in writing for movies? Nevertheless, I had a great time, laughing from start to finish. There were more chuckles than the last two Will Ferrell movies put together. I'll admit that my outbursts engendered some ugly glances from some of the five other people who attended the same showing. Levity is taboo in the Holy of Holies.

Let's use facts. 2011 FBI stats: all bank robberies (commercial banks, S&Ls, credit unions) total 5,014 Loot recovered in 20% of cases. Only 50% of perps identified, despite 100% alarms and surveillance cameras. Preliminary 2012 figures: 3,870 bank robberies, down from more than 5,000 a year earlier [WSJ] These are fascinating statistics which I will file and pass along to anyone writing non-hypothetical examples of bank robbers.