Francisco Ferrer

You have such a cartoon view of things. Hey, you kids, get off my lawn! Cartoons and hypothetical examples are both forms of illustration. I used "armed, masked man fleeing with bags of money" because, unlike other pedestrians in the area after the robbery, his appearance would arouse "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true," namely that he had a connection with the robbery. My example of a trespasser did not involve kids but a working adult. And nothing about a lawn was mentioned.

That might be defensible if your land were in the middle of nowhere and unambiguously bordered, at least with signs on ropes along stakes. However, if the flagstones from your front porch join the sidewalk, if your driveway exits to the street, then you have an open contract with the public. Anyone can approach. By all the laws that I know, you must clearly identify the conditions of trespass to the subject, and then allow him to leave, before acting. In some jurisdictions, you are not allowed to arrest anyone, but must call for an officer of a court. Here in Texas, we can indeed arrest each other, but only on the condition that we are taking each other to a magistrate. I assure you that you cannot just manhandle people off your property. That would be aggression. Another thing that eludes you is why Ayn Rand called her philosophy Objectivism rather than Absolutism. Finally, clearly, no one calls the recovery of stolen assets theft. Your argument fails from its premise because you preloaded your conclusion with the assumption that the man accosted by police was already identified as a bank robber. Apparently, in your universe, banks prevent all withdrawals by accusing all who present drafts as "robbers" whose money is then taken by the police. No one has denied that there may be easements or provisions for the the public to approach one's front door from the street. But that was not at issue in the example I laid out in Post #2 in which one person used another person's backyard simply as a shortcut. Furthermore, no one in this thread has said that force is the first and only option of the property owner. I used the example of manhandling a trespasser in the context of Corwell's claim "Right, just as I'm force to keep off your land. There is force on both sides of the equation." That the manhandling in some localities may legally be performed only by a government employee rather than by the property owner himself does not change the fact that a form of defensive force may properly be used against the property rights violator--which is all that I was trying to establish. I agree that no one calls the recovery of stolen assets "theft." The dispossessed bank robber in my example was the reductio ad absurdum of Corwell's attempt to equivocate defensive and aggressive force. Naturally, an armed, masked man fleeing with bags of money from a bank that has just activated a robbery alarm is not a convicted robber but only a suspect. The police may not deprive the man of the the funds in his possession until they have in accordance with the law ascertained that they belong to another party. However, ultimately, through due process, separating a man from money illicitly in his possession is not a form of force equivalent to robbing an innocent person at gunpoint--which is all that I was trying to establish.

The most telling datum is not the near universal contempt of the critics but the fact that only a tiny number are giving it any ink. Movie reviews are typically published Friday morning, and yet for Who Is John Galt? only three professional critics are listed on Rotten Tomatoes and only two at Metacritic. In show business it is always better to be reviled than ignored. And now this from the 2014 incarnation of Galt, Kristoffer Polaha: "The most important message that Ayn Rand was trying to put out in the world is that individuals are always going to be the most productive part of any society, which I think sort of anyone along any party line is going to agree with." Great, now we know what Objectivists have in common with Democrats.

From The Wrap:

Good, now that it has been established that everyone is against aggressive force and for defensive force, there should be no confusion about why it is improper for you to walk uninvited on my land and why it is legitimate for me to use reasonable defensive force to evict you. If taxation is not aggression, it must be the case that there are no people currently serving time in prison for tax evasion or non-filing. Prison terms would mean that people had to be forced to pay. Irwin Schiff If the Fed has not committed fraud (more accurately theft by legal counterfeiting) through inflating the currency, then the dollar today is worth about what it was 101 years ago. The Federal Reserve's Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%

Right, just as I'm force to keep off your land. There is force on both sides of the equation, so whether or not force is being used is entirely irrelevant. You might as well say that when police remove moneybags from a bank robber's hands, they are "stealing" from him. Since you have no right to step onto my land, there is no initiation of force in manhandling you off. The distinction between aggressive and defensive force appears to elude you.

And are time, value and consideration necessarily not present in, say, a child adoption contract?

Um, familiarity with the basics of contracts? Something you don't seem to have a very firm grasp of. So instead of providing any support for your assertion that ""child custody, adoption of step children," etc. cannot be resolved through contract, you make yet another assertion (my alleged lack of familiarity with the basics of contracts) for which you provide no evidence.

Well actually, this is not the definition of force according to most libertarians. If I'm walking across a field, and you leap out of the bushes with a club and hit me over the head, then it certainly seems like you've initiated force. But! The field is actually yours, and I am trespassing, so you are in fact merely retaliating. So the correct definition of "force" is that it is actually any action which violates the rights of another person. But what kinds of actions violate the rights of others according to libertarians? Well, it's precisely those which involve the initiation of force! I am not aware that in referencing a standard dictionary definition, I am using the word "force" in a way that "most libertarians" do not. Perhaps you have a poll or survey of "most libertarians" to substantiate this claim?

I have already dealt with your objections on another thread. My rebuttals are not suddenly and miraculously erased by reposting the same argument on a new thread. From Merriam-Webster: "Force: 1 a (1) : strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change . . . 3 violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing." Example: I enjoy sitting in my backyard every evening, observing nature in an uninhabited state. However, you insist on cutting through my property on your way home from work. Thus you force me to experience my plot of land in a manner that I disapprove of. You say there is no force involved. If so, how can I enjoy my property in a depopulated state if you are in the landscape I own? I cannot pretend that you are not there. Your presence has forced ("cause of motion or change") an alteration in what is rightfully mine against my wishes. It is constraint ("the state of being checked, restricted") on my control over what I am entitled to. As can be seen from the quoted definition above, I am not using the word "force" in any unusual way. Thus, to argue that there is no force in trespass is to argue a rather desperate position. The same principle applies to pollution. If I have bought land in a locality that at time of purchase enjoys an atmosphere of low particulate matter, I am entitled to continue to enjoy that level of clean air. However, if a power plant relocates to my neighborhood and begins expelling enormous quantities of coal smoke into the air I breathe, then it has forced ("cause of motion or change") an alteration in what is rightfully mine against my wishes. The pretense that I have not been forced to undergo a change in the air quality of my property may be fairly described as "desperate." There is nothing unusual about fighting pollution as a property rights violation. It has been done from the 17th century (Alfred's Case) all the way up to the present (Allison v. ExxonMobil). Nor have you shown that property rights enforcement is an ineffective approach to limiting pollution. As for marriage, you assert that "child custody, adoption of step children, joint tax filing, joint filing for bankruptcy, hospital visitation, power of attorney, inheritance, spousal privilege, right to make funeral arrangements for dead spouse, etc." cannot be resolved through contract, but you offer not one word of proof.

I've never understood the conservative-libertarian objection to affirmative action in public colleges. Their critique is essentially that select minority groups should not have the advantage in gaining access to tax-funded education. But what about students with poor grades and low scores on admissions tests? They too are kept out of elite state university classrooms. The fact is, tax-funded goods are not infinitely expandable. Obviously, some citizens will reap the spoils and some will not. There will be net tax beneficiaries and net tax losers. Selecting the beneficiaries through a color-blind process does not erase the fact that there is still an involuntary transfer of wealth being performed. The injustice is not that an African-American kid gets a first class education while a better qualified white boy does not. The injustice is that money is spent in ways that its rightful owners did not personally authorize.

If, as you claim, "contradiction" means something other than what I think it means, prove it. As to a person's religion, ideology, lack of morals, or disagreement with the concept of rights affecting the extent of his punishment in a court of law, it certainly had no influence on sentences dealt to Nazis at Nuremberg or to Manson in Los Angeles. Nor should it affect the treatment of any other criminal. If you are bashed in the skull with a lead pipe, should the accused be pardoned or given just a few months in jail because he's a priest in the Exalted Church of Head Bashers? Due process requires that a person be tried and convicted before he is deprived of property or liberty (freedom of movement). There is no court ruling prior to IRS assessments of income on April 15. In this way the feds bypass a citizen's essential right not to be "seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way . . . except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." You list governments and quasi-governments that are the same or more terrible than the IRS. But that is hardly a defense of tax robbery, any more than saying Nazi Germany was worse than the Old South is a defense of Jim Crow laws. Appeals? Since judges in U.S. courts are the direct beneficiaries of tax revenues, they are incapable of rendering an impartial decision in IRS cases. Nemo iudex in causa sua. Employing links to reputable online dictionaries, I have used the words "force," "constrain," and "exert" in a manner that is entirely consistent with their widely recognized definitions. You are free to try to prove otherwise, referencing evidence from external reality and not the feelings that reside in your gut. But I rather doubt you'll bother. It's too much work. Yes, you could say that "property rights" is a catch-all phrase for the proposition that people should be allowed to keep and use those things that they own by original use, creation and free trade. Now all you have to do is show that one is in error to support the proposition. Good luck. Your typical method of argumentation is to label something you don't like "bizarre," "repulsive," or "idiotic." I could just as easily respond with "silly," "icky," or "yucky." But applying a name to something does not constitute an argument. This is called the nominal fallacy. Now, you object to the idea of a person "traumatized" by her neighbor's yellow house being able to order that house repainted. But you have not shown how that event is fundamentally different from a "traumatized" home owner using the arm of the law to order her neighbor to put on clothes. Both cases involve a person crying "mental distress" in order to legally force a neighbor to comply with the complainant's wishes. Disagree? Using evidence and logic, try to prove otherwise. It's how grown-ups persuade one another. If you are unable to explain why some unauthorized invasions of one person's body by another are not force, then you really should check your premises. They are probably in error.

People without experience in movies have no perspective on what works and what doesn't. But the same is true in any profession that is a complex mixture of art and technology.

You can't always trust the reviewers, but in this case the goddamned, effete, liberal media snobs had it exactly right: AS 1 and 2 were epic clunkers. The lesson? Millions of dollars and good intentions do not by themselves make a good film. Get a load of AS 3's official poster and you'll understand why one should approach this with expectations set low:

Correct. Communists would be protected from the initiation force like everyone else. Under laissez-faire law, communists would enjoy full ownership of their bodies and all other rightfully acquired property. Nothing would prohibit them from pooling what they own to provide for themselves, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"--just as long as this arrangement applies only to those who voluntarily enlist in it. Thus no force. We can never be rid of disease either. But we don't give up hygiene, vaccines, and medical check-ups. We don't start off by declaring, it's okay for some people to die because it's not a perfect world.

On the word "Aryan" not meaning what I think it means: Prove it. On murder: If members of a tribe kill all twin infants at birth, the killers still have deprived those children of their rights to their living bodies (or, if one prefers, "right to life"), despite the tribesmen's beliefs that such killings appease their pagan gods. "People have human rights independently of whether they are found in the practices, morality, or law of their country or culture." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/ Your response, "Doesn't need to be" to my point that property cannot be taken rightfully except through due process supports perfectly my position that government tax collectors are no different than common street thugs, who also act without due process. On the definition of "exert": Also from Merriam-Webster: "to cause (force, effort, etc.) to have an effect or to be felt." By standing on my property and resisting all entreaties to leave, you have caused a constraint on my ability to use that land as I would had you not been present. Example: For aesthetic reasons alone, I may prefer to see thin air in the space where you stand. On pollution: Toxic smoke (as a new nuisance) interferes with the property owner's existing right to use his land, if he so chooses, as a place for breathing clean air, which, some say, is good for children and other living things. On psychological trauma victims being able to use the power of the state to regulate how their neighbors should be dressed: Obviously you are unwilling to follow the logic of your argument to its conclusion. Not surprising given that virtually anything is potentially traumatic. As Rand would say, "Check your premises." On criminal HIV infection: The doctor who knowingly injects contaminated blood into an unsuspecting patient, the HIV-positive man who purposely injects his bodily fluid into an unsuspecting sex partner, the jealous husband who angrily injects a .45 bullet into the brain of his unfaithful wife--all of them have used force by acting in a manner to constrain their victims from enjoying a beating heart and measurable brain activity. That is the initiation of force. On your response "My God. You seriously fucking believe this?": Other than serving a a revealing demonstration of your mastery of the English language, the outburst does not constitute a logical argument. But, come to think of it, neither does anything else you've contributed to this forum.

Selective Service https://www.sss.gov/PDFs/MSSA-2003.pdf IRS http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p17.pdf and http://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-001-003.html Treasury http://www.secretservice.gov/money_law.shtml FDA http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm I don't mind you being obtuse about it, but lack imagination why? First link: no reference to the U.S. Constitution. Second link: no reference to the U.S. Constitution. Third link: no reference to the U.S. Constitution. Fourth link: no reference to the U.S. Constitution. Fifth link: several references to the Constitution regarding enforcement of legislation, but not about the Constitution being a cloak for tyranny. Call me obtuse, but I'm just not seeing any government admissions that it doesn't take Constitutional guarantees seriously.

0

It's not denied, but openly acknowledged, no fraud or hypocrisy involved. It's the law of the land, duly constituted, widely supported. The government poses as the defender of rights. This, for example, is what the United States Senate says... The mild claim you quoted, widely taught and widely accepted as true across the country, was not an Act of Congress (although it could have been I suppose). It was attributed to "the Office of the Secretary of the Senate with the assistance of Johnny H. Killian of the Library of Congress." What do you suppose US bureaucrats or legislators or school teachers should say? That the U.S. Constitution, every voter and every state and Federal employee is evil? -- which is an infinitely worse form of distortion. By and large, we do a pretty good job of electing people who more or less exhibit the basic values on which there is a broad consensus... American society is tolerant, sensitive to minority rights, quite wonderful when it comes to even-handed treatment of our neighbors... The case for anarchy turns on whether no government is better than good government... [Laissez Faire Law, p.29] It is not wrong to be an American patriot, if your love of country pertains, not to the present, but to the historic achievement of the Founding Fathers, who fought for justice and freed themselves from tyranny. I am humbled to be an American patriot, and I hope I have the wit and courage that patriotism requires, because Jefferson and Madison were animated by a lifelong passion for justice. [COGIGG, p.98] I've spent some time searching for a .gov website that does not deny but openly acknowledges that the Constitution is merely the velvet glove that conceals the armored fist. So far, no success.

The Nazis claimed to be furthering the "Aryan" race and yet took actions that accomplished just the opposite. That's not merely being wrong; that's a self-contradiction. If you pick up a yearbook under the impression that it is your own, you can be forgiven this mistake--one time. If you are in the habit of walking around the campus gathering yearbooks that are not your own, it is no mistake. If an IRS agent accidentally withdraws money from a stranger's bank account instead of his own, he can be forgiven perhaps the first time for his mistake. When he does this repeatedly there is no mistake. And just because IRS collections are legal does not remove them from the category of theft. Nazi killings of certain ethnic groups were legal under German law; they were murders nonetheless. If a man's income is not rightfully his, then that should be established first in a court of law with evidence and cross-examination of witnesses and a jury of one's peers. That, however, is not how taxes are collected on April 15. We do not conclude that force is offensive or defensive until we examine the circumstances. So, if X has acquired his income by his own labor, then he may safely conclude that it is his by right and that Y, who attempts to take a portion of it under threat of force is a thief, and may be properly resisted by all means including deadly force. Intoxication is not always accepted as a defense in sexual offense cases. Force is "violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing." If you are occupying part of my property, you are limiting or constraining my ability to use that property and in violation of my rights. See also http://thelawdictionary.org/force/ So with regard to pollution, if you spew toxic smoke into the air above my property, I am no longer able to use it as I was before, and you are liable for damages. Sex may not be performed with a child because the child is not morally or legally able to give consent. Thus sex with a child involves a party who is acting involuntarily. Thus, force or "unlawful or wrongful action" is involved. As for nudity on one's own property, thank you for making your disagreement clear. Now all you have to is provide a rational defense for that opinion and we'll be getting somewhere. You want to make the psychological trauma of one's neighbors a reason for regulating the behavior of a person on his own property. But you refuse to follow the logic of your argument: that if one is traumatized by the sight of Jews, blacks, or Hispanics, those ethnic groups my be legally excluded from one's neighbor's property. Or less controversially: My psychologist has sworn in an affidavit that I am traumatized by the color yellow. Therefore I may legally require you to repaint your yellow house and trade in your yellow car. Criminal HIV infection constitutes force by the fact that potentially lethal pathogens are released into one's sex partner's body. It is a form of violence no different than a blow to the back of the skull. Force: "Unlawful or wrongful action is meant." Saying there is no force involved is equivalent to claiming that there is no force involved in poisoning a partner's drink or releasing killer bees into his house.

Nazi ideology was inconsistent with reality inasmuch as there is 1. No proof of the existence of an "Aryan" race, and 2. No proof that the supposed members of this race were intellectually or physically superior to the members of other races. Nazis were also internally inconsistent in that to promote the interests of the race they brought on collectivism and war, which led directly to the deaths, rapes, and impoverishment of millions of their vaunted "Aryans" and the quick demise of their Third Reich, which was supposed to last 1,000 years. As for taxes, one can, of course, pretend that they are not theft, but thinking so doesn't make it so. Taking another man's treasure by force or threat thereof is theft ("the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"), whether the taker is Barack Obama, Jesus Christ, or the head of the IRS. Similarly, if a man forces sex on a woman, we don't have to know or care whether or not the man thinks he's a rapist to call his action rape. Defensive force is in an entirely different moral category than the initiation of force. The man who breaks into a woman's home and kills her is a murderer. The woman who shoots the invader first is a hero. Force has not been initiated against a trespasser who is manhandled off someone's land, since the trespasser does not enjoy the right not to be manhandled while on someone else's property. We have covered pollution before. I have shown that is is an actionable offense if damage can be shown. One may not use children for sex because they are not of the age of consent; therefore their involvement is not voluntary. Invasions or privacy may or may not be actionable depending on whether or not there is trespass. Mr. X may stand in his yard and take photos of Ms. Y in her yard sunbathing. No rights violation. Similarly, if Mr. X takes off his clothes in his own yard, Ms. Y has no case against him. Traumatized? Some people are traumatized by seeing African-Americans. (Unfortunately, I've met a some backward adults who seethe whenever a black man comes into view.) Should blacks then be forbidden to buy certain residential properties? Criminally transmitting HIV is the initiation of force (assault). Libel is not. The rest of your post is a fruitless attempt to associate me with a set of beliefs I do not subscribe to. There is nothing ambiguous about a certificate showing ownership of 1/10 of an ounce of gold in a bank vault. You might as well say that all titles to all property are ambiguous and therefore the government can seize it all and reapportion it according to a new Marxist order. As for a merchant not delivering a purchased item, read the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted by most states: If a seller fails to make a delivery, or the seller makes a defective delivery, the buyer may reject the goods, cancel the contract and: (1) obtain "cover" goods (substitute materials) or (2) recover damages for the non-delivery. The buyer also can recover damages for the defects in any accepted goods.

It's not denied, but openly acknowledged, no fraud or hypocrisy involved. It's the law of the land, duly constituted, widely supported. Quite the contrary. The government poses as the defender of rights. This, for example, is what the United States Senate says about the Constitution: I charge this is a lie. a fraud and an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has studied the decline of individual freedom in America. Those who believe that there is currently protection of the interests of the minority (or perhaps majority) who don't want to contribute to Obamacare or be regulated by the FDA or the EEOC or FEMA (or any other of the monstrosities created by modern statists) have swallowed too much state-manufactured propaganda.

For the same reason you can't punish someone else's kids, organize your own kangaroo courts, paint your neighbor's house, or pirate software: differing positions/roles in the social web. If we took "initiation of force" in the strictest sense, then we wouldn't be able to have property, public or private. Actually, he is. Sane people don't punish people for things beyond their control. And besides, the contract certainly doesn't say he can be punished. Similarly, X can't be fraud if there is no intent to commit it. Oh, and you really ought to pick up a legal dictionary before you use legalese so haphazardly. It's an initiation of force against my sensibilities, don't you know? If a teller embezzles from a bank, there is no inconsistency in his charging another with theft as long as the teller does not believe he himself has committed theft? If a judge hangs another man for committing rape and then commits rape himself, there is no inconsistency as long as he thinks that he himself hasn't committed rape? If Joe believes that 1 + 2 equals 3 and that 3 + 2 equals 5, but that 1 + 2 + 2 does not equal 5, there is "there is absolutely no internal contradiction," right? We are never inconsistent as long as we convince ourselves we aren't, right? The world, according to this view, is exactly what each person chooses to believe it is. Regarding the baker, you demonstrate an ignorance of current law. Unless a merchant declares bankruptcy, he is required to fill all outstanding contracts or make a full refund of any money tendered. If you order a Corvette, do you seriously believe the dealer gets to keep your down payment and not deliver the car if the truck carrying your vehicle wrecks on the way to the dealership? Regarding use of language: kindly cite any term I've used incorrectly in my posts with reference to the correct definition. In logic you don't make a case for something simply by asserting it. You have to prove it through rational argument and evidence, both of which you seem to have an aversion to. Now, slowly, step by step, how does taking initiation of force strictly prevent us from having private property?

Let's drop the Constitution, please. It was a charter of power from the start, power expanded by amendment, legislation, and case law. Much better to start over from scratch: "Ayn Rand had the right idea. The guiltiest of men are the natural oligarchs... Instead of giving Harry Truman the atomic bomb, it could have and should have been developed in a laboratory at Galt's Gulch." [Laissez Faire Law, p.41] I'll drop the Constitution as an example of fraud and hypocrisy as soon as government and its defenders admit that it is merely the velvet glove that conceals the armored fist.

I'm always fascinated when modern judges discover that what the Founders meant by "the right to keep and bear arms" is actually the "not unlimited right to keep and bear arms."