Robspe

Since the Washington Post is reporting this, I doubt it happened as portrayed. It does point out a problem with public libraries, though. Private libraries could have enforceable rules. Public libraries always have to fear that some psycho will sue and get a million dollars because other people couldn't stand his smell. The rules are hardly ever strictly enforced. The article does point out a paradox, though. If sexual harrassment laws forbid the display of obscene material because it creates a "hostile environment" then the authorities must assure that no such material is available to public view. But if library patrons have a right to view whatever they want, how can the authorities interfere? Even putting up a privacy screen requires that someone notice and act on what someone is looking at. Wacko feminist, meet psycho pervert: result=illogical. Hmm, somebody's assumptions are off base. Maybe both sides?

A war was fought over a similar problem. The War of the Pacific (1879-1884) was at least partially about Bolivia's access to the Pacific Ocean at the border between Chile and Peru. The peace treaty cut off Bolivia from the sea but Chile guaranteed Bolivian access to a rail line and port rights. From an anthropological point of view, there's no better way to make a man fight you than to cut off his escape. Even a mouse will fight a cat if cornered. As to the hypothetical, the easement would certainly have a market value, perhaps higher than that of the H(prime) property itself. If Wal-stor was determined not to pay through the nose, they might want to buy H(prime)'s property before the news got out that they were planning a store. Otherwise, their only way out might be to allow H(prime) a means of access that they could make extremely inconvenient, within the bounds of nuisance law. But a smart firm wouldn't put themselves in this position in the first place.

The only question for me is, "Does Yahoo?'s behavior endanger the tiny bit of freedom available to US residents?" In view of the totalitarian nature of the Chinese government, I doubt that it would have much effect whether Yahoo? cooperated or not. The criticism being leveled at Yahoo?, though, may have a salutary effect on others that think about kowtowing (and I use the word advisedly!) to dictatorial regimes. The American government's only responsibility in the international arena is to defend itself and its citizens. It has no "moral" obligation to act to save others who suffer under tyranny unless that action would be in the best interest of US taxpayers.

I'm bothered by the fact that, if the drug company had been smaller and less wealthy, the "punishment" for the same supposed negligent act would have been smaller. Leaving aside whether the money will ever be paid or not, this seems a disincentive to prosper and increase one's wealth. Didn't I read about some country that charged drivers different amounts of money as a fine for exactly the same traffic offense, depending on their income and assets? That's where this is leading. Presumably, one without income or assets would get off scot-free. What's left to discourage misbehavior? Prison for debt? And one cannot overlook the fact that the money isn't really going to come out of the pockets of the drug company, but from their customers, shareholders and creditors, especially if the judgment should drive the company into bankruptcy.

As a resident of Tallahassee, I must say someone needs to stand up for the poor oppressed alligators who are tokenized by the impotence of the Gainesville-based football team, which finds it entirely impossible to ever win a game up here. It's sad, really.

Racism is a form of collectivism. From a scientific point of view, however, it must be remembered that differences can exist between large groups of peoples. Susceptibility to some diseases, IQ, testosterone levels and lactose-intolerance, for instance, have been reported to vary, on average, between Caucasians, Black Africans and Orientals. The critical mistake is to assume that such averaged qualities apply to each and every individual of every race. Without collectivism, collective differences would not matter to each man's ability to achieve whatever he can. But it would be useless and mystical to deny that groups have particular qualities, qua groups.

Last thing I knew, New Hampshire didn't have an income tax OR a sales tax. There may be an "unearned" income tax. NH does have high property taxes, though, thanks to all the refugees from Taxachusetts. I lived in NH for years, though. I liked the little towns, where town meetings did really control local taxes and schools. Danbury, up north of Concord, is a nice town. But I love Portsmouth, however overdeveloped and touristy it has become.

The discussion around page 297 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, would be relevant to this discussion. Those who advocate amoral materiality are as bad as those who say the material world doesn't exist. You have to have quite a mind/body dichotomy going to assert that you can live a moral life no matter how you live. If the central goal of your existence is only to live, you have no hope of living a productive life.

Hmm. Seems to me "agnostic" means that you don't know whether or not God exists, not that you deny that he does. I don't think atheism does any more than deny that God exists. It doesn't go far enough because it allows the possibility that he could exist if circumstances were different, or even that he did exist once but does not now. For instance, Nietzsche said, or had Zarathustra say, "God is dead". I object to that because it implies that God at one time existed. Rational men should be able to see that the entire concept is not a fit subject for belief or opinion. And of course I realize that N was being cryptic and epigrammatic, referring to "belief in God" and "God" as the same thing. But to imply that "Men no longer believe in God" and "God has died" are the same thing is to torture words beyond necessity.

THE best actress to portray Miss Rand would be Patti Lupone. She looks and acts just as I imagine Miss Rand did. If it were done honestly, though, the entire London stage play industry would evaporate in a fit of pique.

I usually say, "I'm a rationalist" or something of the sort when asked if I believe in God. I am bothered that the word "atheist" does appear to assume that one has to have an opinion as to whether God exists in the way a man or a rock exists. I think it's important that the concept of God be shown clearly to be entirely nonsensical. It's not as though one is asking, "Did Robin Hood or King Arthur or Homer exist?" Robin Hood could have existed. It's perfectly easy to see how King Arthur could have actually reigned in the Dark Ages. We just don't have enough facts to come to a definite decision about the matter. But it's incomprehensible to me how anyone could think that some fuzzy and illogical concept such as God could have any reality to it. So calling oneself an "atheist" almost seems to me to admit that God might exist, but doesn't. And that's quite wrong.

"Stinks" does not equate to harms. You can bar smokers from your premises and not frequent restaurants that allow smokers, but the prevalence of lies about the harmfulness of second-hand smoking makes one doubt all the other statistics about smoking. The lies are used, of course, to expand state power. And not just Europeans smoke. Practically everyone except Americans does. Now just because everyone jumps off a cliff ... etc. But. And, no, I don't trust my doctor to go against a generation of received wisdom, at least in his recommendations to his patients. A lot of doctors smoke. I know why I don't smoke. I had asthma and bronchitis as a child and couldn't bear the idea of not being able to breathe freely. But that was more a knee-jerk feeling than a rational response. Many anti-smokers are just as irrrationally emotional as smokers can be.

In order to think that faith makes one happier, one would have to accept that rationality was somehow keeping one from being happy. The primacy of feelings over rationality is the cause of so much trouble and death in the world it is impossible for an objectivist to see how denying the applicability of reason could make any thinking man happy. In order for faith to make a man happy, he would have to willfully ignore a whole world of contrary evidence of the evils attendant on the denial of reason. Desiring that state of ignorance is incomprehensible to me.

If you define an atheist as someone who KNOWS that God doesn't exist, I suspect a lot of Objectivists would add that even asking the question "Does God exist?" makes no sense and admits of no rational answer or debate. That seems to be a position beyond atheism and invulnerable to the ID argument. God and existence are irreconcilable concepts.

There do seem to be three types (at least) of crimes that one can commit and, even if you can get away with them, you need to think carefully about because of the moral effects. One is malum per se, such as murder or violent theft, where the wrong is clear and will definitely have bad effects on your moral thinking. You will never be able to look into the mirror and consider yourself moral again. Then there are violations of society's mala prohibita, such as the drug laws and income tax non-compliance, that are arguably bad, even vicious laws, but whose violation will have long-term negative effects. You have to think carefully before violating these laws because abiding by them is not always or necessarily wrong in and of itself. But, if you do violate them, you can still respect yourself as a moral man. Then there are laws that compel you to commit inherently immoral acts, such as a requirement in a totalitarian society that you inform on those who oppose the regime. These laws you cannot morally obey, despite the possibly drastic negative effects violating them may have on you. Probably if Howard Roark tried to blow up that apartment building today, he would be jailed as a terrorist.