Summer

What did you have in mind?

Is there an Objectivist take on the "asexual" community?

"Today a City "owns" all the public property within it's boundaries. In a LFC society there is no such thing as public property so where all of a sudden does a City (or any other similar entity) draw its authority to tell anyone what they can or can not do on their private property?" This is actually what I intended to get at: If you own the property you live on but others own property around you and your meth lab is at a risk of destroying their land (both are not managed by the community but by individuals). When I mentioned a "city" I just meant a heavily populated area. Sorry for the confusion.

I agree with that. And yes, my quote earlier on was verbatim "The definite of reasonable/unreasonable is intuitive and depends on the social norms of the community. There is no scientific/mathematical algorithm for it". I think this is where I am having the problem. I want it in mathematical algorithm.

Peikoff's assistant e-mailed me saying: "Dr. Peikoff says that if it's true that the type of lab you are thinking of is a real threat to adjacent property then certainly it should be illegal". Brings me back to my original question. If you ban meth labs in the city for posing a risk as such, what is to prevent the banning of cars (you could hit someone)? Or perhaps even, as mentioned above, electricity? Where do we draw the line?

Is your final opinion that it should be legal or illegal?

I already thought about this (having a specific area away from people to create the meth). My question is: Can we make it illegal to do otherwise in a free society (as you addressed with: "That would, of course, lead to the next question of whether Zoning Codes and Building Codes violate an owners right to use his property as he sees fit.")

Hello OOnet, I've become a little confused on an issue and need help eliminating contradictions within the argument. It started off with me discussing the legalization of marijuana and led to the question of whether or not it should be within one's right to create meth (or other drugs which have the potential to explode) in the suburban/city. My basic reasoning came down to: It should be illegal because... I can understand individuals having a right to their lives and therefore, having a right to their bodies (being allowed to take meth) - however, if the creation of a drug is stepping upon the rights of the property owners around the facility (such as, in this case, the methamphetamine labs), what then? Meth labs can explode at any given time. If this occurs, all the property around the lab will also be destroyed. With this in mind, you are putting the property of others at risk as much as your own. Rights cannot infringe other rights. You cannot have the authority to ruin someone else's possessions. If a person holds a gun to your head, even if he does not pull the trigger, can you expect him to be stopped? A meth lab is like a loaded gun pointing in all directions But then I started thinking... They shouldn't be illegal because... Is a threat an actual defiance of one's right or can we only be punished for action (ie: should the meth lab really explode and destroy the property/kill the other person, there would be consequences - assuming the meth cooker was not killed in the process - and if there are no damages, there will be no legal intervention)? After all, doesn't the individual have a right to his own property? Doesn't he have the right to decide to have a meth lab on his own land? At what point is a potential the means to take action? Can you hold someone responsible for a risk? A right is an agreement between rational beings to their own life (and, consequently, their liberty and their property). Any action to jeopardize their life (or, as a corollary, their liberty/property) is an infringement of rights. So, if you give someone just cause to believe that their rights are going to be infringed by physical force, is it still an infringement? My contradiction: Why is a potential violation a violation of rights? Why isn't it just a potential violation? When can you take action? Is feeling threatened a justification? I need thoughts on this.

To the person who asked: I think I would have to be in that situation to know for sure. I could not kill myself to save them... But I would not wish to kill the hostage either. Chances are I would be extremely angry at being placed within such a scenario as it is the kidnapper's wish to maneuver me into doing something by using mine (and the other's) lives to force result. I absolutely hate when people attempt to coerce me via threat... Normally I will purposely destroy their ability to do so. Under these circumstances, however, such would require killing myself, which – if anything – would be the equivalent to accepting defeat. . In the end, I'd probably choose to save myself.

These sort of remarks aren't called for. I asked a question in an effort to better understand something and did recieve an answer, as I already said above (therefore, this thread is over and your attempt to throw in a last harsh word is entirely unneeded), that does not imply I "didn't get" the entire Objectivist ethics. I understand very much of them. I wanted to know the stand point in an extreme situation like the one provided. I recieved an answer. This post is done with. I would much prefer to have asked and then understood rather than to have kept silent about it and not been able to develop the understanding that I did with the assistance of answers recieved. By responding in such a troll-like manner (and I am not accusing everyone here, there were quite a few decent posts, I am calling attention to two particular members) is discouraging questions and thus, discouraging progress for new users on this site. I have not been familar with Objectivism for a very long time and it is only natural that I would not know all of the things that more experienced individuals do... That's why I asked, because I am acknowleding others here are more acquainted with these sorts of ordeals and was willing to learn. The fact that I may not be as educated as you are right now is no reason to be so insulting. At least I am putting forth the effort. Now on my part, I've tried very hard to be poliet. I'd appreciate it if you did as well.

I was thinking about it last night after I got off and realized that I could not be sure any of you actually intended to be rude. It is simply difficult to determine online. Furthermore, as SoftwareNerd said, I eventually found the answer.

When I said "I understand" I did not say "I understood". I said "I understand" for future reference.

Basically it is being said that a response to this situation is irrelevant to morality the moment force is implicated. Honestly, I was just curious. You guys are seriously uptight. I wanted to better understand a subject and practically everyone jumped down my throat. I did get my answer, though and am appreciative to those who explained.

I understand. I was quite aware of this but thank you for calling attention to it.

Thank you. And actually, I could find myself in a situation like this... Obviously not to the exact details I had to put in given Banana's first response but it is possible there could be an instance where I'd have to choose in between ending someone else's life, ending my own or refusing to decide. Now I won't deny that it is unlikely, but I wanted to know all the same. If it were annoying, you could have skipped over it. I feel like I am repeating myself all over again. I did not force anyone to respond, it was open to those who wished to.

I don't think Objectivism is evil at all so you've nothing to worry about in that. I actually support it but am still trying to understand bits (hence asking questions). I thanked him for providing an answer and a reasonable explanation for selecting it.

He did, actually, and was very helpful. After which, he proceeded to explain why the first option would also be acceptable: But like I said, I am done responding to you. I still can't fathom why you bothered posting here if you were going to evade the original question. Like 2046 said: Unnecessarily rude. [Edited to put in quotes]

You really don't know when to stop. This is the last post from you over this matter that I will respond to because frankly, you are starting to annoy me. I enjoy knowledge. I like knowing these things. I prefer to have an understanding of various scenarios and the individual responses are helpful in psychological evaluation.

Thank you.

I enjoy knowledge. You are making this out to be a far greater deal than need be. Honestly, I think it's taken more time for you to continue bugging me over my query and motives than to have answered. I was curious: Thus, I asked.

Because as I said before about morality ending where the gun begins, I wondered from the Objectivist perspective if it would be "moral" to kill in such a scenario. Why does anyone ask questions? For answers.

It's okay. I am just curious as to their reactions under these circumstances.

...Clearly I care if I asked. If you do not wish to respond, that's perfectly fine. But there's no reason to post with intentions of not answering my question. You could have just as easily passed this topic by.

Well if you want to get into specifics, he has you locked in a room without windows or doors within your reach and a ventilation shaft far above you (also too high and small to escape through). The stranger is in the room with you, as are the weapons (or whatever you would kill him with). If you refuse to act, the killer will release knock-out gas into the room through the ventilation, come in via some hidden door and strap you both up while unconscious before committing the murders. >_> Better? My point is: There is no fourth option. Please choose of the three.

If you were kidnapped and given the options to either (one) kill a stranger who is also being held hostage, one who has done absolutely nothing to you, who has not first initiated violence, etc. by which case, you will be released... or (two) kill yourself so that the stranger may be released... or (three) refuse to act and the kidnapper will finish you both rather brutally... how would you respond? Explain why. I have heard it said that "morality ends where the gun begins". Under threat of your life, what do you do? Note: for whatever reason you know indefinitely that you will be released should you kill him and the same for him if you kill yourself. Of course, in this sort of situation the kidnapper is likely to go against his word... But let's just pretend that these are absolutes. Also, try not to pick a fourth option, ie: "I would fight back". Act as though the above three are your only choices.