Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Chris LeRoux

Regulars
  • Content count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Chris LeRoux

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Florida
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand
  1. Of course, the whole thing was a logical trap. If you say Roark (or Keating) can blow up Cortland because their property has been stolen, then you of course must condone the cessation of entitlement benefits because they are stolen. If you say the reverse, you are condemning John Galt for seeking to collapse the same type system instead of working to phase it out. Its really not that complex. As for the waiting period to implement the "contributions" refunds and the cessation of benefits. I was not very specific about "my" exact plan because it wasn't yet relevant to the NAP. "Contributions" would stop immediately. Benefits, I can see, giving a notice period for people to adjust (i.e., moving in with family, seeking employment, etc). The refunds of their "contributions" should of course help with this adjustment. I would however support immediate cessation of "contributions" and benefits, if necessary to end the system of slavery. Its amazing to me that an Objectivist would complain about me adding people throwing silly little insults and profanity around to my ignore list. It is certainly consistent with Objectivism to avoid the irrational. The passive aggressive thing makes me laugh. I am expecting the next series of posts to call me arrogant or maybe even selfish.
  2. Just a follow-up point to something I read from one of the people in this thread. I do not "hate the good for being good." I do not hate Howard Roark. I love him. He made a mistake. It is irrational to deny it.
  3. Well, I have LOTS of Objectivists friends. I don't believe any of them would be throwing around words like stupid and asshole over a disagreement about interpreting the NAP. I love Ayn Rand dearly and I know you do as well. Its plain as day. If you are on FB, I hope you will add me. So far, I have added one other from here. Its a much more flexible form of communication, with discussions not dragged down by the emotional and irrational pretenders. I admire your discipline. I probably should have ignored 99% of all posts in this thread, maybe all but yours.
  4. Agreed. So far, he is the only one worth my time.
  5. Wow. I said if he posted links to his posts that I had already read, again, that I would add him to my ignore list. He did, so I did. I always fulfill my promises. As for being an asshole, LMAO. Added to ignore! This is a collectivist idea. Those jurors obviously can not speak for every individual taxpayer in the Nation. To say such a thing is to reject Objectivism completely. Of course, I am for the reduction of public property to a bare minimum, but Rand herself said in the meantime that rights are not non-existent on public property. I already quoted an example of this principle. His IP was not stolen. He gave it up to Keating with no legally enforceable contract. He got what he deserved. In fact, as Joanathan13 explained, he and Keating conspired to commit fraud against the owners of Cortland. Jonathan13, I agree, again, with every single word you have written here. And, it was some very good writing. I'd even say it was brilliant. You alone almost make this site tolerable. On your last couple sentences, "And how far could Roark go with his "revolution"? What philosophical principle would you suggest in guiding him in the proportion of response that he might rightfully use? Since you think that he had the right to destroy others' property because those in charge of it made some aesthetic changes, did he also have the right to kill them for making aesthetic changes?" Fantastic point/question. This is the issue on my mind all the time these days, though not for aesthetic changes to my property but to there outright theft, who these Objectivists seem to find less of a problem than making changes to Roark's design.
  6. Hey KendallJ, don't take this the wrong way because its meant in a friendly way. I added you to my ignore list. If you are trying to communicate with me, I won't be reading it. As I told you. Just trying to save you the time and effort.
  7. The owners of Coartland did not necessarily find him innocent. We do not know who the owners are. The jury had the right to their opinion. It doesn't affect mine. Yes, perhaps. It *might* be different, if he indeed couldn't sue for breach of contract. The principle is clear. Roark did not own Coartland. I do own my own body and the product of my labor. This is a totally different context. Roark was committing intentional, premeditated aggression. I hold Rand responsible, yes. No one got hurt. She wrote it that way. Doesn't mean that is the way it would happen in real life, no matter what precautions Roark took.
  8. Right, but what if someone had been simply walking by and had debris crush them? With any use of violence, there is the risk of collateral damage. If you admit Roark would have been responsible for this collateral damage, you admit he has committed aggression. Otherwise, collateral damage would be the moral responsibility of whoever *iniatated* force, which you are arguing is the State, or Keating.
  9. Of course, it is utterly inconsistent to say Roark could blow up Coartland because they "stole" his designs, which he gave up willingly and enthusiastically despite knowing he couldn't sue anyone no matter what happens, without agreeing that any citizen of the USA has the right to blow up any public property because of the thefts it is doing to them/us. Further, it is totally inconsistent to say Roark could blow it up, denying the public of this property they own, and then say entitlements can't be ended abruptly because the public is dependent on the property/slavery of others. LOL. Of course, Roark could have sued Keating. That is a totally different thing than blowing up someone else's property. You are trying to hold Coartland and the public responsible for Keating's failure to uphold the contract. Sounds...collectivist!
  10. Nonsense. First of all, just because someone said that to Keating doesn't make it true. Second, what law are you claiming Roark was trying to test in court? He mentioned no such law in any way. As for some third party being allowed to destroy my house due to some third party contract with another person having nothing to do with me, this is totally ridiculous. Again, Keating had no right to make a contract regarding Cortland's construction. He was not the owner. He wasn't even under contract for its construction. He was not in charge of the project in any way. He can only contract regarding his actions. He can not make binding contracts regarding someone else without their knowledge or permission.
  11. Yes, as I have repeatedly said, Roark had no contract with the owners of Cortland and his contract with Keating is irrelevant, just as you and someone else can't make a contract regarding my house without my consent. It is acceptable to break "the law" under certain situations of course. I started digging up the quotes from ROTP I had in mind. More to come. "Irrationality is not idealistic; the bombing of public places is not idealistic." "From A Symposium." Ayn Rand "Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own. But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such. The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality." Yes, this isn't a case of "mass" civil disobedience she is discussing, though she is clearly condemning such acts if they violate the rights of others, whether on public or private property. In this case, since Roark *clearly* is not the owner of Coartland, he is *clearly* destroying someone else's property. Further, there was no specific law he was attempting to prove was unjust- no such law even mentioned. His entire defense ducked all such issues and went on a tangent having nothing to do with the issue of whose property was destroyed. An off-topic question, what would you say if someone had gotten hurt, besides Dominque, in that bombing? Would that be Roark's responsibility? Of course, I say it would. As I said, more quotes to come.
  12. Right, and I read them and didn't see anythign worth answering. Of course, numerous points of mine have been ignored also. Then you seem to agree that it is no more valid to destroy public property than private, unless one is living under totalitarian rule. Clearly, this was not the case with Roark. He entered the deal with Keating willingly. No one has offered a shred of reasoning why the contract between Keating and Roark would be morally enforceable against the owners of Coartland, whoever they are. True enough, but I am not interested in this forum. When this thread ends, I will probably never visit this site again. As I said, I prefer Facebook and discussion with my Objectivist friends there. From my view, this site is extremely hostile for no reason whatsoever. I am bewildered by it, that such irrationality is found in supposed Objectivists. This was a simple discussion of interpretation of the NAP that really should have been pleasant among theoretically like-minded Objectivists. I never have this problem with Objectivists on FB. In my opinion, it is the result of some Randianism, an emotional reaction to any criticism of Rand. Of course, Rand herself said Objectivism was not fully developed when she wrote The Fountainhead....
  13. I'm not interested in your links. If you have argument, state it. If you wish to copy and paste, do so. If not, I'm adding you to ignore list next.
  14. LMAO. You are a coward for not reposting it. Screw your links.
×