Don't Pay For Swamp Water

[twhite35]

Our culture is a swamp; we have no choice but to breath the fetid fumes rising out of it, but we don't have to drink it. In other words, I don't plan to see the Michael Moore Fahrenheit 9/11 "documentary" because I get more than enough leftist propaganda from the mainstream news media on a daily basis. But that's me, I have been an Objectivist for 23 years, and some of you are younger, and/or have more cast-iron stomachs, and/or like to keep a more detailed watch on the controversies of the day, and may have a rational need to see this movie for cultural diagnostic purposes. (The movie is getting positive reviews from the mainstream establishment.)

But if you do see the movie, I would recommend that you not pay for it. In order to be moral, pay for a more benign movie showing at the same time, and then go into the room showing Fahrenheit 9/11. This may seem wrong, but its actually the right thing to do.

Huge amounts of money are extorted from all of us to pay for forced public schooling at the grade K-12 _and_ university levels; this schooling, in varying degrees and flavors, is nihilism designed to destroy the student's conceptual faculty before it develops; it is this fascist brain grinding which makes such an entity as Michael Moore a cultural possibility. You have already paid for this movie with the taxes that have been extorted from you by force.

Therefore, there is no moral reason to pay the additional ticket price for this movie, and a tremendous moral reason not to. (I would feel similarly about the Passion of Christ movie or the environmentalist The Day After Tomorrow movie, and any other movies that are this clear and extreme in their irrationality).

By the way, I did see the preview for Fahrenheit 9/11. Just watching those couple of minutes of silliness made me feel "God bless the GOP." So if you do see Fahrenheit 9/11, it is very likely going to give you tremendous sympathy for president Bush. But that sympathy is an illusion. Please don't give into that feeling and vote for Bush. Bush _is_ as grotesquely bad as the liberals portray him, even if the picture they paint of him is too silly to discuss seriously. He should be evaluated as a disgustingly unacceptable president, but based on rational reasons, not hooligan Marxist propaganda.

[walsh]

There is nothing morally wrong with theft?

Do you support file-sharing too?

[RationalBiker]

Color me stunned. You say you have been an objectivist for 23 years and you are advocating theft from a private entity because we pay taxes to the state?

The real moral thing to do if you believe the movie is "swamp water" is don't see it AND don't pay for it.

VES

[AwakeAndFree]

Bust him, RationalCop!

I agree. There is no justification for theft from a private enterprise. Even if it does support the abolition of property rights.

[source]

You can wait until they show it on national tv. Then you'll know for sure that you've already paid for it in form of tax.

[Yes]

Bust him, RationalCop!

I agree. There is no justification for theft from a private enterprise. Even if it does support the abolition of property rights.

Knowing what I do about Michael Moore, I absolutely won't see ANY of his movies.

There is something inherently hypocritical about someone who uses capitalism to bash capitalism, as Michael Moore typically does.

[twhite35]

>> you are advocating theft from a private entity because we pay taxes to the state? <<

No. I am saying that this movie is not a "private entity" because it would not be possible without public education. It is no more a "private entity" than Harvard University or HMO's are "private enitities". They are private in a narrow, technical, non-essential sense, but neither would be possible in their current form but for the governments corrupt and widespread immoral use of physical force.

Ayn Rand once wrote that an honest advocate of capitalism who was totally opposed to welfare had the right to take welfare money if it was offered to him, as compensation, but that advocates of welfare had no right to any welfare money. This may seem paradoxical, which she stated at the time, but it isn't.

Similar situation in paying for this movie. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a product of a free-market of ideas. If it were, however bad its message, you would be morally obligated to pay for it. But it isn't so you aren't.

And I have to say there is good reason to see it because - surprisingly to me -it is the number one movie in the country right now. So if I go see it, I will buy a ticket to something else and sneak in, for the purpose of being moral.

[danielshrugged]

I was educated in public school. Therefore, you have the right to take anything I create by force.

No?

[RationalBiker]

I disagree that popularity is a good reason to go see a movie in the first place.

As much as I dislike Michael Moore and what he stands for, you have failed to make a case for stealing from him to me.

VES

[twhite35]

>> I disagree that popularity is a good reason to go see a movie in the first place. <<

Sure, but this movie is rapidly becomming part of the mainsteam, part of the election, because it is such a huge hit. I'm not saying you might want to watch it for art or entertainment or pleasure of any kind, but more like the way you would watch the political conventions: just to keep informed on what is being said.

>> As much as I dislike Michael Moore and what he stands for, you have failed to make a case for stealing from him to me. <<

Fair enough. But a little more accurate to say that you are unconvinced by the case that I did make to you.

And I don't think its stealing; you are not taking anything that Michael Moore has earned; its more like failing to voluntarily give money to someone who has already benefited far too much from money stolen from you.

You can 1) not see the movie, 2) see the movie and put money in Michael Moore's pocket, or 3) see the movie and not put money his pocket. The movie exists only because of stolen money (eg, public education), therefore you don't have to pay for it.

[danielshrugged]

And I don't think its stealing; you are not taking anything that Michael Moore has earned; its more like failing to voluntarily give money to someone who has already benefited far too much from money stolen from you.

You can 1) not see the movie, 2) see the movie and put money in Michael Moore's pocket, or 3) see the movie and not put money his pocket.  The movie exists only because of stolen money (eg, public education), therefore you don't have to pay for it.

This is really some rationalization. You have not answered my point, though. Everything I produce is thanks to public education. Do you intend to steal from me?

Did Michael Moore steal the money from you himself? No. The government does the stealing. Retaliatory force is only proper when the person/people you are targeting initiated or threatened to initiate force. By your logic, I would have the right to steal from everyone except Objectivists, since only Objectivism truly safeguards individual rights.

I have no desire to see the movie, no desire to inform myself of the latest lies on the left. To steal from Moore would be a double sacrifice: a sacrifice of my integrity since I oppose theft and a sacrifice of my productiveness since I have far better things to do with my time.

[DavidOdden]

No.  I am saying that this movie is not a "private entity" because it would not be possible without public education.  It is no more a "private entity" than Harvard University or HMO's are "private enitities".  They are private in a narrow, technical, non-essential sense, but neither would be possible in their current form but for the governments corrupt and widespread immoral use of physical force.

The reductio ad absurdum, and it is absurd, of your position is that there is no private property, because everything in this modern world of ours has received something beneficial, directly or indirectly, from goverment theft. You pretend that Moore's work is somehow "public property", but you have not identified anything as being uncontaminated private proverty. All modern technology is by this reasoning "public property" -- indeed, Chomsky has used exactly this scurilous argument, that Microsoft uses "public funds" and thus should be taken over by The People. Name it: the steel industry, the Internet (Al Gore, registered trademark), computers, the stock market -- all have in some way had a comingling of "public" funds.

To be consistent, one should steal anything that one sees and desires, because everything you see has been somehow touched by the government. The People's righteous vengeance is justified, and you have a right to "liberate" any product that you desire. Can you clearly identify any goods and services that are not the target of your planned program of theft?

[twhite35]

>> The reductio ad absurdum of your position is that there is no private property...Can you clearly identify any goods and services that are not the target of your planned program of theft? <<

Fahrenheit 9/11 is something new in mainstream politics. This movie is so corrupt that it is made possible _only_ by the public education system. It is propaganda not just for a political viewpoint but for the anti-conceptual mentality as such.

Obviously, this does not apply to any movie with some bad element in it. For example, in Star Wars, Luke Skywalker is told - at the very moment he is piloting an enormously complex piece of technical machineary on a galaxy-saving mission - to close his eyes, give up his mind, and go by his emotions. This is very bad. But Star Wars as a movie is much more than this. Star Wars, as a whole, is not corrupt. So it would be silly to say you shouldn't put money in George Lucas's pocket.

And, of course, I didn't say that. I explicitly said that I would not pay for Fahrenheit 9/11 because it was so corrupt that "it was made possible only by public education". That is a high bar. Its a non-sequiter to go from that principle to the principle that "there is no private property". Most movies are not 1) so corrupt that only the government use of force makes them financially possible, and 2) useful to see to keep up with the current political mess.

And, for the record, I am not talking about stealing anything, in the traditional sense of the word. Usually when you steal something, you have more wealth in your pocket. There will be $8.25 out of my pocket in order to see Fahrenheit 9/11; it will go into the pockets of the movie industry; it just won't go into the pockets of Michael Moore.

[Ed from OC]

From the horse's mouth:

"I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people. As long as they're not doing it to make a profit, you know, as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labor. I would oppose that."

-Michael Moore

So if you want to watch it for free, you can go here to www.moorelies.com and follow the links.

[twhite35]

>> You have not answered my point, though. Everything I produce is thanks to public education. Do you intend to steal from me? <<

If you produce something that is 1) so corrupt that it is only made possible by the corruption of public education (eg, if not for public education you would not be able to produce this something), and 2) is something I need to consume in order to keep up with the current political situation (on which my life unfortuneately depends) and 3) is easy and safe for me to consume this something while putting money in someone else's pockets rather than yours, then, yes, I am a man of principle and will not sanction your evil by voluntarily putting money in your pocket.

If you are saying you learned your abc's and 123's in public school, and then go write a fine piece of software that I need, then no, I do not have the right to pirate this software and wouldn't dream of doing so. My point is not that "Michael Moore went to public school and therefore has no property rights", my point is "Michael Moore's movie is only possible because of public education which is only possible because of money extorted from me and therefore I won't put money in his pocket unless I have to."

If everyone had a private education, you could still make your hypothetical piece of software; if everyone had a private education Michael Moore could not make this movie.

[DavidV]

twhite35,

Even if your ridiculous argument about stealing from Moore was right and even if there was a reason why a sane and sober individual wanted to watch the movie, sneaking into a movie infringes on the theatre owner’s rights, not just Moore’s.

Anyway, since Moore has no problem with us downloading his movie from the net, the point is moot … though I am still unable to grasp why anyone would want to see it.

[twhite35]

>> Even if your ridiculous argument about stealing from Moore was right <<

Some reason we can't have a rational discussion on this issue without flaming?

>>even if there was a reason why a sane and sober individual wanted to watch the movie <<

Keeping up with current events and knowing your enemy is the reason. It is the number one movie at this time, it is on a deadly serious issue, it is being taken seriously by the mainstream establishment.

But I am not suggesting that one necessarily has to see the movie. I haven't and haven't decided if I will. But I would suggest that people not put money in Moore's pocket in the process.

>> sneaking into a movie infringes on the theatre owner’s rights, not just Moore’s. <<

How so? I am not saying to sneak in the theater without paying; I am saying to pay for some more benign movie and then see this one. The theater owner gets paid either way. And I am told that they make all the money on concessions, and that the ticket money pretty much just washes back to the distributor. Notice that they do not police you as to which theater you go into once they tear your ticket, because, I think, they care very little about your final destination, just that you pay in the first place.

[RationalBiker]

Fair enough.  But a little more accurate to say that you are unconvinced by the case that I did make to you.

Judging from the comments of others in this thread, I'm not the only who thinks you haven't made a case for righteous theft.

That aside, you are exercising a form of retaliatory force in your retribution of Michael Moore and his offenses. You are denying him due process of law in deriving a judgement that it's justifiable to steal from his efforts. Objectivism holds that the government retains the exclusive power of retaliatory force, in part because it is subject to due process and review. Your suggested action can not be deemed or justified as defensive force in nature which only leaves the concept of initiated force (which is also morally wrong) or retaliatory force.

It's clear you have rationalized this course of action to yourself however, so I will not attempt to deter you further. Your conscience will be your guide, but I don't think it has anything to do with objectivist principles.

VES

[twhite35]

>> You are denying him due process of law in deriving a judgement that it's justifiable to steal from his efforts.....Your suggested action can not be deemed or justified as defensive force in nature which only leaves the concept of initiated force (which is also morally wrong) or retaliatory force. <<

I hadn't thought of it in such legal terms. But I would say I am advocating very, very, very minor form of rational civil disobedience. If I were "caught" by the police, and had to pay the consequences, so be it, I'd tell the truth and pay the consequences, which are presumeably very minor, knowing that I did the moral thing.

By the way, for all I know, there isn't even an explicit law covering this, so, technically, it may not even be illegal. I have seen people change their mind in the popcorn line and go see another movie. I can't remember if I have ever done so myself, but perhaps I have.

Surely if Howard Roark can rationally blow up a building in civil disobedience to government coercion, I can put $8.25 into some more benign movie maker's pocket, rather than Michael Moore's pocket, also as an act of civil disobedience, and still remain an Objectivist in good standing.

[DavidOdden]

Most movies are not 1) so corrupt that only the government use of force makes them financially possible, and 2) useful to see to keep up with the current political mess.

Okay, so first, your argument fails completely because it is based on the unsupported assertion that governmental force is the only way the movie is made possible and, second, you have failed to give evidence that the same argument does not extend to, say, the computer (including hardware and software). The research needed to create modern computers was paid for with governmentally extorted research dollars. Finally, you have failed to give any argument that even if Moore-thinking could only exist as the by-product of government coersion, that this justifies the theft of property from probably millions of people (note that Moore is not the only person who benefits from ticket sales).

And, for the record, I am not talking about stealing anything, in the traditional sense of the word.  Usually when you steal something, you have more wealth in your pocket.  There will be $8.25 out of my pocket in order to see Fahrenheit 9/11; it will go into the pockets of the movie industry; it just won't go into the pockets of Michael Moore.

That is a complete corruption of the concept "theft" -- the kind of logic that the CD/DVD copyright violators use to rationalize their theft. Theft is any violation of the Trader Principle. You have taken a value -- apparently you value this movie, but have given nothing in exchange.

[MisterSwig]

Surely if Howard Roark can rationally blow up a building in civil disobedience to government coercion, I can put $8.25 into some more benign movie maker's pocket, rather than Michael Moore's pocket, also as an act of civil disobedience, and still remain an Objectivist in good standing.

Roark designed the building he destroyed, because it wasn't being built to his specifications. Moviegoers have no such claim, whatsoever, on Fahrenheit 9/11.

The fact is that you are suggesting that people watch Michael Moore's movie without paying Michael Moore for the viewing. This is akin to buying a copy of Atlas Shrugged and putting it back on the shelf, while simultaneously stealing a copy of Bill Clinton's book.

Maybe you want to read the President's book, but you don't want to give money to the lying bastard. So you rationalize the theft by purchasing something else from the bookstore, but not taking it. In such a case, you give away the only thing you were entitled to, and you steal something you had no right to.

In the present case, you are suggesting that people purchase a viewing of a movie they will not watch and steal a viewing of Fahrenheit 9/11.

[twhite35]

>> ...your argument fails completely because it is based on the unsupported assertion that governmental force is the only way the movie is made possible <<

The support for this assertion is that the movie is so corrupt that it could not have been made without the support of public education corrupting the culture. In essence, I have too high opinion of the American people to believe that they could have fallen this far, this fast in a free market of ideas. Ayn Rand explicitly stated that we are not living in a culture with a free market of ideas. Since we are not in a free market of ideas, it follows that some cases of civil disobedience may be necessary.

>>...you have failed to give evidence that the same argument does not extend to, say, the computer (including hardware and software). The research needed to create modern computers was paid for with governmentally extorted research dollars....<<

I covered exactly that point. Modern computers are not made possible by public education. We would have computers (better ones, for that matter) without it. Michael Moore could not get his movies made, reviewed, or watched without the corruption of public education.

Do you think that public education has not severely corrupted our culture? Wouldn't it then stand to reason that some products of that culture are so corrupt that they could exist _only_ because of public education? Can you think of anything in our culture right now more pathetic than this movie? Yet its the number one movie in the country right now - the first time ever for a documentary - and will surely have an effect on the election, so there is a valid need to see it, for the purpose of self-preservation.

>> Roark designed the building he destroyed, because it wasn't being built to his specifications. Moviegoers have no such claim, whatsoever, on Fahrenheit 9/11. <<

I am citing Roark as a matter of the principle of the validity of civil disobedience. Government force extends far beyond corrupting the designs of architects. The people who go to see Fahrenheit 9/11 are living in a culture created by government force, by tax money expropriated by them. They have the moral right to engage in civil disobediance.

You could just as well argue that Roark valued having his design built. He voluntarily chose to have it submitted to government authority, knowing they might alter it. So what right does he have to complain? He volunteered his design after all.

>> while simultaneously stealing a copy of Bill Clinton's book Maybe you want to read the President's book, but you don't want to give money to the lying bastard. <<

That is not my argument against this movie. I doubt that Bill Clinton's book is as bad as this documentary, nor will have anything like the impact on the election. If this were just a standard bad piece of garbage, ala Clinton's biography, I wouldn't recommend not paying for it.

>> In the present case, you are suggesting that people purchase a viewing of a movie they will not watch and steal a viewing of Fahrenheit 9/11. <<

Damn straight, I am saying exactly that.

[DavidOdden]

The support for this assertion is that the movie is so corrupt that it could not have been made without the support of public education corrupting the culture.

...

Modern computers are not made possible by public education.  We would have computers (better ones, for that matter) without it.  Michael Moore could not get his movies made, reviewed, or watched without the corruption of public education. 

This is a stunning example of a priori rationalism (clue: "would it not stand to reason" is a standard introductory phrase for an arbitrary claim). I asked you for your proof and all you did is repeat your opinion, and all you've done is re-assert your position, replacing facts with opinions, making indefensible claims that lack reference to a single concrete.

Now turning to something you said earlier, you claim to have been an Objectivist for 23 years. Can you provide evidence that you comprehend the essentials of Objectivism in any area? Can you think of any way to distance yourself from this description? If your misunderstanding of Objectivism is honest, it is still profound.

[danielshrugged]

This is a stunning example of a priori rationalism (clue: "would it not stand to reason" is a standard introductory phrase for an arbitrary claim). I asked you for your proof and all you did is repeat your opinion, and all you've done is re-assert your position, replacing facts with opinions, making indefensible claims that lack reference to a single concrete.

Now turning to something you said earlier, you claim to have been an Objectivist for 23 years. Can you provide evidence that you comprehend the essentials of Objectivism in any area? Can you think of any way to distance yourself from this description? If your misunderstanding of Objectivism is honest, it is still profound.

People on this board need to stop assuming that there are no people with bad thinking methods in this world. Not every bad thinker is a troll.

Anyway, I recognize this poster's name from the campus-wide group for the Objectivist Academic Center.

[twhite35]

>> People on this board need to stop assuming that there are no people with bad thinking methods in this world. Not every bad thinker is a troll. <<

All disagreements among honest people, especially in the rat's nest of today's culture, do not necessarily depend on bad thinking methods.

For example, in 1980, Peter Schwartz voted for Ronald Reagan (albeit reluctantly), even though Ayn Rand didn't, and was deeply opposed to Reagan. In fact, a few years earlier, she put a (half-jokeing) moral damnation on any of her followers who would vote for him. So there was a serious disagreement between Ayn Rand and Peter Schwartz on an important issue, but it was also a messy and complex issue, with no great solution, just as this issue is. (I know all this because of my 23 years in Objectivism, by the way)

But neither accused the other of having bad thinking methods because of a disagreement on a complicated issue.

In this Farenheith 9/11 issue, I think that you are wrong, but I don't think its bad thinking methods on your part, its just that its a difficult issue. I can see why you would want to pay for this movie,rather than using the method I recommended, even though I disagree with you.

And, although am not a Christian, I nonetheless forgive you for accusing me of bad thinking methods, because you are young, and full of zeal, and have many years to learn to disagree properly with honest disputes over complicated issues.