Don't Pay For Swamp Water

[AshRyan]

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.

Another problem with this argument is that what you are describing is not an act of civil disobedience. Notice that Roark allowed himself to be arrested and tried for his actions. You are not talking about making yourself a public example to challenge an unjust law. You are trying to get away with something. Look back at your arguments and ask yourself honestly if they don't seem like rationalizations to you.

[MisterSwig]

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.

White,

I don't think this argument holds water. Public education has not corrupted the culture. A bad philosophy has. Public education is not the primary problem here. A bad philosophy can be taught anywhere, even in private schools.

Now, in a mixed society like ours, all sorts of movies can be made, good and bad. This is the same society in which Chocolate, a pretty damn good movie, was made and became probably more successful and respected than Moore's movie ever will become.

I think that The Passion was more corrupt than Fahrenheit 9/11. Does this give me the right to steal a copy of Mel Gibson's movie? After all, the corruption of all the private religious schools and churches in society made the movie possible, right?

Wrong. Mel Gibson made the movie. Likewise, Moore made his movie. And, as far as I can tell, these two filmmakers did not steal from anyone to bring their vision to the screen.

I grant you, the success of a movie has something to do with the culture. But the poor health of the culture is not a valid reason to steal someone's property. There is no valid reason to steal someone's property, unless perhaps a higher value, such as your life, were at stake.

[MisterSwig]

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.

I agree. But I also would not call "White" a "bad thinker." Such a statement is too general.

I believe White has made an error in thinking about this issue, and this is why I argue with him. But I realize, from personal experience, that understanding Objectivist morality is not the easiest thing in the world to do. If "White" were a "bad thinker," I don't think he would even be discussing this issue. He'd probably still be stuck on some more fundamental aspect of the philosophy, such as whether Michael Moore really exists or whether we can, with certainty, know his weight.

[y_feldblum]

Extra!

I heard on Laura Ingraham's radio show that Ray Bradbury wants his title back. I also found this article on WorldNetDaily about it.

[danielshrugged]

I agree. But I also would not call "White" a "bad thinker." Such a statement is too general.

I believe White has made an error in thinking about this issue, and this is why I argue with him. But I realize, from personal experience, that understanding Objectivist morality is not the easiest thing in the world to do. If "White" were a "bad thinker," I don't think he would even be discussing this issue. He'd probably still be stuck on some more fundamental aspect of the philosophy, such as whether Michael Moore really exists or whether we can, with certainty, know his weight.

I didn't mean anything huge by referring to bad thinking methods. I didn't even mean that White is a bad thinker, just that in this case he does seem to be rationalizing.

For most of my time as an Objectivist, I've been a rationalist. I don't think that made me irrational or not worth arguing with. I had bad thinking methods, but I kept working at understanding Objectivism.

[twhite35]

>> Another problem with this argument is that what you are describing is not an act of civil disobedience. Notice that Roark allowed himself to be arrested and tried for his actions. You are not talking about making yourself a public example to challenge an unjust law. <<

I am not even sure that this action is technically illegal. And, as I said earlier, if I did get "caught", then I would take state my reasons and accept the punishment. If blowing up the building were such a minor offence that it would take a lot of work to get the police to even pay attention to him, imo Roark would have done it anyway, and it would still qualify as civil disobedience, even if the police never noticed.

>> You are trying to get away with something. <<

Trying to get away with what? What unearned value am I after?

>> Look back at your arguments and ask yourself honestly if they don't seem like rationalizations to you. <<

I did. They still seem excellent to me. And be careful about this "something seems like something" type of argument. Voting for the lesser of two evils sounds like pragmatism - Dr. Peikoff was accused of just that for his support of Clinton in '92 - but it isn't. Ayn Rand's point that it was valid for an Objectivist to take welfare, but only if he was opposed to welfare, sounds like hypocrisy, but it isn't. Pumpkins look like basketballs, but don't try to bounce one.

>> Public education has not corrupted the culture. A bad philosophy has. Public education is not the primary problem here. A bad philosophy can be taught anywhere, even in private schools. <<

I agree that philisophy is, by a huge margin, the main culprit. But we would not have fallen this far, this fast, without public education. Dr. Peikoff had a radio show on exactly that point. Ayn Rand blasted public education on more than one occasion. I think that we would still be several decades from the time when Fahrenheit 9/11 would be possible, were it not for public education.

I grant that this is a judgement call. I concede that if you think that Fahrenheit 9/11 would not exist with or without public education, then you should definitely pay for the movie.

Do you concede the opposite? If you _did_ think that the movie was only made possible by public education, would you then concede that my method of seeing it was valid? This is the actually the main point I would like you to answer.

>> I think that The Passion was more corrupt than Fahrenheit 9/11. Does this give me the right to steal a copy of Mel Gibson's movie? <<

Yes. You should use my method to see the that movie if you honestly believe that 1) you need to see it to keep up with current political situation (which certainly affects your life), and 2) the movie was made possible only by public education (which is government looting of your money).

>> After all, the corruption of all the private religious schools and churches in society made the movie possible, right? <<

No. Its more a more subtle point, but I do think that the rise of this religious primitivism is caused by the D1/D2 culture. Its a reaction against it. But there is not much point in us discussing this fine. The real issue is the hypothetical question I asked above.

>> But I realize, from personal experience, that understanding Objectivist morality is not the easiest thing in the world to do. <<

Well said. In fact, it may be the hardest thing in the world to do.

[MisterSwig]

Do you concede the opposite?  If you _did_ think that the movie was only made possible by public education, would you then concede that my method of seeing it was valid?  This is the actually the main point I would like you to answer.

I can't know whether to concede until I fully understand your logic. Is this your basic argument:

If public education, then corrupt society.

If corrupt society, then Fahrenheit 9/11.

----------------

Thus, if public education, then Fahrenheit 9/11.

Is this your argument? If so, how does that prove that it is correct to steal from Michael Moore? If not, what am I missing?

Also, do you believe that you have a right to Fahrenheit 9/11, as Ragnar and others had a right to reclaim their own money from the pilfering government in Atlas Shrugged? Or do you simply believe that it is morally proper to steal from Michael Moore?

[Areactor]

Hello everyone

I still haven't been able to understand the Objectivist position on "Rightous Theft". Can anyone explain it to me?

[DavidOdden]

I still haven't been able to understand the Objectivist position on "Rightous Theft". Can anyone explain it to me?

Theft is theft, and putting the word "righteous" before it doesn't change that fact. Theft is wrong, and never right.

[AshRyan]

Extra!

I heard on Laura Ingraham's radio show that Ray Bradbury wants his title back.  I also found this article on WorldNetDaily about it.

Ray Bradbury is great.

I especially like the quotes from him that have been translated back into English from Swedish, such as: "Michael Moore is a screwed a--hole, that is what I think about that case," and "[Moore] is a horrible human being – horrible human!" Makes me wonder exactly what he actually said.

[AshRyan]

>> You are trying to get away with something. <<

Trying to get away with what?  What unearned value am I after?

Um, seeing a movie that you haven't paid for?

[twhite35]

>> I can't know whether to concede until I fully understand your logic. Is this your basic argument:

If public education, then corrupt society.

If corrupt society, then Fahrenheit 9/11.

----------------

Thus, if public education, then Fahrenheit 9/11.

Is this your argument? If so, how does that prove that it is correct to steal from Michael Moore? If not, what am I missing? <<

If public education, then money was stolen from me.

If public education, then Fahrenheit 9/11.

Ergo, Fahrenheit 9/11 was made with money stolen from me.

Ergo, I'm "stealing" back money stolen from me.

>> Also, do you believe that you have a right to Fahrenheit 9/11, as Ragnar and others had a right to reclaim their own money from the pilfering government in Atlas Shrugged? <<

Yes!

>> Theft is theft, and putting the word "righteous" before it doesn't change that fact. Theft is wrong, and never right. <<

If so, then you must have a real problem with Ragnar in Atlas Shrugged. This is a 10 Commandments interpretation of Objectivism.

Lying is lying and is always wrong and is never right. Just not true. Seeking to gain an unearned value by fraud or force _is_ never right, but neither Ragnar nor I do that.

>> Trying to get away with what? What unearned value am I after?

Um, seeing a movie that you haven't paid for? <<

But I saw a movied and paid for a movie. No extra money in my pocket. Usually when someone rationalizes, there is extra money in their pocket, but there is none in mine.

[y_feldblum]

Usually when someone rationalizes, there is extra money in their pocket, but there is none in mine.

This isn't just rationalization: it's a psychologist's wet dream.

[AshRyan]

>> Trying to get away with what? What unearned value am I after? 

Um, seeing a movie that you haven't paid for?   <<

But I saw a movied and paid for a movie.  No extra money in my pocket.  Usually when someone rationalizes, there is extra money in their pocket, but there is none in mine.

You saw a movie, and you paid for a movie, but you didn't pay for the movie you saw! You're replacing the particular movies with the general term "movie" in order to equivocate between them.

It has nothing to do with the amount of money in your pocket. It has to do with the amount of money in the person's pocket whose products or services you are using without purchasing their permission to do so. If it was about the amount of money in your pocket, you could, for example, say the following: "I don't like Wal-Mart, but they have a great selection of products that makes for convenient shopping. But I don't want to support them by giving them my money. Here's what I'll do: I'll go to Wal-Mart, lift a hundred dollars from the store, then go home, take a hundred dollar bill out of my wallet, and put it through the shredder. No extra money in my pocket = I didn't steal anything!"

How convenient.

[danielshrugged]

If public education, then money was stolen from me.

If public education, then Fahrenheit 9/11.

Ergo, Fahrenheit 9/11 was made with money stolen from me.

Ergo, I'm "stealing" back money stolen from me.

Huh? It doesn't follow from your first two premises that the movie was made with money stolen from you. In fact, it was my understanding that a private producer financed the movie.

[DavidOdden]

Huh? It doesn't follow from your first two premises that the movie was made with money stolen from you. In fact, it was my understanding that a private producer financed the movie. The assumption is that everybody pays taxes and thus everybody has paid something for public education.

But the ideas in the movie were created to reflect a subculture that could not possibly exist except through state-funded education. That, as I understand it, is the rationalisation.

[twhite35]

>> This isn't just rationalization: it's a psychologist's wet dream. <<

Do you regard this as an intellectual comment? If not, why make it? Why waste your time on ad hominem? In addition, this comment is unnecessarily crude, and I object to it on that ground as well.

>> How convenient. <<

See the above comment. What difference does "convience" make? I am offering a logical argument (eg, like mathematics), not a piece of empirical information (eg, the reporting of something I witnessed). My character or motives or psychogy is irrelevant, so please stop commenting on it and stick to the principles at hand.

>> "I don't like Wal-Mart, but they have a great selection of products that makes for convenient shopping. But I don't want to support them by giving them my money." <<

That has nothing to do with anything. My argument is not that I "don't like" Michael Moore, my argument is that his movie is made possible only by intitiation of physical force against me. Furthermore, I did not see the Michael Moore movie for any kind of fun or good shopping or to gain any such value; I saw it in self-defense, simply because it is affecting the election.

>> "Here's what I'll do: I'll go to Wal-Mart, lift a hundred dollars from the store, then go home, take a hundred dollar bill out of my wallet, and put it through the shredder. No extra money in my pocket = I didn't steal anything!" <<

Actually, in a similar convert the money to gold and put it in Midas Mulligans bank. Or make a $100 donation to ARI. But that is irrelevant to current case, since I am not winding up with extra money in my pocket.

>> It has nothing to do with the amount of money in your pocket. It has to do with the amount of money in the person's pocket whose products or services you are using without purchasing their permission to do so. <<

My entire _purpose_ is to keep money out of Michael Moore's pocket. I concede the point that I am stealing from him. I am coldly, calculated, unemotionally, consciously stealing from him. I am stealing from him, I am stealing from him, I am stealing from him. Theft, theft, theft, steal, steal, steal.

My point in saying that there is no extra money in my pocket is simply in reference to all the attacks on my motives and psychology that I keep getting. Usually when someone rationalizes, they are out get some unearned value. That might apply if I were saying to sneak into the theater without paying, but in this case I am not paying the theater owner for his good offices (whatever his cut of the admission ticket is). I must pay the theater owner in order to remain moral since the movie theater would obviously exist without public education. But this doesn't apply to Michael Moore.

[twhite35]

>> Daniel: In fact, it was my understanding that a private producer financed the movie.

David's reply: But the ideas in the movie were created to reflect a subculture that could not possibly exist except through state-funded education. That, as I understand it, is the rationalisation. <<

Yes, that's my argument. I would word it differently and its wrong for you to call it a "rationalization", but that's it.

[danielshrugged]

Well, I just can't understand White's argument, so I'm going to give this one up.

[MisterSwig]

If public education, then money was stolen from me.

If public education, then Fahrenheit 9/11.

Ergo, Fahrenheit 9/11 was made with money stolen from me.

Ergo, I'm "stealing" back money stolen from me.

Your argument, as written, is formally invalid. However, tinkering with it a bit, I get this:

If money stolen from you [by government], then public education.

If public education, then Fahrenheit 9/11.

------

Thus, if money stolen from you [by government], then Fahrenheit 9/11.

Technically, this is a valid hypothetical chain argument. However, it suffers from its unstipulated premises. I, and others, believe your premises to be false and have tried to prove that to you in previous posts.

(Also, my reformulation assumes that your stolen money automatically leads to public education, which may not be the case, if a government chooses not to engage in such a program.)

Now, if you concede the reformulation, then I concede that you are acting on some logic. However, I cannot concede that you are correct or applying reason correctly, because you have not proven that your premises are true. And I believe that I, and others, have proven them to be false.

[MisterSwig]

I must pay the theater owner in order to remain moral since the movie theater would obviously exist without public education.  But this doesn't apply to Michael Moore.

Who's worse: the theater owner who spreads Michael Moore's movie to the masses or Michael Moore?

[AwakeAndFree]

Do you regard this as an intellectual comment?  If not, why make it?  Why waste your time on ad hominem?  In addition, this comment is unnecessarily crude, and I object to it on that ground as well.

twhite35, my troll radar starts to sing whenever someone accuses someone else of Ad Hominem without knowing what the concept means.

People are allowed to criticize what you say on this forum. Ad Hominem is an attempt to dismiss your logical arguments because you are an unreliable/immoral person. This is not the same as treating your arguments critically. In fact, this is the OPPOSITE of treating your words critically.

[AshRyan]

>> How convenient. <<

See the above comment.  What difference does "convience" make?  I am offering a logical argument (eg, like mathematics), not a piece of empirical information (eg, the reporting of something I witnessed).  My character or motives or psychogy is irrelevant, so  please stop commenting on it and stick to the principles at hand.

This was a comment (and one made after giving more argument to the point than it deserved) on the general structure of your argument that should make one suspicious that it might be rationalistic, not a personal attack. If you can't tell the difference, then don't go around accusing others of making ad hominem attacks. Nowhere did I explicitly do such a thing, and in no way does that comment imply it.

But that is irrelevant to current case, since I am not winding up with extra money in my pocket.

You are either completely missing or ignoring my point. What is irrelevant is whether or not you end up with extra money in your pocket. That's ridiculous.

My entire _purpose_ is to keep money out of Michael Moore's pocket.

If that were your entire purpose, you would simply not see the movie. Your purpose is to rob someone because you disagree with their ideas and the way that they came to hold those ideas. That is not only illegal, but incredibly immoral.

I concede the point that I am stealing from him.  I am coldly, calculated, unemotionally, consciously stealing from him.  I am stealing from him, I am stealing from him, I am stealing from him.  Theft, theft, theft, steal, steal, steal.

I don't think that actual advocacy of criminal activities is considered appropriate behavior on this board. Consider yourself warned, for future reference.

My point in saying that there is no extra money in my pocket is simply in reference to all the attacks on my motives and psychology that I keep getting.

YOU brought that up BEFORE I tore your argument apart in a way that you took as a personal attack.

Anyway, I'm done with this argument. You clearly don't want to be reasoned with.

[twhite35]

>> Ad Hominem is an attempt to dismiss your logical arguments because you are an unreliable/immoral person. <<

Correct. What the person in question said in response to my argument is this: "This isn't just rationalization: it's a psychologist's wet dream."

First of all, to call someone's argument a rationalization is bordering on ad homenim: you are questioning the persons psychological motives, not what he said. But he doesn't accuse me of just rationalization, he says that my argument is a "psychologists wet dream." In other words, my argument is a text book case of a person with a psychological problem. Perhaps technically, its not ad hominem (the person making the argument is immoral), its psychologizing (the person making the argument has a psychological problem), but it is certainly an attack on me personally, not the argument I was making.

And then you imply that _I_ am a troll for objecting to _that_? You don't object such a statement as "it's a psychologist's wet dream", but you do object me refering to _that_ as ad hominem? Huh??? What are you talking about?

[y_feldblum]

twhite35, I thought what I meant by that comment should have been clear: you are not only rationalizing, you are rationalizing about rationalizing. Believe me, this is not a textbook case.

Nor is it ad-hominem, nor is it psychologizing: it's an analysis of the kind of argument you made, in relation to its content. Yours is not a logical argument, but a rationalizing argument - but what's interesting is, the content or object of that argument is, itself, rationalization.

I regard the comment as an intellectual one, phrased in a certain way to achieve a certain effect.