Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Howard Roark blowing up Cortlandt was not Objectivist, and neither is

Rate this topic


Chris LeRoux

Recommended Posts

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.

yes, you've repeatedly said and you are repeatedly in the wrong.

This is not the case with Cortdland. This analogy is false. The contract with Roark is not a contract about your house. It is a contract about the manner of construction of your house. Your consent is not eliminated because Roark and Keating had a prior agreement. It is a contract with Keating about what terms he may agree to construct the house under. Keating offered those terms to the government, and they accepted, i.e. they consented. There is not "non-consent. The owners of Cortdlant were free to decide whether they wanted the house built under those terms or not. They were free to not consent to those terms. Keating however was not free to offer other terms. What they were not free to do is to take Roark's design regarldess of the terms they agreed to with Keating. It is not that the house was built, it is that they consented to the terms under which the house would get built, and turned around and built the house under breech of contract.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, you've repeatedly said and you are repeatedly in the wrong.

This is not the case with Cortdland. This analogy is false. The contract with Roark is not a contract about your house. It is a contract about the manner of construction of your house. Your consent is not eliminated because Roark and Keating had a prior agreement. It is a contract with Keating about what terms he may agree to construct the house under. Keating offered those terms to the government, and they accepted, i.e. they consented. There is not "non-consent. The owners of Cortdlant were free to decide whether they wanted the house built under those terms or not. They were free to not consent to those terms. Keating however was not free to offer other terms. What they were not free to do is to take Roark's design regarldess of the terms they agreed to with Keating. It is not that the house was built, it is that they consented to the terms under which the house would get built, and turned around and built the house under breech of contract.

And of course adding to the problem was that there was no legal recourse for either Keating or Roark - they couldn't sue for the breach of contract. So Roark blew it up in order to a) reclaim his right to the design which had been stolen from him and :) get the issue into court. And you just provided a quote explaining why it might be an ok idea to break a law in order to get a hearing in court in respect of that law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, since Roark *clearly* is not the owner of Coartland, he is *clearly* destroying someone else's property.

Said property was built through the theft of Roarks property as it was constructed under breech of contract.

Who owns the property and whose rights were violated again? We keep blanking that out. Certainly if we were being civilly disobedient and an innocent bystanders rights were violated, you could say that the case was parrallel to Rand's, but in this case it is absolutely critical that the government violating rights, and it is the owner of the building. A government cannot have rights by virtue of the violation of others rights to obtain them. Those are entirely illegitimate.

Certianly if he had hurt someone it woudl be been his responsibility, but he didnt' so it is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course adding to the problem was that there was no legal recourse for either Keating or Roark - they couldn't sue for the breach of contract. So Roark blew it up in order to a) reclaim his right to the design which had been stolen from him and :) get the issue into court. And you just provided a quote explaining why it might be an ok idea to break a law in order to get a hearing in court in respect of that law.

Bingo. It makes all the difference in the world here that the supposed "property holder" whose "rights" were violated is the same body that is supposed to enforce rights, and who violated rights to obtain said property.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course adding to the problem was that there was no legal recourse for either Keating or Roark - they couldn't sue for the breach of contract. So Roark blew it up in order to a) reclaim his right to the design which had been stolen from him and cool.gif get the issue into court. And you just provided a quote explaining why it might be an ok idea to break a law in order to get a hearing in court in respect of that law.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, Keating had no right to make a contract regarding Cortland's construction.

Back this up with an explanation. I've already shown you how your analogy is incorrect. All you've done is change the last word in your statement. The consent of the government to accept Keatings terms was not taken away by limiting the terms under which Keating offered to construct the house.

By what principle does Keating not have a right to offer whatever terms he's allowed as to the construction of of something using designs that he has been given rights to?

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

We're not talking about your house. Since you want to equivocate the two situations, here's how it would go down if it were your house:

You would make a contract with an architect (Keating's firm, in this case) to have a building designed. You would put in certain terms, he would put in certain terms, and you would both sign. One of Keating's terms is that the building must be built exactly as designed, or else you have no license to use the design for your building. You agree to this term and sign the contract. Keating contracts with Roark to have the building designed and hands over the plans to you.

You then hire some other architects who make changes to the design, and go ahead and build the altered design.

Keating sues you for breach of contract.

You lose and owe him a lot of money.

You can make up whatever alterations you want to the scenario, but as it happens in the book, for whatever reason, Keating and Roark can't sue the government. What law is being invoked? Whichever one gives the government the tyrannical power to breach contracts and violate, rather than protect, the rights of its individual citizens. Or if there is no such law, then it's whichever government officials who are acting in breach of their positions. Either way - a right has been violated and it's up to the court to sort it out, and the only way it gets to court is if Roark does something illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He can only contract regarding his actions. He can not make binding contracts regarding someone else without their knowledge or permission.

He did not make a contract "regarding someone else" (really sloppy language by the way). He offered terms to the government for the use of his designs. That the building be built as designed. And they accepted after reviewing those terms. They consented to those terms freely. If they did not want those terms they were free to decline them. They did not. He did not force them to accept those terms, and his contract with Roark in no way bound the government to accept those terms. Keating has every right to do this, and Roarks contract is most certainly binding. It has not bound a future third party in any way, and as such doesnt' require their a priori consent. To then construct the house in violation of those terms means that they have breeched the contract and have stolen Keating/Roark's designs. The house was obtained by theft (i.e. by breech of cotnract), and they (if they were a private party) cannot claim rightful ownership of it.

This sort of contract restricting future third parties who enter into subsequent contracts happens all the time today, and it would happen in a fully rights respecting country as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Keating sues you for breach of contract. You lose and owe him a lot of money.

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Not off topic in the least. Of course that would have been Roark's responsibility. Imagine that for some reason Roark had been out of the country, and that the building was fully populated with people. In that case, of course, he would not have blown it up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are trying to hold Coartland and the public responsible for Keating's failure to uphold the contract. Sounds...collectivist!

No, we're trying to hold a rights-violating government responsible for it's breech of contract.

To claim that it is consistent to apply a specific direct instance of retaliation for rights violations to a broad diffuse instance of it would be hasty generalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not off topic in the least. Of course that would have been Roark's responsibility. Imagine that for some reason Roark had been out of the country, and that the building was fully populated with people. In that case, of course, he would not have blown it up.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which he gave up willingly and enthusiastically despite knowing he couldn't sue anyone no matter what happens

And as I've now corrected at least 6 times, he didn't "give them up." He contracted for specific use of them to another party, thus he retains rights to them.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you seem to agree that it is no more valid to destroy public property than private, unless one is living under totalitarian rule. [...] 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.

Its funny how you talk about "public property" (a pretty dubious concept to begin with) and the owners of Cortland and say that Roark had no right to destroy it.

If you are going to accept the concept of "public property" then you realize that the owners of Cortland found Roark not guilty, right? Apparently they found it a valid action and an enforceable contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

So are you saying you wouldn't have a problem with it if Keating had done the blowing up, rather than Roark?

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.

So how is it consistent for you to say that Roark can't blow it up as his only recourse to protecting his own rights (which he didn't just "give away" as you keep insisting), yet entitlements can be ended abruptly? (Although your argument on this point is really a matter of degrees - you're not saying "lets collect no more taxes immediately", you're saying "let's give a 30 - 90 day warning and then stop collecting taxes", which is a matter of degrees from "let's stop collecting taxes, a bit at a time as entitlement programs are wrapped up and infrastructures replaced, over the course of a number of years")

Also as far as the "collateral damage" issue was concerned - Roark took his actions with the full knowledge that there may be serious consequences for them. He expected to spend significant time in prison. As for a moral defense - the whole situation arises because the government abdicated its responsibility to protect individuals from force.

Edited by bluey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I have, at least 6 times now. The owners of Cortdland (the government) have not had their consent taken away in any way whatsover. They have not been coerced, and force has not been initiated against them. This is the moral basis for contracts regarding future actions of the parties involved.

Here is their uncoerced, freely voluntary choice: they can choose to build cortdland with Keatings desgins according to his terms (whatever terms he is willing or able to offer), or they can choose to not build it with Keatings designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
If a passer by had been injured, Roark would have been responsible, yes. Obviously he planned it well.

BTW, if a hunter -- after taking precautions -- inadvertently kills someone with his gun, that does not imply aggression. Typically such a hunter would not properly be guilty of voluntary manslaughter, only of involuntary manslaughter. No aggression, no forethought malice; yet, sure, there are some situations where people's negligence is criminal.

Of course, Roark was a bright fellow who would not be negligent in this way. He made sure the one human being was sent away from the site. We aren't shown all the details of his planning, nor given a map of the site. However, there's no reason to think he was negligent. There are reasons to think that he planned the episode well. Are you going to hold a fictional character liable for events that did not take place in his fiction?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its funny how you talk about "public property" (a pretty dubious concept to begin with) and the owners of Cortland and say that Roark had no right to destroy it. If you are going to accept the concept of "public property" then you realize that the owners of Cortland found Roark not guilty, right? Apparently they found it a valid action and an enforceable contract.

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.

So are you saying you wouldn't have a problem with it if Keating had done the blowing up, rather than Roark?

Yes, perhaps. It *might* be different, if he indeed couldn't sue for breach of contract.

So how is it consistent for you to say that Roark can't blow it up as his only recourse to protecting his own rights (which he didn't just "give away" as you keep insisting), yet entitlements can be ended abruptly?

The principle is clear. Roark did not own Coartland. I do own my own body and the product of my labor.

BTW, if a hunter -- after taking precautions -- inadvertently kills someone with his gun, that does not imply aggression. Typically such a hunter would not properly be guilty of voluntary manslaughter, only of involuntary manslaughter. No aggression, no forethought malice; yet, sure, there are some situations where people's negligence is criminal.

This is a totally different context. Roark was committing intentional, premeditated aggression.

Are you going to hold a fictional character liable for events that did not take place in his fiction?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

We do, the government is the owner.

The principle is clear. Roark did not own Coartland. I do own my own body and the product of my labor.

Roark owned the designs for Coartland. It could not have been built without the theft of those designs.

This is a totally different context. Roark was committing intentional, premeditated aggression.

ahem. Retaliation. Don't confuse the initiation of force with the retaliatory use of it.

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.

It's irrelevant. It happened the way it happened in the book. This is the Objectivist meaning of "context." Principles must be unpacked in a context. It's fiction. Rand setst he context and the principles must be analyzed with the specifics that surround the story. Rand cannot and shouldn't write for everyone's "what if" senario. She'd go nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris LeRoux:

Please start attributing your quotes. It is easy, when you hit the "reply" button the quote is automatically attributed.

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.

We do, the government is the owner.

The principle is clear. Roark did not own Coartland. I do own my own body and the product of my labor.

Roark owned the designs for Coartland. It could not have been built without the theft of those designs.

This is a totally different context. Roark was committing intentional, premeditated aggression.

ahem. Retaliation. Don't confuse the initiation of force with the retaliatory use of it.

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.

It's irrelevant. It happened the way it happened in the book. This is the Objectivist meaning of "context." Principles must be unpacked in a context. It's fiction. Rand sets the context and the principles must be analyzed with the specifics that surround the story. Rand cannot and shouldn't write for everyone's "what if" senario. She'd go nuts.

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

I hope you'll excuse me KendallJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You said you'd add him to ignore if he continued to redirect you to his previous posts rather than re-presenting his argument. I haven't seen any more links and I have seen a good number of arguments that directly referenced yours. So I guess that means you're just an asshole who isn't worth debating with. Too bad. I see no evidence that you're willing to honestly deal with either the subject of the debate or the other members of the forum, so I'm done with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Wait a minute, you have already invoked the idea of "public property" now be consistent. The "public" that owns that property is the same "public" that comprised that jury.

You know what they say about opinions don't you? Nevertheless, it is the jury's opinion that matters in this case.

Let us examine your opinion though. Knowing all you know about Roark (if you have read the book), knowing that Roark's intellectual property was stolen, you would stand with those that stole it, against him? That would be your prerogative but I certainly wouldn't deal with you thereafter.

To reward the looters for looting at the expense of the creative for defending their rights is morally depraved. It is what Ayn Rand used to call: "the hatred of the good for being the good"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I see we've circled back to post #1.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...