Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jono

Regulars
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    UnitedKingdom
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

522 profile views

Jono's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Correct, in my view you cannot own the air that naturally exists in the atmosphere. In order for you to move the air to another planet, you would have to pressurize it into tanks. You would then have a man-made supply of oxygen; a type 1 existent. Unless you can point out how air in the atmosphere will otherwise move to some desired location in space without man's involvement? "You have no right to stop anyone from messing with things that you don't own." Messing suggests a negative impact on you resulting from their interaction; can you give some examples of what you mean here? You have just as much right to those things as them, so I would say when it comes to type2 existents we would just have to learn to share.
  2. Jono

    Owning Land?

    Hi Marc, Ultimately the aluminium was taken from the land via the use of intelligence, physical exertion and capital (that capital itself having its origin in intelligence and physical exertion). The aluminium was the wage a mining business earned as a result of the exertions of individuals in extracting it from the land. At this point it became the mining company's property. The company then trades it, giving the rights to that aluminium over to Apple (in exchange for money). In taking the source material from the land, presuming no force was directed against individuals, there were no rights violated. Let me know if this needs further clarification.
  3. If someone makes use of small talk, I'd want to know their motive. Is it because they need friendliness from me in order to put themselves at ease? Is it because they think it is an act of benevolence to put me at ease? Or is it to obtain a favourable judgement of their character (i.e. Keating's interest in 'porcelain') In the first case, I would normally engage in small talk, as an act of benevolence. In the second, I would be disinterested in small talk and steer away from it - as I have a healthy level of self-esteem. If I detected it in the third case, I'd develop a thorough distrust of the person.
  4. If you have been wronged, and the justice system fails, you are entitled to seek justice individually provided you act on solid grounds of reason. If the perpetrator is willing to give back what can be reasonably asked of him, in order to put things right, then a just outcome will have been achieved. However, if the perpetrator is unreasonable, and does not comply, then reasonable use of force is justified. In the case of a rape victim, they have been violated, humiliated and hurt for the gratification of the rapist. The rapist deserves to be violated, humiliated and hurt for the gratification of the victim, as this is debt they owe. However, no objectivist worthy of the name would collect on that debt, because it would mean they would get self gratification from the suffering of another, and it is exactly this principle that Objectivism is against. The danger is in the motive, and where there is a risk of the perpetrator carrying out another crime, the victim has every right to protect themselves. All individuals have a right to liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. These are core principles which we as Objectivists should never abandon. Perpetrators of crimes deserve to be limited though. Perpetrators should still enjoy liberty, property and the right to pursue happiness, but not where this endangers the liberty, property and pursuit of happiness by others. I'm not sure how an act of revenge can be consistent with this sort of outcome. I personally would consider it a greater achievement if the victim reformed the justice system, so the failure is not repeated.
×
×
  • Create New...