Peter Taylor

I wrote about cruelty to animals: RationalBiker responded: Remember that old western where the leading man sees some guy whipping his horse and he puts a stop to it? Was that “The Virginian?” I remember the heroine considered him a hero. Would it be impossible in your objective court to prove that I did not commit assault and battery on the horse whipper, by stopping him? Could I prove in Judge Narragansett’s court that not only am I harmed by someone else’s cruelty to animals, but that there is harm to children watching the abuse too, and that such abuse cheapens everyone’s life? Is it also not a consideration that animal torturers very frequently become human torturers? In theory I agree that property is property and that animals are wild or someone’s property and that all property should be guaranteed under the US Constitution as a right and not just alluded to there as “The Pursuit of Happiness.” I will have to disagree that excessive animal cruelty cannot be objectively defined and enforced. It may be a nebulous concept to many, as is air pollution, or blocking a view, but it is just so morally right that I would not delete the law from the books except as the last thing deleted from an Objectivist Government just before all taxes are eliminated. And we all become rational Vulcans. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

Thanks. It took a few tries. Thanks for giving me the edit function. Peter

Bear with me. I am going to try the quote function again. Thomas Jefferson wrote: George H. Smith, author of “Atheism the Case against God,” illuminated the above quote by responding: How about the Repeal Amendment proposal? What do the Objectivists here think of the *consent doctrine?* Have you given your consent for Obamacare? Most likely not. Yet, if we are living in a Constitutional Government must we abide by the law as we work to change it? Yes, Ayn Rand might say, or protest non violently and accept the legal consequences. George H. Smith also wrote: If the various thirteen States already had their “more libertarian” state’s constitutions, weren’t those documents meant to last, complimenting the Federal Constitution, past the time that the signers died, onwards until their children died, and their children died? Weren‘t they meant to secure individual rights . . . well . . . forever? I can only think that the Founders of the 13 States Constitutions, and the Founders of the United States Constitution were not creating documents to last until they died, or until their kids took over the reins of government. They would have been foolish to not act for posterity. Did they create something wonderful as if they would die tomorrow, or did they create a wondrous thing as if they (and their children’s children) were going to live forever? With a view contrary to the one I just stated Thomas Paine wrote: Paine is persuasive. But, isn’t he speaking about the right of each generation to fight tyranny? But what were the majority of the signer’s intents? Didn’t they *intend* to write a document to AVOID tyranny, so that they and their posterity would live in freedom? This wasn’t a contract to build a house. It was a contract to build a country. When Paine says the deceased signer of the Constitution, “has no longer any authority in directing,” the living, I say he is defending the right for people to always fight any future tyranny! Those were cautionary words. *Multigenerational Contracts,* *Ownership,* and one of Thomas Jefferson’s favorite causes, *Inheritance* were all hundreds of years old common law, and UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED CONCEPTS during that era. They did not live in the moment! No, I must disagree with Paine. They set no time limit within the Constitution. It did NOT have a sunset clause. They created something to last longer than their own life times. Look at every painted picture of the Signers. The artists tried to capture that sacred moment. Let me quote the meaning of *Sacred* from the Ayn Rand Lexicon: Mr. Paine, The founding Fathers did not build a house of cards. 2012 will be a pivotal year to seek a remedy to the “Problem of the Constitution.” I will consent to the right changes. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

There is more to the issue of *property rights* than the flat-out “Objectively sounding” statement: “You may do as you please on your property as long as you do not initiate force to violate my rights.” Rational Biker wrote: It is more complicated than that, RB. Of course no one has a right to tell a Goth to dress appropriately. What’s with the black paint on your face, Kid? I may think the person is saying, “Look at me. Please look at me!” but that is irrelevant in a free society. However, do you have a right (and not just the *might*) to tell someone to remove their ten gallon hat in a movie theatre? Of course you do. Grames gave a link to the following quote and I apologize for its length. I picked and chose what I considered relevant. This “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine provides a partial remedy to the problem I will call the “Right to a View.” I will humorously leave commercial development and ten gallon hats out of the “scenario” for now, and just concentrate on residential land. Here is my example. I go to a residential realtor looking for resort land near the shore line with a view across the bay of the carousels and rides that I enjoyed on my childhood vacations. If anyone has seen the Sissy Spacek film, “Violets are Blue” there is such a beautiful nighttime scene from a boat on the bay with the carousel going round in the background, and you can hear crowds of ecstatic children too. Scene one: You find the land with that view, spend the exorbitant amount of money for it, and your property extends to the water, ensuring that no one can build between you and your view. Scene two: You find the land with that view, and your property extends to within ONE BUILDING LOT from the water, and you built your home. The “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine ensures that no one can build in between you and your view, BECAUSE YOU BUILT FIRST. Scene three: You find the land with that view, and your property extends to within ONE BUILDING LOT from the water, and you built your home. However, there was already another one story home in front of you, before you built. The “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine does not protect you, so you build a two story home, putting your living room with its better view on the second floor. Do you now have any objective, legal right under the “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine from the closer to the bay homeowner building a three story home there, that blocks your second story view? There are more scenarios but I will stop there. This is the sort of dilemma that flat out statements of “rights” do not cover. Just as non violent *coercion* was added to the *Non Initiation Of Force* concept by Ayn Rand, the right to property also needs rational clarification. “There oughta be a law.” I and my family have been personally involved in this issue but I will not give the specifics, except to say I have been dealing with “wetlands delineation,” perk tests, billboards, rights to a view, and concepts like *Coming to the Nuisance* and *Adverse Possession*, which is briefly an Anglo-American property law, that means someone built too close, or on someone else’s property with or without the property owner’s permission, in good faith. Adverse Possession has a statute of limitation in most U.S. states that allows an adverse possessor to acquire legal title if the owner does not seek timely possession. A quick and all too common example is when a ditch is dug for drainage and the ditch digger goes around a tree, but the rest of the ditch splits the property line. Years and years later a survey is done discovering the discrepancy that has been forgotten or never known by the current land owners. Thank you so much for your time and analysis, Grame and Rational Biker. Objectivism Online is a good site to build. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

Bluecherry wrote; quote I forget if there was anything she said in particular about zoning laws, but the standard positions among people supportive of Oism (something I agree with) is indeed opposition to zoning laws based on property rights. However, your right to do stuff on your property doesn't give you the right to do something that would impose f&^* ups upon somebody else's property, like, say, move up stream from somebody and start dumping toxic chemicals into the stream that will then go and wash up on your neighbor's property, killing off some pet ducks they have or something. end quote My, you do have a colorful way of speaking. Hence the name? The eff word? S#&* and whistles? Are those English profanities? Bloody Hell! I agree that zoning can be used to violate property rights. However, I disagree that there is no place for zoning at the local level at this time. No Objectivist is for “The Nanny State,” and voluntary agreements are better, but I am not for the complete abolition of building codes and zoning. I would make that one of the last things abolished by an Objectivist Government. Of course, insurance voluntarily contracted for, would decrease severe errors in building in a flood or hurricane zone, or an earthquake fault zone. “Obvious flaws” in a building might keep someone from a commercial establishment. I stayed at the Waldorf Astoria once, three doors down from composer Cole Porters room, which was great, but the ceiling by the bathroom hallway fell down while we were there exposing wires. No zoning? No laws? Everyone can do as they please if they are not violating individual rights until someone persuades you to stop? Or legally makes you stop? I am for laissez faire capitalism but that sounds more like anarchy. How would you like those pharmaceutical pills coming from China? With lead and arsenic or without? I know, I know, it hasn’t been proven yet and no one has died . . . yet. Would you be against child protection laws? I think laws can be objective and “preventative of wrongs.” The best examples of objective laws not based directly on individual rights that I can presently think of, are animal cruelty laws. I have a pretty good basis for the prevention of cruelty to animals somewhere but I will leave that issue as is. My brief argument is: It is wrong even though animals don’t have rights. However, the reason animal cruelty laws can be considered objective is not based on the rights of animals. It is based on the rights of humans. We do not like seeing animals abused or tortured. Why put up with it? You disagreed with my assertion that the surrounding view is an objective property right. Now I am not talking about a neighbor wanting to build a new barn that I think looks crappy, either too modern or not rustic enough. And I am not talking about remedies like voluntary exchange that preserve property rights in the nature of “I will pay you not to erect your billboard that will block my view of the Rocky Mountains.” There is more to this issue that flat out stating, “You may do as you please as long as you do not initiate force to violate my rights.” One solution is found in Grames post and I will address that next time. Thank you so much for your time and analysis. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

I am trying to learn the quote function so bear with me here. Sorry. I am so use to writing in essay form I will continue with that mode for now. Sev wrote: They are your allies, Sev. Many have agreed to put any social issues on the back burner. If you want to improve your own life, in the long run, you need to improve your government. Don’t forget Judge Narragansett from Atlas Shrugged: The Tea Party can do that in 2012. No Objectivist need sanction everything a political party does. Ayn Rand supported Dewey (no joke) and Goldwater. Extremism in the defense of Objectivism, even going to the extent of joining a political movement, is no vice. Doing nothing, or speaking as a nihilistic spoiler, or voting for someone who is sure to lose, is not virtuous and it is not what Ayn Rand did. Aren’t some candidates worth supporting? America IS worth saving. Ayn Rand's *government* is based on the United States Constitution. In Robert Tracinski's “An Interview with Jamie Radtke, Part 2, he asks the Senatorial Tea Party and Republican candidate from Virginia about the Repeal Amendment and Jamie replied: Interesting. A two-thirds majority of the state’s legislatures can repeal any law, rule, regulation, or tax passed by Congress. But a “con-con” or constitutional convention must first be called, to enact The Repeal Amendment. Do we trust the B%$#*tards to do JUST that? Does anyone have any thoughts about the advisability of passing this amendment? The Government is once again, about to run out of money and ten elected, Tea Party Senator’s are tired of it. I like The Repeal Amendment better than calling more than one constitutional convention in the coming years. . . or politics as usual. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

Bluecherry wrote: Did Ayn Rand write or say anything about zoning laws? I would think she would be opposed to zoning laws unless the laws are objective and rational. Yet, aren’t the following *legitimately legal issues*, though at first an Objectivist like myself might side on the side of the “rights holder”: “Some” Insider Trading, Privacy issues, Dirty Tricks, Mental Cruelty, The spreading of false and harmful information, Impersonation, Cruelty to Animals, or Frivolous Lawsuits? All of these issues show gray areas between property rights and the rights of others. And don’t Zoning Laws, to sustain property values, stop coercive activities? Objective laws define the legal line between what may be considered morally wrong by different individuals who all have different moralities, and legally wrong behaviors, that infringe upon legitimate rights. Many illegal activities do not involve the ‘strict’ initiation of force. Rather, they are considered coercive. I maintain that zoning CAN prohibit coercive activities. An Objectivist view might be: The proper purpose of laws is to guarantee your right to do what you want with your property subject only to the restrictions you have agreed to in contracts with others. The purpose of zoning laws are to enable others (who work through the government) to tell you what to do with your property without your agreement. I agree in spirit, but I disagree on finer points that might be considered coercive in nature, in this strict interpretation of *absolute* property rights. When someone buys or already owns property the land’s dimensions are strictly defined, by surveying. One could say that piece of land is five acres, relatively rectangular in shape, and borders three other properties and the road. However, there is a further dimension to land: The sky above it, the land below it, the surrounding view, and the air you breath. Property is more than two dimensional. Let me enumerate some cases that illustrate more than two property dimensions. Water and mineral rights. Air quality rights. The sky above. In other words, sunlight and rainfall rights. My last three enumerated rights are intertwined and tougher to defend: Who got there first? The right to a surrounding view. And the right to a continuation of a property’s fair value. Water and mineral rights. This is the easiest to defend property right because virtually everyone agrees, mineral rights under the property are justifiable, and require little defense. However, a corollary right is that no one on surrounding properties can legally pump out ground water until the water table under your property is lowered so much that you have no access to well water. This issue recently happened in Somerset County, Maryland where a newly built state prison caused dozens of surrounding properties that only had “well water” to go dry, and it stopped Wal-Mart from building a distribution center in that County. And there have been many cases where corporations poisoned the ground water. Another issue, is using up all the water in a river, or damming it. Should this be legal, if the river previously ran through your property? Not unless you agree. And there have been cases where individuals or countries drilled sideways under a neighbor’s property to steal oil or minerals. Air quality rights. No one can deny you breathable air, by burning, building a pig farm, or a manufacturing plant near you, without your consent, if the land is zoned residential or agricultural. The sky above. No one may plant trees that extend over your property, or block the sun or the rain, with a building, without your permission, if the land is zoned residential, or agricultural. Who got there first, and the surrounding view? This is a tough one. If I have bought property with the sensible expectation that I may have a certain view, then a property owner near me should not be legally able to block my view, at a later date. This happens frequently in tourist areas, where preexisting buildings have a view of the ocean, or of mountains, or of a waterfall. This right to a surrounding view should also extend to commercial property. And now my last, more nebulous concept. Does a person have a right to diminish your property’s value, because of something that they do on their property? Let us postulate that I have a Beverly Hills estate and The Clampetts move in next door . . . I am dumbfounded that no Objectivists have tackled these issues. What a great subject for an essay. Let me throw out the gauntlet! I would like to see a definitive article on Zoning published. Who is up to the task? As to the Hollywood sign. The City should buy the land and name it a historic landmark. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor Notes: I am no lawyer or Objectivist scholar, but how does my view square with the following quotes? Ayn Rand, "What is Capitalism" Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, p. 19

Atlas Shrugged the movie will hopefully make it to theatres closer to all of us. I would need to drive 300 miles. I looked at Diana Hsieh's podcast, though not until its end, to avoid spoilers, since I have not yet seen AS, and it was quite good. And I enjoyed Robert Tracinski's review on The Intellectual Activist Online today. When asked how he liked the movie, Robert answers it was a great book, but he did like the movie too, though that quote doesn't sound like it. I wish they were simultaneously making a twelve part movie, perhaps for HBO that portrays more of the novel. It was number 14 on the most seen list for last weekend. I no longer listen to Roger Ebert. His likes and dislikes do have a racist bent. For him to like a film it needs a social conscience and many actors "of color" in it. It is 12:53 pm and the producer of AS just came onto FOX. he mentions that as far as influential books go it is number two behind the bible. It will be in 500 theatres this weekend and hopefully in a thousand or more for the third weekend, per John A (Aguilara?) Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

Hello to all. This will be my first post here. Greg began this thread by writing: I was reading Ayn Rand’s book in Iraq. And I think that she neglected the fact the military is an altruistic intuition, but a necessary one at that. End quote The concept, *empathy* may be what you are thinking about. Empathy is good. It allows human’s to interact and connect with other humans. It is most frequently felt for family members but it also extends to other people. When you root for someone to succeed you are feeling empathy. Being a good Samaritan is empathy in action. Empathy keeps humans from harming animals needlessly. It is a form of what Objectivists term *benevolence* and is considered a secondary virtue. I wish Rand had kept the dictionary versions of definitions. Since she redefined many things, it’s caused misunderstandings. I quickly read some of this thread and I think someone already mentioned the following but I want to give my take on it. From Merriam Webster, Altruism. 1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others 2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species. From The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Altruism: What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. . . End quotes I think Ayn saw Altruism used as the usual rationale for establishing Statist and Ultra-Nationalistic Governments AND justification for the worst atrocities of those Totalitarian Governments. The Soviet Union and Communist China all used Altruism as their excuse to create a supposed classless state but with a informal ‘monarchy’ in charge, just as American Liberal/Progressives see themselves as the ultimate ruling elite. Communism destroyed Ayn’s family. And The Soviet Union’s nukes could have destroyed Truth, Justice and the American Way. Nazi Germany used Altruism to foster Nationalism and Der Fuhrer. Do it for the fuhrer. Do it for the Fatherland. Do it for the Race. Just do it, or die. Altruism has no place within Objectivism. Empathy could be a tremendous asset in the military no matter the MOS but I would prefer a medic with a lot of empathy. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor