[Abortion]

Trebor wrote:

Expletive deleted.

Adios dad!

I signed out of receiving notices so I was surprised to get the above message.

Now that is kind of honest exchange I like! I looked at Betsy's site and it looked interesting but also may not be a place I could post without worrying : o ) Hmmm? Where will I take my money?

Go see the movie, AS! I want a part two.

Adios son.

Peter Taylor

[Abortion]

I was told this by a moderator:

Please do not post to this thread until you answer this question succinctly, without your usual rambling. I will probably delete any other answer you post here.

It is sufficient if the readers just stop reading my posts, there is no reason . . .

Ah what the hell. I may check back at a later date to see if this has become a forum for rational discourse, that would welcome my support. I withdraw mine.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Your Presidential hopefuls for 2012]

From Gary Johnson: Why I'm Running for President By JAY NEWTON-SMALL Jay Newton-small – Fri Apr 22, 11:20 am ET

Former two-term New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is running for president. In a 25-minute speech, Johnson spent nearly as much time acknowledging the obstacles to his candidacy as he did his strengths. Yes, he conceded, he's against the war in Iraq and U.S. engagement in Libya. He'd like to balance the budget tomorrow by slashing 43% off of all federal spending, including the Pentagon. He'd turn both Medicare and Medicaid into block grants to the states. He's pro-immigration and his proud declaration that he'd love to legalize marijuana gave a passing class of sixth-graders the giggles.

Jay Newton asked him:

You don't attend church and you've said in the past that Jesus is a "historical figure." How do you plan on appealing to social conservatives?

Gary Johnson replied:

Well, actually, I believe in God… And at a minimum Jesus was a great historical figure - at minimum at great role model - at minimum.

He sounds like a good guy but may be viewed as a good “head”ed heathen by his opponents. I have no idea how he will be viewed by Republicans in general but he will be heckled by people like Huchabee with a pulpit. He sounds like the real deal and not a “politician.” I would vote for him if a couple of other people don’t win the primaries. Still the punches he is beginning the fight with are good except for pot smoking (jab) and Jesus was not a deity (left hook) and they leave him open to a barrage of counter punches over the missed left hook,from the right.

Peter Taylor

[Abortion]

Ayn Rand’s official definition of a woman’s right to an abortion is a side issue of her concept *Man’s Rights*. This side issue was born of the radical sixties and before that, the rise of Feminism, and horror stories of women who had “illegal” back alley abortions. Two biographers “have some evidence” that Ayn Rand had an abortion. This information came from a United States relative of Miss Rands.

She was friends with Rose Wilder Lane, daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder who wrote the beloved "Little House on the Prairie" children's books, Isabel Paterson, author of “The God of the Machine,” and Edith Efron, author of “The Feminine Mystique. They were feminists all.

Abortion is a unique political and medical issue because Christian religion had banished this medical procedure from polite, legal society, and criminalized the woman and the doctor who performed the abortion. That was a horrible injustice. History can provide a backdrop to what was written and thought at that time.

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

I agree that any obligation to a baby inside the womb is always subordinate to the Mother’s rights even after the appearance of consciousness in the baby. Rand’s concept of not-yet-living (or the unborn) is in error. It is not scientifically valid. A LIVING human whatever its stage of existence is still living inside the mother, even if it is unborn. Separation from a place does not change a potential to an actual.

What Ayn Rand is stating is a side issue written years ago. Does it somehow change reality? Is there a magical change in a child before and after birth based on the fact that it is beholden upon its mother for life itself? And this transformation occurs because of the thought and words that someone (Ayn Rand) wrote who was uninvolved in the pregnancy or birth?

That would be a logical fallacy.

A (residing within the being of Y at one day of existence) is A

A (residing within Y at six months of existence) is A

A (residing within Y at nine months of existence) is A

A (residing outside of Y) is Non A?

No. A baby is always A baby. Its nature does not change. How one views a baby as rights bearing or not does not change its nature.

Based upon its nature it is always a human being, but before the ignition of that special spark of consciousness, it is still a human, and deserving of all the consideration we give a human, but not say, any other animal’s embryos, but the human embryo is still not yet a *person*.

So when are rights conferred? After it becomes separate from its mother’s body? Ayn Rand says “Yes.” I say, “No.” (Is that the cavalry I hear?)

It’s nature changes it to a *person* when it begins thinking like a person, and not when it is no longer needy and inside the womb. Of course a BORN baby and older child are separate from their mother but still needy. Neediness does not affect the imputation of rights to a thinking child inside the womb nor the older but separate, thinking, rights bearing child, outside the womb.

This argument is the law in several states and will undoubtedly make it to the Supreme Court making it the law of the land.

Roe v. Wade will not be overturned. It should not be overturned. The battle should be to keep Roe v. Wade as law but with one huge modification. I will let you think about it. As angry as you may or may not be, think about it. You know the right answer. Discover it through reason not recitation. Discover it via a healthy psycho-epistemology. THAT is the Objectivist way.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Abortion]

Marc wrote:

Just to be crystal clear: my position is the same as Ayn Rand's, namely, that only actual human beings have Rights and a woman has an absolute right to determine what happens to her body including whether to have an abortion or not. My argument for this position can be found throughout the thread, in particular on page 43. The issue of "viability" is addressed there and why it is not a proper standard for personhood.

I went back to page 43 and looked. There are some interesting things you have said. I will just write about one. Sorry if this has been said by someone else, but this thread is too Huge to read in one day!

On page 43 you wrote:

I suggest there is an exact time which is implied by definition of "human being".

I agree with the above . . . I think . . . but in your latest letter you call a fetus a “potential human being,” which is not scientifically precise. We are at odds over terminology and a wrinkle in Randian philosophy. Let us clear up one point. When the sperm and egg unite what is *created* is a human being - at that stage of development. A day later it is a one day old human being. There is a continuity of existence from that first unification of human sperm and egg. It never ceases to biologically be a human until death and then it is a dead human being.

My terminology, which I maintain is more scientific, is that a normal human while it exists in the womb, is always a *potential person,* no matter its state of development. I think that is what we are discussing. When is a baby a *person*? When is a human a person possessing rights? I see a modification in Ayn Rand’s stance as contextual knowledge was gained during her lifetime modifying the instant that *potential* becomes *rights bearing*.

I have looked and looked for the source of one of my semi quotes but I cannot find it, I must have gotten it from correspondence from another Objectivist. I will repeat it from memory. Briefly, the story goes that a “mature Ayn Rand” was kind of ambushed and asked some quick questions by a big fan, (it may have been Doris Gordon from “Libertarians for Life.” Imagine sitting outside her apartment hour after hour waiting for Ayn Rand to emerge!)

One of the questions asked was does a baby one minute before birth have the rights of a person? And Ayn Rand said yes. The second question was what if a mother who is aborting her baby, and during the procedure, the baby happens to be delivered alive and viable. Does the aborting mother have a right to a dead baby? And Ayn Rand is reported to have said No she does not have that right. I won’t dignify this with quotes but I think it could be true. Regardless of its veracity, if you look at the Lexicon you will see an evolution of thought in Ayn Rand.

Should an aborted baby excised before the end of its gestation period but that has the brain wave patterns of a freely born baby, and is viable outside the mother’s womb have “the rights of a person?” Should a delivering / aborting doctor have the right to kill the baby? According to your stance which you say is also the official Objectivist stance, you say yes. Marc, in many states and eventually in all our states that will be considered murder.

To reiterate, I maintain that the moment a baby becomes conscious is the moment that it becomes a person. From that first moment onward, sensations and perceptions in and out of the womb are experienced, memories are stored, and a unique BRAIN is in existence within its mother.

THIS NEW PERSON HAS AN IDENTITY THAT WILL REMAIN THE SAME THROUGHOUT ITS LIFE. It’s rights are modified at birth. Its rights that were secondary to its mothers because it was dependent upon her for its existence, now change to equal to the mothers. This normal baby is thinking as evidenced by the brain wave patterns alpha, delta and theta that are also found in thinking adults.

A good measure of Aristotle’s and Rand’s law of identity is that they are based on the facts of reality as we observe them. After consciousness a fetus becomes a *person*. There are things in the universe that a person in the womb cannot know because it is not yet aware of them. For millennia humans did not know about the dark side of the moon. That does not affect my argument. Omniscience is not required of a *person*. Conceptual thinking is not required for a human child to be granted rights.

Marc, I agree that a mother’s rights ALWAYS trump the unborn baby’s rights but at some point there is a person on board, and an abortion at that point, without JUST CAUSE would be similar to an airline pilot jettisoning a stowaway.

The official Objectivist stance is over thirty years old and you maintain:

Ayn Rand is dead and so her Philosophy will stay that one thing and not be extended.

I DO SEE YOUR POINT, but I must also logically disagree on a technicality. Why has ARI issued a book on induction as an advancement of Objectivism, Ayn Rand’s philosophy? When OPAR was issued some complained that Doctor Peikoff had changed Rand’s thinking, YET, OPAR still stands as Her Philosophy.

That is not my disagreement with you. I am NOT suggesting big “O” Objectivism as written by Ayn Rand should be edited. I have heard the arguments about calling modern day contextual Objectivism, little o’ism, or Independent objectivism, etc., to reflect the facts as we NOW know them to be. That is the philosophy I am trying to change, not what Rand wrote. As more facts are gathered advanced conclusions can change, though not the axioms.

You wrote:

, , , pretend that that position could be part of Objectivism, that is absurd.

I am not saying we change the wonderful writings of Ayn Rand. I am not trying to be snarky at your attitude, when I say CHANGE NOTHING in her writings, or the Bible or any other sacred text, because I think of Ayn Rand’s writings that way.

I do not want any modern guardian of the Politically Correct to change her writings, editing out smoking, or something else deemed not quite right by today’s standards. My jest about Mr Binswanger creating an Objectivist Lexicon based on the Philosophy of Ayn Rand and then modifying its stance on abortion, will occur.

It will occur.

Life marches on. Science marches on. Philosophy marches on. More knowledge is acquired at an ever accelerating rate.

Rand is our heritage. She demanded that we think for ourselves. I am impressed with your intellect, Marc, which is why you have gotten such a (platonically : o ) passionate response.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Objectivist government]

softwareNerd wrote:

So the thread on Objectivist Government is turning into a tin hat thread about Obama as a muslim Manchurian candidate?

I like asides. No one knows everything. And as Mark Twain warned, “Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.”

There is more that I would like to say, so thanks for the prod softwareNerd.

Does the history of Western Law apply to Objective Law? In “The Structure of Liberty” Lon Fuller mentions eight basic rules of law. I got these second hand, from an old letter from Ross Barnett on Atlantis, when Jimbo Wales owner of Wikipedia, was the moderator, so they are not quotes, but what Ross remembered. And there are some comments of his that I edited:

1. Having rules at all, rather than deciding issues of justice ad hoc (or, for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application.)

2. Having clearly understood rules.

3. Having rules that do not change rapidly, so one can use them to make decisions.

4. Having non-contradictory rules, so it is possible to obey them (or the law of compossibility)

5. Having rules that do not require one to do things beyond one's power.

6. Having rules that are well publicized.

7. Having rules that are not retroactive.

8. Having rules where there is congruence between the rule as articulated and the rule as actually applied.

Note that rule #4 is the rule of law version of what, in rights theory, is the law of compossibility.

The result?

"The pluralism of Western law . . . has been, or once was, a source of freedom. A serf might run to the town court for protection against his master. A vassal might run to the king's court for protection against his lord. A cleric might run to the ecclesiastical court for protection against the king."

The rule of law developed as each of these legal systems, attempting to curry "customers" away from alternative legal systems that could be chosen, granted "benefits to their customers". Use our service, and you'll be sure of avoiding ex post laws. Come to us, and we make sure your legal duties are clearly communicated. Join us--publicize our rules and make them enduring.

Thus a polycentric legal system (market justice) was responsible, historically, for developing what is now known as the rule of law. Better, in a sense, to think of it as the unintended consequence of the rule of laws.

So I see no reason not to rethink these “common laws,” and add them if appropriate to a more ideal Objectivist or Tea Party Constitution, or much more likely, to State, County, or City laws. I think the wisdom gathered into common law should not be lost.

Two that have been mentioned are *Adverse Possession* and *Coming to the Nuisance.* These are used by a judge to show *precedent.* This use of precedents is known as stare decisis. We could not have civil proceedings or criminal trials now without precedent. There are thousands of real estate precedents.

Riparian or waterfront laws are abundant in every state. So once again the simple declaration that a person may do as they like on their property as long as they do not violate the rights of others is a gross oversimplification. No you can’t. And knowledgeable people are aware of this fact.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Objectivist government]

softwareNerd asked:

Vetted? What are you talking about? Who's supposed to vet a candidate's qualifications?

For the lowest of military clearances this search criteria is From US military dot gov.

a. The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;

b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation;

c. The frequency and recency of the conduct;

d. The individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct;

e. The voluntariness of participation;

f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes;

g. The motivation for the conduct;

h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and

i. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

The example of “h.” above kept *known* gay people from getting a “secret” clearance before the policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” because of the risk of blackmail.

When you go a bit higher on the “eyes only” bracket more is involved.

From Ehow:

In general, to obtain a security clearance from the U.S. government, you need to be a loyal U.S. citizen who has lived a relatively clean life. At any given time in the U.S., there are roughly 3 million people with security clearance. The greatest number of these people can be found in the U.S. military.

A security check involves investigation of your life, including federal records, criminal checks and credit checks. Higher level checks will also involve field interviews not only with you, but with people who know you. Investigators will be looking into your character, criminal history, emotional stability, trustworthiness, loyalty and reliability to see if you should be allowed to access confidential information, most notably national security information. So you don't want to have committed serious crimes, be deep in debt or associate with groups that act against the government.

Now what sort of access would a Senator need.? Top Secret. I will not access that info online, or say what I know. It would set off alarms.

What sort of clearance would a President need? The highest there is.

With Obama’s associations, foreign socialist / communist father, radical socialist mother, and background he should not have been given a “secret clearance.” If he had enlisted in the military he would not have been given much, if any clearance for sensitive material. Melodramatic scenarios like, “Is he a Manchurian Candidate,” are a bit farfetched. Or are they? I see on the net he has supposedly released his birth certificate. What are the odds that it is a fake? The Donald will research that for us.

Something is terribly wrong.

Unless all government vetters who researched Obama are given a pass or pardon, I think there will be an inquiry around 2013 if a Republican is elected.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Formerly of Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, Seventh Infantry Division Artillery - Signal Corps.

Peter Taylor

[Your Presidential hopefuls for 2012]

Space Patroller wrote:

What Romney has to do is get media savvy and be more assertive.

I fixed the misspelling of Romney's name in the above quote. I will do the same for everyone so please don’t say I ruined your quote, or committed some petty fraud.

Though Objectivists are leery of him, he is probably the “easiest elected,” even with the albatross of Romneycare around his neck. I do NOT think he is a RINO. I could vote for him.

Paul Ryan would be my favorite if he were running. He said he would not run because his kids are too young. They may be 7, 8, and 9 now but I am not sure. He was a featured speaker at a ceremony (Ayn Rand’s grave?) when a statue was unveiled. And Rand Paul? The name says it all. A Paul Ryan President and Rand Paul Vice President would be my perfect combination. I hope Paul changes his mind.

I think the decision to NOT vote is nihilistic. It is not what Ayn Rand would do. She campaigned for several people. And she would be fired up, mad a hell, and not going to take it anymore, if she were still alive. She would be speaking to her biggest fan, Paul Ryan frequently.

Is there anyone else? This is to inform everyone that I subscribe and donate to TIA Daily. I have subscribed since its inception and I highly recommend TIA Daily. Robert Tracinski’s articles are reprinted in spots like Realclearpolitics but I get them first and articles like the Washington Post are excerpted with permission. Subscribers have been given the OK to reprint portions.

This is a bit long but it is “of a piece” and a shorter excerpt would not convey its full meaning.

So if not Paul Ryan or Rand Paul who? Ron Paul? I like Ron but wonder about his elect-ability. Here is another choice.

Peter Taylor

TIA Daily • April 25, 2011 by Robert Tracinski

6. The Big 2012 Election Decision

I have so far resisted covering the contest for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. I am waiting for the serious candidates to get into the race—and for the publicity-seeking vanity candidates, like Donald Trump and Mitt Romney, to fade.

(Yes, that was an unfair dig against Romney. But does he really think he can win the nomination when his signature accomplishment, as governor of Massachusetts, was to pass a precursor to ObamaCare?)

I think Obama is in real trouble (and RCP's Sean Trende presents a convincing case). The only thing that can save him is if the Republicans nominate a candidate with some glaring weakness—which many of them have. In particular, I don't think we need a flashy, exciting, but controversial celebrity candidate. I think we need someone serous and sober, an anti-Obama.

That is why the most important decision of the 2012 election will be made this week, when Indiana's legislative session ends and Governor Mitch Daniels decides whether or not to run.

Daniels is a serious, thoughtful candidate with a low-key demeanor—a man of substance over style. He has established excellent small-government credentials in Indiana, he is the one who has described government debt as the "red menace," he has championed Ryan-style entitlement reform, and he famously proposed a "truce" between religious conservatives and pro-free-marketers.

I have become convinced that Daniels is the man we need—if he will agree to run. The article below describes what is at stake in his decision.

"Mitch Daniels Sounds Fiscal Alarm, but Indiana Republican Hesitant to Run in 2012," Dan Balz, Washington Post, April 24

[Objectivist government]

Steve wrote:

Hopefully someday, we will see a government with Article 4:

Article Four: The purpose of this government is to protect the rights of individuals living within its boundaries, and the following procedures are provided to redress situations where the government exceeds that mission. [....]

You guys are impressing me. Excellent posts.

Grames quoted From "Representation Without Authorization"

Ayn Rand said:

. . . . Thus the government of a free country derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed . . . . As a corroboration of the link between man's rational faculty and a representative form of government, observe that those who are demonstrably (or physiologically) incapable of rational judgment cannot exercise the right to vote.

Thank you Grames. I would maintain that in America consent is given. Self-sovereignty is maintained. Our *Basic* rights defending Government does not make me do things against my will. When we do think government is overstepping its bounds we need a better system to redress these wrongs. The proposed Repeal Amendment is one such device.

2012. I saw today that Trump is questioning Obama’s credentials to be President because his grades were poor, and not good enough to be admitted to Harvard.

I have dismissed Trump as a serious candidate but I hope he stays in the race. If it did come down to Obama or Trump I MIGHT vote for Trump. I would never vote for Obama. Years ago when I listened to Trump’s short two-minute spots on talk radio he sometimes sounded like a full blown Statist.

I went to his site and left a message (it was very slow printing what I typed.) I said, You are saying what many of us are thinking. Find out who vetted Obama for Senator and President. Meet with Tea Party Congressmen and discuss ways to initiate another HUAC, House Un-American Activities Committee.

Why go to such an extreme? When I went into the Army, my job description required a clearance. Federal agents vetted me with former neighbors. Since my father was a naval officer and I had lived in naval housing much of my life my clearance was approved quickly. Out of 90 GI’s in my “secure” class I and one other former armed forces dependent had ours approved the quickest.

Something is terribly wrong. The clown in office should not be there. He knows little. He was not properly vetted.

Peter Taylor

[Abortion]

I will begin with a joke, definitely not aimed at Marc who has correctly identified and verified my argument. Objectivist Peter Reidy, author of “Wright and Rand” once wrote on the defunct site OWL on the thread “’Child’s Rights”:

The denial that "the mind is tabula rasa at birth" is an interesting locution. It leaves open the possibility that it becomes so decades later. We see evidence for this every day.

Marc K wrote:

Ayn Rand had questions about when life begins and other technicalities but as far as I know she never changed her position on which entities possessed Rights, nor on the absolute right of a woman to choose to have an abortion.

It sounds as though you are fully comfortable with a woman aborting a fetus or embryo within the first two trimesters and that you are less comfortable with her aborting in the last trimester. Further it sounds like your position is that women have the right to abortion, even in the third trimester. If this is your position then it is fully consistent with Objectivism.

I am NOT fully comfortable with the moral (and now legal issue) of *abortion* Marc. It is always better “to err on the side of life.” I generally agree with what you said.

Rand showed some evolution contextually based upon the medical science available at that time, but never revised her official position. In "The Comprachicos," Rand said:

At birth, a child's mind is tabula rasa; he has the potential of awareness -- the mechanism of a human consciousness -- but no content. Speaking metaphorically, he has a camera with an extremely sensitive unexposed film (his conscious mind), and an extremely complex computer waiting to be programmed (his subconscious). Both are blank. He knows nothing of the external world.

Science advanced in the late 1970’s and we now that the baby is not a blank slate. When a baby is inside its mother's womb, the baby is already in the world. The womb is not like a sensory deprivation tank. Light and sound enter. The Baby’s neurons are firing.

In The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, by Thomas Verney, M.D., he writes

. . . . from the sixth month of intrauterine life (and sometimes even earlier) the unborn child is a feeling, experiencing, remembering being who responds to and is deeply influenced by his environment.

One case study mentioned in that book cites:

A woman plays a cello piece often during her pregnancy; in later life her child knows the score of that piece by heart before he ever plays it.

In other words if you hum a bit of the melody, the child who frequently experienced that music in the womb can hum the rest of the bar of music FROM MEMORY. Weird!

Canadian Ellen Moore who I deeply respect used to teach courses from NBI and continued teaching Objectivism into the 1990’s had an opinion on this. Long time Objectivist, Ellen Moore, now deceased wrote:

. . . . The thing is, it never occurred to me that knowledgeable Objectivists took literally the idea of "tabula rasa". It is a metaphor, and at the very least an inaccurate simile. The mind is not a "slate", and I know of no evidence that the neurons in the newborn brain are "blank". There is much misunderstanding in taking such a literal approach, and I do not think Objectivism is at fault for causing it. You know, " using common sense" is a good place to start. Identification of the structure and content in the neurons of the newborn brain is a topic for scientific research. I would not begin to hypothesize about what I do not know. I too have read texts on developmental psychology about newborns. Normal neonates are perceptually capable, i.e., their sensory organs, nervous system, and brain are working as their identity dictates . . . . According to Objectivism, metaphysically, a human consciousness's actions are volitional: meaning that its actions of awareness can be initiated, directed, and sustained by the conscious organism . . . . I do not think that Rand went beyond the claim of scientific information available as it was in her lifetime. What she did go beyond in metaphysics was to identify axioms, and an objective theory of volitional consciousness. In epistemology she offered an objective theory of concept formation. As a philosopher, that was her fundamental contribution to Philosophy; followed by hierarchical order of principles in ethics and politics.

The issue of when a baby in the womb is a “person” is a separate rights issue that is being addressed by Doctor’s ethics committees and the Supreme Court. A caesarian section or induced labor is one way to think of a non - lethal semi-abortion procedure. The baby is born before the end of its gestation period but has the brain wave patterns of a freely born baby and is viable outside the mother’s womb. It should be considered to have “the rights of a person.”

Should an aborted baby born before the end of its gestation period but that has the brain wave patterns of a freely born baby and is viable outside the mother’s womb have “the rights of a person,” according to the official Objectivist stance? This is a moral and legal ethics issue and not a religious point of view. Yes it should.

Where does an ethics of abortion and infanticide lead? President Obama sanctions partial birth abortion, and condones the killing of the baby before, during and after the abortion procedure. He agrees that a woman having an abortion has a right to a dead baby and no crime is being committed if the doctor kills a baby that has survived the abortion procedure and can live outside the mother’s womb. The State in his opinion has a right to give its sanction to a doctor, to kill a viable but aborted baby. No murder is being committed. The intent of the procedure defines and legalizes the outcome of death, not birth.

Does his “legal” attitude towards the newly born tell us about President Obama’s respect for the rights of people already born? Does he think “The State” has a right to abrogate the freedom of the people, if he as the Head of State, deems it necessary? Of course he does. His intrusion into the rights of the ‘aborted and newly born’ extends to his attitude towards the entire freely born and adult population of the United States. It is logical to reason that this is an extension of his socialist and totalitarian beliefs.

With the above as background I would like my readers to ponder this. What is more important than Marc’s statement, “Your theory does not contradict Objectivism?”

The answer is, “Your theory is true.”

Therefore we could say that in the context of today’s knowledge one could truthfully state my theory should be an extension of Objectivism. Ayn Rand is no longer with us, but she never wanted to “rest in peace.” We are her legacy. Fight for the advancement of Objectivism.

Should a contextually true “change” be printed in the next edition of the Lexicon? I don’t know. That is Binswanger’s job. He could author a new book titled “The Objectivist Lexicon, Based on the Philosophy of Ayn Rand ( or OLBPAR : o ) As more knowledge is gained other contextual changes could be made.

I will say, “Roger Bissell’s theory on the attributes of a human in the womb is true.” Good work, Roger!”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Objectivist government]

Steve D'Ippolito wrote:

Government must by its nature be able to wield its power without the consent of the person it is wielding power against. (If it had the consent it wouldn't need that power, would it?) And that person may never have consented. And being born here and not leaving is hardly consent;

I am not sure how to answer you. Yet, let me address the following explanation, not just to you Steve, but to anyone who reads this letter. My point of view is that while I may be discussing this as an Objectivist (I did not name the thread) I am not necessarily discussing Theoretical Objectivist Government except as it applies to a discussion about our current Constitutional Government.

In other words, what does an Objectivist think about this or that, medicine or cosmology or Sarah Palin, and not about Objectivism per se. I certainly value your Randian Scholarship but if I am discussing *consent theory* I want to know what a rational, objective person thinks. Of course I may not know what Rand said so that too is welcome.

That being said, Steve’s following point was brilliant:

(If it had the consent it wouldn't need that power, would it?)

Did all the immigrating occupants of Ayn Rand’s “Atlantis” consent to be there? Yup. Did any children born there give their consent? Nope. But until they reach a “majority age” their right of consent is granted by their guardians, who are their parents. After that what would be moral?

George H. Smith author of the tongue in cheek title, “Atheism, Ayn Rand and other Heresies,” wrote:

Ayn Rand defends a consent doctrine in several of her essays, but she never explains how this consent should manifest itself - whether, for example, it must be explicit or merely tacit (as Locke believed). Nor does she explain precisely which rights are delegated to government and how they are transferred. Therefore, although Rand appears to fall within the social contract tradition (at least in a general way), it is unclear where she would stand on the nature and method of political consent. I sincerely hope that some of her minarchist followers can shed some light on this problem.”

And he continued with:

“I agree with these critics. If we accept the premise that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and if we insist that these individuals must consent to be ruled by a government, and if we condemn as illegitimate all governments that rule without consent - then all governments, past and present, have been illegitimate.

And that is where I vehemently disagree with Mr Smith and agree with Steve D’Ippolito and other Objectivists.

And I will go further than Rand. I think we DO give our consent, though it is not a *constant consent* as when, in Steve’s example, we are stopped from doing something the government deems illegal but we think is legal. My own thinking about The Legitimate Sovereignty of The United States of America.

I am having fun paralleling a certain philosophy but there is a serious point involved.

Welcome to Ellis Island! Here is some background on your new home. First we must look to the beginning. The Declaration of Independence, and The Preamble could have contained a logical, justification for the rights of men and women, of all colors and historically I wish it did. But instead, the status of both documents was trumpeted as axiomatic.

The Declaration of Independence Axiom:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

End of Axiom

The Preamble to the Constitution Axiom:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

End of Axiom

Therefore, I can rationally carry on that tradition by stating my United States of America Axiom (which I won’t bracket since I wrote it):

The United States of America already exists. It is a fact. All those who might have originally consented or declined to be part of The United States of America are dead. Ever since freedom from England was confirmed, we must now start at the mid-point of a legitimate, working, “State.” A “State,” like an axiom, is not so easily discarded.

End of Axiom

Article One: America exists, covering a certain geographical location. The right of consent to be governed is automatically given by anyone who continues to live here.

Article Two: America may at some point, disband as did older Empires or more recently The Soviet Union. Occasionally, a new state may be created, with the consent of the governed, extending the geographical boundaries of America. A territory may decline the invitation, as has Puerto Rico.

Article Three: An individual, within the geographical boundaries of The United States of America MAY NOT secede from The Union. While you live here, you give your consent to be governed and you will abide by the laws of the land. Forever.

Welcome to America!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Objectivist government]

I wrote:

A strictly interpreted, Constitutional Government, or a hypothetical Objectivist Government has a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force *conferred upon it by the consent of the governed.*

Softwarenerd replied:

This does not describe Objectivist Government. it sounds more like the theory of social contract, which is at odds with Objectivism. Objectivism's political theory is most adamantly not a theory of social-contract.

As I have mentioned before, I think of it that way. I live within the auspices of an implied contract. I have been called upon twice in my life to swear to uphold the Constitution. I did, and I meant it. For what does *freedom* mean if it is NOT our feeling of personal sovereignty within a system of government that protects our individual rights?

If there were no implied consent, Americans in general would not be truly free, which is important for our exceptional-ism and longevity as a country. Get back that immigrant’s glow: I WAS BORN FREE. I FEEL FREE. We would not be so patriotic if we did not feel free. We would not voluntarily pay our taxes, which we do pay more readily than any other Western Country. We would not be the envy of the “Unfree” world.

And surprising envy and emulation is emanating from the older European democracies. I heard today on Rush that there is a strong movement in Europe to cut back on their “third rail,” so I see light at the end of the world wide socialist tunnel

As Ayn Rand said at the end of her speech at West Point:

God bless America!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Abortion]

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation as the point at which an abortion becomes late-term. Information about procedures to perform late term abortions are deliberately sparse on the web (they were more prevalent about seven years ago, the last time I checked) but I don’t choose to discuss those procedures anyway.

What is important about an objective abortion stance is that agencies and colleges have VOLUNTARILY ceased teaching late term abortion techniques and for ethical reasons no longer advise a women to have late term abortions or for a doctor to perform them except in emergency cases to save the life of the mother. I prefer this voluntary, ethical approach versus the legal approach. It is a tough decision but should be between a woman and her doctor.

Inevitably it is becoming a legal issue because many states are recognizing “quickening,” or “viability” as the criteria for bestowing *rights* upon an unborn baby. The *continuity of existence* argument, beginning with the start of mature brain waves and patterns is more objective and will no doubt be incorporated in a legal definition once cases make it to the Supreme Court.

I won’t stray too far off topic, but discussions of Objectivist Government should include the examination of State, County and City governments in addition to the topics of *Capitalism* and those found in *Objective Government.* It should be discussed because all people live in counties or cities, within states or territories, within the Country of their residence, and they have different laws about abortion.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Normally, I would not stick a bunch of notes this large in at the end but I am practicing the quote function.

Notes:

from Wikipedia:

A late-term abortion often refers to an induced abortion procedure that occurs after the 20th week of gestation. However, the exact point when a pregnancy becomes late-term is not clearly defined. Some sources define an abortion after 12 completed weeks' gestation as "late".[1][2] Some sources define an abortion after 16 weeks as "late".[3][4] Three articles published in 1998 in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association could not agree on the definition. Two of the JAMA articles chose the 20th week of gestation to be the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term.[5] The third JAMA article chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation.[6]

The point at which an abortion becomes late-term is often related to the "viability" (ability to survive outside the uterus) of the fetus. Sometimes late-term abortions are referred to as post-viability abortions. However, viability varies greatly among pregnancies. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week. Everything in between is a "grey area".[6]

United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.[13] Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability.[13] In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.[14]

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation

48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion

33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents

24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion

8% Woman waited for her relationship to change

8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion

6% Something changed after woman became pregnant

6% Woman didn't know timing is important

5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion

2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy

11% Other

[edit] Legal restrictions

As of 1998, among the 152 most populous countries, 54 either banned abortion entirely or permitted it only to save the life of the pregnant woman.[15] In addition, another 44 of the 152 most populous countries generally banned late-term abortions after a particular gestational age: 12 weeks (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Rep., Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yugoslavia), 13 weeks (Italy), 14 weeks (Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Germany, Hungary, and Romania), 18 weeks (Sweden), viability (Netherlands and to some extent the United States), and 24 weeks (Singapore and Britain) [15] Some countries, like Canada, China (Mainland only) and Vietnam have no legal limit on when an abortion can be performed.[15]

[edit] United States

The United States Supreme Court decisions on abortion, including Roe v. Wade, allow states to impose more restrictions on post-viability abortions than during the earlier stages of pregnancy.

As of April 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order.[16] In addition, the Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart ruled that Congress may ban certain late-term abortion techniques, "both previability and postviability".

All[17] of the 36 state bans are believed by pro-choice organizations to be unconstitutional.[18][19] The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow.[16] Assuming that one of these state bans is constitutionally flawed, then that does not necessarily mean that the entire ban would be struck down: "invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."[20]

Also, 13 states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation (usually 24 weeks).[16] The U.S. Supreme Court held in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that a statute may create "a presumption of viability" after a certain number of weeks, in which case the physician must be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption by performing tests.[21] Therefore, those 13 states must provide that opportunity. Because this provision is not explicitly written into these 13 laws, as it was in the Missouri law examined in Webster, pro-choice organizations believe that such a state law is unconstitutional, but only "to the extent that it prohibits pre-viability abortions".[18]

Ten states require a second physician to approve.[16] The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a requirement of "confirmation by two other physicians" (rather than one other physician) because "acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient's needs and unduly infringes on the physician's right to practice".[22] Pro-choice organizations such as the Guttmacher Institute therefore interpret some of these state laws to be unconstitutional, based on these and other Supreme Court rulings, at least to the extent that these state laws require approval of a second or third physician.[16]

Nine states have laws that require a second physician to be present during late-term abortion procedures in order to treat a fetus if born alive.[16] The Court has held that a doctor's right to practice is not infringed by requiring a second physician to be present at abortions performed after viability in order to assist in saving the life of the fetus.[23]

From the American College of Gynecologists

. . . . And Dr. Noller reassures the Fellows that in this case, an Opinion is just an Opinion (and we're supposed to forget the attempts to change the laws):

We want to be clear the Opinion does not compel any Fellow to perform any procedure he or she finds to be in conflict with his or her conscience and affirms the importance of conscience n shaping ethical professional conduct. For example, while this is not a document focused on abortion, ACOG recognizes that support of or opposition to abortion is a matter of profound moral conviction and ACOG respects the need and responsibility of its members to determine their individual position on this issue based on their personal values and beliefs. We want to assure members with a diversity of views on this issue that they have a place in our organization.

Ethics Committee Opinions provide guidance regarding ethical issues. This Committee Opinion is not part of the “Code of Professional Ethics of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.” This Committee Opinion was not intended to be used as a rule of ethical conduct which could be used to affect an individuals initial or continuing Fellowship in ACOG. Similarly, it is not cited in the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s “Bulletin for 2008,” and “Bulletin for 2008 Maintanence of Certification” and an obstetrician-gynecologist’s board certification is not determined or jeopardized by his or her adherence to this Opinion.

[Abortion]

Rand’s original stance is expressed in, “Of Living Death,” The Voice of Reason, 58–59.:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

What many fail to acknowledge is that her stance DID BECOME MODIFIED CONTEXTUALLY. She later wrote in “A Last Survey,” The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3.

One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . .

". . . the later stages of a pregnancy." I truly think that with what we now know about the growth of a human inside its Mother, that Rand would hold a closer proximity to the position of Roger Bissell.

Here is a quote from Roger Bissell's article, "Thoughts on Abortion and Child Support," that appeared in the September 1981 issue of Reason Magazine:

Much earlier than previously suspected, according to recent findings, Neurophysiologists have made EEG measurements of developing fetuses and prematurely born babies and discovered that the patterns of electrical brain activity prior to the 28th week of development are radically and fundamentally different from those occurring *after* the 28th week.

In, "The Conscious Brain," Steven Rose, a British neurophysiologist, observes that ‘before 28 weeks the patterns are very simple and lacking in any of the characteristic forms which go to make up the adult EEG pattern.' Then, between the 28th and 32nd weeks, the theta, delta, and alpha waves of the adult make their appearance - at first only periodically, ‘occurring in brief, spasmodic bursts; but after 32 weeks the pattern of waves becomes more continuous, and characteristic differences begin to appear into the EEG pattern of the waking and sleeping infant.'

American neuroscientist Dominick P. Purpura concurs with Rose. In a recent interview, Purpura defined ‘brain life' as ‘the capacity of the cerebral cortex, or the thinking portion of the brain, to begin to develop consciousness, self-awareness and other genetically recognized cerebral functions as a consequence of the formation of nerve cell circuits.' Brain Life, said Purpura, begins between the 28th and 32nd weeks of pregnancy.

I think that in the contexts of Ayn Rand’s life at various times, her positions on abortion were *justified* though they were not *true belief* which is what we also call a *fact*. To this day pro-abortion proponents will argue that Consciousness in a baby that has gestated for 28 week is not a valid prerequisite for the imputation of rights; it must be born. I maintain that the moment a baby becomes conscious is the moment that it becomes a person. From that first moment onward, sensations and perceptions in and out of the womb are experienced, memories are stored, and a unique BRAIN is in existence inside its mother.

THIS NEW PERSON HAS AN IDENTITY THAT WILL REMAIN THE SAME THROUGHOUT ITS LIFE. The baby is thinking as evidenced by the brain wave patterns alpha, delta and theta that are also found in thinking adults.

A good measure of Aristotle’s and Rand’s law of identity is one that is based on the facts of reality as we observe them. After consciousness a fetus becomes a *person*. There are things in the universe that a person in the womb cannot know because it is not yet aware of them. For millennia humans did not know about the dark side of the moon. That does not affect Mr. Bissell’s argument. Omniscience is not required of a *person*.

A study of personal identity is not mysterious if you are talking about yourself. And it is still child’s play if we are talking about someone else. To be a bit silly let me posit a case of uncertain identity: “Mom? Is that you? Well, Mom, I can ‘t be sure. What is the password?”

How do we know a person’s identity persists? And how do we re-identify ourselves in the morning after awakening, or another person if we have not seen them since last month? Human beings have the least trouble re-identifying themselves or someone else, yet once again, pro-abortion rights group say there is no rights bearing entity present until after birth.

If it looks like a baby human, and it THINKS like a baby human, it is a baby human. If it can be demonstrated that many of the modes of thinking are present at the age of 28 weeks of gestation, that are also present in a mature, conceptually thinking adult, then it obviously is a human person at a younger age.

To reiterate: fMRI’s show that a conscious fetus, sleeps, dreams and can redirect its attention. The fact of personal identity is primary: it is self-evident to you that you exist. You are conscious. You remember. Outside of Science Fiction, personal identity in yourself or others can be demonstrated, through brain wave patterns and physical presence.

Sound is present in the womb and the baby pays attention to the sounds it hears, and remembers them. When my daughter Sarah was born a tray was dropped by a nurse, over to baby Sarah’s left. She instantly turned her head left to look at the source of the sound. The nurse assured me that was normal unless a baby was lethargic from ant-pain shots given to the Mother.

The persistence of consciousness from its inception onwards, is self-evident. It exists at some point and does not cease to exist until death (which could also be complete and irreversible mental loss, though the body lives on.) A conscious baby in the womb is the same conscious baby out of the womb, and it will grow into the same conscious adult: this embodies the Law of Identity.

Oh, if I could speak to Ayn Rand today! WOULD SHE AGREE WITH ME? What a wondrous time it would be if Ayn revisited all of her works and within her PRESENT context she could make her writings *justified* and *true*.

I can't find the quote and I just remember this second hand, but someone asked the "Mature Ayn Rand" if she thought a baby had no rights one minute before it was born. She answered, "No, it does." She was then pestered and asked is an aborting mother entitled to a dead baby if the baby can be aborted/delivered so that it is still alive. And Rand thought the mother had no right to a dead baby. Anyone know that source?

If I were a woman I would value a human life above all else, but I MIGHT consider an abortion up to a few weeks before the baby becomes a *person.*

Peter Taylor

[Objectivist government]

I have always thought of Objectivist Government as a theory of social-contract. If you are born here and did not participate in the Founding of our country how did you give your consent? It could be argued that by staying here you are figuratively signing a constract and giving your consent, which leads to a charge of jingoism: "Love it or leave it." I have a decent proof of *consent* which I may print at a later time but what do others think of the notion of implied consent, rather than an anarchic *constant consent*?

Again, I am co-mingling Objectivist Government and The United States Constitution as an existing example of flawed Objectivist Government since Ayn Rand decided to live here, campaign here, and spoke highly of her adopted country and its Constitution.

Competing Governments in the Rothbardian sense was what I was parodying while at the same time showing that there is divergence in State Governments as long as they abide by the Federal Constitution.

Would the services that State, County and City governments provide whither away if the Constitution were streamlined in a Randian fashion? I tend to think that states will vary in laws and that people will mostly migrate within the United States to the freer states with the best weather and lesser population, though a few will migrate to the states with the best welfare system. As we see in those Welfare States, the gravy train is not sustainable.

Gotta go. I have been turning over the soil in my new garden the first time this year and it is harder than I remembered.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Objectivist government]

*** Mod's note: Split from another thread, since this belonged in a different topic. - sN ***

Randian Government.

I just wanted to apologize to Trebor for the ten gallon hat scenario. I thought of describing a woman in the theatre wearing one of those big boat Sunday Church hats but the cowboy hat seemed funnier. Let me try another devil’s advocate gambit. Once again I am not trying to disparage the great state of Texas. Remember the Alamo!

A strictly interpreted, Constitutional Government, or a hypothetical Objectivist Government has a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force *conferred upon it by the consent of the governed.* It permits various jurisdictional agencies within its territory, as long as those agencies uphold the Constitution guaranteeing individual rights. It does not permit agencies within its territory that are at variance with any provisions of the Constitution.

Is there competition between the states? For instance, State Judge Trebor Wopner or State Judge “RationalBiker” Napolitano, interpreting State Government or the Constitution on TV are upholding the highest laws of the land, though Judge Wopner usually deals with miniscule or microcosmic sections of his state’s laws. He has his jurisdiction, and the Federal and State Courts have theirs.

However, what if Judge Trebor Wopner said this?

“I am taking my court outside the legal and moral authority of the Constitution. I hereby declare this section of the country, the great state of Texas, as Wopner’s Confederate States of America. We uphold much of the Constitution of the United States, except we deem it right that landowners can keep other human beings as property, especially undocumented Mexicans. And we think coercive taxation is immoral. Nobody is required to pay taxes. We will pump oil out of State lands to pay my salary.”

This is the point where the idea of “competing legal agencies” fails. If a Government, legally constituted on individual rights, within a geographical area, for all time, sees the establishment of a “competing set of rules,” that infringe upon rights, then it has an obligation to protect its citizens within that area.

And furthermore, if any individual, or group simply declares, they are no longer bound by the laws of the constitution in some subsection of the larger area, even if this group declares it DUPLICATES the laws of the original government, it is an infringement upon the rights of all the citizens and the Government should use “retaliatory force,” to dissuade the secessionists.

This is true because the *final authority* to OVERSEE the making of laws must be in the hands of the Federal Government. If allowed continued existence, the competing governments may then create laws that are contrary to the constitution of the land. So, it is a principle of self defense to squelch the law writers who could become lawbreakers.

I think our own history parallels this course. What if the South had won the war? That is always an interesting game of, “what if.” I am talking about the concept of *States Rights* which might be better stated as states delegated duties and authority.

Let’s switch gears back to Objectivism from the Confederacy. I want to make a distinction between anarchy, which is an interim period, as in America’s old west, and Randian Government which posits, a just society with very, very little government, but is still based on individual rights and the non-initiation of force principle, as is our current Constitutional Government. It’s just that everyone is packing a pistol so to speak to enforce their own rights. Would that be so bad, Vern, from the perspective of law enforcement?

How would a Randian Government fare in the world? An interim anarchy like in our old west (and still might lie in the badlands of Texas : o ) can exist as it does in Somalia, but for how long? Culture is the glue that holds the war-lords together in a loose confederation. Now, if Randian Government is a workable and logically superior system, why does it not spontaneously spring into being in Somalia? When the Soviet Union collapsed why didn’t Randian Government spring into being there?

The answer as to why is so simple even a caveman could think it: people live there and people know people. The Randian Laissez Faire, Little or Non-State, can only exist on paper or in someone’s imagination. It is a REIFIED feeling of personal sovereignty. If I am wrong, show me the beef.

One hypothetical: Randian Government vs. our current Constitutional Government. How do we fix it?

Two hypothetical: Randian Government vs. Planned Rational Anarchy. Is Randian Government so close to NO government that it modals anarchy?

Warning! This is just a drill. This is not an attack. This is just a thought game drill.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?]

Vern wrote:

I think if you give folks a chance and not assume that if they have accepted Objectivist premises that they have necessarily cut off their brains, you will find people more willing to provide you with their thoughts.

Welcome to this forum.

end quote

I think I will not use the quote function on short notices.

Thanks for the welcome. I was breifly in law enforcement a long time ago. What a learning experience!

Will you please read my next post, where I say your name, in a humorous fashion, when you have the time from the perspective of "is it insulting to you?" I will call it Randian Government.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

formerly of the Ocean City, Maryland Police Department.

[How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?]

RB wrote, "Be that as it may, that does not give you proper cause to be sarcastic or insulting to other members just because you don't want to hear something."

Sorry if I come off that way, sounding like I am at the local pub after a few brews. I have almost no mute button in me.

I see your name is Vern. My dad's name was Harley Vernon but he was known as Vern. He was the commander of the VFW Post in Ocean View Delaware and then went on to be state commander in Delaware. He was not a bud of Joe Bidens

My family extends down into Accommac County Virginia with one family, also Taylor's on the other side of the bay in Norfolk. (pronounced nor-fuk : o)

Pleased to meet ya.

Peter

[How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?]

Happy Easter! I guess.

I don’t want to have my head snapped off.

I am not a Christian or a member of any religion but I am having baked ham for Easter and I just put the leaf in the table to accommodate family members.

Does anyone else "celebrate" religious or pagan holidays?

Again, the best to all on Easter.

Peter Taylor

[How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?]

You wrote:

I'm betting that on those forums you won't even have to pull out contemptuous little phrases like "You are obviously refusing to think beyond your catechism of stock Randian phrases."

RB, I don't want to hear recited phrases. Yes I am here to discuss Objectivism. It does pertain to the real world though it is out of place to quote Rand to a County Commissioner. Frankly, I am dumbfounded, by the response to going off topic a bit. The topic seemed to have run its course but I thought it would be a good place to help me solve a dilemma in my own life.

I mentioned that I had had trouble with billboards for instance. My family is the one that owns the billboards on Route 113 which become Route 13 as it goes into Virginia.

Peter

[How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?]

Dante wrote, "Notice the title of the thread: 'How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?' This thread is not about 'the actual.'"

end quote

Fair enough. I was not trying to hijack the thread, Dante and RationalBiker. I was trying to challenge Objectivists. I did not want to start my own thread at this time.

Is it not at all possible that challenges to your "contextual philosophy" will lead to more knowledge? It is a shame if advances to Objectivism come from outside the Objectivist Establishment.

I hope to correspond with people who can think outside the box, "post Rand." I have been reading Rand since High School many years ago. If you do not wish to speak to my thinking that is certainly your privilege, but there may be room here for someone who wants to rock the boat a bit.

Peter Taylor

[How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?]

Trebor writes over and over again:

"Property rights are the right to the use and disposal of some thing. And yes, you can rightfully do as you please on your property as long as you do not violate the rights of others by whatever it is you do."

Some of our disagreement may be between what we both think we are talking about. I am talking about the actual. If I want to keep my view Or if I want to put a store on my property I could just go and do that. What would happen? I would be cited by the county for not getting the permits required.

If I kept my store's doors open they would send the Sheriff to close them. I tell the Sheriff I can rightfully do as I please on my property as long as I do not violate the rights of others by doing what I do.

He says sorry. Go talk to zoning.

So I march down to the county seat and I say, I can rightfully do as I please on my property as long as I do not violate the rights of others by doing what I do.

She says let me get my supervisor.

The supervisor comes in and says what can I do for you”

I answer, I can rightfully do as I please on my property as long as I do not violate the rights of others by doing what I do.

He or she says, No you can’t.

I loudly say, I can rightfully do as I please on my property as long as I do not violate the rights of others by doing what I do.

So I get to meet the Sheriff again.

Calling someone “Son,” here on the Eastern Shore is like using the words “Mac” or “Dude,” or “Bud.”

I will keep my view, Trebor. And I see you are from the great state of Texas.

If the Constitution is improved to more perfectly reflect Randian Ideals after the next few elections, there will still be State Governments. That is where there would be competition for productive citizens, but that is another story.

Thanks for the lively exchange.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?]

Trebor, I am not sure of where you live. I will speak to you as I would speak to an American. Objectivism is contextual. Rand said that was the case. It is not unchanging. It’s politics give us the framework of a government. Clearly, for Ayn Rand the U.S. Constitution is a less than perfect example of her philosophy fleshed out. Yet the US has the best Constitution and it is the best country she knew of.

She has died and will not be writing any more or amending her past writings to a changing world. However, The Constitution HAS changed. It has been amended. It may be amended again. Therefore, Rand’s political *example* is changing, though her philosophy may be in opposition to some of those changes, and to interpretations by the Supreme Court.

Further fleshing out is the work of the voters and the people they elect PER RAND'S VISION. State and Local governments provide a service people wanted from the times BEFORE the Constitution was written. Local governments give us more services because of their different jurisdictions and duties.

Reread the Constitution. Read your State’s constitution. It does not consist of one philosophical sentence and it most certainly DOES NOT consist of the sentence you wrote, “And yes, you can rightfully do as you please on your property as long as you do not violate the rights of others by whatever it is you do.”

Government consists of legal machinery and a lot of nuts and bolts, and not just a solitary, shining light bulb casting the shadow of the dollar sign.

To reiterate, Trebor wrote:

Property rights are the right to the use and disposal of some thing. And yes, you can rightfully do as you please on your property as long as you do not violate the rights of others by whatever it is you do.

So drunk and rowdy, disorderly conduct, nude bathing and fornication are all just peachy as long as you do them in your own front or back yard? Amped up speakers blasting rock and roll? We are assuming here that there is no “neighborhood agreement that the landowners signed, stopping these behaviors. So, Trebor, does anything go? Not on this planet. Not anywhere.

You need to talk your theories over with a realtor, a surveyor, the county commissioners, and the local sheriff. Buy and own some property. Build on in. Live on it. Your perspective might change from the doctrinaire and philosophic, to the actual. I am not trying to tick you off, but your views are naive.

I wrote:

This “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine provides a partial remedy to the problem I will call the “Right to a View.”

Trebor responded:

There's no such thing as a "Right to a View."

If I buy the land with a view, I will keep the land and I will keep the view. Laws like Adverse Possession and Coming to the Nuisance are old, tried and true, prescriptions for living life on earth, in a community. An altruist would side with anyone but themselves. An altruist would tell someone learn to live with the intolerable. I am not an altruist.

I wrote:

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.

Trebor responded:

No problem, you've ensured your view. However, by what you are arguing (a "Right to a View"), you may not block the view of anyone who lives in back of you (away from the water).

No. the view is better near the water. You will have paid more to be near the water and for the view. You expect to see the great view if that’s what you bought. If you did not buy waterfront property you expect to see the back of a house. I really get the feeling I am talking to someone who is not serious. These principles go back to Merry Olde England.

Trebor wrote:

If there's a view that you value, you have the right to take right's respecting actions to ensure your view. Buy the land that is or may prove to create an obstacle. Contract with others to ensure your beloved view, etc.

Expletive deleted. Son, could you dumb that down a little more? You are obviously refusing to think beyond your catechism of stock Randian phrases.

Trebor wrote:

Please objectively define "excessive animal cruelty."

You know senseless cruelty when you see it. I live in farming country. We raise the usual critters around here. We slaughter them. We hunt. I suggest you write to PETA or the SPCA. I don’t choose to use graphic language here.

I just gave you a chunk of my time. Have the courtesy to think about what I just wrote.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?]

Grames wrote:

It remains to be established that a view constitutes a use that can be protected by property law. If some views are used and some are not then only some views will be protected. A "view of the sun" which is blocked by a new skyscraper can kill trees or prevent gardens from growing, and growing things on your land is definitely a use. In general, being able to see something is not the same as using it.

Objectivism provides a rational basis for a better legal code, but it is not a legal code itself. Clarification of these kinds of issues is good but not an omission of the philosophy.

Excellent post, Grames. Your example of the skyscraper blocking the sun is exactly the reason property owners DEMAND zoning. Few want excessive zoning regulations or eminent domain. I only have a vague recollection of “view” constituting a property right but there may have been a case in Colorado, and several in resorts like Ocean City, Maryland. It will usually be "the rich" who utilize these realty laws that go back hundreds of years.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?]

I wrote:

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.

RationalBiker replied:

You may have the right to tell them, but that does not infer they have an obligation to comply. They have a right in return to tell you to pack sand. You are not obligated to comply either. . . . Rights pertain to a freedom to act in a social context to pursue your life. They do not pertain to things or situations that you might find personally preferable.

Would I have a right, as long as the theatre owner did not kick me out to shout over the movie sound track until the dingaling in the ten gallon cowboy hat removes it? Is there nothing that can be considered disorderly conduct if it is on private property and no rights are theoretically broken?

I am not suggesting some kind of *social sentiment* be given legal status so that we act like the polite Japanese, but there should be an expectation of civilized behavior.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Formerly from Little Creek Naval Housing,

Peter Taylor