Citizen Publius

Hey all you capitalists! Will someone with the necessary software knowledge please make a buck by writing a piece of software, perhaps an add-on module, that will provide moderators/administrators with a necessary back channel? I visualize this much like the service hallways that weave through the average mall behind all the stores. It could be tiered with various levels of access and information flow regulated by the owner, or license holder, of the product. I thought that this already came as "standard equipment" with forum software. I am very surprised that it does not. I would write it myself but my knowledge of software is too limited.

I was trying to make an analogy to illustrate the lack of necessity for making things complex. I was also trying to be humorous again. I will keep my humor out of my posts from now on because it merely confuses things. Actually, if the moderators/administrators had an independent forum for the purposes stated, I think that would be a good thing. I had assumed that there was some back channel that was provided for them on forum(s) software anyway. Apparently I was wrong.

Well, I was going to post something along the lines of: Isn't this what PMs and emails are for? Then I decided to vote but first to check the poll results before voting. This said that 100% of the votes were yes, only one vote had been posted, and that I cannot vote again because my vote has already been registered. So, I ask: Isn't this what PMs and emails are for? "Do you know what memos lead to?...Assigned parking spaces."---Johnny Fever, WKRP in Cincinatti

I too have been following this for about twenty years. I first heard of this from an advertisement that appeared in Scientific American. In the same issue was another one called Aurora(?). This one was being constructed by a company in the Silicon Valley area. I called a friend there and he drove out to take a look at a scaled down proto-type they were testing. I guess that company went out of business. Maybe 15 years ago, GM had a commercial on television for a few days where they featured a flying car much like the Moller machine. I have had a picture of the Moller vehicle with the crew standing in front of it on my wall for over a year now. I really wish these would go into production! "...His boy, Elroy...Jane, his wife...(piano interlude)..."

As I understand it, a definition serves as identification. It differentiates a concept from its genus, or broader concept, and identifies which differentia, or lesser concept(s) that it subsumes. In this case, it appears that either force or initiation may be the genus. For example, we may use force as the genus and use accidental and intentional as differentia. On the other hand, we may use initiate as the genus and use rationality or force as differentia. I prefer to use the word “aggress” to mean, “initiate force.” This is opposed to “initiate rationality.” If one aggresses, then this implies transgression: crossing a boundary or dividing line. It is also helpful to remember that the meaning of words is contextual. That is, some words serve as auditory symbols for more than one concept. The way to tell which concept is indicated depends on how the other words around the word stand in relation to the word in question. I.e.” in context” or “with text.” Consider this: The willful first use of physical action in a human relationship. Notice that this definition places the genus and differentia into a broader concept, that of interpersonal relationships. It also has the modifier of “willful.” Ayn Rand defined “humans” as “rational animals.” In trying to define “initiation of force,” I would study this definition. I would also keep in mind Rand’s Razor; that concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. I am trying to offer useful advice here. However, my thinking cap has been fitting a little loosely of late, so I would take these words with a grain of salt.

I would drop this part: "provided that this individual himself has not initiated force." Never use one of the terms that you are defining in your definition. In this case, you are defining "initiate" [EDIT: root of "initiation"] and using "initiated" in your definition.

“Since selfishness is ”concern with one’s own interests,” the Objectivist ethics uses that concept in its exact and purest sense.”—Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, fifth printing, page x, paragraph 3. “Students of Objectivism find it difficult to grasp the Objectivist principle that “there are no conflicts of interests among rational men.” —Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, fifth printing, page 50, paragraph 1. In using the word Objective, I was using it as an adjective to specifically refer to Objectivism, which Ayn Rand always capitalized. I almost used the word Objectivistic. Perhaps that’s what I should have done. Excerpt from Forum Rule 2.2: An egregious example is failure to capitalize proper names -- for instance, writing "objectivism" when referring to Ayn Rand's philosophy; the correct form is "Objectivism." Forum Rule 2.2 begins thusly: “Spell-check and review your posts before submitting them. Posts with frequent misspellings or grammatical errors will be deleted at the moderator’s discretion.” As you are not only a published author, but also now a moderator on this forum, I expect better from you than this: Now: As I see it, the only assumption I made was that Dominique Francon would not call the police if she thought that Roark had truly raped her and that Roark did not consider this beforehand. Yes, I did arrive at an erroneous conclusion as I failed to integrate this into my overall theme. The theme that I was trying to portray was the analogy between Roark’s responding to the initiation of the use of physical force against him and the terrorist attack on 9/11. This theme was an effort to give moral validation to Roark’s use of physical force in response to Dominique’s actions against him. I did get confused toward the end of this because I could not see what Roark would see in Dominique other than physical beauty and ended up reaching an invalid conclusion. And: Perhaps an artist’s explanation does help to alter one’s perception of a particular work of art by that artist. However, an artistic construction, like a building or some other structure, should stand by itself. It should not require interpretation. If I interpret it in a different manner than was intended, then that is my right. I have the right to interpret art as I perceive it. My mind is sovereign. I do not need someone to tell me what to think of a work of art be it by Ayn Rand, Pablo Picasso, or anyone else. I fail to see what, at this point in The Fountainhead, Roark saw of emotional value in Dominique. It appears to me that she has some sort of self-sacrificial aspect to her personality. This would be of no value to Roark. Will someone please explain to me exactly what it was that Roark saw in the personality of Dominique that he considered a compliment or a supplement to himself? Will someone please explain what, exactly, was going on in Dominique’s head? What, exactly, was going on in Roark’s head? Danielshrugged: Quoting from Ayn Rand (in Letters of Ayn Rand): "But the fact is that Roark did not actually rape Dominique; she had asked for it, and he knew that she wanted it. A man who would force himself on a woman against her wishes would be committing a dreadful crime. What Dominique liked about Roark was the fact that he took the responsibility for their romance and for his own actions. Most men nowadays, like Peter Keating, expect to seduce a woman, or rather they let her seduce them and thus shift the responsibility to her. That is what a truly feminine woman would despise. The lesson in the Roark-Dominique romance is one of spiritual strength and self-confidence, not of physical violence. " As I see it, this does not address the issue. Someone please explain this to me. What does Ayn Rand mean here when she says “all but invited?” Ayn Rand was very specific. She was cut and dried. She was black and white; no gray. What does she mean by “all but invited?” To me this means “NOT invited.” Will someone please explain this to me in depth? It appears to me that Ayn Rand just contradicted what she started off her previous paragraph with. I have read everything that Ayn Rand ever published unless something came out after The Early Ayn Rand. Many of her publications I have read more than once. I was once a member of the Dallas Objectivist Society and, as a member of that organization, I helped arrange a lecture at the University of Texas at Dallas for John Ridpath. I also attended dinner with John Ridpath during his visit and ran the information table during his lecture. I spoke with Mike Berliner when he came to visit our group. During group meetings I listened to the entire taped lecture series on Objectivism by Ayn Rand twice. It was during this time that Leonard Peikoff wrote Fact and Value in response to David Kelly. I have read both The Ominous Parallels and OPAR. It has been many years and a lot has happened. Presently, I have a tendency to act range of the moment which I do not like and find to my detriment. I do not remember every word I have ever read on Objectivism. However, I think I have a pretty good idea of Ayn Rand’s position(s) regarding sex. Obviously I have missed something. Happy New Year.

Where is it recorded that the United States military would not let Japan surrender? Who, on behalf of the Japanese government, approached who, on behalf of the American government, and was not allowed to surrender? It was estimated that the United States military would take 1,000,000 casualties in an all out assault on the Japanese mainland. Is this figure incorrect? If it is, then how many more dead Americans was it morally correct to sacrifice? One? Ten? One Hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? More?

Take Sri Lanka, for example. Haven't they been embroiled in religious civil war/strife for years? We don't owe them anything. Maybe the Christians feel a moral obligation to help them. Then let the Christians get together and help them in support of their faith. The Christians should not expect the United States government to subsidize their faith through forced taxation. Perhaps certain other individuals or groups of individuals may offer aid from the selfish standpoint of not wanting to watch suffering caused by natural dissaster. This is their right. If the United States government offers aid, it should be offered in exchange for something of value. It should not be offered in response to the needs of those who hate the source that produced the aid i.e. reason, capitalism, and greed channeled through exchanging value for value. The people of faith in that part of the world think it is there moral obligation to kill anyone who disagrees with that faith. Presently, American soldiers are dying on the battlefield because of this. Given this, aid to these countries may be looked at as a form of aiding and abetting the enemy during a time of war. i. e. treason. Just as those who are afraid to face us cut off people's heads on worldwide television if their demands are not met, we should attach demands to any aid that we send them. These demands should take the form of requiring them to establish free governments and capitalistic systems to protect their citizens from each other and to produce enough wealth to make life bearable. (One good thing is: Given the amount of material wealth in some of these countries, the damage can be measured in the tens of dollars.) If these nations will not accept our conditional aid, then they should be left to their unconditional faith in their omnipotent and all-loving god.

Welcome aboard, Pete. This is a very good forum with some very good contributors. Stick around. Don't be a stranger. ---Dan

Welcome DJames. One of my favorite books on Objectivism is The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z.

Thank you RationalCop. I was trying to develop a parallel line of reasoning and I see that it is greatly flawed. Seeing this, it now appears to me that Roark was merely responding to a come-on from a desperate woman. I invite people's comments on this. Will someone please direct me to Ayn Rand's comments on this matter?

Before I continue, let me say that my understanding of certain things Objective may be in error. I am on this forum primarily in order to interact with other Objectivists and through such interaction to increase my knowledge of Objectivism. If I can increase someone else's understanding, then so be it. Sometimes I like to engage in a debate, usually to defend some aspect of Objectivism. This thread is not one of those times. Here is my post: Here is the response to that post which I will now address: Perhaps I am confused here. In pointing out that Dominique violated the sanctity of Roark's body by initiating physical aggression against him, and then fleeing on horseback, I am of the opinion that this provided Howard Roark with a moral reason to violate the sanctity of Dominique's body. She committed a crime against him and, in complying with the law, he should have reported this to the authorities. The government could then seek retribution by proxy. I shall have more to say about this aspect of the event shortly. However, at this particular time, I would like to address the moral validation that I assign to it and attempt to justify my comparison of it to the events of 9/11. Inasmuch as the events of 9/11 amounted to physical aggression being initiated against the United States, the United States was right to respond in kind. The United States is sovereign, despite what anyone may argue to the contrary concerning the United Nations. The United States took the necessary amount of time to effect an appropriate response and then took the necessary action. In this case the United States liberated Afghanistan. It is further arguable, given the Islamic elevation of martyrdom to a value, that this was the response sought by the terrorists. In the "rape" scene in The Fountainhead, I see a similar moral analogy. If someone disagrees with me here then please point out why. As for Roark's evaluation of the situation, I visualize it as having occurred something like this: He realized that a crime had been committed against his body and he also realized the need to defend the sanctity of his body in order discourage further aggresion against his body. Yes, he could have called the police. However, this would not work. First of all, there were no witnesses. Secondly, Miss Francon was the heir to a very wealthy business concern with much influence in the area. In this case, it was the business concern that Roark worked for. Thirdly, this was the same business concern that effectively exiled Roark to work in the rock quarry thus providing him with a motive to seek revenge. No, there was no valid appeal to the law here for Howard Roark. He must take matters into his own hands. He could physically assault Miss Francon at some future time going tit for tat. However, in order to leave a lasting impression, overwhelming force was required...emphasis on overwhelming. He could beat her to a bloody pulp. This would certainly leave too many scars on her. At this point, it is necessary to point out that the nature of Miss Francon's actions not only violated the sanctity of Roarks physical being but, also, insulted and violated his manhood. Roark also realized that, in the commission of this crime, she was, in effect, giving him a come on. So, taking all these factors into consideration, Roark decided to exercise his manhood and intellect in a most appropriate manner: overwhelming sexual domination. Roark was no altruist. He did not perform sexual domination over Miss Francon to satisfy any inner need that she may have had. If there was any other motivation that I see, it is that, on top of everything else, Dominique possessed exceptional physical beauty that, I am sure, did not go unnoticed on Roark as he toiled in the rock quarry. He wanted some physical sexual gratification and this was the excellent opportunity to get it. This was a very selfish motive. That's enough to merit a response. Regarding the logic of appealing to the government for justice, there are a couple of other scenes in The Fountainhood that involve this. One is the court scene concerning the Temple to the Human Spirit. Another was when Roark blew up an apartment complex he had designed. (I don't recall its name.) What is the moral justification for Roark taking matters into his own hands here? [Moderator, Burgess Laughlin: Edited to replace offensive slang with "physical sexual gratification."]

My name is Dan. AIM: citizenpublius Yahoo email: [email protected] I may not always have the most rational posts but I assure you I am an Objectivist.

Roark retaliated against her because she initiated the use physical force against him thus violating the sanctity of his physical body. No one else in the story did this to Roark. He physically overwhelmed her in response to this. She could do nothing to his mind so she insulted his body. He returned the insult as a matter of self defense . This is the same moral response that the United States did to Afghanistan after 9/11. It was a matter of coincidence that she enjoyed this.

I liked The Fountainhead so much that I read it five times. Still, it has been over ten years since then and three or four years since I saw the movie. (I think they should do a modern remake.) As I remember it, Dominique initiated the use of physical force against Roark by hitting him in the face with a tree limb. Roark was unable to respond in kind as Dominique sped off on a horse. She was definitely trying to get his attention and solicit a response from him. What kind of response did she expect?

Thank you for the link. I cannot afford to donate but I will certainly keep an eye on this!

I would finish college. Seriously though, I would learn about and master every discipline that catches my fancy. I would cetainly save up a ton (literally) of money. I would build my own spaceship, and explore the cosmos. As far as stopping the aging process, I hope they do. This is something I want to contribute to but, presently, I am just a middle aged man with a computer and relatively limited knowledge.

The latest report is that the asteroid is not going to hit Earth.

First of all, Thank you! It is difficult for me to find somone who abstracts on the second or third or fourth level and expresses this linguistically. Thank you for doing so. I try to repesent the face without fear, pain, or, guilt. Be that is may, the United States, and its citizens, are not obligated to give anyone aid anywhere. If the United States government wants to provide "aid" to the impoverished areas then they ("it") can provide state-of-the-art weather satellite technology for a fee. And, just while it comes to mind, the United Nations should be bulldozed into the sea and everything international should be addressed to the chief executive of the United States of America. I have spoken to my Senators and Congressmen here in Oklahoma and know that this will not happen. Etc., Etc., Etc., Thank you for your post. ---Dan

I registered.

Not me. I did see it and thought it was "OK." I will probably watch it again when it comes out on television. You might be interested to know that there is a book entitled Shadow of the Sentinel by Warren Getler and Bob Brewer which the movie appears to be based upon. This book is about the Knights of the Golden Circle. This was an organization that helped fomment the Civil War. Later, they hid massive treasure in various places in anticipation of financing another Civil War. Jesse James was a member and there is a connection to the Knights Templar. I am only about 1/4 way through it right now but I recommend it for anyone who saw the movie and wants further information...."another clue."

I know that my profile has a warning bar on it and that it still says 0%. I have been watching this with trepidation since my thoughtless , and therefore erroneous , post under A challenge to Yaron Brooks.

Thank you McGroarty! I have begun to catalog Objectivism sites in the last few days and you have helped me in this. I do not have the information that you are looking for. However, if I come across it, I will post it in this thread. Thanks again!!

For what it is worth, I have a friend who is learning about Objectivism and we went to a Hastings Bookstore today. He has read Atlas Shrugged and owns a copy of the movie The Fountainhead. His wife is now reading Atlas Shrugged and is nearing the end of part two. He wanted another book about Objectivism and I suggested The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z by Harry Binswanger. They did not have that so he settled for The Virtue of Selfishness. It was in the centennial edition cover. Personally, I think the covers look unimpressive but, I know that it is what's inside that counts.