Devil's Advocate

I've always thought of leisure as work without deadlines...

3

"Are intoxication and cosmetics evasion thus evil" ~ OP Good and evil are expressions of intent. Having a glass of red wine to relax tension is good; doping a glass of red wine to commit rape is evil. One cannot escape from reality in any case. In terms of altering the perception of reality, again it comes back to intent. Yep *hic* To blank out something means to deny the existence of it, so no; cosmetics aren't expressions of denial. A random sampling of threads in this and other Objectivist forums suggests this is true at times... Individual behavior is validated by the result of their actions. When the pursuit of happiness, results in happiness, why would you call it anything else?

I actually experienced this kind of "lowering the bar" years ago while promoting a art competition for elementary students. A teacher expressed her concern that students face enough competition later on in life; that being competitive at an early age isn't good for the development of their self-esteem. I was obviously discouraged by her attitude, but rather than dismiss her concern, I worked to persuade her that exposing kids to art was the point of the competition, and that the focus was on giving them the opportunity to try something they otherwise might not have the chance to. In the end she supported the program, and I learned how to collaborate on projects that require the involvement of less than enthusiastic team members.

"Can there be degrees of a 'Morality of Death'?" Not if life is the standard.

Gold was discovered prior to it being found in California. I suspect a great deal of innovation is similarly caused by knowing what to look for in the first place.

The issue of patents is of interest to me because I think the practice of "first come, first served", doesn't adequately reward the efforts of every individual involved in the process of innovation. There's an aspect of synchronicity of development amongst innovators, working independently of one another, that's entirely dismissed by a process of assigning reward as though innovation only arrives from one source. I think the premise that the first innovator to lawyer up is entitled to profit exclusively from the efforts of numerous individuals working towards the same product ought to be checked. The reality is, we wouldn't all still be cooking over campfires if the first person to harness electricity had been electrocuted prior to marketing his idea.

Our society is a mixed bag of subsistence farmers and innovators, but the surface area our society lives on remains finite. Locke's principle speaks more to the acquisition of unclaimed frontier as property, however there are ethical parallels to the acquisition of intellectual property as well. Creating waste as a means of promoting a scarcity of resources, for the purpose of artificially driving the value of those resources higher, is essentially the same as claiming too much land. The implementation of a right to life doesn't imply a right to all life, or to have it all because one was the first to discover it.

Presuming he isn't trying to avoid a fate worse than death, of the kind referred to by 9th Doctor, I believe his first effort should be to eliminate depression as a contributing factor. Being of sound mind and body, I can't imagine not choosing to continue living. The right to life however, isn't a mandate to live. Therefore the only criterion I can point to is the same criterion every social action must meet; ones death cannot infringe on anothers life. -- @ Boydstun, Your brother's courage and conviction are truly remarkable. I will think of him in times of trial too.

I normally hold the OP responsible for defining terms, but I've been operating on 2, 3a & 4 of the following definition... Definition of LEGITIMATE 1a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth <a legitimate child> 2: being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false <a legitimate grievance> <a legitimate practitioner> 3a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government> b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king> 4: conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <a legitimate advertising expenditure> <a legitimate inference> 5: relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy <the legitimate theater> http://www.merriam-w...nary/legitimate Are there any relevant elements of the above definition that are at odds with Objectivist principle on this topic?

Basically yes... It may (or may not) be legally valid depending on whether the local authorities will back his play, but it isn't ethically correct and proper to mess with someone else's property if you're insisting on the right to dispose of yours without interference. To be fully legitimate, I believe his terms need to meet both standards.

You're a paralegal, aren't you? There is an objective reality and whatever words reflect that are true. Obviously there's more to respond to, but as your reappearance has rung so many doorbells, I'll give others a chance to chime in first... "If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." ~ Tweedledee

It reflects what I believe is the consequence of having a right to life; that one can opt out. I evaluate legitimacy according to a principle of moral reciprocity; not acquiescence. Legitimacy can be defined as, "according to law", or "conforming to accepted rules and standards"; I favor the latter. If your seat belt regulation is non-negotiable, then the premise of your trade is, "What's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable". Whatever follows isn't based on a mutual respect for the disposal of each others property. At this point I'd rather discuss the legitimacy of the terms being offered than the mental state of the offerer of the terms, but I can come back to these questions if need be... The only issue I have with your introduction of Dr. Kevorkian, is that I believe it isn't legitimate to barter away a right to life; what reciprocal value is being traded? Essentially, hiring the good doctor as a consultant is legitimate; as an executioner - not so much... This remains a bone of contention between us. Certainly the landlord has the ability to ask for whatever he wants, and may or may not have it agreed to... that doesn't make it a legitimate request. Agreed

Neither do I. I'm not saying a road owner (sociopath or otherwise) should be forced to allow me to determine the safe operation of my vehicle; I'm saying his request, as a term, isn't legitimate if it doesn't respect the implementation of my right to life (as well as his). Even if I accept his term, it doesn't become legitimate. That's the beginning and end of the point I've been trying to make (however poorly).

I appreciate your candor, DonAthos... I also believe an individual has the right to dispose of their life as they choose; a right to life isn't a mandate to live. My introduction of the sociopath was following on an exchange with Spiral Architect. It seems like a logical expansion of the freedom a landlord might claim flowing from a right to their property. If the legitimacy of any request depends solely on a title to property, why wouldn't sociopaths be allowed to barter for lives willing to be endangered? In my mind, there's little difference between seat belt regulation (as a legitimate term of use), and tampering with the safe operation of property that doesn't belong to you. Wouldn't it be equally legitimate to grant permission to use a road, provided the driver agrees to having his brakes disabled? In another scenario, suppose my car is stolen and abandoned on your property. Does it remain legitimate for you (as the circumstantial possessor of stolen property) to require me to wear seat belts in order to retrieve my car from your road? Why should the circumstance of my car appearing on your road have any greater effect on legitimacy, in transactions between property owners, than your road appearing under my car?? I think the Objectivist position has been clearly (and patiently) expressed on the issue of private seat belt regulation, and I appreciate all the feedback I've been given. I'm fascinated with the issue of rights, but I don't want to wear out my welcome on this road.

My original claim was (and remains) that contradictory terms regarding the respect/disposal of personal property aren't legitimate. The legitimacy of the road owner's terms for the use of his property, depend on having an equal respect for the driver's property. It's one thing to pay a toll, i.e. transfer property from one party to another, or to hold the driver responsible for any damages to the road owner's property, but wearing (or not wearing) seat belts accomplishes neither. The acceptance of a contradictory term doesn't legitimize it. The addition of endangerment to the scenario is an attempt to see how far an illegitimate term will be tolerated.

Then you believe a sociopath with property can legitimately endanger the lives of his guests, provided he obtains their permission... Is this correct? It would depend on the driver's consideration of the safe operation of his vehicle. If he agrees with seat belt regulation, then the road is being offered at no charge to him; if not, then the charge is whatever value he places on his life. These are two very different charges for use of the same stretch of road. Asking $20 from every driver is a very different proposition than asking some drivers to risk their lives; it seems to me a very arbitrary implementation of the right to life. And I find it curious that Galt's oath, as an expression of Ayn Rand's view of Man as a contractual animal, either has no relation to the legitimacy of contracts, or implies that it's OK to barter away the very source that makes property rights legitimate.

It's my understanding that acceptance of a risky proposition doesn't shelter service providers from culpability for death or injury resulting from negligence. In any case, my last question specifically asks if a sociopath with property can legitimately endanger the lives of his guests, provided he obtains their permission. My view has been adequately expressed, and your response is dodgy, so I'll shake hands and allow you to walk away from this one.

Yes The distinction I've been laboring to make is, having an inconsistent respect for the rights of others isn't delimited to acts of coercion; having respect for the right to live and do so with self-sustaining action means not asking others to do otherwise. Consider John Galt's oath: "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Why is the phrase, "ask another man" used instead of, "force another man"? Would John Galt consider it appropriate to ask another man, as a term of contract, to live for his sake?? I understand that any party can walk away from a bad deal, but does the sanction of the victim make the practice of evil legitimate??? Suppose a private road owner says, "You may use my road if you allow me to shoot at you for target practice." Is killing or maiming someone a legitimate term of property use to ask for, or agree to?

Do you believe that the statement I quoted above, about individuals having an obligation, derived by the nature of reality, to respect the rights of others if they want their own rights to be respected, doesn't apply to contractual agreements? That is the hanging point for me, in terms of the legitimacy of any agreement. You seem to be saying that legitimacy and justification are irrelevant to the terms of any contract between willing parties... Is this correct?

We agree a property owner has the right to deny use of their property to anyone. We disagree that the legitimacy of this right can be maintained by entering into a contractual agreement wherein respect for the property of one party comes at the expense of respect for the property of another, e.g. a car owner agrees to surrender the disposition of his vehicle in order to obtain use of a private road. "The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ Individual Rights, Ayn Rand Lexicon You, et al, believe that property within property is legitimately subsumed by an outer shell of rights; I believe that position contradicts the consistency of implementation which a right to property depends on for legitimacy. Your seat belt rules are not a legitimate extension of your property rights because they dispose of property you don't own. And if it doesn't matter whether you own my vehicle to dispose of it, why should it matter whether or not I agree to the disposal of your property?

At this point, given the OP has yet to reappear, and there's consensus on the primary issue of government seat belt regulation being illegitimate, I'll withdraw until something new is presented that hasn't already been discussed... ... and no Craig, I don't want jurisdiction over the rules of conduct on your road; I want jurisdiction over the rules of conduct in the property of my car that have zero effect on the property of your road. finis

LOL, I'll take the 5th on that one... Of course it's a negotiation; unless your road is gated with a guard checking for seat belts, turning away anyone who objects, and patrolled for violations. Suppose I'm driving a classic car that doesn't have seat belts, or am a passenger on a bus (equally beltless). How much effort (and expense) are you willing to put into enforcing your alleged right to require seat belts, as a rule that has zero effect on the maintenance of your property??

Choose, "to suffer, while evils are sufferable" (source Preamble, Declaration of Independence) your illegitimate rule, to challenge it in a court of law, or to find an alternate route. Bear in mind that by challenging your rule in a court of law, you will be relying on the government's use of seat belt regulation to win your case, which nearly everyone in this thread questions the legitimacy of. I might also choose to thumb my nose at your silly rule, taking the same route others who cross you property do, to determine what your recourse is...

It does until I negotiate away the title to my vehicle. Everything else, up to and including bodies in my trunk, is mine to dispose of by the same right to property a landlord claims.