tadmjones

So an individual would be granted some kind of right to purposely diminish the use value of another individual's property, de jure?

Rights are only applicable in a societal context, in that context it is necessary that individuals have to surrender their 'right' of the use of physical force, contextually. It seems to me the same principle would apply to the idea of easements for property owners. By becoming walled in, the use of my propert has been diminished. Physically barring egress is the sole cause of that diminishment, how is that justified? Any justification would , I believe, have to motivated by the notion that somehow economic power trumps political power.

What if the wallee is not aware of the waller's intention to purchase the surronding property, because you state it is the wallee's responsibility to arrange for egress.

If the new government was of, by and for the people, in this specific example perhaps the land should have been placed in the public trust as in a receivership with the stated intention of selling the land at auction with procedes slated to funding the new appropriate government and its legitimate functions.

Are rural and urban actually relevent terms in the modern sense? At some point historians will probably refer to the common era as the age of dissemination instead of information. Those terms connote the difference between the cosmopolitan nature of cities with access and dissemination of information at a rate higher than in rural populations given the inability of access to the 'newsest' information. Given current technological advances those distinctions seem moot. Actually Romney would be a communist and Obama would be a Stalinist given the poster's reasoning. A communist (marxist) would leave the capitalists to their druthers in the hope they would impliment the apex of industrialization to then allow the proliteriat to eventually take over, of course after the state was done showing the workers how to survive after the point where it would be ok for the state to wither away. Obama is more a Stalinist in that he feels it would be better to throttle the current capitalists and then I guess basically do whatever he felt like ,justified by whatever social engineering theory seemed appropriate. But thats just keepin it real urban enough?

I heard Romney hates gingers too.

Has Obama ever been shown to be a liar? Probably a debatable point, it's just nice to see that you at least find him to be forthright, you are assured there is no conceivable circumstance where Obama may act against his stated position. I just wonder how long abortions will be available when the APCA kicks all the way in. By that I mean if rationing of medical expenditures comes to pass, will curtailing abortions be seen as a possible cost saving measure. I'm pretty sure they have already written off those over 70 yrs age as it concerns neurosurgery when intercranial bleeding indicates emergency surgery.

I'm sorry I missed that post, my broader point I thought would be made by what I thought your reply would have been, again I apologize for thinking I could put words in our mouth. I thought your answer would have been along the lines that it would have to handled as either a civil or perhaps criminal matter, and the government would be the appropriate agency to settle such a dispute. Which would lead to looking at the proper role of government , why government is cast as a necessary 'evil' line of discussion. You do agree that in a rational society rights are never in conflict, yes?

what is your answer to the two party system currently in place

Are these scenerios analagous? 1 someone secures proper and legal title and deed to , in one night, a swath of property extending one foot around a condo complex , wallls it in and in the morning charges all the owners of the units egress fees. 2 someone may secure proper and legal title and deed, in one night, to the downhill properties of an area akin to Malibu Ca , and then advertise ransom rates to stop owner from undermining local topograghy. These are examples of exercising property rights yes?

Are you here saying that in your Oist society every individual would act rationally? Or do you grant that given an "Oist society"( a term I doubt Rand would sanction as used here) that some may act irrationally? If your answer is the former then there would be no conflicts, given what you postulate as being the actions of rational individuals, landlocked owners would pay fees or surrender ownership ect. But if you can conceive of the latter, a more likely scenerio as it's closer to reality( man is not infallible, there will be irrational acters) what would be the wallers legitimate reaction to the wallees' possible refusal of payment? What actions could the waller take if the wallee just plain trespassed? Could the waller use force against the trespassers? If so what level of force, could they shoot the trespassers for flattening his lawn?

As an aside, I've often wondered why electric producing companies actively encourage the consumers of the product to use less of it. Is it not analogous to Coke or Pepsi advertising "yeah tastes great, but seriously are the last 4 ounces as refreshing as the first? Just drink half of it"

If the unfortunate event of ever having to deny her that pleasure should come to pass, it would be even more unfortunate than you think. I would hate to think she has to struggle through life with such a diminished level of perceptual awareness , that would ever have mistaken me for a current/former member of a boy band. Though if Bar Rafeli had the same impairment I may not bring up the issue of voting.

Why are the majority of people who voted for Romney, idiots? And how then do you describe the better peoples' choice? I do not understand the extra-moral mentality of supposed oists who justify abetting a monster, to prove a political point that will only materialize after a second term. The election results maps show that there may be a future Republican party, but the chances they win a presidential election are about as remote as a third party candidate winning the office of the president.

crikey I was gonna say Sheldon's favorite number but I dont remember what it was

Definately benevolent universer here. My point is capitalism is metaphysical, it is an aspect of rational animals. Mankind enjoys betterment based on the level of recoginition of that fact.

alfred centauri #11 well put

In the chewing aspect this is interesting. Prior to lets just say 1776 property ownership was ultimately controlled by the British monarchy, an arguement could be made that the King utimately built all roads while at the same time allowing private rights to be enjoyed by the subjects of the various colonies. My point being when America came into being as a sovereign state ,say by 1789, all landowners were longer no in legal possession of property at the behest of the prior legally recognized government. I guess my point here that one will encounter,more likely than not on Oist blogs/forums, the unspoken idea there existed a near rational society in human history at some time. The principles of rational government that the constitution is founded on were the actual establishment of the possibility of achieving the existence of such a society.

And if you want to use these thought exercises as mere entertainment, it would be more fun to bring them to a more esoteric level. Would Roark be the waller or the wallee in this scenerio? Would he act to purposely reduce the physical enjoyment of ownership of one or more of his neighbors? Or would he conclude that his only moral alternative is to purchase a vertically ascending vehicle,assuming the waller didn't also restrict his airspace ie antiaircraft weaponary? Or wait that would silly because in a capitalist society that type of weaponary would be considered beyond the pale of purely defensive personal weapons.Ad infinitum and I may include naseum

It seems discussions of this sort, the what if format, try to show or question the possibility that in a truly rational society would there ever be rights in conflict. I would submit that the answer is always no, rights are never in conflict. Rand ,I think, was very clear on why this is never the case. So when I encounter these seemingly specious arguements I try and find where the line of reasoning blanked out on the premise, eg check your premises. Just because you construct sentences with words and concepts doesn't legitimize the core of the reasoning.(Rationalism) Rand said her philosophy is derived from reality and that it is a guide to living as man qua man here on earth. If the premise is that in a capitalist society a person or persons could 'wall someone in', I would ask is there a conceivable context in which a productive rational individual would derive any advantage to the walling in. Or do posts of this sort actually argue what should or could take place within such a society to combat or protect rational acters from the irrational?

number 2 should say when I see the word sheeple it reminds of a man named xyz, I don't realize I was using his venacular, I had to google him the planet guy?

it's still apt day two post election , in a week i willl refrain from use

Don't forget health-care is an euphemism.

The candidates' positions are secondary to the voting public's. (sheeple)

romney 2 obama won