Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. J

    I wasn't using freebies in the sense of things given by statist governments to citizens through redistribution. I meant freebies that we all enjoy by living in a civilised division of labor society.

    In a rational society government is the institution by which all members' rights are to be recognized and protected. In a rational society it is necessary that individuals adhere to the principle of abdicating the use of physical force.

    Day one: I buy a piece of property with the intent to come and go from it. I leave my property to go to the store for groceries and return for the night.

    Day two: Someone (somehow) buys up all the land around my property and confines me to it.

    How have I not become "imprisoned" by someones ownership of property?

    As to DA's point, what would be the principle that protects the continued enjoyment of property ownership the individual had prior to physically leaving said property? Or is there none?

  2. Has anyone on this thread seen the studies that suggest that women who experience fewer menstrual cycles have a greater statisical chance of not developing certain cancers?

    I would refer you to , perhaps at most an anecdotally compiled study, cited by Malcolm Gladwell in his compilation book "What the Dog Saw"

    Gladwell is a contributor to The New Yorker, he published a book recently that compiled a series of his essays he wrote for that publication. I was struck by what he wrote about a study of I think was a fairly reputable study of African women and their lifestyle as it concerns child rearing. And how oral contraception for females in western societies may tend to be a health issue as well as a contraceptive issue. I recommend looking into the piece.

  3. No. The use of your property has NOT been diminished. You can use it to your heart's content. You can grow your own food and live off of it. What's been diminished is your use of others' property, and your free access to others via public roadways. See, you currently live in a society where you receive the benefits of others' labors, and you appear to be just now discovering that you like and want to keep those benefits. Well, that mindset clashes with Objectivism. If you want liberty, you have to give up the freebies. Government-forced, guaranteed access to your property, in which others are forced to involuntarily allow you to use their property, is one of the freebies that you have to give up.


    In a societal context rational people receive freebies all the time,you do, i do , everyone does and there is nothing morally wrong with using the freebies. It seems odd you are not aware of the freebies you get.

    You can state the freebies you currently enjoy, yes?( hint) Sustaining context is just as vital in reasoning as is integration.

  4. I do appreciate by the way that many of you had a more nuanced reasoning to your voting. Also, that many of you did in fact vote for Obama. So the only people I have beef with are the die hard "Obama was much worse than Romney" people. This is the attitude that is culturally backward, and it's a pity that a lot of Objectivist's seem to hold it.

    You do see that for a large portion of the time since Roe V Wade, the very people you say will end abortion, and by that I hope you mean the actual surgical procedures coupled with the such pharma methods as 'the day after pill', or contraception for that matter, have held the White House and practically nothing has happened to curtail the enjoyment of those rights, yes?

  5. If this thread has devolved into a morass of ridiculous hypothectical concretes that supposedly denote examples of rationl principles, it is a result of the notion of 'lifeboat ethics'. One cannot derive principles for mans' actions in a societal context based on the actions of humans in a situation that causes them to act in such a way as to merely survive faced with certain immediate death. Nor should one try and argue the merits of a principle of actions appropriate to man in a societal context by referencing the actions of man in the 'lifeboat'.

  6. Actually I think it is a myth that Indian tribes, by and large, had no conception of property (unfortunately Ayn Rand helped to perpetuate this myth), but actually there are examples of many tribes which had complex legal bodies and constitutions which upheld property rights in land.

    What complex legal bodies, are there actual preserved written documents? I remeber reading Washington was respected by the tribes he dealt, though the respect was from fear, I think he name was village killer or somesuch. I also remember Franklin making comments on some aspects of perhaps the Lenape society, but i do not remeber any mention of viewing written documents, I always assumed they had no written language. I doubt they had the technological capabilities of paper making, but perhaps I am misinformed.

  7. Okay, so then your position appears to be that you have the "right" to have egress across multiple properties if they happen to be between you and where ever you wish to go, including the "right" to use someone else's private road even if they don't want to allow you to use it. As I suggested in my post #131, in an Objectivist system of property ownership, each landowner will likely be surrounded by layer after layer of other property owners who might not agree to allow you to use their property, and therefore they would all be in violation of your "rights."


    Actually I thought we speaking of a specific hypothetical situation of 'walling in', a situation I described in earlier posts as specious. You tried to show how a rational person could use this power to financial advantage, I countered with equally specious examples employing the same principle ie threatening to undermine the topography to dislodge properties at a higher elevation unless ransom was paid.

    Why did you not comment ?

    If in a rational society it would be common knowledge that egress must be contractually ensured in every real estate transaction , how then would one become the wallee?

  8. . It is a simple fact of reality that people can and do live on plots of land without physically changing position on the globe.

    I'm not justifying barring that activity. I'm justifying barring people from using others' property against their will. People have the right to traverse the globe all they wish, but just not by trespassing. You can travel to France, if you please, but once you get there, you are "physically barred" from entering anyone's house you please against their will. Do you understand how their "physically barring" you is their right despite that it rejects any claims that you might make about your survival needs requiring you to traverse through their home?


    I dont see where in my arguement I ever said I had a right to any improvements, in this context I assume you know what I mean, the context of real estate jurisprudence. I am strictly speaking about egress, period.

  9. So, back to post #131, through how many neighbors' properties can one be given easement by government until one is no longer "imprisoned"?


    The principle of easement would apply individually to each neighbor. The principle would be that if your land surronds another property physically barring egress is a violation of the rights of others to retain the use of their property.

  10. No. The use of your property has NOT been diminished. You can use it to your heart's content. You can grow your own food and live off of it. What's been diminished is your use of others' property, and your free access to others via public roadways. See, you currently live in a society where you receive the benefits of others' labors, and you appear to be just now discovering that you like and want to keep those benefits. Well, that mindset clashes with Objectivism. If you want liberty, you have to give up the freebies. Government-forced, guaranteed access to your property, in which others are forced to involuntarily allow you to use their property, is one of the freebies that you have to give up.


    I disagree the only thing I give up is the use of physical force , contextually. Part of that context is the nature of man and his interactions with reality, Man must actually move around physically change position on the globe , traverse. How do you justifiy physically barring that activity?

  11. The wallee would not have to be aware of any specific individual's intentions, but of the fact that in a purely Objectivist system of land ownership, egress, an issue which one need not pay much attention to under a system of public roads, becomes an issue of immense importance, and one which requires very careful attention to contractual details when purchasing property.


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

  12. 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.

  13. Under an Objectivist system, yes, the government would be the appropriate agency to deal with the issue of trespassing and of any other property dispute.

    If you were to purchase the property around mine, thus landlocking me (because I neglected to make contractual arrangements to come and go),

    Not only do I agree that rights are never in conflict in a rational society, but I believe they are never in conflict, period. Even in an irrational society, one's actual rights are never in conflict with another's.


    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.

  14. 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?

  15. 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.

  16. No, I don't think that every individual would always act rationally.

    I brought up the same question in post #31:

    "I think a more rational approach to the issue would be to ask what type of punishment or restitution for trespassing is justified according to Objectivism. If I cross your property without your permission, and you take me to court for doing so, what is a just punishment? Probably a fine? If so, then the cost of my accessing my surrounded property is the amount of the fine."

    And, no, I do not think that a landowner has the right to kill a trespasser for flattening his lawn, much in the same way that a store owner doesn't have the right to bash a child's skull in for shoplifting a candy bar. Proportional response.


    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?

  17. Throw your vote away. Always!

    Never be "practical" or "realistic." Never vote for evil or "the lesser of two evils." Never vote for tyranny.

    Vote for freedom 100% of the time. Find the most economically capitalist, socially libertarian, and politically pro-freedom candidate you can -- and then loudly, proudly, defiantly, aggressively vote for him! Cast your vote in steel! And be sure to spit in the voting monitor's eye when you do so!

    Your attitude and philosophy should be: no nonsense, no bullshit, no apology, no surrender, and no retreat. Take care that you don't regret your vote later on; take care that you don't have to rationalize, excuse, and explain it away.

    Don't ever politically advance and morally sanction slavery. Don't you dare!

    Always bear in mind that if you vote for the right-wing conservatives, or the left-wing progressives, then they will socio-economically prosper and politically strengthen. No-one will know or care that you secretly favor liberty. How could they? You're casting your vote for welfare statist totalitarianism!

    However, if you self-assertively vote for individual rights and freedom, everyone will know. The conservatives and progressives will both take note -- and then adjust themselves in a capitalist, libertarian, and freedomist direction. This will happen both after the current election, and during the next campaign.

    The powers-that-be will work for and actively court the liberty bloc. They'll tailor their positions and beliefs towards you. They'll noticeably alter and uplift their whole legislative behavior.

    So don't be a traitor to yourself and to mankind. Don't be a communist or fascist monster from hell.

    But if you do make the decision to perpetrate an act of political raw evil and vote for slavery -- in the pathetic belief that "It's just this one time" or "It's only because this election is so damn important," and you think your one pitiful impotent vote among millions will make a difference -- then recognize that as a result the freedom groups and parties will necessarily decline and the slavery folks will ascend.

    And who's fault will that be? Your fault! You need to vote for freedom now and forever and always!

    If not you, who? If not now, when?

    If you decide to walk into a voting booth, try not to be a complete and total scumbag and retarded monkey from hell. Try not to be a complete and total destroyer of yourself and the world.

    what is your answer to the two party system currently in place
  18. 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?

  19. Walling others in would be a great way to increase one's revenue -- demanding very high payments from landlocked owners, or even the eventual surrender of their property, in exhange for their ability to come and go could be very profitable. Also, walling people in could be a very effective way of dealing with evil people who, politically, promote vicious ideas. So, yes, there are conceiveable contexts in which a rational individual would derive advantage from walling others in.


    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?

  20. 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"

  • Create New...