Old Toad

Hello David (GreedyCapitalist), As noted by Qwertz, I think you are mixing criminal and civil justice systems, which serve different functions. The proper purpose of the criminal justice system is to determine (according to criminal law) retributive justice as between the government and an individual regarding an alleged breach of the peace. The proper purpose of the civil justice system is to determine (according to civil law) restorative justice as between private parties for alleged past wrongs, including criminal acts (in the civil context, called "torts") or breaches of agreements, and declaratory justice for resolving disputes regarding matters to take place in the future, such as how to divide property in a divorce. On the point of retribution vs. reform, Ayn Rand wrote: —Ayn Rand, The Letters of Ayn Rand, Letters To A Philosopher (original emphasis) For a criminal act—a physical violation of another's rights in breach of the peace—the proper justice is retributive punishment. In addition, a person should be required to pay restitution to the injured person, if the criminal is able (and I believe even criminal courts can order this in some cases). To suggest that restitution be the only form of justice for criminal acts would place physical violence against others on sale. Regarding your question about victimless crimes, are you suggesting that attempted crimes, such as attempted murder, should go unpunished, because there is no victim? You also wrote: "The court may not profit from the criminal's labor because it is not a victim of his crime ..." I don't understand this about a court "profiting" from the "criminal's labor."

Kevin, I respectfully disagree. If one wishes to communicate, one must use words and terms according to their objective meaning. If different words or terms have different meanings, then “semantic” arguments are meaningful arguments. Objectively, “gay rights” does not mean “individual rights as they specifically apply to the situational context of gay people.” Just as “minority rights” does not mean “individual rights as they specifically apply to the situational context of minorities.” Just as “human rights” does not mean “individual rights as they specifically apply to the situational context of humans.” Objectively, all such terms mean something other than and different from “individual rights.” It is objectively wrong to equate “gay rights,” “women’s rights,” “black rights,” “white-guy rights,” minority rights,” “human rights,” etc. with “individual rights.” It is objectively proper to challenge such an equivocation, whether intentional or accidental. The use of accurate terminology has the benefit of accurately focusing the mind on the issues.

The government usually has little or no involvement at the beginning of relationships. But relationships often become the government’s business at their ends. When people have any type of relationship, from accidental to intentional, matters often come up that need to be resolved objectively. For example, two strangers may have a dispute regarding a car accident. Or a man in a partnership borrows money in the name of a partnership without the knowledge of his partner and the creditor demands repayment from both partners. Or a man and a woman with three children may want to separate (“divorce”), but they have disputes regarding property and child custody. Or one of the persons in a relationship may die without a will. Should his wife get all the property, or should a portion go to his children? What should the portions be? What about his business partners? Or 17 people may enter into a polygamist relationship and then have disputes over property and custody of "their" 29 children. The issues can be seemingly infinite. The proper role of the courts is to objectively resolve disputes, inheritance issues, etc. The proper role of the legislature is to determine norms and standards that the courts should use for resolving disputes and other matters arising from various types of relationships. The legislature has broader resources for investigating what the norms and standards should be, and it is should be more responsive to the prevailing customs and optional values of the people within its jurisdiction. It should go without saying here that these should be according to principles of individual rights, but still many optional choices can be made according to norms and customary practice. For example, the legislature could establish a law that if a man dies without a will, and if he has a wife and children, then his wife gets 1/2 his property and his children divide the other half. Or it could establish that his wife gets 1/3 his property, and his children get the other 2/3. Or it could establish that his wife gets all of it and his children get nothing. The legislature could investigate what the average or most common practice is in this regard, and establish the law accordingly. Generally, the parties should be free to provide for different terms of their relationship than provided by the law, if they wish and if they bother to do so. That's called making a partnership agreement, a pre-nuptial agreement, a will, etc.

Think about it. Do you think rationality is a value? Do you strive for rationality in every aspect of your life? Do you make an effort to associate with rational people? Do you take responsibility for promoting a rational society around you? Do you have a specific plan for the steps you will take to achieve a rational society? Do you think your plan will achieve a rational society? Do you act on your plan? If you cannot answer "yes" to each and every one of these questions, do you deserve to live in a rational society? I don't think any of us can afford to plead the excuse that we are too busy with building a career or business to have time to work to build the rational society we want to live in. The scales are tipping. You probably are already working more for the welfare of others than for your own. If you feel overwhelmed now, wait for another 10 years to do something about it and see how much harder it will be. Please participate in the North Texas Objectivist Society. Please help us promote reality and reason in our lives and to those around us. My family is putting up a calendar of events for those who are constructively interested in Objectivism. We are hosting speakers. Do you support these efforts? Do you deserve to live in a rational society? "Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplacable spark. In the hopeless swamps of the not quite, the not yet, and the not at all, do not let the hero in your soul perish and leave only frustration for the life you deserved, but never have been able to reach. The world you desire can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it is yours." —Ayn Rand

AT&T is moving its world headquarters to Dallas, Texas. As part of the move, it also plans to move the statue "Genius of Electricity" by Evelyn Beatrice Longman. The statue has been the symbol of AT&T (and also the former Western Electric) since 1914, and that is often called by the nickname "Golden Boy." The current formal name for the statue is "Spirit of Communications." http://www.evelynbeatricelongman.org/1915_genius/ After it's moved, I propose we organize an NTOS field trip to see it in person!

Hello Ed, The statement is not: “How you, as an Objectivist, would (or would not) want to be treated,” but rather “How you, as a Christian or a Frenchman or Kim Jung-ill or Osama bin Laden or Barack Obama or Jeremiah Wright or John McCain or Jane Doe, would (or would not) want to be treated.” The “you” is subjective—it does not presuppose the “you” is operating from principles of rational self-interest. When it comes to “giving ‘til you hurt,” most people act on their explicit morality of altruism this way (including by voting): “as long as everyone else is forced to give ‘til it hurts, I’ll let them force me to do it, too.” -- OT

Hello Ed, Q.E.D. Briefly, the source of individual rights is reality, reason, the nature of man, and the requirements of man’s life. To live, a man must act to provide himself with sustenance and shelter. For this, it is right that he be able to keep the products of his own efforts. Man's rights are independent of any other man’s agreement or reciprocity. The nature of man and the requirements for his life provide the objective standard for each man's rights. Another man might respect or try to violate his rights, but is not the source of his rights. How "you" would (or would not) want to be treated is not an objective standard for another man's rights. Commandments are not absolutes; their status is the arbitrary. This is why institutions—and individuals—cannot practice them and live. This is why the amendments and fine print are made--but also are inconsistent with reality, reason, the nature of man, and the requirements for man’s life. The problem is not with institutions—which are merely organizations of individuals—it is with religion, i.e., it is with the root idea that everything—from existence to ethics to politics to law—is a matter of arbitrary commandment from a consciousness that is “above” and “beyond” reality and reason. P.S. It would be a pleasure to meet you sometime. -- OT

Hello Ed, I continue to question the premise of the question regarding how to we can better promote Objectivism, which is that we should focus on the common ground with religion—any religion. There is none. Of course, the “ground” of Objectivism is the axiom existence exists. The “ground” of religion is primacy of consciousness. There is no common ground between these metaphysical views. The difference in metaphysics necessarily leads to differences with every aspect of every other branch of philosophy, from epistemology and logic, to the nature of man, to politics, to art, and to all the specialized sciences. Under religion, the “common sense” principles – “Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't lie.” – are subordinated to altruism: Don’t kill—except for crusade or jihad or inquisition or the master race or family dishonor; Don’t steal—except from the rich to give to the poor; Don’t lie—except to shield others from painful truths. Even the principle of reciprocity is meaningless without a standard. If a person thinks it is proper that any person–including himself–should be sacrificed for others, the reciprocity principle will not help in dealing with him. “Common sense” is not grounded in religion. It is grounded in reality. It is the departure from religion.

Hello Ed, It appears the "negative" form is common in religions other than Christianity, as you say. In the United States, however, Christianity is the dominant religion. I do not know how scientific this is, but I made quick Google® searches on the following fragments of the two versions of the "Golden Rule": 1) REGARDING THE "POSITIVE" VERSION: "do unto others" resulted in 1,310,000 hits or "as you would want them to do" resulted in 75,100 hits 2) REGARDING THE "NEGATIVE" VERSION: "that which you would not have them do" resulted in 27,100 or "that which you would not have others do" resulted in 1,380 hits (one of which was this thread). I also found this quote: "The law is negative, the gospel positive; the law says "do not unto others that which you would not have others do unto you," while the gospel declares that we should "do to others that which we would that others should do unto us." The Law and the Gospel, by William J. Bryan (1896) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Law_and_...illiam_J._Bryan In addition, at least regarding the Christian Bible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity It appears that the "positive" form--a blantant plea to altrusim--is the most widespread, by far (on websites in the English language). Regarding people in the United States, I think we are dealing predominantly with the Christian "positive" form, which is not a common ground with Objectivism. (I am not sure the "negative" form is consistent with Objectivism, either, but it seems less relevant to promoting Objectivism and I have not analyzed that form tonight.) I agree it is imperative that we look for ways to be more persuasive in selling Objectivism. I don't mean to quibble with you; I am questioning a factual premise that affects the strategies we should consider in trying to sell Objectivism to people around us here in the United States.

Respectfully, I happen to just recently come across this from Ayn Rand regarding the "Golden Rule" (in the form commonly used in religions): The Journals of Ayn Rand, Part 3 - Transition Between Novels, 8 - The Moral Basis Of Individualism Also, I do not think "there is a shared core of values among Objectivism and other philosophies based on religion." To the extent there is a shared core of values with many of our fellow Americans, it cannot be based on their religion—but rather on their common sense. But I certainly agree it is in our best interest to promote Objectivism. In response to your question about how, I think a major mistake we make is not recognizing and being respectful of how much time it takes to learn about and adopt a new philosophy.

Jeffrey K. Meek, historian, will be speaking to the North Texas Objectivist Society! Musically Illustrated lecture (2.5 hrs): The Foundations of Western Music This musically illustrated lecture surveys the development of music in the Western world from Pythagoras in ancient Greece to John Cage in the twentieth century. It reviews the major developments, both technical and philosophical, that led to the giants on the Romantic Period of the nineteenth century and subsequent fall in the twentieth. No formal musical education is required. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ABOUT THE SPEAKER Jeffrey K. Meek studied music history and performance at the University of Southern Mississippi. As a clarinet student of Wilbur Moreland he has performed with the USM Symphony Orchestra, The Gulf Coast Symphony Orchestra, and the Meridian Symphony Orchestra. He studied conducting with Dr. Joe Barry Mullins and composition and arranging with Luigi Zanninelli. He is currently Vice President – Asset Sales and Recovery for WaMu Card Services in Arlington, Texas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ABOUT THE NORTH TEXAS OBJECTIVIST SOCIETY http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/about/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROGRAM* 7:00 pm - 7:30 pm - Arrival, signing-in, and seating 7:30 pm - 10:00 pm - Musically illustrated lecture followed by question period * Refreshments only. Business casual. * The speaker reserves all copyright. Note-taking is permitted, but by participation each audience member agrees not to publish any lecture notes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADVANCE REGISTRATION REQUESTED We request advance registration for limited seating, to build membership in NTOS, for our security, and to avoid the management of payments at the door. Please register as follows: (1) Visit our event listing at: http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/calendar/list/ ...RSVP for yourself plus any welcome guests you may wish to bring. ...Pay the event fee(s) via the payment link provided. (2) "Contact Organizer" via http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/suggestion/ to send an e-mail with the following information: ...Your name; ...The name(s) of your guest(s), if any; ...Your e-mail address; ...Your mailing address; ...Your telephone number(s). We will not give out, publish, or sell your contact information. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOCATION Arlington, TX (Central Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex) The location information will be sent via e-mail to those who register. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTIONS If you have any questions, need any special accommodation, or have any difficulties regarding making online registration, please contact us via the "Contact Organizer" feature on Meetup at: http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/suggestion/ We hope you can join us! "Old Toad", Organizer North Texas Objectivist Society

Hi Kat, You would be welcome to join us and you might even get to see the Cowboys lose! (It sounds like I would probably have to sit between you and my wife, though.) The major point was that it is gigantic and beautifully so. Also, the Cowboys' stadium will be expandable to seat 100,000 for major events and I think it will still be able to be entirely enclosed. None of those others are enclosed, and even then only Salt Lake seats more -- but it is not so beautiful.

Wow! At 60 yards long X 50' in height (and weighing 600 tons), it will be the largest media board in the the world -- better than a 60 inch screen in your living room. More at: http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/ We will organize an "NTOS field trip" to a game after it opens! Even the nose-bleed seats should be great.

This presentation by Lee Sandstead was beyond my wildest expectations. The life and art of Evelyn Beatrice Longman (1874-1954) was inspiring and moving. I also gained an appreciation for sculpture that I never had before. Others in the audience wrote the following comments: Wow! What an awesome speaker. Sandstead is a fantastic story teller. He really made his subject matter come alive. I am not an art history buff by any means, but Mr. Sandstead made me appreciate it more than I ever have before. – Scott Absolutely wonderful! – Tom Lee is an outstanding speaker. He knows his subject matter and is very passionate about it. – John Sandstead was a tremendous speaker, I enjoyed this lecture thoroughly. – Sarah The speaker was passionate about his subject and his passion was infectious. It was easy to see why he was voted most popular professor at schools where he taught. –Doug Lee was awesome! What a wonderful evening. His unpretentious approach to art education and enthusiasm for the topic are unsurpassed. – Pamela I also heard numerous compliments from the audience after the lecture and during our social reception for Mr. Sandstead the following night. It was a pleasure hosting Mr. Sandstead.

-- Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto, "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art" Last reminder! It's not too late! Art historian Lee Sandstead will be making a presentation to NTOS this Friday, August 8, 2008. We will also host a social reception for Mr. Sandstead the following Satruday, August 9, 2008 @ "the Ranch" (my family's home). For more details about the activities of the North Texas Objectivist Society see the thread at http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=13311 -- “Old Toad,” Organizer North Texas Objectivist Society http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/about/

Who is the conqueror of physical reality: the man who sleeps on a bed of nails or the man who sleeps on an inner-spring mattress?

"The doctrine that 'human rights' are superior to 'property rights' simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; ..."

Thanks for the positive comments! I should add a few more details regarding our group and our milestones that may be of interest. NTOS is primarily a social group. To informally promote Objectivism, we welcome members who admire Ayn Rand's works and have at least a constructive interest in Objectivism. We welcome friends, families, and children. We also try to offer some educational opportunities, and we have started to bring in Objectivist speakers. I think being in a big U.S. city area is necessary for much chance of success with an Objectivist community club. For example, I believe there are around 5 million people in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. In three years, approaching 500 people have signed up to express interest in NTOS. When new members first sign up, I automatically send a welcome e-mail and ask that they read our “About” page at http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/about/ (A few quit 15 minutes later. It saves both them and us time.) 220 of these – nearly half the people who have ever signed up – are still members. 100 of these – about half who are still signed up – participate from time to time, virtually or in person. We continue to have about 5 to 10 people a month sign up for NTOS. I believe we have not begun to tap even a fraction of the interest that is out there. Make no mistake about it, though, people who sign up are not all Objectivists, and we also welcome each member’s friends, spouses, and children. For all this, we have made our minimum standards and terms for participation as clear as possible. I am always working to clarify them further. Personally, I welcome the opportunity to visit with people who have at least a constructive interest in the philosophy. My wife and I have hosted more than 60 events (about half of all the NTOS events) in our family’s home. We host on a Saturday night, usually every 2 - 3 weeks. We have a large, informal, somewhat rustic house on some acreage with horse pastures (aka “the Ranch”). We typically have about 25 – 40 people for each event, including some children. Our largest event so far was our 2007 Thanksgiving potluck for which we had 50 people including lots of children. Altogether for these events I estimate we have had about 2,000 visits to our house. We usually start around 6 pm, I usually grill (burn?) hamburgers and chicken sandwiches, and we offer lots of refreshments. We ask for $15/person ($5/child) to help cover expenses. We have no formal agenda and allow people to mingle as they please and discuss what they may find of mutual interest. Sometimes the discussions are philosophical, often they are not particularly so. Usually about a dozen of us stay up talking until about 2 am the next morning, so each of these socials is up to 8 hours long for us. My family and I spend the next day recovering. It is a lot of work, but very enjoyable and I think the interactions encourage at least some of our members to go read and study more. The downside to our home is we are rather far from any city center – about one hour drive from almost everyone, each way. At least my family does not have to drive home after. For other types of events, we also go to the movies, meet at local restaurants, go to the zoo, etc. Usually only about 5 to 10 people participate in these types of events, though. We have also had an OPAR discussion group, but I don’t have the time and energy to run it right now. After our first year, we started hosting speakers twice a year. So far we have hosted Craig Biddle on “Living Purposely,” Andrew Bernstein on capitalism, John Ridpath on Friedrich Nietzsche, and Andrew Bernstein again on government vs. private education. As noted in my first post on this thread, we will be hosting an art historian next week. For our speaker events, we have evolved to have a two-night format: the speaker’s lecture is on a Friday night from about 7 pm – 11 pm (including Q&A period and some socializing afterwards), and we host a reception for the speaker, audience, and their friends and families at "the Ranch" the following Saturday night from about 7 pm - midnight. Because of the large social component even for our speaker events, we prefer to not open our lectures to the general public. My family and my parents subsidize the cost of our speaker events, but we hope they will eventually become self-supporting. As I have posted here before, one of the really exciting things we did was take out three billboards for a few days last summer. All the billboards said was: “Who is John Galt? ObjectivistSociety.Com.” In total, the signs were visible to daily traffic of 1/2 to 3/4 of a million vehicles. We only reached about 10 new members with this, however, so for the $2,000 cost it was not very successful -- but it was very exciting to try! Maybe the billboards generated some curiosity in Atlas Shrugged for a few days, too, though I have no way of knowing that. A picture of one of the billboards is here: http://files.meetup.com/14542/Billboard%209-19-07.jpg In looking at our e-mails relating to NTOS, I have sent or received upwards of 10,000 (which includes e-mails I receive that regard matters that may be of interest to NTOS but only counts each general announcement NTOS sends out to our members as just one). I should also add that I do not see the e-mails between our members, of course, so I am sure we have more e-mail traffic among us than even I see. For all of this hard work and the rewards of some success, I continue to look for ways to build participation in NTOS and interest in Objectivism. Time will tell whether or not this model for an Objectivist club can become self-sustaining. Meanwhile, managing the group has inspired me to learn more about Objectivism, and I think the group is good for me and my family. We have made some wonderful friends through NTOS, including GreedyCapitalist, Sarah, Scott Connery and his wife, Sanjavalen, K-Mac, Sophia, and others we know on ObjectivismOnline. I am looking forward to meeting more of you.

I've been re-reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (actually listening to it as an audio book on my Blackberry during my daily commute). Regarding Kelley's position on "suspending judgment," I came across this from "Galt's Speech": This quote from Galt's Speech is in the Ayn Rand Lexicon under the heading "Evasion."

I am pleased to announce a couple more milestones in the growth of the North Texas Objectivist Society ("NTOS"): First, we have topped 220 members. Since just January 1, 2008, in just the last six months or so, 50 people have signed up to express interest in NTOS! Keep in mind that some of our members have spouses, some have children, and some have friends to visit with us. Second, we have organized more than 100 events! Actually, we have organized 108 events of various kinds, including social gatherings, field trips, and invited speakers. We have done this in 3 years. Without a doubt, the North Texas Objectivist Society is one of the largest and most active Objectivist clubs anywhere in the world. It offers us a place to visit for making friends based on at least a constructive interest in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. The most important thing that NTOS offers us and our families, right now, is our enjoyment. NTOS also offers us a vehicle to start changing the world around us: We are a beacon to others who might be interested Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, the only philosophy that is based on reality and reason, not faith and force. By spending time together and with our visitors, we have the opportunity to discuss and persuade each other and each of our visitors toward better reasoning. We have the opportunity to reinforce our values and show that it is possible to live by the philosophy of reality and reason. We can inspire each other to do more. Especially if you are local to us, will you help us to promote reason in the marketplace of ideas – while the marketplace is still open? Remember, for example, it is not too late to sign up for our next speaker event on Friday, August 8, 2008! It is particularly helpful for our members to support our educational speaker events. You can always see our upcoming events and RSVP at http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/calendar/ We look forward to seeing you soon! -- “Old Toad,” Organizer North Texas Objectivist Society http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/about/

Think about your values. Imagine being able to see and discuss art like this: http://www.sandstead.com/gallery.html Act to make it a reality. Lee Sandstead, Objectivist art historian, will be speaking to NTOS Friday, August 8, 2008. He is best known for his dynamic and engaging lecturing style. Showing a great passion for his subject, he encourages each attendee to integrate art into their own lives. For details and to RSVP, please see our announcement at: http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/calendar/8079883/ -- “Old Toad,” Organizer North Texas Objectivist Society

"Tell me, Miss Taggart, what's going to support a seven-thousand-ton train on a three-thousand-ton bridge?" "My judgment," she answered.

Hello Lex, It seems – at root – you are asking why we cannot separate cause and effect. A man’s mental processes are the cause for his mental action (the effect) of holding or rejecting an idea. The ideas a man holds are the cause of his voluntary physical actions (the effects). A man is responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his voluntary actions. In morally judging any action of a man (and responsibility for its consequences), it is always necessary to consider the cause – the contents of the man’s mind.

A man.

What are you responding to?