Groovenstein

I have questions on this. Even though I think the questions are related to the topic at hand, if I have inappropriately hijacked the thread please feel free to reprimand me publicly. 1. I do not know Objectivism's stance on "public" property in the context of a proper government function. What does it say about, for example, a courthouse or military base? Should such properties be leased? That seems strange to me, particularly in the military context. 2. If a courthouse is properly "public" property (say that five times fast), what regulations are proper as far as conduct goes? My very basic, preliminary theory is that something that interferes with a proper government function is properly restricted to the point where the interference is removed. I will use an example to illustrate. I think laws regulating smoking on private property are absurd. The only stance even reeking (pun intended) of plausibility is a tort theory, but it seems to me to be such a clear case of assuming the risk that it's not really even worth discussing. However, in court for example, smoking might be highly distracting to both the participants and officials trying to pursue justice. I think smoking is properly prohibited in the context of this proper government function. 3. Turning to the issue of so-called "obscenity," what if this also would be distracting to proper government functions? Could the Supreme Court, for example, properly prohibit clothing in the courthouse with nudity or F-bombs displayed? Is it proper for the Court to go even further and require business attire? [Edited to add "functions" after "proper government" in the first sentence of point 3. I accidentally put "business" in the first time. Oops!]

I only read "We the Living" once, and it was some time ago. I don't remember Andrei's situation in detail. Would his situation apply to this at all?

So far, then, it seems that the answer is that it is immoral. So would I merely be a better variety of thug? I don't mean this to be sarcastic or rude, I'm just having difficulty understanding the underlying principle. Wouldn't this "damage control" theory, if you will, apply equally to, say, the FCC? For example, could someone who thought the FCC improper work for them to try to keep them in line, so to speak? I understand that the FCC is per se improper, whereas a prosecutor is not. But if the justification is damage control, it seems to me to apply equally in each situation. It would impose a psychological burden, no doubt. It is one I might like to find out if I could bear (for which you earlier offered a wonderful suggestion for determining). I think there is a difference between the type of situation you have described and being a prosecutor, in that your situation suggests something of an immediate situation, whereas I have plenty of time to determine if I want to be a prosecutor. That notwithstanding, I understand your point. What do you mean by the 5-10 year limitation? Don't be a prosecutor for more than 10 years ever? Don't be one for more than 10 years if I don't like it? Sorry, I've considered the context of this comment and I still can't quite figure it out. Why? Is it that you think that all current federal laws are wrong? Is it something to do with the impropriety of the jurisdiction in general? What's the distinction?

This had not even occurred to me. I think your point here is an excellent one. Should I decide to pursue the Clinic, I will probably take this approach. There are two separate questions on this issue. First, is it morally proper to be a prosecutor where some of the cases one must prosecute will be for violations of improper laws? If it is not, of course, then the inquiry is over. (In my best Soup Nazi impression) No prosecutor for you! If it is, then a second question must be answered. Do I have the intestinal fortitude for such a pursuit? Your comments address this second question. As I said, I think your idea would be very effective for testing my stomach. I still do not have an answer for the first one, though. As of yet, I have not found a very strong, thorough answer for this. Do you have any comments on this first question? Do you think I am misstating the issues, i.e. that the two questions I am asking are the wrong ones? Do you think you have addressed the first question already?

Feel free to ask me any questions you wish about music. I will try to answer as time permits. Thank you for the suggestion. I think my roommate might have that one.

At the risk of violating the rule requiring proper grammar, I am going to answer this question in a list format. Atlas: once all the way through; certain passages several times. Fountainhead (my favorite): twice through; certain passages several times. We the Living: once through. Virtue of Selfishness: several times, one essay at a time. Capitalism: most of it, one essay at a time. Philosophy Who Needs It: some of it, one essay at a time. I frequently read articles on the ARI website. I haven't read much Rand herself recently as I have been reading a bazillion pages of material for law school the last three months.

Greetings all. I offer some biographical information for those who wish to hear about this new participant in your forum. I am 23. I grew up in the Boston area, and am currently a second year law student at the University of Nebraska. I have a bachelor's in music business/management from the Berklee College of Music. My interests, apart from my studies, include music and poker. I do not call myself an Objectivist. I do agree with much of what I have read of Miss Rand. I am a huge fan of reason, and am constantly, through reading, thought and discussion, exploring it. I do not call myself an Objectivist because, while I am familiar with and agree with the fundamentals and many of their extensions, I have not mastered the subject. Since I do not know everything I think I need to know about it, I don't think it is appropriate to identify myself as such. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in your forum. Finding people of similar thinking from whom to seek discussion, guidance, and encouragement, is difficult. I hereby thank those who were brilliant enough to create the internet, the means by which interaction between so many others can transpire. (I guess this means I hereby thank Al Gore. )

I am currently struggling with a similar issue. I will try to keep the facts brief. I am a law student. The school offers a "Criminal Clinic," whereby students handle prosecution of actual misdemeanor cases. "Handle" means not only conducting trials, but also making charging decisions, discussing pleas, and similar tasks. I want to take this Clinic, as I am considering a career as a prosecutor. (Resolution of the issue of whether to take the Clinic would probably also resolve the issue of whether to be a prosecutor.) I spoke with the Clinic Professor about my concerns about prosecuting people under laws I thought were wrong, e.g. drug or prostitution laws. After some discussion, she agreed not to assign me any drug cases. She would not agree, citing administrative difficulties (understandable), to leave me off of anything else. The major problems I see are concealed weapons violations (I am in a no issue state if that's relevant) and prostitution. (Though she said that prostitution cases are extremely rare, it's still a possibility.) The quotes are from the "Voice of Reason" quoted by Onivlas. This issue does not arise in a law enforcement or prosecution context, since such tasks are (properly) not private. Here is where I think there is a difference between law enforcement and prosecution. One could be in law enforcement and not perform ideological services. Arresting someone, for example, could be done merely by taking facts and applying the law to them. The officer need not offer his opinion. A prosecutor, on the other hand, has to make some kind of argument at trial. He needs to tell the jury why they should convict the defendant. He could do this merely by arguing that the facts he has presented are convincing and that they show a violation of the law. However, effective arguments often involve appeals to emotion. Could a prosecutor fulfill his duty of effective advocacy by making an argument that, while still effective, was not as effective as it could be? As to the regulatory administrative agency enforcing improper, non-objective laws, my interpretation of Miss Rand's remarks is that this applies to an agency that is wrong per se. The examples she cites--the FTC and FCC--are such agencies, as is, as a further example, the IRS. However, a prosecutor is not only a proper government function, but a function that only the government should be performing. And I share the sentiment of an earlier poster that I would rather have someone with principles similar to mine in that position. To be briefly off-topic, this is my first post. If I have inadvertently violated any forum rules (which I read) or other customs I appreciate someone letting me know. Thanks for the opportunity to participate in this discussion.