Captain Nate

It's well understood that it's necessary for men to abandon the use of force in social relationship if they want to live in a civilized society. To do this, the initiation of force is made illegal and the right to use retaliatory force is delegated to the government to be pursued objectively under objective laws. However, isn't it true that an individual may use force in self defense if someone is in the act of initiating force against them? In the books that I have and read so far, VoS, C:TUI & P:WNI, I could not find where or if it was explicitly stated, but Ayn Rand does draw a moral distinction between the robber who kills a store clerk, and the store clerk who kills a robber defending their property/life. If any of you can point me to the proper reading, I'd appreciate it. How far does that right to use retaliatory force extend, meaning, at what point does the right for an individual to use force end and it becomes necessary to turn the job over to the government? Just as any free nation has a right to invade an outlaw nation, does a lawful individual have the right to use force to stop a crime? If a government fails to protect its citizenry (either unwilling or unable), what options do citizens have to defend themselves?

Do any of you remember the Futurama episode where Bender flushes Nibbler down the toilet and goes to look for him in the ruins of old New York and says all he found were "pornos and copies of Ayn Rand"?

Taxes are considered immoral by objectivists because they use government force on the citizens to appropriate their wealth. I have a question for the board...could some kind of land/property tax be established as a sort of insurance program to fund a fire department, which I consider analogous to the function of the police to protect an individuals and their private property? If you own land, you would desire for it to be protected from the dangers of a fire. But even if you choose not to have fire protection (don't want to pay for it), the fire department cannot not put out the fire on your property because it threatens the lives and property of other individuals. So it's kind of a universal user-fee. I know the answer from many of you will be "no", but it's just something I wanted to throw out there.

In my reading I haven't yet reached the part where Rand talks about how to fund government. I would imagine that some kind of tax would be necessary. For instance if the proper organizations of government were dependent on voluntary donations, then wouldn't the same dangers of a "mixed economy" come into play? What if the biggest donators decide that the military, law courts or police, only get funding as long as they side with them? I know you're beginning with the premise that a LFC system would be made up of a majority of moral men, but that doesn't exclude an immoral person from gaining some influence, or a moral person making a human error. I'm not proposing a large tax, or taxing certain people at the expense of others. Perhaps some kind of flat tax where everyone contributes (thus everyone definitely deserves equal protection), or a user-fee on those activities that the government will be enforcing (contracts? Deed transfers? etc.)

That's a good point. All though, I think we can say that a robber gained, short-term, financially from the robbery. There is no denying that he has more money now than he did prior. Therefore, he can recieve the benefits of having money without the just efforted of earnining that money (presuming he gets away with it).

You "benefited" from the party. But benefits have nothing to do with it. You acted imorally, just because you can get away with it doesn't make it moral. A criminal benefits from robbing the bank, that doesn't make it morally justified for him to get away with it.

The movie wasn't ALL bad (some great action and effects), but, among other reasons, the story strayed too much from the source material. Though, this scene has certain imagery that is somewhat related to my post: And I'm glad I was able to inform you a little bit about the character. Most people disregard comic books and the stories within them, but there is a rich story involved in many of them.

Is it MORAL to do it and get away with it? No, it's not. Just as being able to get away with robbing a bank isn't moral. Just because the government gets away with welfare & other collectivist programs doesn't make them moral. I think it's important since it led to the vomiting in the first place.

No, he didn't say that. He said that the person doesn't care about morality. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't really call the puking "accidental" since it came directly out of the choice to drink in the first place and that person should bear the responsibility for that decision. Secondly, drinking impairs reason and to "get drunk" means you're making a conscious choice to impair the faculty required for life -- couldn't that be considered immoral?

I liked it even more when a few moments later, when Vader says that he doesn't see Palpatine as evil "from his point of view" Obi-Wan tells him that if he believes that, he is really lost! Yeah, Obi-Wan was a little thick-headed in the end there. I liked the movie. It exists in a fictional universe, where different magical abilities are clear and objective facts and I'm willing to suspend my criticisms of it and just enjoy the adventure.

When you say "purchase land" what do you mean? Clearly, the government has the just authority to seize land (eminent domain) with just compensation in order to carry out its functions, i.e., to establish a military base, police department or to construct a capital. The government needs to be able to possess land in order to function its proper role. Wouldn't you agree? As for the Louisiana purchase...I really don't know what to think. Is it justifiable to accept certain actions of governments when it comes to international relations (i.e., purchasing large portions of land from another nation) that would be unacceptable within a free state because of how the international arena is structured? Yet, such actions still affect the people within the nations (where does the money to make such a purchase come from? the individuals of the nation). Perhaps it would have been moral had the funds to purchase the land come voluntarily from Americans who had a desire to settle the land, but with the government only acting as an intermediary because France wouldn't deal with individual American citizens. But is that really practical -- or proper -- of the government? Maybe it is acceptable under some circumstances, where the national security of the nation depends on it (thus serving the proper function of defending the citizen's rights), and unacceptable where it is done to enrich a few well-placed individuals? Thoughts, anyone?

Yeah, and a lot of his creations reflect that (see my post here0 Hope not, or my post about the objectivist traits of the Hulk would just get me a weird reputation here!

If Robin Hood stole from you, and then offered to return the earnings, then I'd say yes.

Objectivist Themes of the Incredible Hulk by Nathan Shapiro First off, let me start by saying that the Hulk, with 40+ years of written history by numerous authors, has gone through various changes through the years. There have been dumb Hulks, intelligent Hulks, green-skinned Hulks and even gray-skinned Hulks. In the first 3 issues alone, while the character was still being developed, the Hulk was a malevolent character that sometimes wanted to conquer the world. If you want to find out more about the changes the Hulk has gone through, see this pageat my website. If you want to browse around further, just click the link at the top-right of the page to restore the frames. Throughout my essay I have also added links to some pages I think might be useful. Due to the variations in the Hulk's character, I'm distilling this discussion down to the essentials of the character. For those unfamiliar with it, here is the basic gist of the Hulk Concept: The Hulk was created by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby, but artist Steve Ditko, an objectivist himself, contributed greatly to later stories. Ditko "inked" issue #2, which means he tightened the artwork of Jack Kirby. He completely drew #5, and then drew the Hulk regularly in his second series "Tales to Astonish" for quite some time. In the early days of Marvel Comics, it was not unusual for the entire plot of a story to be made up by the artist (such as Ditko) and to have the writer (stan Lee) insert text later to make a cohesive story. Lee and Ditko had oppossing political viewpoints (Ditko an objectivist, especially later in life, and Lee a moderate liberal). Let me begin by looking at the events that led up to Bruce Banner being exposed to the gamma rays. Had Rick Jones, the teenager, not managed to sneak onto the military base during the bomb's test, Bruce Banner would never have rushed out to save him. What, exactly, caused young Jones to do something so irrational as breaking into a military base? In his own words: "The kids bet me I wouldn't have nerve enough to sneak past those guards..." There we have it! Rick Jones did not do something out of his own rational interests, but because others, using peer-pressure, coerced him into acting against his own interests in order to remain part of the group. Now, Bruce Banner did not have to rush out to save Rick Jones. Since he was on a military base, he could have simply ordered someone else to do it. Had he followed his own rational self-interest, looked out for preserving his own existence ahead of others, he would never have become the Hulk. What is ironic is that Bruce Banner is a scientist, a supposed genius, yet he does such a bone-headed thing (as we objectivists would tell him). This reflects the idea that the "geniuses" of our society, found in the colleges and universities, are undermining their own brilliance by attacking reason, or at the very least not relying on it as their foundation. Banner's lack of rational self-interest comes into even greater focus once he reaches Rick Jones. He grabs Jones and races with him towards the protective trench. When they arrive, rather than leaping into the trench, Bruce Banner shoves Rick Jones in first, saying, "There! You're safe!" Only after Rick Jones is in the trench does he prepare to jump in, but it is too late. The bomb goes off and Banner is exposed to the gamma rays. Is there no clearer example of the dangers of altruism? Bruce Banner sacrificed his own life in order to put the interests of someone else, someone who was in danger due to his own irrational behavior, ahead of his own and the result was a life of suffering. I want to mention why the bomb went off to begin with. Bruce Banner had told his co-worker, Igor, to halt the countdown. However, Igor was a soviet spy who wanted to kill Banner so that he could steal the secrets of his gamma ray formula. This gels nicely with the reality that the communist states, unable to produce themselves, are reduced to stealing the efforts of free nations in order to survive. In fact, communists provide the source of many of the Hulk's stories over the years, especially in the beginning. In the second story in issue #1, the Hulk faces a deformed, communist scientist who, upon hearing about the Hulk, wishes to "slay him, or bring him back as my prisoner, as a symbol of my might." The sentiment of the communist scientist, no longer a man (he is a deformed creature named The Gargoyle), reveals the immense importance of physical force and oppression in a society where productive genius is not valued. In issue #4, a group of Soviet soldiers attempt to capture the Hulk, to exploit the secrets of his biology in order to create an army of creatures to fight the west. Again, their success does not lie in their ability to create anything, but their desire to sacrifice an individual (Hulk) for the greater "good"(the spread of communism). (As a very brief aside, in a story written 30 years later, Igor still doesn't learn the value of individual effort. When the Hulk, sharing Bruce Banner's mind in this form, confronts Igor, blaming Igor for turning him into the Hulk, Igor finally cracks up. Igor claims, despite all of Bruce Banner's personal suffering, that the Hulk has done a lot of good in the world and that he should deserve some degree of credit for it!) Clearly, the Hulk can be viewed as an individual, struggling against the collectivists in the world who want to use him for their own purposes. In Tales to Astonish #64 (the Hulk's second series after his first was cancelled), drawn by objectivist Steve Ditko, Bruce Banner is actually trapped behind the iron curtain and placed in a forced labor camp. When Banner says they will never force him to work for their secret science projects, the soviet general in charge of the camp, tells Banner: "We are not tyrants! We do not force anyone! But, of course, if you wish to be fed...!" The important thing to note is, that despite claiming not to use the overt appearance of force (and it is just a baseless claim, we later see them brutally beat down other prisoners), there are other methods of physical force that are used to control an individual. By removing a person's freedom to voluntarily choose where to work, who to work for and doing what, it leaves them little choice but to do the government's bidding in order to obtain food. Bruce Banner then witnesses an attempted revolt by another captured scientist, who proclaims the value of death over slavery. Bruce Banner, eventually turning into the Hulk, helps topple the leaders of the gulag. In the course of their uprising, his fellow prisoner ends up dying in order to save the Hulk's life by lunging in front of a ray gun blast declaring "You'll never defeat free men! Never! Never!" However, this death is not considered a sacrifice by the scientist because he realizes that the Hulk is the only one capable of continuing the fight for freedom. The dying scientist, in fact, thanks Hulk because with his help he will be able to die a free man and not a slave. The scientist made a rational decision based on his values. Freedom was more valuable than slavery, dying free was more valuable than living as a slave. I want to switch gears back to the Hulk's earliest tales to further show how that Hulk is an individual fighting against a world that wishes to control him and make him a slave. After the Gamma Bomb, Bruce Banner is sealed in a room with Rick Jones. When night falls and Bruce Banner first becomes the Hulk, the Hulk's first question is: "Where am I? Why am I locked in here? I want to get out!" And the Hulk smashes through a brick wall like cardboard. The Hulk's overwhelming desire is not for destruction, but for freedom. When the Gargoyle attempts to use a pellet gun that saps an individuals will, the Hulk proudly shouts "The Hulk is no man's slave!" And when the Hulk barges in on Igor trying to find Banner's hidden gamma ray formula, Igor shoots the Hulk. Hulk grabs the gun and crushes it, asking "So! This is what the puny humans fear!" The gun, and the force it represents, has been used (either by criminals, OR governments) to control men. However, the Hulk is a creature that cannot be hurt by the threat of force, who does not fear looking into a barrel of a gun. He has the power to break the control of force over his life to be independent. Perhaps that is why the military, and other authorities, lash out at him. He is something they cannot control. It could be argued that the Hulk's key to freedom is his overwhelming reliance on force, rather than reason. The Hulk primarily deals with others through physical violence, rather than discussion, which is not objectivism but anarchy. This is, to a degree, true. However, you have to overlook an important facet of the Hulk's character over the years in order to completely argue this position: The Hulk primarily uses force in a retaliatory fashion. Unlike other superheroes, the Hulk does not put on a cape and run around fighting bad guys (or as Ayn Rand put it in Ethics of Emergencies: "[spending] his life sailing the seven seas in search of shipwreck victims to save"). The Hulk, typically, shows up only after Bruce Banner has been provoked into becoming the Hulk, and he only fights those who attack him (occasionally, there is collateral damage, but as Ayn Rand noted the blame for such incidents is placed on those who initiate the use of force). The Hulk's mantra over the years was: "leave Hulk alone!" Essentially, Hulk just wanted the right to his own life, which others were determined to deny him. I've touched on the Hulk's relationship with reason, which is arguably the least objectivist trait of the character. When Bruce Banner becomes the Hulk, it is usually coupled with some decrease in intelligence. The green, Savage Hulk is often depicted as having a child-like level of intelligence, whereas the crafty Gray Hulk actually has a normal intelligence. The Hulk often found his mind muddled and confused (particularly the less intelligent versions), making it difficult for him to make informed decisions or to understand why something was happening to him. The main question is, does the decrease in intelligence from Banner to the Hulk necessarily mean a decrease in reason? After all, as mentioned earlier, Bruce Banner was a brilliant scientist but made several miserable decisions by not using his reason and pursuing his rational self interest. In contrast, even the dumbest Hulks seem to know what they want in order to achieve happiness and act in the way they best see fit to pursue those goals. To jump ahead about 25 years, in the mid-80's there was a story line where the crafty Gray Hulk became dominant and Bruce Banner disappeared for several months. During this period, the Hulk established a life for himself as an enforcer in Las Vegas. He had a job, a home and a girlfriend and was happy by pursuing his own self interest. All of which demonstrates that the Hulk (at least this version) is very capable, when given the chance, to pursue a rational, self-interested course in life. The Hulk's new life in Vegas was ultimately destroyed, in part, by the resurfacing of the Banner personality. Bruce Banner did not want the life the Hulk established, he wanted to return to his own wife and pursue his own interests. This demonstrates the truth of objectivism through a negative example (meaning, an anti-objectivist trait in the character revealing to the audience the value of objectivism). The Hulk, or Bruce Banner, cannot pursue their own values because they are sacrificial animals. It's not the intent of Banner or the Hulk to be altruistic, but they are forced, by their biological situation, to give up their values when the other takes over their single body. Neither of them can be happy because neither of them are free to pursue their own interests and must constantly live under the threat that anything they work to achieve can be taken away or destroyed by the other. This is no different than how, in a dictatorship, a person cannot use reason and pursue happiness because the threat of force against their individual rights makes it impossible for them to create any sort of long-term plans to secure happiness. This ultimately reveals an interesting dichotomy in the Hulk's character: He represents both the individual, struggling against the collectivists to pursue his own rational self interests as well as being a creature whose very nature prevents him from using reason in the pursuit of happiness. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I know posting this must reveal me to be quite a geek, but it really was an interesting topic I wanted to share with some people that I share a similar philosophy with. Feel free to critique, or laugh, or whatever at it.

It also didn't help that Orbach died, and he was going to be part of the big draw of the series.

Exactly. The forced removal of the Cherokee came after the Chereokee, more than any other indian nation, attempted to emulate the American system around them. I think the answer to that question is: of course it's immoral. I think the confusion in this situation is caused by our own understanding of "taking over the land." I see two different situations: 1. Settlers forcibly moving natives off land that they are presently living on, and which might be legally recognized as theirs via treaty. 2. Settlers moving onto UNoccupied land, which the Indians claim to hold in a collective, but they are not currently using. In situation 1, there is no justification for moving them off their land. It is clearly theirs, they are living off of it. In situation 2, their only claim to the land is some kind of spiritual or mystic ties, but they have no legal right to hold that land and if someone moved onto it, established a home and produced on it, then they would clearly have the right to do so.

Spidey certain comes across as altruistic (as most comic book heroes seem to do!) with his philosophy that "with great power, comes great responsibility." But he does a lot of what he does for (rationally?) selfish reasons. He feels guilty for not stopping the robber who later killed his Uncle Ben, and he becomes Spider-Man in a way to atone for his errors to assuage his own personal guilt. Therefore, stopping bad guys (those who initiate force on the innocent) is a higher value to him than going on a date, and he could not live with himself if he wasn't Spider-Man, in which case it might not be considered self-sacrifice. I guess part of it comes down to: should he feel responsible for his Uncle Ben's death? Well, not really. However, could have still acted ethically (according to what I read in Ethics of an Emergency) by stopping the robber and he failed to do so. Why I say it would have been ethical because it would have posed no threat to himself to do so, but he chose not to. Spider-Man's words were created by Stan Lee (a more liberal person), whereas the artwork and some of the plotting came from an objectivist named Steve Ditko. So there are a lot of contradictory elements in the character's story that could be looked at in different ways. For instance, a lot of the villains Spidey faced were, per Ditko's wishes, "nobodies" who were more-or-less parasites, who had to steal and loot in order to survive. One of the often cited reasons Ditko eventually left Spider-Man was because Stan Lee wanted to reveal Norman Osborn, the successful business man, as the Green Goblin whereas Ditko wanted the mask to be removed and it to be revealed that he was a no-name nut case. There was a recent comic book, one I didn't get, called The Megalomaniacal Spider-Man by Peter Bagge, dedicated to Steve Ditko, which re-interpreted Spidey by viewing him through the different philosophies of Stan Lee & Steve Ditko. Apparently, Spider-Man gets sick of self-sacrificing himself and decides to be more rationally self-interested. I'd like to find a copy of the story myself one day and see how it is portrayed (you can read some of Bagge's comments on it here: http://www.ditko.comics.org/ditko/why/whybagge.html) Am I the only comic geek here?

If any of you have been to a place like Orlando Florida, you get to see some of the BEST billboards around. It really is like an art down there. Billboards with beautiful designs, moving parts, lights, special effects etc. I like driving through the town looking out for the new billboards whenever I visit.

What I meant by "settlement or commerce" i meant either by a) Americans moving west and SETTLING land (and extending the borders of the United States into currently "unoccupied" territory), or Americans purchasing land from Indians & other settlers out West. I think most of us agree that government should remain outside of the market (not buying/selling). However, land purchases such as the Louisiana Purchase may prove a kind of exception (if anyone else has a different interpretation, please chime in!). It already "belonged" to another nation (france), and that nation would not sell to individuals, it would only make deals with other governments (such is the nature of international relations). So, on behalf of the people of the United States, it secured the land. I'm sure the ideal method would be for private individuals, with prospects of settlings in "Louisiana" would voluntarily pay for it, via the government, but I don't think that such a situation could have been established in order to accomplish the sale. I suppose you could also argue that the purchase was made in the national interests of the US, to protect its future sovereignty from any threats. Did Ayn Rand ever write about the Louisiana Purchase, or other government actions similar to it? Clearly though, once the United States government possessed the land (as a custodian, not an owner), it should then act, as Rand advocated in her essay The Property Status of Airwaves, to create legal methods for individuals to acquire the land through the process of homesteading. I don't think it could be justified for the government to purchase land and develop it (except for the purpose of creating the instruments of a just government, i.e. building a capital, police station, military bases etc).

I really enjoy the show (the original L&O, plus SVU, I don't care much for Criminal Intent). My biggest problem with the show (which plagued the now-cancelled L&O: Trial By Jury, which I thought was good but suffered from some bad writing) was that they too often "ripped stories from the headlines" and just made the whole plot totally ridiculous. For instance, last night I saw an episode of Criminal Intent about a radio jockey who was hooked on pain killers. Yeah, I wonder where THAT came from. It just totally rips me out of the story.

My friend's blog is called SnarkBait and can be found at SnarkBait.com. He's an objectivist and he's the one that introduced me to the philosophy. He's a smart guy, and I think you'll get a kick out of his posts.

I recently heard of this book a few months ago: http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread...&threadid=28099 I don't know how good it is, or how "objectivist" it is (the author appears to be a fan of Rand), but it might be worth a look. As for objectivist superheroes...Ditko, allegedly being a hardcore Objectivist, created quite a few comics based on the philosophy. Mr. A is mentioned above, but there is also "The Question" (http://www.ditko.comics.org/ditko/crea/crquest.html), "Static" (http://www.ditko.comics.org/ditko/crea/crstati.html). He also created "Hawk & Dove", two brothers with opposing political viewpoints, but both flawed by having anti-objectivist philosophies (read an interesting article on that here: http://www.ditko.comics.org/ditko/crea/crhawka.html). Ditko's most famous co-creation was spider-Man, but it is often hard to pin him down as an Objectivist character ("With Great Power must come great responsibility"), all though I have heard that the Ditko-plotted issues reflect a more objectivist viewpoint. I guess since MOST comic writers are left-leaning, and the concept of superheroes usually involves helping "the people"(rather than individuals), most of them tend to lean towards being more altruistic creations. I hoped that once I registered here, I'd get to discuss why my favorite character, The Hulk (who Ditko himself did quite a bit of work on) might or might not be considered an objectivist character. I'll save that for another time though.

(Oy, what a place to put my first post!) I have just started reading Rand's work, and recently read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and I recall a passage about Manifest Destiny in which Ayn was critical of it, I suppose for its statist and collectivist tendencies. I cannot imagine it could be justified for the government, on behalf of "society", to force people to move off their land. I think the only way to justify the expansion of the United States onto land otherwise held by other people would be through free settling & commerce.