Robspe

Since the Washington Post is reporting this, I doubt it happened as portrayed. It does point out a problem with public libraries, though. Private libraries could have enforceable rules. Public libraries always have to fear that some psycho will sue and get a million dollars because other people couldn't stand his smell. The rules are hardly ever strictly enforced. The article does point out a paradox, though. If sexual harrassment laws forbid the display of obscene material because it creates a "hostile environment" then the authorities must assure that no such material is available to public view. But if library patrons have a right to view whatever they want, how can the authorities interfere? Even putting up a privacy screen requires that someone notice and act on what someone is looking at. Wacko feminist, meet psycho pervert: result=illogical. Hmm, somebody's assumptions are off base. Maybe both sides?

A war was fought over a similar problem. The War of the Pacific (1879-1884) was at least partially about Bolivia's access to the Pacific Ocean at the border between Chile and Peru. The peace treaty cut off Bolivia from the sea but Chile guaranteed Bolivian access to a rail line and port rights. From an anthropological point of view, there's no better way to make a man fight you than to cut off his escape. Even a mouse will fight a cat if cornered. As to the hypothetical, the easement would certainly have a market value, perhaps higher than that of the H(prime) property itself. If Wal-stor was determined not to pay through the nose, they might want to buy H(prime)'s property before the news got out that they were planning a store. Otherwise, their only way out might be to allow H(prime) a means of access that they could make extremely inconvenient, within the bounds of nuisance law. But a smart firm wouldn't put themselves in this position in the first place.

The only question for me is, "Does Yahoo?'s behavior endanger the tiny bit of freedom available to US residents?" In view of the totalitarian nature of the Chinese government, I doubt that it would have much effect whether Yahoo? cooperated or not. The criticism being leveled at Yahoo?, though, may have a salutary effect on others that think about kowtowing (and I use the word advisedly!) to dictatorial regimes. The American government's only responsibility in the international arena is to defend itself and its citizens. It has no "moral" obligation to act to save others who suffer under tyranny unless that action would be in the best interest of US taxpayers.

I'm bothered by the fact that, if the drug company had been smaller and less wealthy, the "punishment" for the same supposed negligent act would have been smaller. Leaving aside whether the money will ever be paid or not, this seems a disincentive to prosper and increase one's wealth. Didn't I read about some country that charged drivers different amounts of money as a fine for exactly the same traffic offense, depending on their income and assets? That's where this is leading. Presumably, one without income or assets would get off scot-free. What's left to discourage misbehavior? Prison for debt? And one cannot overlook the fact that the money isn't really going to come out of the pockets of the drug company, but from their customers, shareholders and creditors, especially if the judgment should drive the company into bankruptcy.

As a resident of Tallahassee, I must say someone needs to stand up for the poor oppressed alligators who are tokenized by the impotence of the Gainesville-based football team, which finds it entirely impossible to ever win a game up here. It's sad, really.

Racism is a form of collectivism. From a scientific point of view, however, it must be remembered that differences can exist between large groups of peoples. Susceptibility to some diseases, IQ, testosterone levels and lactose-intolerance, for instance, have been reported to vary, on average, between Caucasians, Black Africans and Orientals. The critical mistake is to assume that such averaged qualities apply to each and every individual of every race. Without collectivism, collective differences would not matter to each man's ability to achieve whatever he can. But it would be useless and mystical to deny that groups have particular qualities, qua groups.

Last thing I knew, New Hampshire didn't have an income tax OR a sales tax. There may be an "unearned" income tax. NH does have high property taxes, though, thanks to all the refugees from Taxachusetts. I lived in NH for years, though. I liked the little towns, where town meetings did really control local taxes and schools. Danbury, up north of Concord, is a nice town. But I love Portsmouth, however overdeveloped and touristy it has become.

The discussion around page 297 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, would be relevant to this discussion. Those who advocate amoral materiality are as bad as those who say the material world doesn't exist. You have to have quite a mind/body dichotomy going to assert that you can live a moral life no matter how you live. If the central goal of your existence is only to live, you have no hope of living a productive life.

Hmm. Seems to me "agnostic" means that you don't know whether or not God exists, not that you deny that he does. I don't think atheism does any more than deny that God exists. It doesn't go far enough because it allows the possibility that he could exist if circumstances were different, or even that he did exist once but does not now. For instance, Nietzsche said, or had Zarathustra say, "God is dead". I object to that because it implies that God at one time existed. Rational men should be able to see that the entire concept is not a fit subject for belief or opinion. And of course I realize that N was being cryptic and epigrammatic, referring to "belief in God" and "God" as the same thing. But to imply that "Men no longer believe in God" and "God has died" are the same thing is to torture words beyond necessity.

THE best actress to portray Miss Rand would be Patti Lupone. She looks and acts just as I imagine Miss Rand did. If it were done honestly, though, the entire London stage play industry would evaporate in a fit of pique.

I usually say, "I'm a rationalist" or something of the sort when asked if I believe in God. I am bothered that the word "atheist" does appear to assume that one has to have an opinion as to whether God exists in the way a man or a rock exists. I think it's important that the concept of God be shown clearly to be entirely nonsensical. It's not as though one is asking, "Did Robin Hood or King Arthur or Homer exist?" Robin Hood could have existed. It's perfectly easy to see how King Arthur could have actually reigned in the Dark Ages. We just don't have enough facts to come to a definite decision about the matter. But it's incomprehensible to me how anyone could think that some fuzzy and illogical concept such as God could have any reality to it. So calling oneself an "atheist" almost seems to me to admit that God might exist, but doesn't. And that's quite wrong.

"Stinks" does not equate to harms. You can bar smokers from your premises and not frequent restaurants that allow smokers, but the prevalence of lies about the harmfulness of second-hand smoking makes one doubt all the other statistics about smoking. The lies are used, of course, to expand state power. And not just Europeans smoke. Practically everyone except Americans does. Now just because everyone jumps off a cliff ... etc. But. And, no, I don't trust my doctor to go against a generation of received wisdom, at least in his recommendations to his patients. A lot of doctors smoke. I know why I don't smoke. I had asthma and bronchitis as a child and couldn't bear the idea of not being able to breathe freely. But that was more a knee-jerk feeling than a rational response. Many anti-smokers are just as irrrationally emotional as smokers can be.

In order to think that faith makes one happier, one would have to accept that rationality was somehow keeping one from being happy. The primacy of feelings over rationality is the cause of so much trouble and death in the world it is impossible for an objectivist to see how denying the applicability of reason could make any thinking man happy. In order for faith to make a man happy, he would have to willfully ignore a whole world of contrary evidence of the evils attendant on the denial of reason. Desiring that state of ignorance is incomprehensible to me.

If you define an atheist as someone who KNOWS that God doesn't exist, I suspect a lot of Objectivists would add that even asking the question "Does God exist?" makes no sense and admits of no rational answer or debate. That seems to be a position beyond atheism and invulnerable to the ID argument. God and existence are irreconcilable concepts.

There do seem to be three types (at least) of crimes that one can commit and, even if you can get away with them, you need to think carefully about because of the moral effects. One is malum per se, such as murder or violent theft, where the wrong is clear and will definitely have bad effects on your moral thinking. You will never be able to look into the mirror and consider yourself moral again. Then there are violations of society's mala prohibita, such as the drug laws and income tax non-compliance, that are arguably bad, even vicious laws, but whose violation will have long-term negative effects. You have to think carefully before violating these laws because abiding by them is not always or necessarily wrong in and of itself. But, if you do violate them, you can still respect yourself as a moral man. Then there are laws that compel you to commit inherently immoral acts, such as a requirement in a totalitarian society that you inform on those who oppose the regime. These laws you cannot morally obey, despite the possibly drastic negative effects violating them may have on you. Probably if Howard Roark tried to blow up that apartment building today, he would be jailed as a terrorist.

A little OT, but most people also don't realize that the Constitution doesn't specify the number of judges on the Supreme Court. That's left up to the Congress. So they could "pack" the Court, as FDR tried to do in the Thirties. Or, it could be reduced to one justice, I suppose, by not appointing new ones as old ones died. Wouldn't that shake things up?!

Smoking, however, does not harm anyone else, or wouldn't in a rational society. I've never smoked, so I would never condemn someone for doing something that he enjoys doing and that isn't immediately and obviously harmful, like plunging a knife into one's chest, and that might have benefits I couldn't possibly be aware of. I also don't trust Surgeon Generals' reports in general. In this day of nanny-state propaganda, a rational man has to seek out his own information and make his own decisions. In most of the world, most people still smoke, when they can afford it. They regard it as a great pleasure. So isn't there a lot of evidence on the positive side of the smoking argument?

I believe most email accounts can be set up to receive only mail from particular addresses specified by the account owner. That should stop all unwanted mail. Even if a spammer knew your address, his messages wouldn't get through. The problem I have with allowing fraud as the basis for a violation of rights is that the government uses "protection from fraud" as an excuse for extending its power almost without limit. So I favor the most restricted definition of fraud, since it really isn't equivalent to physical violence. There are usually ways for an intelligent adult to protect himself against fraud without getting the legal system involved.

I hae no problem with the requirement that a convicted felon have to affirm his commitment to living within the law before he is allowed to vote in the system which makes the laws. If he's not willing to do this, why should he be able to vote? And I don't know that any states completely and forever deprive felons of the right to vote. I know that in Florida a simple and clear procedure exists to get your rights back. Of course the existence of victimless crimes, which were made crimes by elected officials, makes a mockery of this requirement, but that's a side issue.

There is also, in my view, a constitutional problem with zoning laws. They are, if memory serves, based on the "police power" imputed to government. But, as with the interstate commerce provisions, this power has been extended out of all recognition beyond "policing" matters to, as has been mentioned, aesthetics and economic development. With the latest Kelo furor, the Supreme Court has essentially said there are no constitutional limits to local governments' power over one's property. It does seem this decision is the last straw and enough people may be outraged by it that the whole question of government control of property uses may be reviewed. I remember one local zoning ordinance provision I worked with that stated, "All uses not specifically allowed are forbidden". How's THAT for totalitarianism? And that supposedly passed constitutional muster!

This is entirely irrational.

I think this is what Ayn Rand means by Man "qua" Man. No Man can preserve his integrity without obeying the laws of rationality. Without his integrity, he is only an animal. And this is why I like objectivism. It gives a personal, moral context to life as well as a practical guide to action.

Randi is widely knowledgeable and quite a good polemicist. He's far from being an Objectivist or even a libertarian, though. Have you noticed he's been pushing this group called "Brights"? They're very confused. But Randi thinks government should be protecting everyone from irrational frauds. I disagree. He's also pretty anti-American, even though he points out frauds all around the world. He doesn't appear to think people should be responsible for protecting themselves. That said, he's a heck of a lot better than Uri Geller!

Just remember that this committed mystical Islamist has as an article of his faith that lying to accomplish the furtherance of the spread of totalitarian Islam is a religious duty and a virtue. Not one word he says should be accepted at face value.

What's the rationale for voting? One vote really does not make a difference. It is mystical nonsense to say that by voting one is participating in a larger collective purpose. And none of the available candidates is appropriate, even if your vote could make a difference to which gets elected. That aside, any tax scheme that makes it more acceptable to fund government is a step backwards, not forward.