issackd

Sharon has always been a giant. He's an individual who shapes the room he's in, rather than the other way around. Highly independent and of sound judgment, he was always called the "bulldozer" because of his consistency, lack of regard for his opposition and his determination. He is truly a testament that one man, by his acts alone, may grab history by the beitzim and force it to heel and beg for mercy. Reading his autobiography, I was amazed at his ability to create success out of the ingredients of failure. In all aspects but one he is the model Sabra. His military genius combined with his political acumen are the greatest of current Israeli leaders... unfortunately, he's also involved in several scandals (accepting bribes, nepotism, etc) to which Israeli politics have become so accustomed of late... (his son too is in a bit of trouble legally)... I will not apologize for him by becoming his mouthpiece, but I will only accept the man's life as it was - with both its stunning successes and occasional failures. In the end, a truly great man! Incidentally, it is always interesting to note the "Arab street" response to Israeli leaders. The more Arabs yell that the Israeli leader is a war criminal, terrorist, thief, etc. the more likely that leader is/was a powerful one. The opposite is also true (some regional Arab leaders decried Barak to be a powerful, progressive Israeli leader). Judging by the outpour of hate, Sharon must have been the greatest Israeli leader second only to Ben Gurion! Get well soon, bulldozer! Issack D.

Hey there, Here is section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which deals with the disrepute factor: 24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. (Emphasis added). --- A famous case illustrating just what s. 24(2) means is R. v. Collins. It indicates that three sets of factors must be taken into account in determining whether evidence should be admitted pursuant to s. 24(2). First, there are those factors which go to determining whether the admission of the evidence will affect the fairness of the trial. This issue is usually given the greatest weight. Second, there are those factors which demonstrate either the seriousness or the insignificance of the violation (police not asking you your name vs. strip searching you in the middle of a public area). Third, there are those factors which are concerned with the effect of the exclusion of the evidence on the reputation of the administration of justice. Hopefully that helps illustrate some substantive issues vis-a-vis our neighbours to the south. Issack D.

I did not mean to imply that I support or do not support one system over the other. I merely wanted to deal with the current reality that trademarks do exist... you've brought up an interesting point and I'll have to consider whether I actually do support them... (I'll do that now... as I write...) If businesses are legally people, then trademarks would be akin to protecting your full name from being copied by someone who wants the same job, same wife/husband and same position you have in life. Such a person would seek this goal NOT by producing more efficiently, working harder, etc, but by seeking to trick people into thinking that your achievements were his own (just like Nuke or Nikee rely on people mistaking them for Nike). In a world where all individuals are rational, such a person would not exist: an individual who seeks to place theft of ideas and reputation above effective production. Trademarks would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, the world is not perfect. One's name connotes one's abilities, experiences and past successes/failures to other people. For example, when I hear about W. Buffet, I have an impression of a stock guru. If I hear about F. Castro, I imagine a despot. In our world of scammers, where some individuals prefer to deal with others not through reason but through lies and coercion, I would have to support trademarks to protect, NOT the customers, but rather the business whose name is being stolen. Without such protection, I imagine a situation where crazy, fundie, new-age-hippy groups copy the names of businesses and make "press releases" that they eat babies, in order to scare customers away. Also, I would imagine people here would not take it kindly if in 1970, someone by the name of Ayn Rand (not the original, but a copy-cat) began writing articles about how truth is subjective and life is about mysticism and worshipping mushrooms. I guess my conclusion is that I support trademarks if only because I believe the alternative (no trademarks) would leave businesses legally unable to respond to trickery, deceipt, and coercion. It's 3AM right now... I may have logical leaks - feel free to critique away! Issack D.

I decided to post this here to get the greatest number of political responses - rather than pure economic responses. I recently received a letter inviting me to attend a conference in Toronto on why knock-offs are the devil and how they need to be deleted from the pages of history, yada yada... I'm new to Objectivism and wonder if the following line of thinking is correct: Some general principles first: 1. Knock-offs are produced more efficiently than the "real" product. 2. Knock-offs rely not on their quality, but on their low price and relatively similar name to major brands. 3. Because of knock-offs, major brands are losing money. 4. Instead of producing more efficiently, major brands complain to the government to deal with such knock-offs - essentially shifting the burden onto the general population (whose taxes go to subsidize the fat, lethargic major brands which successfully complain). My thought process is this: knock-off brands such as Rodex, Bolex, etc... are bought because they look the same as the major brands and cost less. Customers usually know when a brand being peddled is a knock off: whether it's sold on 5th Avenue or on the park bench in the Bronx should be a hint. There is nothing inherently wrong with knock-offs unless they violate the actual NAME of the major competitors, such as a cheap version of Nike, when that name is legally protected. Noke, Nikee, Nuke - are all fine by my standard: caveat emptor, after all. Therefore, such products do not present a threat to anyone except the major brand being imitated. Such brands, like Nike for example, should strive to compete against such knock-offs. They can advertise anti-knock-off media campaigns which stress the higher quality of the major brand. They can also attempt to produce their product more efficiently. It is up to a business to ensure that it remains a viable competitor. After all, if the only difference between Nike and Nikee is that Nike shoes last 1 year longer, a non-brand-sensitive individual would hesitate to buy Nike if the price were too high. Understanding that brand-loyalty is anti-capitalist, there is nothing wrong with introducing Nikee into the market and letting it compete with Nike. When Nike goes crying to the government that its livelihood is being threatened, thus prompting a big response which is paid for by the citizens of the country, Nike only further hurts itself in the long-run by dampening its competitive abilities. Any of that make sense? Issack D.

Two points of law: 1. If G consented to a warrantless police search, is this search legal? In Canada a search must be "reasonable" and this means: a) authorized by law the law authorizing the search is reasonable c) the manner in which the search was conducted was reasonabl. This was determined in 1987 in R. v. Collins (1987), 33 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) - for those interested... A search which is "unreasonable" is presumed to be illegal... I'm not sure why our system started this distinction in the first place (it's in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms - like your Bill of Rights). 2. Does the drawer count as land in the legal context? I've heard of cases in Canada where things planted on the land (i.e. houses, barns, fences, etc) are counted legally as "land". Would a dresser count as land in this case? Would it depend on whether it was a fixture or not? synthlord, if the courts find the evidence to be obtained unconstitutionally and, in Canada, if admitting this evidence causes "disrepute" in the "administration of justice" (s. 24(2) of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms), then the evidence is not admissible - in cases where that's the only evidence linking the person, that person walks free of whatever he/she is being tried - sometimes murder, sometimes drug traffiking, etc. Can someone please elaborate as to how this compares to the US legal system? Issack D.

As an extension to the discussion, if the police enter the apartment without a warrant and find the drugs, in the US, can B claim a violation of his 4th amendment rights to search/seizure? In Canada, he could not, because it was not his property that was being searched, nor his person. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms' violation must apply to the person whose property it is... how about in the US? Can B sue the gov't if G's apartment gets unlawfully raided and his crack-cocaine is possessed? Issack

Scene: G gives her boyfriend, B, control of a drawer in a cabinet with a promise that it can be "used as your own" and gives B a key to her apartment so he can access this drawer, without her being present, anytime. The next day, police who suspect B is a drug dealer arrive at G's apartment and ask G to enter the apartment (they tell her they're on a routine operation and think B is a drug dealer). G agrees to the impromptu search and the police find drugs in B's drawer. B is not present. My question is: does this drawer count as G's or B's property? B pays no rent, no utility, no upkeep, etc. for this apartment. But G has ceded control of the drawer to him. Did G's allowance of police to search her apartment include the drawer? (If it belonged to B, then no... if it belonged to G, then yes). This was a question a long time ago on an old exam, but I forgot to ask about it here. I just found the exam (from 1999) and thought it'd be interesting to get some Objectivist perspectives on this. Thanks, Issack D.

Hmmm... the whole point of the sword-arm of the law is to punish wrongdoing... if there is no wrongdoing, I am not sure one can invoke the law. Courts will laugh and mock someone who does so... However, if you say X is a great stock seller and M buys stocks which tank the next day due to X being a swindler, YOU are liable for the information if M bought solely on your recommendation (after all, information is a big asset) which you knowingly falsified. If M's stock bulls it 500%, M has no reason to complain and you incur no legal guilt (although IMO you incur moral guilt). In a perfect world, however, I would support a system where lying (even when it is beneficial) should be legally actionable, simply because it is a huge moral no-no for me. Lying distorts the nature of reality and has a way of becoming a quick modus operandi for anyone enticed by its effects. It's a verbal crack-cocaine, in my opinion. But alas, I don't rule the world... (yet?.. muahah)... j/k That being aside, without damage, the law cannot be invoked where there is no loss by anyone... I cannot think of a scenario right now where this can happen through lies... possibly only short-term effects. Issack

In a real Objectivist world, no one would care to lie about another person and the person being lied about would not care either way... I'm reminded of Dagny's affair with Rearden and how she didn't care if anyone knew... However, law and morality must meet at some point. Lying about someone is morally culpable, but the issue at hand is, should it be legally culpable as well? My simple answer would be: depending on the damage caused by the lies / slander / libel. Using DO's example, if I say Nixon is a child molester, thereby causing Nixon to lose an election due to this lie (and this can be proved), then it should be actionable. By spreading such a lie, you unduly alter the interaction between the person you lied about and all those he/she interacts with. If I spread a rumour that X is a thief who steals cars and the story is carried by all newspapers in a city and all citizens read it... next time X walks into a car dealership, chances are he will not be able to buy a car. DO, I think the foundation of making slander / libel legally actionable rests in their power to unduly inhibit the personal sphere of autonomy of an individual. Now that X is known to be a car thief (wrongly) and because of this no one is willing to sell him a car, the person who started the rumour has limited X's ability to buy a car, much analogous to having X falsely imprisoned in a room. Slander and libel put up barriers which are morally and legally culpable. Issack

[Merged from another thread (link) - sNerd] Force can also be non-physical... such as coercion. Protecting an individual's mental / physical integrity is an important issue. Therefore, I'm not sure an unfounded article saying "Nxixcxk is a child-molester!" would be allowed to exist without the author being sued for defamation of character or something such as that. An individual's personal sphere does not only include his / her physical safety and decision-making activities, but also their mental integrity. Otherwise you could call someone 10,000,000 times a day and yell, "you're a child molester" and hang up... I'm not sure why libel and slander would be legal in an Objectivist society... please explain. Issack

Hehe, I meant more about why it was the icon for the group of posts rather than a simple file folder as the rest are... also, I've studied enough Objectivism to know that the MIND is the root of all good, including money. Issack

(Mod's note: Merged with previous similar thread. - softwareNerd) The goal of criminal law is to maintain the Queen's/public peace. Unlike TV where an assaulted individual can choose not to bring proceedings against someone criminally, in real life (at least in Canada) this is impossible. If A shoots and wounds B, then B can choose not to sue A in tort law, but A will still be tried in criminal law regardless of B's wishes. Is this right? Should this be allowed to happen? After all, if B doesn't wish to sue A for the damage A caused, why should "society" care? Shouldn't it be up to the parties involved whether or not to bring an issue to court? I find the Canadian system to be useless and outdated. It should be up to the individuals in a society to maintain the Queen's peace, not some do-goodnik prosecutor's. The criminal code (in Canada a federal statute - not sure how it works in the US - if every state has its own criminal code) can be transformed into a private-related statute much like the Medical Consent Act. I dislike criminal law for many reasons - it is impotent to stop real crime, it is bereft of moral clarity and purpose, it attracts quite a lot more sleazy individuals than other legal professions, and it wastes my money (through the taxes required for me to pay for some murderer's trial in Prince Edward Island). The list above in not conclusive... hehe.. Any thoughts? PS. What does the dollar sign on this forum mean? I'm not a paying member... am I in trouble? Issack

Hey, In Ontario, Canada, there is no election of judges. The process has become soured by nepotism... we have an American two-party system here too between the Liberals (Democrats) and Conservatives (Republicans)... and studies have shown that under both governments during the 80s and 90s, political patronage played a higher role in getting judicial appointments than did skill, talent, and experience. We've tried to remedy the situation with advisory commissions and boards, but the honest truth is that in the end of the day, the same person chooses a judge with little or no need for publicly justifying himself to the voters / citizens. In the beginning of law school, my constitutional prof handed us an article about judicial activism written by an extremely left-wing think tank in the US which discussed how activism led to many liberal (in the classical sense) laws being put into effect in the US in the mid-20th century. I have no experience with such legal history and know very little about American legal education. It seemed to me that activism was a good thing. Then I realized that it was merely a tool... it can be used by good and bad people. Just like guns help start wars, they also help end wars... so too does judicial activism's benefit depend on the purpose of its use. Canadian (especially in Ontario) society is quite left-leaning and I have no hope for right-wing representation in the Canadian Supreme Court. Working to bring the system around from the inside is impossible, as a prof told me I would not be appointed for even a clerkship if I included under my hobbies the category of "Objectivism". Sadly, this has driven me away from the judiciary and more towards the business-law aspect of the legal profession. However, personal ranting aside, I think activism can be both a good and bad tool. A hammer can nail in a nail to build a house or it can be used to hit someone with a thin skull over the head. The hammer itself is not good or bad, its users attract the moral blameworthiness. That sums up my view of judicial activism.

If you mean "property" in the sense of cars, computers, clothes, etc... then your situation is indeed unrealistic. If you mean real property, such as land, then I don't see a problem. There are people who go through their whole life not "owning" property - such as those who live in downtown areas where land is too expensive to buy for most people and they simply rent (they hold possession of the apartment while someone else holds ownership). I also don't think using "and no one allows me" makes the situation any better. If you mean no one is willing to sell to you, then I suggest raising the price you offer. I don't equate owning property with freedom of the individual in the sense you're suggesting (that freedom may only derive from owning land). Being allowed to own land is important to a successfully free life, but I'm not sure the causation chain works in reverse. Remember, you have the right to own land, not the concrete prerogative that you will/must own land. Finally, some may argue that your need for land (regardless of why you need it or why no one allows you to hold land) may trump a land-owner's claim to that land. If you support this system, then just remember that next time you own land, some punk whose "need" outweighs your ownership may come along and strip you of your possession. This punk's name may be "the people" under authority of some random Comrade. Issack Hey, I forgot to address your first issue... of people not letting you onto their land... Just because all land is privately owned, this doesn't mean that malls, shelters, etc don't exist... it simply means that someone privately operates them, rather than the gov't. I would find it hard to believe that in a society where there is complete respect and support for private ownership, discrimination would be rampant... for example, saying that X cannot go on any one's property because he is of Y background. Such societies are advocated by libertarians, Objectivists, capitalists, etc... such people would hardly support any unfounded discrimination against you... So I'm sorry to say the only way I can answer your first question is to do exactly what you asked me not to do... by saying your question is too fantastic to contemplate. That's like asking "what happens if man walked on the sun" and then adding "please ignore the issue of whether man could do this or not". I'm interested in hearing what other, more veteran Objectivists would have to say about this. Issack

From what I understand, the main opponents to activism argue that judges (unelected) should have no power to create laws and thereby usurp the role of the legislature (elected). In Canada, studies have shown that political patronage is a big factor in the decision to appoint some judges to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, imagine having some Objectivist judges on the Supreme Court who could counter the growing powers of the legislature and executive... I would argue that it's a good thing. Morality and right/wrong are objective evaluations, so having some Objectivist judges would improve things in my opinion. I guess an argument could be made that activism can be used both by Objectivists and communists... imagine having 7 of 9 SC judges espousing communism... I guess activism leaves that door open... any thoughts? softwareNerd, in common law systems, judge-made law is subservient to legislature... the legislature has the power (in the words of my property professor) "to turn a horse into a cow and to make 2 + 2 = 5". Judge-made ("common") law is not substantially different. In terms of procedure, see my first paragraph. Both types of law are binding, but there is a political reality which exists when it comes time to change the law (if necessary). In Canada judges are less likely to strike down / sever legislation than to change fellow-judge-made law. Issack