Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

issackd

Regulars
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About issackd

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Ontario
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • School or University
    UWO
  • Occupation
    Law Student
  1. 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 hi
  2. issackd

    Search And Seizure

    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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. issackd

    Search And Seizure

    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).
  6. issackd

    Search And Seizure

    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
  7. issackd

    Search And Seizure

    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
  8. issackd

    Defamation

    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 wor
  9. issackd

    Defamation

    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
  10. issackd

    Defamation

    [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 c
  11. 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
  12. (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 t
  13. issackd

    Judicial Activism

    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 publ
  14. 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 raisin
  15. issackd

    Judicial Activism

    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 impr
×
×
  • Create New...