Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

KendallJ

Regulars
  • Posts

    2800
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KendallJ

  1. I don't think it is. Let's say we all drop context for a moment and assume a rights respecting context. If the government is in breech then, Keating and hence Roark are owed redress, however, Roark didn't get a fee and Keating received his fee, so I don't think a jury would or could award damages (since we're not talking punitive here). His sole payment and the redress that Keating would have sued for was to have the bulding constructed as designed. In which case then the court would probably have ordered what is known as specific performance. That is the government would have to go back and honor the terms of the agreement and modify or demolish and rebuild the building. At best, one could argue that Roark is liable for the difference between the cost of rennovation the govt might have done under specific performance vs. cleanup and rebuild that it now must do. If the changes were significant enough, it would have been a wash I suspect Roark would have paid that difference gladly. Or if we add the context back in, what is the punitive damage a jury might impose on a government that destroys the very concepts which give them and the court they function in meaning. Oh say maybe forgiveness of any liability of the original person whose rights were violated, or hell maybe a big thank you for actually being the one to aid in the preservation of rights for all of us. This is why the context is so critical.
  2. Jonathan13, First off thanks for at least making a set of intelligent points. Unlike LeRoux who thinks that simply continuing to assert his first few sentences constitutes a discussion, and that the frustration people feel when he doesn't seem to understand this fact, you have made some reasonable arguments and tried to concretize them with examples. I'm preparing a broader post on this discussion on whether this is fraud or not. From a certain perspective one could claim that; however, I'm unconvinced that the detailed analysis of this context necessitates that this is actually what is happening. But I wanted to briefly answer a few other points. a. If Roark lied to Wynand, then he also raped Dominique. As Rand said, "if that was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation." Well I would add, if that was a lie, then it was a lie with a wink and a nudge. You should go back and read the scene. He does certainly act to hold private his involvement with the project, but this does not in fact necessarily constitute fraud, moral or legal. I'll get to that in a future post. You don't address the reasons why they won't hire him, and this goes directly to whether knowledge of his involvement is actually a false pretense. The question "would not hire him to do what?" must be answered if this to be indeed shown a case of fraud. This is a smear. I'd like you to quote me one passage where Roark expresses resentment. In fact, he realizes throughout that he only wants and needs a certain type of client. He doesn't resent the client who wants to give aesthetic input, he simply says "those are not my terms, I'm sorry." I just finished reading TF for the sixth or seventh time, and coincidentally, I focused all my notes and observations on Rand's specific use of concretes specifically around the characterization of her characters. I'm quite confident that you'll not find any resentment anywhere in the book. And you of all people, as an Objectivist should know that characterizing this is "reliance" on others is competely false and violates any sort of discussion of the trader principles. He relies on his own ability, and he trades with others voluntarily. He does not maintain the mindset of "reliance," and others cannot be said to fund his in that way. Rand specifically addresses this with a comment from Roark, and the commend has validity. One whole paragraph implies it beginning with "That's what's happening in New York..." but asubsequent paragraph says it quite directly. To then assert that Roark could still go into business for himself in spite of the government's action is to confuse the metaphysical and the man-made (or I should say government made). To hold him to a lesser moral standard because he doesn't take this route is to simply characterize government's actions as a state of nature whose moral impetus is then for us to mold to our own use. Rand wrote a whole essay about this fallacy. It is true that sometimes, some people who worked on the project are revealed. But that is not really your argument. And it is not true that because it is done sometimes, that it must be done morally all the time. The fact that everyone who is employed by a a company appears somewhere in some document is laughable. It does not follow then that this information is as a result broadly available to any prospective client. In truth, a company is under no obligation to reveal its employees to a prospective client,a nd there is no reasonable expectation that a client may be granted this information after the fact if it didnt' contract for that information up front. THis is not fraudulent practice. A client if he cares may ask, and a firm may if they so choose decline to give the names. But before asking there is no "withholding" of information if this information is not revealed and there can be no reasonable expection of it and thus the transaction cannot occur on false pretenses. If a client asks if a particular person is working on the project and the firm owner says no, when he really is, then that is fraudulent. But as I said, much more on fraud later. As to whether or not contractors do small or large parts of the project, in fact, it covers the gamut. There are products which we purchase from companies, even those with significant aesthetic elements where the company itself does almost nothing as relates to the product. The aesthetic design for the first iPod for instance was contracted out to a design company called IDEO, and it certainly does none of the manufacture itself. In fact this is true in the architectural field as well. Depending on what sort of architectural service you're looking for it is not a given that the actual aesthetic design will be done in house. THis is not true of all firms, and some firms make their living on specifically their unique aesthetic style. Was Peater Keating one of these architects. Hardly. Certainly you can't mean that when I contract with an architect that I have a reasonable expectation that the lead architect himself has been involved in the design or that he designed the whole thing himself. You're going have to get much more crisper in your analysis when you say that Keating "claimed Roark's design was Keatings". In fact most of Keatings designs as Rand so aptly shows are not actually "his" designs, yet his firm is not commiting any sort of fraud. If someone in the firms employ did the design, then what is the different between that and a contractor doing the design? This really is an arbitrary distinction in this case. But more on that aspect fraud later. First of all, when exactly did the government suspect Keating had lied? It's not in the book. This shoudl be worded, "were the government to suspect..." This analysis certainly is a way of looking at it. The question one could ask is, if the government acting as a contractor is bound by contract, why isn't Roark? To look at it the way you do though is to massively drop context. If this were two private parties, acting within the framework of an actively rights respecting government, then the analysis would be perfectly valid. But that is not the case, and that is vitally important to the context of this analysis. A government cannot in the same action violate rights and then claim the very same rights under the very same principle. When this occurs, when the party who is itself suppose to supply the context that would make Roark's actions immoral, does not supply that context (in it's role as right's protector) it cannot then turn around and try to claim those rights for itself. This is the very definition of tyranny and pure despotism. You can't get around this fact by suggesting that Roark and Keating are private parties and Roark's case should be with Keating, because the whole context of whether or not justice can be served and rights are protected is in doubt, and Rand concretizes this doubt very specifically in the book. This is critical. When you sit here and say that only Keating can file suit with the government, or that Keating should file suit with Roark, you are reinstating the context that there is a rights respecting government at the end of this whole chain providing the context that makes the very concept of lawsuit have any meaning. That context does not exist. Protection of rights is in doubt, law is in doubt and the very meaning of what a lawsuit actually is is in doubt. As to how far one can go, as LeRoux has ably pointed out, Rand gives some guidance. It is valid to break laws in order to have them tested in court (as long as you don't violate others rights). To claim that Roark cannot act becuase the public owns the building, actually is false. This is the very legal concept that Roark wants to test. Assuming Roark/Keating didn't commit fraud (which I'll discuss later), then the government obtained Cortdlant by breach of contract. The legal concept being tested then is whether the government actually owns Cortdlant of not if it was obtained by fraudulent means. One cannot defend this by suggesting that the government owns Cortdland and therefore has rights. That is the matter in question! If a thief steals something from you and you then destroy the thing so he can't have it, he cannot has his defense suggest that his property rights have been violated. If you show that he is a theif, then he never had them! And as an aside to Grames, I don't think this is jury nullification.
  3. This is not correct. Depending on the terms, 3rd parties may have rightful claim to suits. Happens all the time. If the terms of one agreement stipulate subsequent terms, then the subsequent party may have liabilit that the original parties may sue for. It is not necessary to have only a direct contract holder sue. The example you list above is not parallel to the Roark case. Keep trying tho.
  4. We do, the government is the owner. Roark owned the designs for Coartland. It could not have been built without the theft of those designs. ahem. Retaliation. Don't confuse the initiation of force with the retaliatory use of it. It's irrelevant. It happened the way it happened in the book. This is the Objectivist meaning of "context." Principles must be unpacked in a context. It's fiction. Rand setst he context and the principles must be analyzed with the specifics that surround the story. Rand cannot and shouldn't write for everyone's "what if" senario. She'd go nuts.
  5. I have, at least 6 times now. The owners of Cortdland (the government) have not had their consent taken away in any way whatsover. They have not been coerced, and force has not been initiated against them. This is the moral basis for contracts regarding future actions of the parties involved. Here is their uncoerced, freely voluntary choice: they can choose to build cortdland with Keatings desgins according to his terms (whatever terms he is willing or able to offer), or they can choose to not build it with Keatings designs.
  6. And as I've now corrected at least 6 times, he didn't "give them up." He contracted for specific use of them to another party, thus he retains rights to them.
  7. No, we're trying to hold a rights-violating government responsible for it's breech of contract. To claim that it is consistent to apply a specific direct instance of retaliation for rights violations to a broad diffuse instance of it would be hasty generalization.
  8. He did not make a contract "regarding someone else" (really sloppy language by the way). He offered terms to the government for the use of his designs. That the building be built as designed. And they accepted after reviewing those terms. They consented to those terms freely. If they did not want those terms they were free to decline them. They did not. He did not force them to accept those terms, and his contract with Roark in no way bound the government to accept those terms. Keating has every right to do this, and Roarks contract is most certainly binding. It has not bound a future third party in any way, and as such doesnt' require their a priori consent. To then construct the house in violation of those terms means that they have breeched the contract and have stolen Keating/Roark's designs. The house was obtained by theft (i.e. by breech of cotnract), and they (if they were a private party) cannot claim rightful ownership of it. This sort of contract restricting future third parties who enter into subsequent contracts happens all the time today, and it would happen in a fully rights respecting country as well.
  9. Back this up with an explanation. I've already shown you how your analogy is incorrect. All you've done is change the last word in your statement. The consent of the government to accept Keatings terms was not taken away by limiting the terms under which Keating offered to construct the house. By what principle does Keating not have a right to offer whatever terms he's allowed as to the construction of of something using designs that he has been given rights to?
  10. Bingo. It makes all the difference in the world here that the supposed "property holder" whose "rights" were violated is the same body that is supposed to enforce rights, and who violated rights to obtain said property.
  11. Said property was built through the theft of Roarks property as it was constructed under breech of contract. Who owns the property and whose rights were violated again? We keep blanking that out. Certainly if we were being civilly disobedient and an innocent bystanders rights were violated, you could say that the case was parrallel to Rand's, but in this case it is absolutely critical that the government violating rights, and it is the owner of the building. A government cannot have rights by virtue of the violation of others rights to obtain them. Those are entirely illegitimate. Certianly if he had hurt someone it woudl be been his responsibility, but he didnt' so it is irrelevant.
  12. yes, you've repeatedly said and you are repeatedly in the wrong. This is not the case with Cortdland. This analogy is false. The contract with Roark is not a contract about your house. It is a contract about the manner of construction of your house. Your consent is not eliminated because Roark and Keating had a prior agreement. It is a contract with Keating about what terms he may agree to construct the house under. Keating offered those terms to the government, and they accepted, i.e. they consented. There is not "non-consent. The owners of Cortdlant were free to decide whether they wanted the house built under those terms or not. They were free to not consent to those terms. Keating however was not free to offer other terms. What they were not free to do is to take Roark's design regarldess of the terms they agreed to with Keating. It is not that the house was built, it is that they consented to the terms under which the house would get built, and turned around and built the house under breech of contract.
  13. Got it. They directly refute your points. So obviously if you think that they don't then it would be encumbent on you to show how they are in error. That would be "debate" or refutation. Ignoring them is not. They are substantive answers. The basis of your argument hinges on your very first post, which is what I've dealt with. Would anyone else in the room be curious to hear Chris refute these arguments? Pull up a chair. Let us know.
  14. This really is an intellectually dishonest response. Are you afraid of the idea behind a single click? Does me providing you ready access to the argument somehow make your ideas unable to stand up to them? If you really believe that you are that correct then intellectually honesty, especially in one who makes the claim that no one has answered him and that he has won the day, would suggest you take a peak. I'm well known on this board for giving well reasoned if blunt answers. You may want to hide behind an ignore button, but the fact is everyone else involved in this debate can and will easily click through the links and see that there are very valid points that are raised, and they'll wonder why you need be so unreasonable as to close your eyes to them. In fact, most will think me gracious for twice linking you to posts that as someone who is participating in this thread, you ought to have read already (and your only excuse for not reading them is that you lost interest) What is is that your ideas can't stand up to in honest debate? You were the one who was claiming ad hom, and every other sort dishonest debate tactic. Now it's quite clear that when presented with honest ideas, you'll hide behind anything even the whine of someone unwilling to take one mouse click before you'd defend your ideas. It is stated quite clearly, in response to you original post in this thread. Click the link, and you'll have it. We're all waiting. Everyone is watching to see what your next actions tell us not only about your ideas but also about your character.
  15. Well you'd have to cite why that particular law is immoral in this application. Otherwise it might be a perfectly valid interpretation even under Objectivism and so it is. Again, you really are showing youself to be a poor defender of your own ideas. You're not going to take one step beyond that original statement are you? You call that debate?
  16. Asserting it doesn't make it true. And thank goodness you have no standing to actually speak for Objectivism. That statement is in direct violation of forum rules.
  17. I linked you to it, in direct address to you. You're a coward if you don't actually respond to it.
  18. Yes it could be, but since this is a novel and not a real case you can't just make stuff up. Your argument is hanging by the thread of whether it actually is or not so if it's not in the book, you're done. You need to provide evidence that it is NOT the government who is the contracting party, not simply claim that it "might" be. Time to crack that book you haven't looked at in a long time. You really think this is good debate on your part. Not even armed with the actual facts and all. Could you actually quote Rand against me?
  19. I've spoken to this point three times now. Are you going to actually address my points or simply offer nothing other than a repeat of your first statement. If you stick your fingers in your ears and say it loud enough it doesn't make it any less false. Well then if you lost interest you shouldn't make claims about what everyone has or hadn't done. Wait. You claim that no one has quoted Rand against you and yet you admit that you're not even armed with the facts of the book itself to be able to use as your defense? Are you admitting now that you challenged my quote based on your knowledge of.... the movie, and not the actual book? You know I gave you teh benefit of the doubt early on as a newbie. The more you show your ignorance, the more it's clear that you didnt' even deserve that. As to the irrelevance, again, I've addressed this three times. The law does not provide for "squatter's rights" to the governemtn for Roarks design after the fact. The fact that Cortdland exists does not give the government rights to Roarks design. If Cordtland was constructed in breech of contract then it's construction represents a forceful taking of Keatings and thus Roark's property. Roark's and Keating's contracts are valid and Roark has been defrauded of his design under any legal interpretation. What you will have to do to counter this, is not simply restate your original statement, but you're going to actually have to cite the law.
  20. Jonathan's point is the same as your original point. That Keating had no right. So you're suggesting that Keatings contract was with someone else than the government? I'll check it again, but I copied it directly from the text this am. If it should have been in brackets, I'll grant that. However, considering its metioned time after time that this was a governemt housing project and that beaurocrats were the ones making the changes. You need to provide evidence that it wasn't the government who Keating's contract was with. I dealt with this claim that "Keating cannot make a contrat with Roark" in my second post, directly to your quote, not to Johathans. You didn't answer that. It is a completely flat out wrong statement. Moreover it is ignorant of the law. Having negotiated more than a few commercial contracts in my time, I know of whence I speak. Keating is fully within his rights to make a contract with Roark stipulating that he will only sign contracts in the future that require the building to be built as it is designed by Roark. You'll also note that there aren't any ad hominems in those posts. Incredulousness, definitely. Insults probably. Trust me you're earning them faster than I can generate them.
  21. This is not at all what I claimed. Read my post again. You however want to claim that any instance of saying someone has stupid ideas is ad hominem, judging by the way you throw the term around. That is pathetic.
×
×
  • Create New...