unskinned
-
Posts
140 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by unskinned
-
-
Yes, noone even bid. Maybe I was wrong. I thought people would recognize it as a good investment, assuming a first printing in this condition is unique. Especially if the statistic floating around that compares AS to the bible is true. I've certainly seen antique books advertised for more than that.
-
That was awesome. Thanks for sharing it.
-
I say it will sell, and quickly. Why wouldn't it?
-
That is another great point. The right to private property is a part to the right to life and cannot be used to imprison others. I bet that is the foundation for public rights of passage Betsy Speicher mentioned.
-
All men have inalienable rights to their own lives and the role of a proper government is to protect those rights as inalienable. Emminent domain violates a man's inaleinable right to his own life. No man should ever be stolen from, under any circumstances. Recognizing all men as ends, politically, one should see such a violation as tyrrany. I'm not just parroting, they tried to do this to my grandfather and just thinking about it fills me with a fury unrealized by any other political issue.
As for the right of way easement, that rings a bell. It reminds me of the "coming to nuissance" solution to zoning discussed by David Willens on Capitalism Magazine. I have no reason to disagree with either. The point then is that where the private sector might fail to stop a malevolent billionaire from surrounding a city for irrational purposes, there is a rational legal solution which does not involve the initiation of force against anyone.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the private sector would allow such a thing for the reasons discussed.
I agree also that keeping the aribitrary whim of politicians completely out of the economy is the thing to worry about with government, not the idea that some billionaire heir might try something nutty. I concede that for these reasons emminent domain has no place in a proper government.
Another part of (common law?) allows citizen A to take land from Citizen B if B has neglected that land for a long period of time. I think that for the reasons above this also has no place in a proper government. Despite allowing for more fluidity in an economy, it is stealing. If B is really so neglectful, than A will get a lower price. Isn't that right?
Bearster, the statement "he can be fired by the voters is what" was applying a double standard. Sorry. (my bad)
-
whoops, "politiCian"
-
Let's say a Bill Gates type of character buys a ring around a small city to get back at an offending lover living inside. He builds a wall and severely limits traffic. So now, everyone has to move away from this area or fly just because the guy is upset and wants to get back at his wife? That is economic power and it is definitely possible. Someone wrote before that noone would sell land without thinking of making sure there will be a right of way first. Let's say they just don't care or didn't think of it. That is plausible, especially if the city is surrounded by cheap land.
And I understand the converse to be: What if a polititian condemns a town as a potential sandhill crane habitat? He can be fired by the voters is what.
I hope I'm not being arbitrary here. I think this is a legitimate example
-
Well, I was going to make a post about the fluidity afforded by emminent domain, but I can't stomach it. There is no reason why people would refuse to participate in capitalism or that those who would could somehow do more damage than the government does with it's emminent domain laws.
So it really boils down to the question: does economic power in a system like ours require any checks and balances other than a government protecting rights? That, as I understand it, is a completely different discussion group in this section.
So, I'm convinced that emminent domain could be repealed TODAY and it might get a little rough in places but it would be much better for our economy and the system of protecting individual life that is its foundation.
-
Of course in this case "adultery" cannot be dismissed as any relationship outside marriage. We are not talking about Christians! Branden was an adulterer because he lied about it, committed it outside Rand's consent. Rand's relationship with O'Conner and Branden was consensual, Branden's was not.
To deny Nathaniel Branden any significance is admittedly an exaggeration. Yet, the man simply evaded and lied. I think I really hit the nail on the head with the "true believer" stuff. In the context of his dishonesty towards Rand, it's less of a legitimate criticism than an embarassing confession. After all that, not to mention grotesquely detailing their personal life for all to read, it is difficult to believe a word the man says.
Also I believe some of what you write about Branden. Sadly, charm and intelligence are not always connected to goodness.
-
Didn't Nathaniel Branden forge a relationship with Rand especially dependent on trust and then break it with lies and adultery? If so, isn't that evasion of reality in the lowest way? She wrote about how detestable Francisco was until Dagny found out it was all a show. So, far from being a "personal disagreement," that was the rejection of objectivism by Branden.
So how was he manipulated again?
Branden then showed everyone his own shallow acceptance of objectivism by accusing all objectivists of being true belivers. In other words, "I was a true believer, so you all must be too."
Also, some people say that just because he left the movement, that means objectivism has major flaws. Have they forgotten Benedict Arnold?
At this point I'm wondering why his name is ever even mentioned.
-
I'm not currently having trouble with any other part of the idea of complete separation of Economy and State. But yes, I guess that is exactly what I'm suggesting/wondering: it is less MORAL but more EFFICIENT for the government to steal land from a couple mountain people with just compensation, than to have one man prevent the economic development of an entire region. That is, morality and the efficiency of an economy being two different things.
Of course individual rights must exist without exception. Emminent domain should be completely repealed. I'm just looking to flesh out the speific details of this example because it seems to be the one exception to the rule of capitalism being efficient because it is moral.
-
Capitalism TUI by Ayn Rand is a moral defense of Capitalism. But it also implies that Cap. is efficient because it is moral. There is nothing efficient about what I have described above. In this case it is inefficient because it is moral.
-
Let's say I'm Dagny Taggart and I'm mapping potential rail routes through Pennsylvania after a new big coal mine and power plant have opened up. Like most railroads it is a low cost operation. The only way it will work involves utilizing the only pass in a long ridge of mountains (a tunnel would sink most railroad ventures). That pass is owned by a family farmer who simply refuses to sell for any price. Under pure Laissez Faire Capitalism the railroad could not be built. Would the repeal of eminent domain laws be a significant enemy of progress and prosperity as was feared even in the 19th century?
Another similar real life example:
There was a town in Pennsylvania (Boyertown?) that was crossed by a Reading Railroad line. In the interest of denying competitors even the slightest foothold, perhaps irrationally, the Reading line refused a right of way even to a line that would have been perpendicular to it on both sides. People who wanted to travel across town on the trolley, or period, had to get out, cross the Reading tracks, and catch another trolley on the other side. It was like this for decades.
Straight Edge
in Ethics
Posted
I agree with all the other posts. You don't know what you are missing. One of the founding fathers wrote "God made beer to make us happy" (or something like that). I think it was Ben Franklin. Anyway, it is possible to enjoy alcohol and tobacco with out being foolish and hurting oneself.