SapereAude

No, not just the thoughts. You have to be reasonably deemed a direct danger to yourself or others to be legally put on involuntary mental health hold (this is a good thing as many governments abuse involuntary institutionalization against poltical dissidents). What that means is this: You think about hurting yourself/someone else frequently and mention this to your therapist. The therapist is not mandated to report this or to attempt to have you detained. What they are obligated to do is ask you about "planning". Then they assess whether you are experiencing "active suicidal ideation" or "passive suicidal ideation". Passive, your liberties cannot be legally restricted. Passive would be thinking about, writing a fantasy about, you know.... *passive*. Active you can be put on hold and evaluated for being a danger. Active would be .... you've been thinking about hurting the girl that just dumped you and you tell your therapist. Your therapist questions you and you reveal that you've soundproofed your basement and have begun following her and her new boyfriend while armed.

The article mentions that he was carrying out surveillance of women that he was discussing doing this to. Proving that would go a far way towards this being an actual crime as opposed to a "thought crime". Regarding this, Intellectual Ammo's question and Nicky's response: " No. The inability to control one's actions is what gets people into those. Having these thoughts and not acting on them is proof that he is in control." You are somewhat incorrect there Nicky (although mental health holds standards vary a little from state to state.) Generally when it is deemed that someone is a threat to themselves or others an involuntary mental health hold and evaluation (usually 72 hours) can be used on someone based on whether there is a threat and a plan. The man definitely wrote down plans and that he stalked some potential victims would be seen as reasonable cause to believe it was more than chat room fantasy- at least from a mental health hold standpoint.

The person selling their opinion has every right to sell their opinion. The person buying the opinion has every right to purchase what is voluntarily sold. I think this is one of those caveat emptor and let the free market decide issues. It is unsavory practice to lie for money. But, if somoene does it often enough for a poor product they devalue themselves- which is their word... much like any other industry, lacking coerced regulation, can hang themselves by taking advantage of that fact.

If you are openly operating a business (as he was) with all that entails and you are not in jail you're either in a government cabinet position or you've paid taxes.

Everything you are claiming here and basing your argument on is based on the utterly absurd notion that once the government confiscates your money and purchases something with it you own a proportionate share of it. You do not, nor does anyone else whose money was confiscated. End of story. Unless you would like to go to a government building and set up a tent to claim your "fair share". Let me know how that goes after you make bail.

"- There is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical" This may be a quibble Marc, but several philosophers previous to Rand espoused this notion. The difference is that they were inaccurate about what was moral and/or practical.

I think there's a problem with your understanding of how "public works" works. It is not logical to conclude that because no one else's plans had been deemed acceptable that "it would not have been built". If they are looking for a designer the public works process is already underway, that means the funding (from tax dollars) has been allocated. And here; " Roark did not say he did out of self-defense because of taxation. He did it for reasons other than that in the book." You seem to be either deliberately misconstruing my statement or trying to change your own argument after the fact. I never claimed the book stated that this was his reason for doing it. My statement about the taxation was to counter your assertion that "the government *never* initiated force against Roark". Taxation is force. Roark was being taxed. The government was using force against him and you strongly asserted that it wasn't.

"The government/or owners was NOT using any force towards Keating or Roark." The were business owners. They were taxpayers. The building was being built with money stolen from them by force. That is undeniable fact.

I think this is turning into a cognitive dissonance issue for you. For a crime to be committed against them via destruction of their property they had to have a right to that property. If you want Roark convicted for it you cannot say that you aren't acknowledging this right. If you really wanted to convict him reckless endangement would be proper, but that was not what he was accused of.

As soon as you acknowledge the "right" of the taxpayers to own something that was forcibly taken from others taxpayers the rest follows. And to convict Roark of the crime of destroying the taxpayers' property is to acknowledge that the taxpayers had a right to own that property, although stolen forcibly from others. Again- one can't have one's collectivist cake and eat it too. If you allow for all the social constructs that allow a small group of men the "right" to steal money to build a thing, to hire the people and so forth in the name of "the people" you have to allow for the same social construct to allow a small group of men to determine other things- including guilt and innocence- in the name of "the people".

Re:"You can't have your collectivist cake and eat it too." It was not intended as anything of that sort and I doubt many would choose to interpret it as such. I suppose I could have made it more clear buy saying "one can't" instead of "you can't" but it is a common phrase and the phrase uses "you". And I would love to find a person that considers "you can't have your cake and eat it too" to be a personal attack.

1) and not *all* the taxpayers wanted the project- people were chosen to represent the will of the taxpayers 2) and not *all the taxpayers got a say in who was hired- people were chosen to represent the will of the taxpayers 3) and not everyone who paid taxes gets to have a vote on a person's guilt- people were chosen to represent the will of the taxpayers 4) and the jury are the people chosen to represent the will of the taxpayers 5) the people chosen to represent the peoples' will found him innocent. This is how the system "works". I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse. You were ok with the validity of a small committee representing "the taxpayers" chosing to go ahead with the project, making the hiring choices for the project and overseeing the project... suddenly it isn't ok when a small committee respresenting the taxpayers does something you disagree with. You can't have your collectivist cake and eat it too.

Can we ask that private disputes stay off the post and be handled privately? It would be best for all involved I think. Let's end the asides here, please.

I think you just got caught in your own net Jonathan. If "the taxpayers" owned the building and the jury was made up of by his "peers" (fellow taxpayers) and they then found him innocent of blame then you have to admit that "the taxpayers" who owned the building agreed with what he did, hence no victim.

We must have been posting at the same time Mark. I think that the building was a government project is a very important point.

I am thinking the issue of whether Roark committed fraud comes down to this: Cortlandt was a government housing project. It would seem that Objectivism in most cases would argue that a government that is a rights violator as opposed to a rights protector need not be obeyed. That the project was a forcible government redistribution program would seem to make fraud against it impossible as it was the original initiator of force. This seems to be to be a logical justification for Roark's "fraud" to build the project. Where romanticism vs naturalism comes in is in the over the top nature of blowing it up. That Rand finds a moral justification in Roark's taking the work through dishonesty no more means that she think blowing up buildings is the first course of action than she would say breaking in to a woman's bedroom and smacking her around is the best way to get sex.

I can still think of tons of examples where one might lie for privacy, not a desire to please, rather tell someone to fuck off absent threats of physical force. A lot depends on how much time you spend around people you'd rather not be around. If your work has you in constant contact with the public you'd be amazed how many strange personal questions you get asked where it is simply less stressful to state a simple untruth than to infuriate someone. So looking at rational self interest I would say that if the thing you are lying about was none of the persons' business to begin with their imposition on you gives you the moral highground in diffusing the situation in whatever way is most convenient for you. That said, I still rarely would lie for this reason for the simple fact that I find it unpleasant, but I would feel morally justified in doing so.

This is simply false. I am constantly asked questions by representatives of the government and I assure you that if my response was "how rude" or "none of your business" things would not go well for me. I tell them what I know the "right" answer is. Not because I care about what they think of me but because declining to answer is not an option and the truth is truly none of their business. Most people I know who are business for themselves feel the same. You should be wary of such sweeping generalizations.

Well played 9th. Well played.

He's asking if it is *moral* not if it is worth it as long as you don't get caught. A big distinction in an Objectivist forum.

You can find extensive info on the legality of "fair use" in satire and parody. Here's a start; http://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/parody-fair-use-or-copyright-infringement.html

The personal and off topic attacks stop altogether now please. Anything further will be deleted.

Howard Roark could be written in as a cameo. The movies were embarassing trash. I'm with Nicky. How about everything goes happily ever after when a unicorn craps out the motor Galt was withholding?

If just about everyone who is following your series of posts is wrong would you might instructing us as to why? Because everything you've written about thus far seems to most to come down to: When they saw the world turning against reason and against them the strikers, instead of persuading the looters and teaching them left and took the other non looters with them. Thus the strikers, not the looters are responsible for destroying society. If we are all so far off in our interpretation please tell us what you really mean.

I've read the above and more and can appreciate the art without delighting in the mockery of the beliefs of others. A matter of personal taste.