freestyle

Thanks, but I'm not confused. I was not speaking of government-owned corporations. You made it appear as if you totally rejected the idea of any group ownership of land (whereby people had to have process, such as bi-laws, establishing the methods of decision making). What you were specifically rejecting is public ownership of property via the government. Is that rejection absolute or are there some instances (assuming constitutional laws are in place) where you would allow for the government to be the owner of property?

It isn't just asserting political power. So are you against the formation of public and private corporations?

It is only might makes right if you take out the existence of laws prohibiting the initiation force. Objective lawmaking is not "might makes right". I don't think there should be public schools either, but that doesn't mean that any person has a political right to go into the classroom teach the students whatever they want. You do have the right to be a pothead. You have an inalienable right to smoke pot anywhere the property owner allows it. You just don't have a right to smoke it on property you do not own. The right to property trumps your right to free expression. "The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible." -AR

Sorry if you're embarrassed, but you should be, defending that as an inalienable right. It means you don't understand what a right is. You are constantly missing the argument and have NEVER once addressed the right of a property owner (be it an individual, corporation or THE PUBLIC) to set the purpose and rules of use of their property. Why do you keep missing the point? Is it intentional? You do have a right to do those things above that you mentioned. It is just not an ABSOLUTE right that means you can do it on my property. And, as I stated above, if it is "our" property, then we need to set the standards by some sort of legal/political consent.

At best, it is only as much of a right as those things within a specific context. These are not fundamental rights. Fundamental rights cannot conflict (two people cannot both have a right to the last piece of bread). You cannot have a right to read Atlas Shrugged on a bench that someone else has the right to direct the purpose of its use (which doesn't allow masterpiece novel reading). You don't even have a right to be there without their consent. No, the argument is that it is property not owned by the person wanting to use it in whatever way they want. If that use conflicts with the legitimate standards of the property owner, then that person has no right to use the property in that way. If there is no physical coercion and you are FREE to avoid a particular place, you cannot make the claim that you have a right to use property you do not own in whatever way you feel like. The fact that the land is public only means that the standards must be set by political means. Assuming you have a political system in place to set laws, as long as the standards are non-coercive and apply to all individuals, they're valid. In some of the simple cases (like basic nudity) you might have the moral right, but that doesn't mean you have the political right. "A 'right' does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort." - AR If you want to masturbate, do it on your property which you own. You cannot identify a right to do it on "our" property. If it is "our" property you must have legal consent from the owner(s). (Which, is exactly what Ayn rand points out when discussing the "un-consenting". Ok... How close to a child's face must a stranger masturbate before it become a rights violation you will identify? Again, I am for property being privately owned. However, just because the land is public it doesn't not follow that anything goes.

That was a hypothetical for him to consider in conjunction with his claim that a rule preventing public masturbation around children is the initiation of physical force and a rights violation of the masturbator. ...on an aside, are you saying that there is no such thing as objective psychological damage, and that it could never be traced to a source? This is the argument I made. We were discussing whether particular rules violate individual rights. But I'm done now. No. You, however, are saying that masturbating in public view is an inalienable right.

Is space a physical thing?

I was wondering if this should even continue, but... Ah yes, the inalienable right of public masturbation. Are these rules and procedures for a civil society that we are discussing? What if you knew it to be true that one could intentionally inflict psychological damage on another human being (easier with children)? Would that fall under your very liberal definition of PHYSICAL coercion? It is you that is on the slippery slope. The standard is still whether or not a rule violates an individual's rights.

Yes, if I cannot go about my daily life (and pursuit of happiness) without being forced to use said public areas. That is beyond contorted. There is simply no physical coercion. Is this, to you, the same way that stunt car drivers are "forced" not to drive against oncoming traffic on public roads?!? Or how you are forced not to masturbate while walking down the street? What you are not understanding are rights in a political context. (You're also grossly misunderstanding the meanings of coercion and force initiation).

Because it is for the property owner to set the rules of use of their property. Since, as I've said, we're talking about public property, the actual owner of the property is not an individual... it is the public. So, how does the public go about setting rules? By politics (representative democracy). So long as the rules do not violate individual rights, if they are instituted by the proper legal process, they're valid. There is no universal "right to kiss" anywhere, anytime. There's always a context. ...and please remember that I would argue against the existence of public parks. I'm merely pointing out that by having public parks does not logically require anarchy or "anything goes". You've just placed the standards for use of the property in the hands of the public. Now you need to use politics to arrive at those standards... (and objective law to determine whether or not the standard violates an individual RIGHT). Rand's definition of rights and distinction between metaphysical freedom and political freedom are not in contradiction here at all. "Freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion." -AR

Clearly, putting someone to death without cause violates one's most fundamental right. Are you serious?!? This is the context changing and context dropping which I keep pointing out.

Queasiness isn't the standard I chose or am arguing. My standard is whether or not a rule (made in public or private) violates individual rights. That's what I mean about having to change the context in an attempt to make an analogy work here. It IS an individual rights violation to create a law or rule (like the one you suggest) that discriminates against gay individuals kissing. If kissing is to be disallowed by rule in certain public areas (by political consensus of the public) then the rule must apply to all individuals equally. A rule that states "NO NUDITY AND/OR SEX ARE ALLOWED IN THIS CHILD'S PLAY AREA" is valid for all.

So if a group of anarchists decide they will hold weekly sex parties in a public park's child play area, the kids will just have to deal with the discomfort? Nothing to stop these people from intentionally making trouble and ruining the purpose of the park? Just wait till someone throws the first punch?

It is as non-objective as is each individual's own private standard of queasiness. ...but again, this is what you get when the "public" is the "owner" of the property. There is no objective way to assure 100% agreement. The slippery slope argument doesn't work because you must completely change the context to something that actually does violate someone's right. If we're talking about a society where everything is privately owned, then there is obviously no place for government involvement unless actual rights violations are occurring. The private owners can set their own standards. But where you have a situation that leaves it up to the public to set standards, the only way to do this is through politics. Hopefully (since this is not the ideal) the political system is one that leaves these standards up to the smallest and most local political bodies. I don't think anyone here would argue that a private business owner shouldn't be able to set up NON-RIGHT VIOLATING procedures and rules of etiquette in their own domains. Right? Since public areas have no such owner, is your "objective" answer to say that NO procedures and/or rules of etiquette can every be instituted? These are, again, non-right violating procedures and rules of etiquette we're discussing.

Well, we're assuming places "open to the public". Nevertheless, she calls this an issue of etiquette and she is right. Since we're talking about what is proper in public places, we are discussing public areas (such as sidewalks in front of stores) where there are, rightly, expectations of what one might encounter (and not encounter) in that particular public area. I would not extend her argument (re: legislative regulation of warnings) within the boundaries of completely private areas that can not be seen from public areas. When Rand makes the point that no one has the right to do "whatever he pleases" even in private, she is speaking of the fundamental principle. She specifically said that warning signs "may properly be required" in places open to the public where specifically unconsenting individuals might be confronted. The "public's" level of queasiness in that local community is the answer. We are discussing legislation about what the "public" should be reasonably warned about. Whatever that community sets as its standards for what the public should NOT be confronted with without warning should be decisive for areas that the "public" is responsible for. This isn't a federal issue... it is a local one. If some town wants a rule that disallows shop keepers from displaying pictures of people eating fecal matter to the public, and instead, just requires a sign that says "Come in side to see poop-eating," then no rights are violated. Rand is right. Too many people don't understand the distinction between metaphysical freedom and political freedom.

This is what you get when The Public is the owner of the property in question. . Rand was right. Instead of arguing with simple naked bodies in your mind, just think "two girls, one cup". (Only if you think Rand is wrong should you CHOOSE to go seek that out. And, you are welcome for my giving you even that much of a warning).

Re: California http://www.ehow.com/info_8034077_raw-subject-sales-tax-california.html

"That's good in theory, but not in practice." Self-refuting.

Which was the last part that offended you? I thought he sounded pretty pro-Rand all the way through.

What is the context of this question? I'm sure you know that individuals will have, variously, different descriptions of their "feeling" about just about every subject one can think of. Objectively, how oriented are *you* emotionally to addiction, indulgence, and/or wasting valuable time?

That quote is what prompted me to post. (Since John Galt specifically commented on that contradiction.) “There are no absolutes,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute. -Galt's speech The rest is worth of discussion too, of course. There's the anti-capitalist angle... the administration's non-response and non-transparency on Pte Manning... the song. I don't know, I guess it is a grey area. lol Incidentally, it is more rare to see the statement "there are NO black and whites"... More often I hear "not everything is black and white", to which I can agree and simply follow and confirm that the person understands that some things are.

The first comment I see there: "The fact of the matter is, nothing in life or this world, or this universe is black and white, nothing,..." i.e. Absolutely no absolutes. Wonderful.

I did not like it as a movie. As an advertisement for Ayn Rand, The Novel and Objectivism, I'm happy with it.

I've always thought of Roger Ebert as a great movie reviewer who is reliable in most cases. The exception has always been with movies that have strong political themes which he supports or opposes. In those cases, I've learned to disregard his review and check for myself. "I figured it might provide a parable of Ayn Rand’s philosophy that I could discuss. For me, that philosophy reduces itself to: "I’m on board; pull up the lifeline." - Roger Ebert Seeing a line like this is so telling (and not just with Ebert). It is a common misunderstanding. It is so easily refutable that I often take the time to get into discussions with people who have this perception. You can call them out directly and ask: Why do YOU believe that being pro-self necessarily means "fuck everybody else"? What does that say about you? Ayn Rand's fundamental understanding of non-contradiction discards that concept instantly. Being pro-self does not even refer to how one may choose to treat others. I'm going to see this movie asap. My dad just called me and said he and my mother loved it (they're in their 60's). He said he thinks you need to have read the book to understand what's going on. I gave him a copy last year to read, and he loved the book.

You are both right. I should have said "can be justifiable". I expect the politician to pander. If the case were being made for tax exempt status to all Objectivists, I would not oppose.