Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About brianleepainter

  • Birthday 02/07/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Exploring,philosophy,art,rock climbing

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright

brianleepainter's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. There are ideals one cultivates in their mind overtime, those passions and interests that grow with knowledge and experience, but then there is, also, of course, what is, the current state of Society. If the State will take away a certain percentage of one's income, then why even try to obtain profit? Isn't it all or nothing, black or white, choose the ideal or don't even bother, go big or go home? Destroy one's creation rather than letting a secondhander have a say in it? We all have to choose between Rand's, "Don't let your spark go out spark by irreplaceable spark" and "the question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." It's too simple and easy to say the State will stop one, but it may and may not. Some people lose their spark and some are able to keep it. I'm still trying to figure it out myself.
  2. Thank you all for the responses. Here's a relevant example of what I'm interested in: Perhaps an individual borrows a friend's Iphone case,made by Apple, then uses his 3D printer to replicate the item for his own use. In an LFC society, would product replication be legal? What about product replication with the intent to mass replicate and then turn a profit? If not, why?
  3. When 3D printing becomes readily available how will its users remain principled with copyright and patent laws? (I'm simply trying to understand IP) For instance, may I take a component from under the hood of my car,perhaps a throttle position sensor ,duplicate it with my 3D printer and use it, even perhaps sell it to my friends without recourse from law? Actually, to word it better, would this be principled,therefore legal, in an LFC society? Thank you
  4. Yes, the "right to individual dignity" is a floating abstraction. Perhaps their sheriff understands that Censorship implies state involvement, not the private sector: http://www.douglascountysentinel.com/news/local/article_a2b03444-69ea-11e3-9c03-001a4bcf6878.html
  5. After a conversation on Facebook, I've been concerned with a possible upcoming Louisiana State action. First, a bit of context: Pat Robertson of "Duck Dynasty", which is filmed in Louisiana and shown by the company A&E, made a remark(s) towards homosexuality. A&E then reacted and let Robertson go from the TV series, "Duck Dynasty". Unlike what the unprincipled conservatives think, no freedom of speech was infringed upon. Now, in retaliation, it seems that the State of Louisiana may revoke the filming License of A&E. "The Robertsons made their statement regarding the potential future of Duck Dynasty on A&E on Friday, as did Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, but Louisiana lieutenant governor Jay Dardenne and the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism may end up indefinitely revoking A&E's filming rights for the program, as well as sister network HISTORY, which films and airs the seriesSwamp People on History, if it becomes necessary. GMN received a potential tip earlier this evening that the @Ouachita Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Officehas already revoked A&E's filming rights in Ouachita Parish, but that has been neither confirmed nor denied at this hour, as OPSO has not returned a response."-GMN Brian Lee I'm a bit confused. How's the state able to intervene with a private business, A&E? Can someone please explain? Like · Reply · 1 · about an hour ago Guerilla Media Network There are implications regarding tax credits the state gives for a network to film in that state, e.g. Georgia gives tax credits for Tyler Perry's shows and Family Feud to film there, Louisiana giving tax credits to AETN to film Duck Dynasty for A&E and Swamp People for History, etc. If a network chooses to show the state in a negative light, the state tourism board (in this case, the Louisiana Department Culture, Recreation and Tourism (Louisiana CRT)) reserves every right to revoke or terminate tax credits and filming rights. And it impacts not just A&E. It has implications for History or any other AETN network. Like · 7 · 46 minutes ago Guerilla Media Network When it comes to tourism revenue, Louisiana CRT has every right to step in. They authorize the tax credits and filming rights. If any network sheds any resident, any celebrity, any community or any business in a negative light, CRT reserves every right to terminate said credits and filming rights. Like · 7 · 28 minutes ago Brian Lee If the State of Louisiana steps in against A&E, will this then be an act of Censorship? Like · 1 · 24 minutes ago Guerilla Media Network Nope, because A&E violated a clause in the Louisiana state constitution stating its citizens have the right to individual dignity and the network infringed upon that right by indefinitely suspending him. Like · 2 · 3 minutes ago Okay, my question is: If the State of Louisiana steps in to revoke the filming License will this then be an act of Censorship? Is this how the relationship between State and private business work? First, a License is required from the State to do private business, film, then, if the filming company "infringes on individual dignity" they're then targeted by the State, the very ones that first required a private business to obtain a license?
  6. On the topic of "fairness" and condemning the norms of society in this mixed market economy, I'd like to give an example: http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2013/11/01/walmart-statement-on-snap-reductions "“As Congress considers changes to the SNAP program, we encourage them to adopt reforms that do not impact those who need the program the most."-- Jack Sinclair, executive vice president of the food business for Walmart U.S. How does one seek justice from a business that actively supports Government intervention? If you were speaking about an LFC society with an audience, what would you say to Jack Sinclair?
  7. Where else is there to flee once one is in America? At what point should the Weimar Guards refuse to sanction and further enforce rights violations? This country is turning from a Rule of Law to a Rule of men, where the rules of law slowly engulf sectors of private life and legalize what should be criminal while criminalizing what should be legal. For example, bureaucrats may legally increase tax on individuals, while other individuals who try to create a business are deemed criminals by violating anti-trust laws. While Police Officers don't create the laws, they are a necessary force in order to carry out the law. The Police Officers are the ones that first administer the noose to hang the petty thieves, while the great ones stay in office. Aqualyst, thank you for your personal experiences with this area of employment and for listing several examples. Also, thank you for your insight into remaining principled in this occupation. Hmm, Aqualyst had explained that one can remain in law enforcement with a qualifier, that if a superior who's not principled towards individual rights has the say then it's best to resign in order to remain principled. Nicky, had said "no". Nicky, I may be wrong, but it appears that you are saying the rule of law must be carried out regardless of the content within the law? But the politicians and the voters in democracy have failed. Why must law be followed if the law is unprincipled towards individual rights? From what I understand, blaming a pot smoker for being careless is simply punishing the innocent for no other reason than because he did what should be legal, if anything shouldn't the pot smoker have your sympathy? Nicky, do you not condemn the Nazi guards for carrying out the law? I"m asking this because it appears that you would not condemn law enforcement for arresting homosexual couples from engaging in sodomy when it was/is illegal from the State. Ultimately, I don't understand how this is unlike victims becoming the victimizers and punishing the good for no other reason than simply because they were innocent.
  8. Thank you all for the replies. My title to this thread, in full, is "Objectivism and the Contemporary Police Officer; Compatible or Mutually Exclusive?" I think that I had to qualify Police Officer with "Contemporary" because the philosophy of Objectivism requires a government that protects individual rights, yet that's not what "is", today. What I mean by this is that Police is an essential government service, but what we have today is a role that is required yet is tainted, not fully upholding individual rights to the point where the role of employment, Police Officer, isn't compatible with Objectivism. Correct? If a Police Officer protects a civilian from a home intruder yet arrests a young adult for smoking a substance deemed illegal, then how can one be an Objectivist and a Police Officer? An important question is:Can the Police Officer choose to not arrest Prostitutes AND protect civilians from robberies while keeping his employment? If the answer is no, then I think Objectivism and current Police Officers are mutually exclusive. I agree. Rule of Law is what protects men from other men, a rule of men would be horrible, or rather I should say, is horrible. By "honest", does this imply that one simply let alone individuals who engage in prostitution and drug use, for example? Can a Police Officer do this and remain employed? Curious, so is it possible to be a Police Officer who only upholds individual rights and remain employed, today?
  9. Since morality and current laws are not in a proper relationship of respecting individual rights, I was curious as to how individuals whose employment(Police Officers) depend on dealing with individuals who commit illegal acts have to deal with this contradiction between employment and philosophy. Does a police officer act with obligation, imperative and duty due to their employment when encountering an act that is deemed illegal, yet their philosophy shows that the act should be considered just the opposite, legal? How does one keep their integrity intact when philosophy and some sectors of their employment are in contradiction? Does law unfortunately trump morality? As a few examples, as a police officer drives by an individual who's working as an illegal prostitute, should the police officer take no action, explain to the prostitute that the prostitution should be legalized, or arrest them? If any of the three options are taken, doesn't this break one's integrity? What occurs when an Objectivist, who's also a Cop, is in a group of other law officers who think that the governmnt should control an individuals choices? Should the one that is on the side of reality stay silent when the other police officers arrest a young man who is simply smoking marijuana that the state has deemed illegal? Ultimately, can one be a Police Officer and remain an Objectivist, in 2013? The police are necessary, to have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force and yet, today, are often times the ones that have the option(?) of determining the future of the innocent. Thank you for your feedback!
  10. Crow, do you agree with the premise that a single payer system, such as run by Canada, is the logical outcome of ACA? From what I understand, the Individual Mandate will progress to an increased tax for all, which is to say, a Centralized Health Care System. Isn't it sadly a matter of time before a significant portion of our income will be generally taxed? Here are the guiding principles of NHS: that it meet the needs of everyone that it be free at the point of delivery that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay
  11. I'm curious as to this upcoming protest, which seems to at least have a somewhat coherent message: Truck Drivers For the Constitution, and their website but I'm even more interested in how it relates to the law, and the actions of two companies, Facebook and Twitter. *Their Facebook about page(which was recently shutdown by Facebook, and then had to be reopened) reads: "The American people are sick and tired of the corruption that is destroying America! We therefore declare a GENERAL STRIKE on the weekend of October 11-13, 2013! Truck drivers will not haul freight! Americans can strike in solidarity with truck drivers!" My question is about the legality of this planned protest in relation to how the Right to free speech is limited when it infringes on others, if it is illegal to obstruct and block traffic then also,too, it's as I understand, illegal to plan to stage an obstruction of traffic? Would it have been/is illegal for Facebook to keep this page up? Morality and legality are often in opposition with our unprincipled government, so, does an illegal activity such as this intentional slowly of traffic deserve sanction today? A wrong(limitless Gov control) does not justify another wrong(obstruction of traffic on Gov highway). As I understand, censorship is and only is when the Government restricts ones speech. Now, both companies, Twitter and Facebook have acted to stop this planned protest, which is just fine if they think sanctioning this group is "cutting their own throat". Twitter has suspended "Truckers Ride for the Constitution" and Facebook had closed their initial Page, which is now reopened, for now at least. As for drawing a parallel, how is this act different than Dr.King's lead of peaceful, sit down protests?
  12. Perhaps a small strain on their mind was felt when their misintegrated thoughts stumbled upon "miscarriage", then again, most likely not.
  13. Firstly, I understand the alternative would have been a passive(immoral) acceptance of the ACA, which I'm glad did not occur. The Government hasn't taken the steps to progressively limit the scope towards an individual rights respecting government, so shouldn't a breakdown of the government be a consequence of their unprincipled actions, such as ACA, on all individuals? I have no reason to think they'll follow Miss Rand's and Reisman's steps towards a LFC society in the near future, only in the long term where reason ultimately wins out. The Republican's had their chance, but since they operate on Altruism as their core morality they didn't end unprincipled government programs, such as Medicare. Since no single bipartisan bureaucrat upholds individual rights consistently, a shutdown of the leviathan would, as others have said, include proper gov services being punished while other immoral ones, such as Medicaid remain untouched. Perhaps, in the context of a shutdown Politicians will result to emotionalism, which would show their true colors and help to discredit them further. Maybe this example will trigger further discussion of ideas. Either way, of course Capitalism (which we've never had) will take the blame in the short term, but may rise in the long term.
  14. How is this Government shutdown not a positive? What's the alternative?
  15. Thank you Plasmatic, I've read "Ayn Rand Answers", to see her view of Libertarians and Conservatives, among others, who are not fully consistent with her philosophy. How's not supporting an individual that's trying to prevent an even more Socialist plan from taking effect in any way betraying this conviction? If ideas truly do matter, shouldn't an Objectivist see Ted Cruz as an opportunity to both, explicitly point out inconsistencies in his ideas AND prevent worse ideas from spreading? If one equates Miss Rand and her philosophy with Ted Cruz, then that's their error and low information voters who choose not to read her philosophy due to innocent ignorance or evil evasion who are not concerned with the power of ideas are beyond help anyways. As an example, many people demonize the free-market, which we've never had, and actually think that what we have today is Capitalism. Actually, I think ACA will collapse and upon this "trigger", Obama will say the failure is due to Capitalism, which will take the blame and be a scapegoat for the end game, fully socialized, universal healthcare. Which politically active person is proposing an alternative, aside from Ted Cruz, that can inhibit more Socialism from taking hold? What if this is a stepping stone to jump upon shore, and not using it will drown out any chance that could have been? To not appreciate what Ted Cruz has done for 21 hours on the senate floor seems rather malevolent.
  • Create New...