Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

brianleepainter

Regulars
  • Posts

    174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by brianleepainter

  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. 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

     

     

  3. 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
      • 276803_422296034548265_533453444_q.jpg
         
        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

     

    • 276803_422296034548265_533453444_q.jpg
       
      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?

  4. 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?

  5. As for Nazi Germany, the moral choice for a person living in Nazi Germany would be to leave, not to try and thrive as part of Nazi society. 

     

    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.

     

     

    Quote from previous post: "Curious, so is it possible to be a Police Officer who only upholds individual rights and remain employed, today?"

     

    My answer to this question is a qualified "yes", so long as you don't come under the scrutiny of a hard-nosed, irrational superior. As a former police officer, I did the following:

     

    1) Arrested the Wild Life and Fisheries Commissioner for DUI. I was reprimanded for this by the Commander for not paying homage to status.

    2) Refused to arrest individuals caught smoking marijuana, so long as they were not trying to sell to or involve minors. No one caught me on this.

    3) Refused a transfer to work undercover in Vice or Narcotics. Again a reprimand. I stated I would quit before becoming a criminal just to catch one.

    4) I was passed over for promotion due to past reprimands. I ultimately quit to become a mechanical engineer.

     

    So, one can remain employed; however not without some cost to one's career. In general, if you are a man of principle, I would advise against a career in law enforcement today.

     

     

    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.

     

     

    In other words, no, you can't. Because cops can't pick and choose which laws to enforce. Not now, and not in an Objectivist society. It's not your job, and not your responsibility.

     

    I'm sorry you felt a responsibility towards drug users to protect them from drug bans. It wasn't your responsibility to do that. It's the responsibility of politicians and voters. Or, when politicians and voters fail, then it's each individual's responsibility to protect themselves either by not using drugs, or by doing it very carefully and being prepared to face the consequences.

    As an occasional pot smoker, you should know that I wouldn't expect you to do that for me. I would probably think less of you if you showed any kind of special enthusiasm in coming after me, but if I was stupid enough to just run into a cop while smoking a joint, or try and buy pot from an undercover vice cop, I wouldn't hold it against you. I would blame myself for being careless.

     

    Just as I don't hold it against you that, to become a mechanical engineer, you've probably gone through quite a bit of public schooling, funded by forced taxation. Or that you use public roads to get to work. Or that you or your employer might take on public contracts funded by my taxes. Don't worry about it, I do the same things. We all do. Regular citizens and cops alike. We don't make the rules of society. If we could, we would make better ones. But, as it stands, this is the society we have to live in, so these are the rules we have to use to achieve our goals.

    1) This is a criminal act. While I sympathize with having to deal with having a criminal for a superior, I don't understand how that's relevant to the questions in this thread.

    2, 3) Picking and choosing which laws to enforce is not the prerogative of a police officer. Not in current society, and not in an ideal Objectivist country.

     

    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".

     

    In other words, no, you can't. Because cops can't pick and choose which laws to enforce. Not now, and not in an Objectivist society. It's not your job, and not your responsibility.

     

    I'm sorry you felt a responsibility towards drug users to protect them from drug bans. It wasn't your responsibility to do that. It's the responsibility of politicians and voters. Or, when politicians and voters fail, then it's each individual's responsibility to protect themselves either by not using drugs, or by doing it very carefully and being prepared to face the consequences.

    As an occasional pot smoker, you should know that I wouldn't expect you to do that for me. I would probably think less of you if you showed any kind of special enthusiasm in coming after me, but if I was stupid enough to just run into a cop while smoking a joint, or try and buy pot from an undercover vice cop, I wouldn't hold it against you. I would blame myself for being careless.

     

    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. 

  6. 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.

     

     

    If an Objectivist police officer finds his or herself violating individual rights on behalf of the State, whatever the form of that State, dictatorship, democracy, etc, I think the police officer could 1. quit, 2. not quit and abandon Objectivism, or 3. not quit and evade the fact that he is no longer an Objectivist, the first being the only rational choice in accordance with the principles of Objetivism.

     

    I agree.

     

     

    Civilians face the same exact (apparent) dilemma cops do, just on a different (less direct/personal) level. Whenever you leave your house, you're walking on a pavement built by money that was taken by force. Whenever you call a cop, you are using a service paid for by money taken by force. Whenever you go to an emergency room, you are relying on a government mandate that the hospital should treat you. Etc., etc.

     

    This is the world we live in. It's the only world available to us. And, like it or not, living in the world involves interacting with the world, as per rules we didn't make. Objectivism is a philosophy for living in reality, not for escaping it. It CANNOT be immoral to live in the only world there is.

     

    I know that, as per the laws of my country, I can use various facilities paid for by force. And I do so, to the full extent of my ability, both to live my personal life, and for work. When I was a kid, I used public education, then I used minimum wage laws to get better pay than I deserved while I was in college, I use the roads to get to work every day today, and I use a million other immoral rules. So did Ayn Rand. And so do cops. My role is to build software in this world. Ayn Rand's was to create literature and philosophy. A cop's role is to maintain the rule of law. All important roles, all rewarding, life affirming career choices.

     

    There is no qualitative difference. We all live by immoral rules, to achieve a morally legitimate purpose. I offer no apology for my choice to live in this world, and neither should honest police officers, or anyone else who does that. This isn't some kind of "the ends justify the means" argument, btw. This is a "I'm not responsible for the rules, just because I have no other choice but to live in the world" argument. The people who created those rules are the ones responsible.

     

    No. Illegitimate laws are evil, and the people who choose to create them are evil. However, last I checked, laws are created by politicians chosen by the electorate, not by cops. 

     

    So long as you are careful to identify evil and assign blame for it rationally, you don't have to live with contradictions like "law trumps morality". So let's identify and assign:

     

    1. WHAT is evil about modern societies are the illegitimate laws. NOT the rule of law. The rule of law is the best thing that happened to mankind. 

     

    2. The people responsible for that evil are people who vote for, advocate for and believe in it. NOT people who believe in and fight for the rule of law. 

     

    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?

     

     

     

    Why can't an Objectivist police officer enforce only the laws with which he agrees?

    J

     

    Can a Police Officer do this and remain employed?

     

    Because it would contradict his professional duties which is an enforcement of the current law. He can perform only duties which are in accordance with his ethics. He may work for example in the homicide or anti-fraud department. But if he asked to arrest prostitutes or drug users, or to enforce any subjective law which violates man's rights, he should resign. Since a police officer usually cannot choose his line of work and acts under command, and most of the existing laws are subjective, I cannot see how he could keep his job.

     

    Curious, so is it possible to be a Police Officer who only upholds individual rights and remain employed, today?

  7. 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!

  8. 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
  9. 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?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  10. The shutdown is a way to get people's attention. It stresses that Cruz et al think Obamacare is really bad. To the extent this results in something positive, this is the positive. However, the shutdown -- in itself -- is not the positive.

    All entitlements will still be paid out. Anything considered essential will still be open. For other areas, it means that things like national parks are going to be closed, and that other things -- like some approval here or there -- will be delayed. At the end of the shutdown, Congress will almost certainly make up the pay for the government workers who were furloughed. So, no money would be saved, but some inconvenience caused. What do you see that is positive in the shut down, in itself?

    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.

  11. Brian, an interesting thing for one to do is research and consider the differences between the way Mrs. Rand talked about, and to, more libertarian types, contrasted with the way the ARI does currently.

     

    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. 

     

    He should stop lying.

     

    Objectivists should stop praising a liar.

     

    "There is a fundamental conviction which some people never acquire, some hold only in their youth, and a few hold to the end of their days-the conviction that ideas matter....That ideas matter means that knowledge matters, that truth matters, that one's mind matters..."

     

    -- Ayn Rand, The "Inexplicable Personal Alchemy", The Objectivist, January, 1969

     

    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.

  12. I'm still trying to understand the divide between two groups of Objectivists: Those who don't want to associate with anything other than Objectivism and those who are willing to associate with those who are not, such as say, Ted Cruz.

     

    From listening to this podcast by Yaron Brook on the question"Should Objectivists Disassociate From Tea Party Groups Because They Oppose Immigration Reform?", I'm assuming that Yaron Brook is willing to support Ted Cruz from his response, but that is simply an assumption of course.

  13. Curious, I've seen many Objectivists damn Ted Cruz because of his alleged bipartisanship(he would support entitlement programs just as democrats) and that he speaks of God along with Rand(he is not a nihilist, what did you expect?). To those I ask, would you have preferred him to not have read from the pages of Atlas Shrugged, let alone even mention Rand? Does supporting Ted Cruz assault your integrity, similar to how you wouldn't want to be labeled as a libertarian?

    /

    I don't know if his reading of Atlas Shrugged will "slime" Objectivism. If anything, wouldn't it possibly be a gateway to learning of Objectivism for the young or principled old who truly care about ideas and haven't settled into the wretched two party system? Could Ted Cruz's inconsistency towards individual rights help set the context for someone that truly is?

  14. Unable to think in terms of principles, the mystics of spirit are at it again with their team player, Tim Huelskamp: "Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage"

    "Huelskamp said he plans to introduce the Federal Marriage Amendment later this week, a measure that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. DOMA did the same thing, but was a federal law, not a constitutional amendment."

  15. I suppose this is a victory of sorts. But it seemed like the most enthusiastic supporters were the same people who denounce greed and champion wealth redistribution, support Obama for superficial reasons, or have some other non-thinking position about something. So, I wouldn't call it a political victory in the broadest sense. It will certainly improve the lives of many gay couples who can take advantage of government loopholes now, and who also won't have to worry about legal disputes.

     

    Yup, it is one victory to mark off on the Political "To DO" List

  16. Oh, indeed I grasp the idea of how architecture can be art: Its means of expression is exactly the same as abstract painting and sculpture -- it is non-mimetic by Objectivist standards, and its means is abstractly relational. In other words, like music, architecture and abstract painting do not objectively portray likenesses of entities as Objectivism requires, but use abstract arrangements to both objectively and subjectively invoke a response in the viewer or listener.

    Jonathan, I think you are leaving out an artform's function, depending on what that artform is in relation to all the other visual arts(i.e. painting,sculpture,architecture). Interesting, that the artwork of the artform, painting, is a recreation of reality on a two dimensional surface, but what of sculpture and architecture? Do you think sculpture is, unfortunately dead in mainstream art? Why is that? Perhaps that it is so closely related to architecture, in that a sculpture has to be seen in a context by the simple act of perceiving it. Context is everything after all, to gain a sense of life from a sculpture requires context, there is no escaping the negative space around it, the backdrop, the home it is housed in, the composition of the architecture itself is important if this sculpture is to be a focal point, or simply an ornament.

    The wild youth have a way of dealing with sculpture when it(the artwork) is not housed in the appropriate context, without property rights, the sculpture, almost always succumbs to graffiti and similar slander(from what I've observed, statues that are contained on public land aren't treated very nicely). Similarly, a sculpture not in harmony with the architecture(again, not contained in the appropriate context) may not function as intended by the artist. Perhaps the artist first requires an architecture, to then have an idea to be carried out into the final product,a sculpture being an indivisible sum with the architecture, much like Roark first required to view the landscape in order to best create a harmonious whole.

    As I see it, a work of art that is an architecture featuring representational sculpture(s) (focal point(s) and/ or ornaments of the whole composition) is an integrated, harmonious whole, each of the two depending largely on each other for the gestalt.

×
×
  • Create New...