Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Chris LeRoux

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Chris LeRoux

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand
  1. Of course, the whole thing was a logical trap. If you say Roark (or Keating) can blow up Cortland because their property has been stolen, then you of course must condone the cessation of entitlement benefits because they are stolen. If you say the reverse, you are condemning John Galt for seeking to collapse the same type system instead of working to phase it out. Its really not that complex. As for the waiting period to implement the "contributions" refunds and the cessation of benefits. I was not very specific about "my" exact plan because it wasn't yet relevant to the NAP. "Contributions" w
  2. Just a follow-up point to something I read from one of the people in this thread. I do not "hate the good for being good." I do not hate Howard Roark. I love him. He made a mistake. It is irrational to deny it.
  3. Well, I have LOTS of Objectivists friends. I don't believe any of them would be throwing around words like stupid and asshole over a disagreement about interpreting the NAP. I love Ayn Rand dearly and I know you do as well. Its plain as day. If you are on FB, I hope you will add me. So far, I have added one other from here. Its a much more flexible form of communication, with discussions not dragged down by the emotional and irrational pretenders. I admire your discipline. I probably should have ignored 99% of all posts in this thread, maybe all but yours.
  4. Wow. I said if he posted links to his posts that I had already read, again, that I would add him to my ignore list. He did, so I did. I always fulfill my promises. As for being an asshole, LMAO. Added to ignore! This is a collectivist idea. Those jurors obviously can not speak for every individual taxpayer in the Nation. To say such a thing is to reject Objectivism completely. Of course, I am for the reduction of public property to a bare minimum, but Rand herself said in the meantime that rights are not non-existent on public property. I already quoted an example of this principle.
  5. Hey KendallJ, don't take this the wrong way because its meant in a friendly way. I added you to my ignore list. If you are trying to communicate with me, I won't be reading it. As I told you. Just trying to save you the time and effort.
  6. The owners of Coartland did not necessarily find him innocent. We do not know who the owners are. The jury had the right to their opinion. It doesn't affect mine. Yes, perhaps. It *might* be different, if he indeed couldn't sue for breach of contract. The principle is clear. Roark did not own Coartland. I do own my own body and the product of my labor. This is a totally different context. Roark was committing intentional, premeditated aggression. I hold Rand responsible, yes. No one got hurt. She wrote it that way. Doesn't mean that is the way it would happen in real l
  7. Right, but what if someone had been simply walking by and had debris crush them? With any use of violence, there is the risk of collateral damage. If you admit Roark would have been responsible for this collateral damage, you admit he has committed aggression. Otherwise, collateral damage would be the moral responsibility of whoever *iniatated* force, which you are arguing is the State, or Keating.
  8. Of course, it is utterly inconsistent to say Roark could blow up Coartland because they "stole" his designs, which he gave up willingly and enthusiastically despite knowing he couldn't sue anyone no matter what happens, without agreeing that any citizen of the USA has the right to blow up any public property because of the thefts it is doing to them/us. Further, it is totally inconsistent to say Roark could blow it up, denying the public of this property they own, and then say entitlements can't be ended abruptly because the public is dependent on the property/slavery of others. LOL. Of
  9. Nonsense. First of all, just because someone said that to Keating doesn't make it true. Second, what law are you claiming Roark was trying to test in court? He mentioned no such law in any way. As for some third party being allowed to destroy my house due to some third party contract with another person having nothing to do with me, this is totally ridiculous. Again, Keating had no right to make a contract regarding Cortland's construction. He was not the owner. He wasn't even under contract for its construction. He was not in charge of the project in any way. He can only contract regarding hi
  10. Yes, as I have repeatedly said, Roark had no contract with the owners of Cortland and his contract with Keating is irrelevant, just as you and someone else can't make a contract regarding my house without my consent. It is acceptable to break "the law" under certain situations of course. I started digging up the quotes from ROTP I had in mind. More to come. "Irrationality is not idealistic; the bombing of public places is not idealistic." "From A Symposium." Ayn Rand "Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue
  11. Right, and I read them and didn't see anythign worth answering. Of course, numerous points of mine have been ignored also. Then you seem to agree that it is no more valid to destroy public property than private, unless one is living under totalitarian rule. Clearly, this was not the case with Roark. He entered the deal with Keating willingly. No one has offered a shred of reasoning why the contract between Keating and Roark would be morally enforceable against the owners of Coartland, whoever they are. True enough, but I am not interested in this forum. When this thread ends, I wil
  12. I'm not interested in your links. If you have argument, state it. If you wish to copy and paste, do so. If not, I'm adding you to ignore list next.
  • Create New...