Tom Robinson

If I have the right to put a gun to my own head and pull the trigger, then it follows that I have the right to hire an agent to perform the same action, an agent who would (as you wrote in those compelling caps) “KILL SOMEONE ELSE for MONEY.” And if I have the right to enter freely into a contractual arrangement whereby my life is taken by someone who is KILLing SOMEONE ELSE for MONEY, then it should not make any difference whether the killing attracts spectators who pay for the privilege of sitting in attendance. Thus, if suicide is permissible, then so should all contracts in which a party of his own free will gives up his life for certain considerations. In most sporting events, the loser also gains a portion of the promoter’s receipts. The loser in a death match may value his life, but he may value having, say, a half million dollars go to his heirs, even more. But even if there were no consideration for the loser, he would still have the right to risk his life for the possibility of winning -- or just for the glory. In the final analysis, every man's life is his alone to spend. I agree that there would be no volunteering if the participants are forced at gunpoint to participate. However, this is not what the first post said. Joynewyeary wrote, “Suppose two people agree to fight until one of them is dead.” If people agree to the fight, then the contract is voluntary and legitimate. Why does the benefit have to be for oneself? If we forbid a person to participate in a death match that would provide his children with food, shelter and medicine, then we would have to forbid people who risk their lives to save children in a burning building. Correct, blood sports are not about people paying other people to kill them; rather, they are about people who, in return for certain consideration, place their lives at great risk or certain death. If a person may take his own life, then it follows that he may allow some other person to take it, and furthermore, that he may allow some other person to take it in exchange for payment to his heirs. But this ignores the fact that the Code Duello required the consent of both participants. From the late Middles Ages to the 19th century, a man did not have to accept a challenge to a duel. Many did not. Dueling was not impulsive, random violence; it followed objective rules and was a voluntary means of settling disputes. Whose rights have the promoters, spectators, et al violated? Yes, but you are dropping the context of whether force is initiated or retaliatory. For reasons we don’t have to explore here, initiated force is clearly bad. But within the confines of a duel or a death match, there is no initiated force. By agreeing to the rules of the fight, each participant gives his consent to his opponent’s use of force. It is only because the law recognizes mutually consensual combat that football players are not jailed for assault.

If an identification of a fallacy demonstates that an argument with contradictions is false, then the intellectual requirement on the proponent is that he withdraw it.

In fact, logic is not an “art” but a science. I would suggest a definition provided by a scholar to whom Rand gave her approval. As H.W.B. Joseph wrote, “Logic, then is the science which studies the general principles in accordance with which we think about things, whatever things they may be." (Introduction to Logic, Second Edition Revised.) Not pointless. If Proudhon's statement is indeed an example of a fallacy, discovering exactly what form of fallacy it is, is completely appropriate within the Aristotelian system.

Of course. And me too. Sadness was precisely the emotion Rand intended. If at novel's end Kira had managed to escape and gone on to success in Hollywood, our sense of horror and outrage at the Soviet system would have been seriously undercut. Imagine how the impact of The Diary of Anne Frank would have been deflated had the story ended with Anne’s triumphant arrival in New York City on VE Day. If our girl survives, what's the problem? Suggesting that there are no unrighted wrongs induces complacency. For this reason, tragedy can be a powerful weapon for change. According to Rand’s only official biography, before Rand left Russia for the United States, she was told by an acquaintance, “If they ask you, in America -- tell them that Russia is a huge cemetery and that we are dying slowly.” The unspeakable crimes of the Soviets had not yet been fully revealed in the West. Ayn Rand’s first novel was one step in setting the record straight. The fact that the heroine is murdered in the end offends our sense of justice and adds an ironic sting to the book’s title. But intentional offense is meant to provoke action. This is Rand’s “getting even” book and is all the more powerful for that.

The legal codes are brimming with all kinds of restrictions on human behavior, from how many pets you can own, to how much wheat you can plant, to what wages you have to pay, to how much you must charge for milk, to what you may not carry on a commercial airline, to how many members of a minority you must hire, to what kind of firearms you may not own, ad infinitum. These absurd laws fill volume after volume, shelf upon shelf. If you want people to understand your philosophy, you provide a set of principles and a few examples to illustrate. It is not necessary for you to itemize every imaginable occurrence in a free society.

Then, in your view, should suicide remain an illegal and punishable act?

If a person cannot legally waive his own right to life, then he could not contract with a medical professional for assisted suicide. Indeed, those who performed such assistance would be charged with murder.

It should be obvious that if we are in favor of letting each individual do what he wishes with his own body and property, then we have to be prepared for people engaging in a variety of unpretty actions. (Nonetheless, the fact that we find certain behaviors unappealing in no way diminishes an individual's right to perform them.) Should we make a list of every conceivable activity that would be permissible in a free society? My friend, there is not enough paper!

You can get a quick answer about whether any hypothetical X should be made legal by asking, whose rights are violated? Can you name anyone in the scenario you describe who is coerced?

Yes. You might be interested to know that Arthur Koestler drew a similar conclusion in the chapter, "The Logic of Laughter," from his book, The Act of Creation. I highly recommend his astute and well illustrated analysis of humor.

I would still punctuate as suggested, although the web has a bias against any hard and fact rules on hyperlinked titles.

Microsoft Word will tell you that you misspelled "consciousness" and "necessarily." However, unless your version of the software is better than mine (a distinct possibility), the errors I pointed out won’t be flagged.

This muddies things up nicely!

If the title refers to an essay, it should be placed in quotation marks. “throughout” If you can, italicize or underline the title. “cannot” “its” Pronoun must agree with antecedent: “deprive another individual of his ability.”

Try this trusty web dictionary. One Prime Mover wrote, “I've heard many people say that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand; to be an Objectivist, you must adhere to it in its entirety, as it was set forth by Ayn Rand.” A.A wrote, “The way I see it: Ayn Rand was the inventor of the philosophy; she called it Objectivism, and if I am not mistaken, that name is a trade mark of hers (maybe now its Leonard Peikoff`s, I don’t know) . . .” My discussion of the generic nature of the word “objectivism,” its history in both philosophy and literature prior to Ayn Rand, and the absence of any proprietary claim on the word by Rand or her estate was therefore entirely appropriate in the context of these posts.

Principle of Non-Contradiction: A cannot be B and not be B. Principle of Excluded Middle: A either is or is not B. If Proudhon had said, “Property is neither legitimate not illegitimate,” he would have violated the Principle of Excluded Middle.

Which only added to its realism. Kira represents the millions Lenin sacrificed to achieve an impossible Marxist utopia.

Did you mean “non sequitur”? If the rules of this forum are that "Objectivism" refers exclusively to the philosophy of Ayn Rand, fine. I was speaking about objectivism (or "Objectivism") in the world at large, which, I believe, is what One Prime Mover and A.A were addressing in their posts. I stand by my remarks that no person or institution has a proprietary claim on the word "Objectivism." However, I did not for one moment suggest that, within the context of a discussion or forum, the participants or moderator could not stipulate what a given term means. Thus, no straw man, no non-sequitur.

If I am guilty of it, please present evidence. I admire Ayn Rand and her works. In fact, I regard her as the greatest woman to defend capitalism in the 20th century. Yes, like other contributors to this forum, I have some disagreements, but I was not aware that, on this forum, disagreeing with a person on issues was equivalent to an ad hominem attack on that person I am inquisitive. I am benevolent. If I have suggested that I am not inquisitive or benevolent toward Ayn Rand, then I deeply regret it. I believe that I have not in any way suggested that the Rand-Branden identification of the “stolen concept” is erroneous. I merely pointed out that it is a variant of Aristotle’s PNC (see posts above).

If I had failed “to grasp the hierarchical nature of knowledge,” then I could not have argued for Aristotle’s PNC, for his vital principle rests on the idea that a conclusion cannot rely on contradictory premises -- a hierarchy of knowledge if there ever was one. If by “begging the question,” you mean that I simply assumed the validity of the claim I was making, then in fact I did not beg the question, for I showed by logical argumentation that Proudhon cannot have it both ways: if all property (ownership) is illegitimate, there can be no theft; if there is theft, then some property must be legitimate. First of all, it was Branden, not Rand, who wrote the criticism of Proudhon. Secondly, the contradiction of implied premises in Proudhon’s statement should be obvious to any student of basic logic; it does not require the illumination of someone with official Objectivist credentials. Finally, one does not have to be formally acquainted with the Branden-Rand critique of the stolen concept to recognize self-contradictory premises in the arguments of others. In 1922, four years before Ayn Rand left the Soviet Union, Ludwig von Mises published his magisterial Socialism: A Economic and Sociological Analysis. In it he dealt with Karl Marx’s famous claim that all human thought is the product of the material forces of society -- the technological processes of production. For example, said Marx, Descartes saw man as a machine because Descartes saw “with the eyes of the manufacturing period.” Mises demolished this claim by pointing out that technological processes are themselves the result of human thought. Thus, following Aristotle, two attributes (A) merely obeying material forces and (non-A) creating material forces, cannot at the same time belong to the same subject (mankind in a given period) and in the same respect." Sure, there’s a “stolen concept” in the Marxian premise that material forces can exist independently of human thought. But it did not take Branden’s essay of 1963 to identify it to Mises in 1922. He was merely following both Aristotle and good old common sense.

All property cannot be both A (legitimately owned) and non-A (illegitimately owned). The statement “All property is theft” implies that all property is illegitimately owned. But if all property is illegitimately owned, there can be no theft, since theft can only occur when there is rightful ownership. Thus, following Aristotle, "The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect."

The "stolen concept" as described by Nathaniel Branden is simply another way of stating Aristotle's Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC, for short). Branden says the stolen concept "consists of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends." But this is simply a wordy reiteration of the truth of Aristotle's principle. If one ascribes Attributes A and B to Subject X, and B contradicts A, then one is violating the principle that "the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect." That is what is wrong with Proudhon's dictum, "All property is theft." As Branden says, "If no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as theft." And Branden is right. But Proudhon would have been refuted by reference to Aristotle's PNC: An object (X) cannot be both property (A) and theft (B or non-A). Another example of the fallacy that Branden mentions is that "Reason rests ultimately on an act of faith." Again, we can refute this via the PNC: The Subject (Reason) cannot have the attributes of both A (knowledge by means of evidence and demonstration) and non-A (acceptance of ideas without evidence or demonstration). Thus, the "stolen concept" does not add any truth to the principle of logic already identified by Aristotle.

The movie was beautifully photographed and effectively captured Vermeer's palette and use of light. I only wish the director had been able to get Scarlett Johansen to do something more than sit and gape with her mouth open. As for the authenticity of the plot, the only thing in the movie that was definitely true is that Vermeer was a Dutch painter. Everything else was fable. The source of the film was a best selling novel.

The "stolen concept" fallacy is simply the application of Aristotle's Principle of Non-Contradiction, which holds "the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect." (Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 3. Translation by W.D. Ross.) In his Jan. 1963 Objectivist Newsletter article, "The Stolen Concept," Nathaniel Branden refers to Proudhon's "All property is theft" as an example of this fallacy. Yet the internal inconsistency of Proudhon's statement can be refuted just as easily by reference to Aristotle: the subject "property" cannot at the same time and same respect be both "rightfully owned" and not "rightfully owned."

GC, I agree that there are good reasons to support plea bargaining, but I wonder if your justification for it above amounts to a form of utilitarianism. Doesn't "less justice for some criminals (and their victims) in order to achieve a greater level of justice overall," amount to suborning an individual's rights (justice) for the greater good?