Judge's ruling mentions Rand

[softwareNerd]

I didn't notice a mention of this, from the ARC blog:

For the first time in American legal history, a judge has explicitly endorsed important principles of Ayn Rand’s political theory in a published appellate opinion.

From the judge's (dissenting) opinion:

Ayn Rand correctly observed that 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. These principles are embodied in the Montana Constitution in Article II, Sections 3 and 29. I invite the majority to read them. The fundamental rights to acquire, possess, and protect property are not even given lip service by this Court. Under the majority’s opinion, the State suffers no consequences for the exercise of coercive and unreasonable power in destroying these businesses. There is no serious effort to balance benefits and burdens. It may be too early to start asking, “Who is John Galt?” but more decisions like this will seriously impact all private property and business owners in this State.

I strongly dissent from the majority opinion.

[Trebor]

That's wonderful! Every step along the way, Miss Rand has won by virtue of independent minds considering what she had to say, thinking for themselves. The future belongs to her.

All this time, her opposition has assumed that they have effectively pushed her aside. I think they're in for the surprise of the lives.

[DavidOdden]

Far out. I disagree mildly with the conclusion that it's hard to find a one-click link: here is the decision, for one and all.

[Trebor]

Far out. I disagree mildly with the conclusion that it's hard to find a one-click link: here is the decision, for one and all.

The link doesn't work, for me at least (Mac OS 10.4.11 & Safari or Firefox).

I get a blank page, titled, "ISAPI DLL Redirection Page," with the URL: http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/IS...0901&Page=1

Looks like I need to login, but there's no place to do so.

[softwareNerd]

Click on the Montana Supreme Court’s main page, then choose “opinions” in the horizontal row, then search for Supreme Court Case No. 05-473, then click on “Wallace v. State,” and finally click on “opinion/order.”

[DavidOdden]

The link doesn't work, for me at least (Mac OS 10.4.11 & Safari or Firefox).

I see. Well, Firefox under XP here, so apparently there are highly-variable features. Ah, for the good old days of simple HTML.

[Trebor]

Thank you, Mr. Odden. Following SoftwareNerd's instructions (Thank you as well.), I was able to view the document.

[aristotlejones]

Far out. I disagree mildly with the conclusion that it's hard to find a one-click link: here is the decision, for one and all.

ARC has a short article on the decision:

http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/the-montana-dissent/

<Φ>aj

[Trebor]

Henry Mark Holzer was Miss Rand's attorney, and currently has his own blog. Here is what he had to say about this judge's ruling:

While those of us who have been influenced by Rand’s ideas are pleased to see her argument for property rights finally noted in an American judicial opinion (albeit a dissent), those of us who have concerns about the treatment of animals (a subject nowhere discussed expressly in her extensive body of writing and speeches) are not pleased to see those ideas enlisted in behalf of people whose business was the euphemistically named “fee shooting”—the practice of charging hunters to kill helpless captive animals in the name of “sport.” -- "Ayn Rand In Court" April 19, 2009.

I became interested in Mr. Holzer's views a short time ago when he was mentioned on this forum in a discussion about the legality of owning gold.

Not too long afterwards, I noticed a comment by Mr. Holzer which I found puzzling:

In effect, Brennan would have us believe that the Constitution was a mere outline for a script yet to be written by judges about "new principles," which the Framers were apparently too dull to have "sufficiently recognized"—"new principles" like sterilizing imbeciles, outlawing capital punishment, inventing "prisoners’ rights," imposing racial quotas, murdering the unborn, restricting political speech, and much more. -- "Obama's Judges" March 22, 2009]

I wrote to Mr. Holzer to ask him directly if his statement did in fact mean that he considered abortion to be murder. He wrote back to tell me that, yes, I understood him correctly, that Miss Rand had reached the wrong conclusion about abortion, a woman president, some classical composers, and other things. However, he said, she was correct on many other issues, but in no sense was she infallible.

Looking at this recent comment of his on the judge's mention of Miss Rand -- notice the "not pleased to see those ideas enlisted in behalf of people whose business..." -- I decided to do a search for more information on Mr. Holzer.

Interestingly, I found this interview of Mr. Holzer:

Your readers might be interested in knowing that once she said to me that if I could figure out a theoretical basis for animal rights, I “would be doing the world a great service.”

...

My wife and I were in her apartment, in the room she used as an office. I had recently brought the Kosher Slaughter case and, on the fly, we were saying something about animal rights. Erika had just crossed the threshold between her office and the hallway, as I approached it. Ayn was still in the room. Almost to my back Ayn made the statement I have quoted above.

I do not believe she was anything approaching “a champion of animal rights” because she ate meat, wore fur, and never once—except that time—ever said anything to me even remotely suggesting that she had given the subject any thought. Frankly, when she made the statement I was, to say the least, quite surprised. “Reason is paramount,” etc. And animals can’t reason, etc.

That said, however, she said what she said, with apparent sincerity. That’s how I took it. We never returned to the subject. Her acolytes, who to this day deny that she could ever have made such a statement, are mistaken. They were not there. Erika and I were—and that’s what Ayn said. -- "From Ayn Rand to Animal Rights: An Interview with Henry Mark Holzer" October 24, 2007 by A.M. Lamey

Given his statement as to Miss Rand's comment, that he "would be doing the world a great service" were he to figure out a theoretical basis for animals rights, I was wondering if anyone here knows where he presented his theoretical basis given that he has been an active advocate and crusader for "animal rights"? (Or perhaps he skipped that part, the figuring out a theoretical basis, and just went directly to becoming an advocate and crusader.)

Edited April 21, 2009 by Trebor

[Jake_Ellison]

Assigning rights to the unborn and to animals would turn Ayn Rand's politics on its head. There are no objective rights one could assign to beings which are inside a human body or lack the faculty of reason. As far as I'm concerned, it is pointless to discuss political philosophy with someone who advocates for fetus and animal rights: without the moral concept of individual rights, as Ayn Rand described it (objective!!!), none of the terms conservatives love to throw around (freedom, personal responsibility, proper role of government) have a meaning.

I'd rather try and explain the concept to (some) liberals, who at least have a misguided sense of what it means to be rational, practical and a humanist.

[Trebor]

Assigning rights to the unborn and to animals would turn Ayn Rand's politics on its head.

I certainly agree.

Assuming that Miss Rand said what he claimed, perhaps she was aware of his interest in "animal rights" (or she just had a general affection for some animals) and, not wanting to discuss it, simply said what amounts to, if you can validate it, you will be benefiting man, but on the principle that all knowledge is beneficial, at least in principle, knowing also that he had no leg to stand on.

Regardless, Mr. Holzer is, or was, a constitutional lawyer. What a contradiction!

Edited April 21, 2009 by Trebor

[FeatherFall]

We already have a theoretical framework for animal rights -- reason. If we find any animals that use reason to survive, Objectivists would have to revise their definition of man because there would be multiple rational animals. Perhaps future advancements in the fields of psychology and neuroscience will force us to look at things in such a radically different way. After the initial shock and horror over how we treated the animal subsides, this would indeed be a wonderful thing. Too bad it's a fantasy.

Anyway, being Rand's lawyer does not make one an Objectivist.

[AllMenAreIslands]

Good to see someone going on the record like that, even if it is a dissenting opinion which won't change the result.