Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Howard Roark blowing up Cortlandt was not Objectivist, and neither is

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I read your post again. You were responding to Jonathan13's point, not mine. Further, your quote from The Fountainhead is in error. That line does not include the word government. I see no other quotes from Rand.

Jonathan's point is the same as your original point. That Keating had no right.

So you're suggesting that Keatings contract was with someone else than the government? I'll check it again, but I copied it directly from the text this am. If it should have been in brackets, I'll grant that. However, considering its metioned time after time that this was a governemt housing project and that beaurocrats were the ones making the changes. You need to provide evidence that it wasn't the government who Keating's contract was with.

Bottom line, Keating had no right to make any contract with Roark concerning property he did not own. Roark knew this fully, which is why he didn't blame Keating for the collapse of their deal. Rand herself condemned the blowing up of public property as a form of political protest in Return of the Primitive. Further, the idea that it is irrational, as expressed by others, to cease the entitlements immediately because it would cause instability in the society and thus wouuld not be in one's self-interest is a flat out condemnation of John Galt, who did his very best to stop the motor that was powering all the same type of policies.

Basically, only Jonathan13 has been advocating an Objectivist position in this thread, besides me. Very, very disappointing.

I dealt with this claim that "Keating cannot make a contrat with Roark" in my second post, directly to your quote, not to Johathans. You didn't answer that. It is a completely flat out wrong statement. Moreover it is ignorant of the law. Having negotiated more than a few commercial contracts in my time, I know of whence I speak. Keating is fully within his rights to make a contract with Roark stipulating that he will only sign contracts in the future that require the building to be built as it is designed by Roark.

You'll also note that there aren't any ad hominems in those posts. Incredulousness, definitely. Insults probably. Trust me you're earning them faster than I can generate them.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The argument is that building a life for yourself and your family requires long term planning. With the various governments (federal, state, local) massively involved in the US economy, people's plans

I'm completely satisfied that my arguments have won this debate. The fact that no one is addressing any of my points, no one is quoting Rand against me, etc pretty much says it all. Instead, you want to argue that its legitimate debate to claim someone has stupid ideas. Pathetic.

Of course it's a legitimate debate to claim someone has stupid, ie misguided, heedless, thoughtless ideas. If no one thought your ideas were wrong, what would there be to debate? What would be the point of having a debate? What would we be debating over and who would be doing the debating? You have no idea what ad hominem is.

Ad hominem is the fallacy of linking the validity of an idea to an irrelevant characteristic of the person.

Example:

Person A proposes X.

Person B ignores X and calls Person A stupid.

Person B concludes that X is wrong.

This may be "blunt" or even rude, but this is not ad hominem:

Person A proposes X.

Person B claims X is stupid and offers argument Y against it.

Person B concludes that because of Y, X is wrong.

The fact that we are having to argue about debate tactics is because you are the one who brought it up! You are using it as an evasion tactic to justify your non-response to any of the arguments proposed to you:

Pay attention to your insults? Yes, not interested. Its too bad really. I would respond to some of what your wrote otherwise, actually agreed with some of it. Undisciplined writing, emotionalism, ad hominem, etc. Sad. I added you to my ignore list

Person A proposes X.

Person B ignores X and claims Person A cannot write disciplined enough, is emotional, and is making ad hominems and thus will ignore Person A.

Person B then concludes that his arguments have won this debate.

Lol, seriously Chris? How about you actually answer the substance of any of these posts: 43, 37, 24, 13 and 9 (the reasons why the following ideas you proposed are wrong: not phasing out government interventions, firing all government employees simply because they are government employees, giving 30-60 day's notice to just end programs, and the reason why Objectivism says nothing about how to accomplish the ending of welfare programs, which renders the entire OP of this thread claiming that certain ideas of ending certain welfare programs in certain ways would be non-Objectivist false.) Can you do that, or will this all just be ad hominem too?

Edited by 2046
Link to post
Share on other sites

Joanthan13's points were not all the same as my point. I did agree with him however. I will let him defend his points. Mine is quite clear. The contract between Roark and Keating has no legal or moral force since Keating has no rights over Cortland whatsoever, regardless of whether it is public property or private property. He had nothing to do with Cortland at this point. As far as not responding to this or that, I lost interest after the absurdity of "stupid ideas" and the other silliness. I will respond to anything on topic, in time. If I didn't, say it again. As for "being offended", I am not. My self-esteem is not dependent on the approval of some people on an internet forum. It merely bored me.

Further, just looked it up in the movie. That line says, "Well, what are you going to do about it? Sue us? You will find that you can't sue us." No mention of government in the scene. Maybe in the book. Been a long time since I read it. Irrelevant. He had no right to destroy Cortland regardless of it being public property or private. Either way, its not his property and he didn't have a contract with the owners.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keating is fully within his rights to make a contract with Roark stipulating that he will only sign contracts in the future that require the building to be built as it is designed by Roark.

Sure he was. But, of course, the owners of the project were under no obligation to be concerned with any such contract since Keating was in no way the owner of the property. Keating signed a contract with them that was not consistent with his contract with Roark. This is not their responsibility but his. Roark's issue is with Keating, not Cortland.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Further, just looked it up in the movie. That line says, "Well, what are you going to do about it? Sue us? You will find that you can't sue us." No mention of government in the scene. Maybe in the book.
Does the movie mention that it is public housing? Does the notion that these people cannot be sued come as a shock to the viewer...who is left wondering why one private party cannot sue another?

He had no right to destroy Cortland regardless of it being public property or private. Either way, its not his property and he didn't have a contract with the owners.
Who legitimately owned Cortland, in the sense of having a legitimate individual right to the property the way an Objectivist would understand it? Nobody did. Therefore, Cortland did not really have an owner in that sense. This point has already been made in a couple of previous posts, but I'm repeating it just in case you missed it. It is the crux of the whole issue.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Since you're the one who brought up ad hominem, I must say that this is a worse ad hominem than being told that you've already received responses to your "stupid" ideas.

Interesting, then you admit it is ad hom to say someone's ideas are stupid. As for saying someone is not advocating an Objectivist position is ad hom, I find that utterly laughable. Such a position negates any ability to debate the application of Objectivism without ad hominem. Of course, the very title of this post made this assertion and there was no objection that it was ad hominem.

Sigh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the movie mention that it is public housing? Does the notion that these people cannot be sued come as a shock to the viewer...who is left wondering why one private party cannot sue another?

It mentions that it is a public housing project. Of course, such a project could be privately built. As for not being able to sue, the implication was that was a result of their contract with Keating.

Who legitimately owned Cortland, in the sense of having a legitimate individual right to the property the way an Objectivist would understand it? Nobody did. Therefore, Cortland did not really have an owner in that sense. This point has already been made in a couple of previous posts, but I'm repeating it just in case you missed it. It is the crux of the whole issue.

Wait, so you are saying if you don't know who owns something then it is owned by no one and you can blow it up?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, so you are saying if you don't know who owns something then it is owned by no one and you can blow it up?
That is two questions. If something is really is not owned by anyone (e.g. some hill on the moon, or some newly claimed gold-mine), one would be within one's rights to blow it up. On the first question: no, of course one cannot assume that a building complex that is in the process of being built is not owned by anyone. However, there is no appeal to ignorance here: Roark (and the reader/viewer) know the facts. They know that this is a government project.

If you thought this was a privately-funded building project, then I can understand why you'd have a problem with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I asked wasn't whether it is okay to blow something up that is not owned. I asked if you were claiming the right to blow stuff up merely because you don't know the owner. Thanks for clarifying.

They know that this is a government project.

You realize that a government project could be privately funded and owned, right? For instance, they may simply have planned to sell the project when completed, just as, say, Boeing is a private company that builds things for the government.

If you thought this was a privately-funded building project, then I can understand why you'd have a problem with it.

I condemn it regardless, however. If its okay to blow up public property because it steals from you, whether in reality or just in your opinion, then I am entitled morally to go blow up Congress, the White House, and other public property right now. Of course, Rand rejected this thinking in Return of the Primitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joanthan13's points were not all the same as my point. I did agree with him however. I will let him defend his points. Mine is quite clear. The contract between Roark and Keating has no legal or moral force since Keating has no rights over Cortland whatsoever, regardless of whether it is public property or private property. He had nothing to do with Cortland at this point.

I've spoken to this point three times now. Are you going to actually address my points or simply offer nothing other than a repeat of your first statement. If you stick your fingers in your ears and say it loud enough it doesn't make it any less false.

As far as not responding to this or that, I lost interest after the absurdity of "stupid ideas" and the other silliness. I will respond to anything on topic, in time.

Well then if you lost interest you shouldn't make claims about what everyone has or hadn't done.

If I didn't, say it again. As for "being offended", I am not. My self-esteem is not dependent on the approval of some people on an internet forum. It merely bored me.

Further, just looked it up in the movie. That line says, "Well, what are you going to do about it? Sue us? You will find that you can't sue us." No mention of government in the scene. Maybe in the book. Been a long time since I read it. Irrelevant.

Wait. You claim that no one has quoted Rand against you and yet you admit that you're not even armed with the facts of the book itself to be able to use as your defense? Are you admitting now that you challenged my quote based on your knowledge of.... the movie, and not the actual book?

You know I gave you teh benefit of the doubt early on as a newbie. The more you show your ignorance, the more it's clear that you didnt' even deserve that.

As to the irrelevance, again, I've addressed this three times. The law does not provide for "squatter's rights" to the governemtn for Roarks design after the fact. The fact that Cortdland exists does not give the government rights to Roarks design. If Cordtland was constructed in breech of contract then it's construction represents a forceful taking of Keatings and thus Roark's property. Roark's and Keating's contracts are valid and Roark has been defrauded of his design under any legal interpretation. What you will have to do to counter this, is not simply restate your original statement, but you're going to actually have to cite the law.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
You realize that a government project could be privately funded and owned, right? For instance, they may simply have planned to sell the project when completed, just as, say, Boeing is a private company that builds things for the government.

Yes it could be, but since this is a novel and not a real case you can't just make stuff up. Your argument is hanging by the thread of whether it actually is or not so if it's not in the book, you're done. You need to provide evidence that it is NOT the government who is the contracting party, not simply claim that it "might" be. Time to crack that book you haven't looked at in a long time.

You really think this is good debate on your part. Not even armed with the actual facts and all. Could you actually quote Rand against me?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've spoken to this point three times now. Are you going to actually address my points or simply offer nothing other than a repeat of your first statement. If you stick your fingers in your ears and say it loud enough it doesn't make it any less false.

Like everyone, I respond to what I think are the best points. Restate it and maybe I will respond.

Wait. You claim that no one has quoted Rand against you and yet you admit that you're not even armed with the facts of the book itself to be able to use as your defense? Are you admitting now that you challenged my quote based on your knowledge of.... the movie, and not the actual book?

Sure, I have the book and can look it up. Its irrelevant. Public property or private, it is unprovoked aggression. Keating violated the contract with Roark, not the owners of Cortland.

As to the irrelevance, again, I've addressed this three times. The law does not provide for "squatter's rights" to the governemtn for Roarks design after the fact. The fact that Cortdland exists does not give the government rights to Roarks design. Roark's and Keating's contracts are valid and Roark has been defrauded of his design under any legal interpretation. What you will have to do to counter this, is not simply restate your original statement, but you're going to actually have to cite the law.

So you are applying current American law to the Fountainhead? I am not. I am applying Objectivism to it. I don't care about the current law whatsoever. Lots of immoral crap in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, *your* argument does. Mine does not. I condemn it, as Objectivism does, regardless.

Asserting it doesn't make it true. And thank goodness you have no standing to actually speak for Objectivism. That statement is in direct violation of forum rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No if you look at the previous post, I deal with the arguments that you and Johnathan13 seem to think justifies you. And I quote Rand against you. hellooo...

These two posts, answer quite sufficiently your original claim. You have yet to respond.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=241239

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=241181

Have at her. That's twice now.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are applying current American law to the Fountainhead? I am not. I am applying Objectivism to it. I don't care about the current law whatsoever. Lots of immoral crap in it.

Well you'd have to cite why that particular law is immoral in this application. Otherwise it might be a perfectly valid interpretation even under Objectivism and so it is. Again, you really are showing youself to be a poor defender of your own ideas. You're not going to take one step beyond that original statement are you? You call that debate?

Edited by KendallJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

This really is an intellectually dishonest response. Are you afraid of the idea behind a single click? Does me providing you ready access to the argument somehow make your ideas unable to stand up to them? If you really believe that you are that correct then intellectually honesty, especially in one who makes the claim that no one has answered him and that he has won the day, would suggest you take a peak.

I'm well known on this board for giving well reasoned if blunt answers. You may want to hide behind an ignore button, but the fact is everyone else involved in this debate can and will easily click through the links and see that there are very valid points that are raised, and they'll wonder why you need be so unreasonable as to close your eyes to them. In fact, most will think me gracious for twice linking you to posts that as someone who is participating in this thread, you ought to have read already (and your only excuse for not reading them is that you lost interest) What is is that your ideas can't stand up to in honest debate? You were the one who was claiming ad hom, and every other sort dishonest debate tactic. Now it's quite clear that when presented with honest ideas, you'll hide behind anything even the whine of someone unwilling to take one mouse click before you'd defend your ideas.

It is stated quite clearly, in response to you original post in this thread. Click the link, and you'll have it. We're all waiting.

Everyone is watching to see what your next actions tell us not only about your ideas but also about your character.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
I condemn it regardless, however. If its okay to blow up public property because it steals from you, whether in reality or just in your opinion, then I am entitled morally to go blow up Congress, the White House, and other public property right now. Of course, Rand rejected this thinking in Return of the Primitive.
No, if I seriously thought someone was going to blow up Congress I would turn him in to the cops as soon as I can. On the other hand, if I could help a runaway slave, or a couple disobeying miscegenation laws, or an illegal immigrant, without going to jail for it, I would.

I'm not interested in your links. If you have argument, state it.
Those were links to his own previous posts, within this thread! Point being that you ignored them.

If not, I'm adding you to ignore list next.
Won't be much of a forum if everyone is on ignore. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites
Those were links to his own previous posts, within this thread! Point being that you ignored them.

Right, and I read them and didn't see anythign worth answering. Of course, numerous points of mine have been ignored also.

No, if I seriously thought someone was going to blow up Congress I would turn him in to the cops as soon as I can.

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.

Won't be much of a forum if everyone is on ignore.

True enough, but I am not interested in this forum. When this thread ends, I will probably never visit this site again. As I said, I prefer Facebook and discussion with my Objectivist friends there. From my view, this site is extremely hostile for no reason whatsoever. I am bewildered by it, that such irrationality is found in supposed Objectivists. This was a simple discussion of interpretation of the NAP that really should have been pleasant among theoretically like-minded Objectivists. I never have this problem with Objectivists on FB. In my opinion, it is the result of some Randianism, an emotional reaction to any criticism of Rand. Of course, Rand herself said Objectivism was not fully developed when she wrote The Fountainhead....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, and I read them and didn't see anythign worth answering.

Got it.

They directly refute your points. So obviously if you think that they don't then it would be encumbent on you to show how they are in error. That would be "debate" or refutation. Ignoring them is not. They are substantive answers.

The basis of your argument hinges on your very first post, which is what I've dealt with.

Would anyone else in the room be curious to hear Chris refute these arguments? Pull up a chair. Let us know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you seem to agree that it is no more valid to destroy public property than private, unless one is living under totalitarian rule.
No, I don't agree. That's too much of a leap. Anyhow, those are the details... the main point is that the Cortland episode was not some regular private deal where Roark decided to destroy someone's private property. The initial discussion began as if that was the context, and it is not. The context is completely different, and so the discussion is about rule of law and whether there are situations when it is morally acceptable to break the law. Do you agree that this is the issue, not the breaking of contract?

Concede that and then one can get on with the details of whether totalitarianism is the only context where one ought to break the law, whether some types of breaking the law are more acceptable (e.g. marrying someone of a different race versus destroying property).

Link to post
Share on other sites
.. so the discussion is about rule of law and whether there are situations when it is morally acceptable to break the law. Do you agree that this is the issue, not the breaking of contract?

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 to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.

But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such.

The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality."

Yes, this isn't a case of "mass" civil disobedience she is discussing, though she is clearly condemning such acts if they violate the rights of others, whether on public or private property. In this case, since Roark *clearly* is not the owner of Coartland, he is *clearly* destroying someone else's property. Further, there was no specific law he was attempting to prove was unjust- no such law even mentioned. His entire defense ducked all such issues and went on a tangent having nothing to do with the issue of whose property was destroyed.

An off-topic question, what would you say if someone had gotten hurt, besides Dominque, in that bombing? Would that be Roark's responsibility? Of course, I say it would.

As I said, more quotes to come.

Edited by Chris LeRoux
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...