volco Posted October 16, 2010 Report Share Posted October 16, 2010 Perhaps it was the philosophic bankruptcy of her adversaries that enhanced to those who observed it, the gracefulness and manuverability of one who has so well masterfully integrated her art. yes perhaps why not, but that applies as well to most of her interviews, like with Wallace. There was a different, more revealing and tender in her character while in Donahue, that I don't believe was the color in the film; but have it your way, if it sounds kinder for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 Maybe it was the age, maybe the recent loss of her husband, but in that interview she conquers the audience and Phil, in the end leaving as a lovely old lady with the youngest Promethean eyes. The attribution to the recent loss of her husband does not compliment the alluring allegory you punctuated your statement with. To correlate it with conquering seemed a bit disjointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian9 Posted October 18, 2010 Report Share Posted October 18, 2010 Disjointed is the word I'd use to describe this thread. I'd still like to return to what the OP said, but it may not be so consequential as I had thought. I'm participating in at least three threads that now that all deal with this same subject. One thread asks, "Is taxation moral?" Another, "Governments monopoly on force contradictory?" And this one. I've counted a few others that I haven't participated in and I'm sure there are more, which I haven't seen. Dream Weaver, I want to pick up our dialogue where we left it. My post #95 on the previous page. You redirected me to a different thread, which I'm thankful for since now we're talking there as well, but I thought we had a good thing going here first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian9 Posted October 18, 2010 Report Share Posted October 18, 2010 (edited) I'll just quote myself, so you don't have to go digging. Its bad form to repeat one's self as often as I do, so if just want to redirect me out the door, I'll understand and I won't hold it against you much. So is fair to say that you would ascribe the monopoly of force to such an abstract notion as the law? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. My point is simply that if individuals can use force to stop crimes, and other individuals pay certain other individuals who wear badges to make sure that the first group of individuals were applying force correctly, then it seems like everyone involved, and I mean everyone, is not only morally responsible for the use of force, but actually prepared to use it. I'll give my opinion now about what I think Rand means by monopoly of force. What I understand from her is that government agencies should be the only agencies to use force. But what happens when the people exercise self-defense? They are agents of moral force. And Rand is okay with that. Rand is okay with individuals enforcing the law. Indeed, how can one not be since we are all individuals. Saying that the government allows us to exercise self-defense is backwards. We allow the government to defend us rather. EDIT: That is what it says in the constitution, right? We the people find it necessary to form a government to protect our individual rights? Not, we the government find it necessary to protect the people. Rights are derived from the people. There is no monopoly of force, the individual people get together and organize their force and establish objective rules, but it remains clear to me, that the people could not sustain a government, could not create one in the first place, if they themselves were not the primary (and only truly real) agents of moral force EDIT AGAIN: Saying that the government allows us to exercise self-defense is not backwards, if you understand that it was "we, the people" who allowed the government to tell us what to do in the first place. So, we are in a sense allowing the government to allow us to defend ourselves. But that is a rather convoluted way of looking at the relationship. Err, I made an error. The monopoly of force refers to the use of retaliatory force. I suppose that is what we should say if that is what me mean, isn't it? Excuse me, I understand from her that government agencies should have the monopoly on retaliatory force and that all individuals should have the monopoly on defensive force is that right? The rest of my post still stands. I think the central theme of everything I'm writing on this subject is to point out that we are all individuals and we pay our employees to carry out our retaliatory force for us. It seems disingenuous to claim that it is the government, not us, which uses retaliatory force. That's because it is we who fill out the police uniforms and pay ourselves to do the law enforcement. We, the people, right? We are the government, even if you don't carry a gun and badge, you're still responsible for all the force that is committed on your behalf. That is why the phrase monopoly on retaliatory force is confusing to some people. Everyone shares in this responsibility for this "monopoly" and monopolies are supposed to be exclusive, right? Well, I hope I made up for quoting myself, by just expounding some more. Edit again: Edited October 18, 2010 by Brian9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volco Posted October 18, 2010 Report Share Posted October 18, 2010 The attribution to the recent loss of her husband does not compliment the alluring allegory you punctuated your statement with. To correlate it with conquering seemed a bit disjointed. Why the context dropping? During a talk-show, on an late stage of her life when she'd already writen most if not all of what she's left us, probably being aware of it being her last long public appearance for the coffers of history; in such a context, Ayn Rand gives herself and us the luxury of a small window into her private life. She had given us her soul with her fiction works, but now, very in tune with my punctuated allegory, she shows us that it was all true. That the soul she disclosed for the public to be "handled" was actually hers, and there, and talking like any other human being about sex and death, about the beginning and the end. What I loved about that appearance is that I could see the consistency and integrity of her philosophy and herself at the same time (as it is the nature of author and work when integrated). Very nicely put though, my hat's off to you. Brian9 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.