Roark the dynamiter

[intellectualammo]

So why are you not defending Howard Roark's rights? Let us remember who initiated force.

Let us remember who it was that did not cover his own ass properly. His contract was not legal and fraudulent, and could not seek restitution, and knew that was probably the case when drawing it up (he drew it up so he could hold it over Peters head publically should he not come through on his end)(he also knows he could not sue him), but whatever breach on Peters end of their "contract", he should have taken as a man, not become a dynamiter. What he did was completely unwarranted.

Don't tell me you've accepted Jonathan's characterization of fraud and such, have you?

I find what he said about it most compelling. Edited February 20, 2013 by intellectualammo

[Marc K.]

His contract was not legal and fraudulent, 

 

 

 

No it wasn't. What makes you think it was?

 

What he did was completely unwarranted.

 

 

 

According to you.

 

I find what he said about it most compelling.

 

Not that I really care but why? Which mischaracterization did you find most compelling?

 

 

[intellectualammo]

Not that I really care but why? Which mischaracterization did you find most compelling?

The latter question is loaded, and the first one should not have really been asked then. Edited February 20, 2013 by intellectualammo

[Marc K.]

So you have no opinions of your own about what supposedly makes Roark's contract fraudulent? Compelling indeed.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Marc K.

[intellectualammo]

I don't like the way you are talking to me.

Look, Roark knows he can't get past Toohey and others, the government would not hire him, he says this, he finds a way around it through fraudulent means. He allows Keating to place his name on his design. Keating then passes that design off as his own. His building design gets around Toohey, et al. in that manner.

Edited February 20, 2013 by intellectualammo

[Marc K.]

I don't like the way you are talking to me.

 

I am just talking in the same manner you have been throughout this thread, like here:

 

He failed to cover his own ass from getting fucked, so he should have just taken it like a man then.

 

 

 

Look, Roark knows he can't get past Toohey and other like the government would not hire bim, he says this, he finds a way around it through fraudulent means. He allows Keating to place his name on his design. Keating then passes that design off as his own. His building design gets around Toohey, et al. in that manner.

Toohey is not a party here, he has no skin in the game. Roark is a subcontractor to Keating. Perfectly legal and it is done all the time.

[intellectualammo]

Right, Toohey is not a party, but is part of the reason why Roark uses fraud to get his building up. And Keating uses fraud, because he was not able to design such a building himself, so he passes that design off as his own.

[Marc K.]

Right, Toohey is not a party, but is part of the reason why Roark uses fraud to get his building up. And Keating uses fraud, because he was not able to design such a building himself, so he passes that design off as his own.

Ugh, you have bought Jonathan's argument hook line and sinker. There is no fraud. Remember, Keating works at a firm in which all they have are underlings and subcontractor to do ALL the work and the clients know it. There is nothing fraudulent about it.

[intellectualammo]

The clients don't know it in this case. Who is the client, the government? They think only Keating is doing it, no subs.

It's fraud on both their parts.

Edited February 20, 2013 by intellectualammo

[Marc K.]

The clients don't know it in this case. Who is the client, the government? They think only Keating is doing it, no subs.

 

How can you possibly know this? You are just making stuff up now. Provide a quote (actually you shouldn't bother because you won't be able to find one). There is no fraud here ... except you.

[intellectualammo]

Please, watch how you talk to me.

At the trial they ask Keating if he designed Cortlandt. He said No. Whoever his client was, did not know he did not design Cortlandt. I'm not making that up. They found out when they read the contract of which they questioned him further on.

This is after all a government housing project. Who is the client? Government?

Roark also says something about how it's too expensive for private owners to build such a housing project. So, again, who is the client? In the speech, he says "owners", who? Public ownership?, such as in government project?

Edited February 20, 2013 by intellectualammo

[Marc K.]

Please, watch how you talk to me.

At the trial they ask Keating if he designed Cortlandt. He said No. Whoever his client was, did not know he did not design Cortlandt. I'm not making that up. They found out when they read the contract of which they questioned him further on.

This is after all a government housing project. Who is the client? Government?

 

As if the right hand of the government knows what the left hand is doing. Are you saying that the people prosecuting Roark are the ones that signed a contract with Keating? You don't really believe that do you? The "government" doesn't exist, individuals exist. If you are going to use an abstraction like "government" to prove your point, then I guess I can just say: the government is the people, as represented by the jury and they found him not guilty. So I guess the government doesn't think he is guilty of blowing up Cortland or of fraud. Case closed.

 

You made a very specific claim. You said: "They think only Keating is doing it, no subs." This is absurd on its face. Keating was a figurehead, the only people that did any work were the underlings and subs.

 

If you can't provide a quote to backup your claims, then I will continue to treat you as you deserve, which is the way I guess you are treating Roark. You think he (or Rand) deserves your scorn. Right back at cha.

[intellectualammo]

What is a government housing project then to you?

Who is the client? Who is funding it? Who was Keating working for?

No matter who or what, Keatings name was on a design he did not design. Roark had Keating put his name on his design, though Keating did not design it. What does that spell: FRAUD

It does not spell: SUB

[Marc K.]

What is a government housing project then to you?

Who is the client? Who is funding it? Who was Keating working for?

No matter who or what, Keatings name was on a design he did not design. Roark had Keating put his name on his design, though Keating did not design it. What does that spell: FRAUD

It does not spell: SUB

The people are funding it and they found him not guilty. Is that not good enough for you?

 

Apparently you don't understand the way the world works. You see there are these entities called corporations or architecture firms. They have many people working for them. They all contribute to a project. No one person could handle all of the design and logistics and dealing with clients. So there are people who run these businesses and they take credit and responsibility for the work that is produced by the people they employ. If you don't like it, start your own firm and be the boss yourself. It is not fraudulent when Steve Jobs says "I designed this iphone".

 

Where are you getting this stuff. It seems as if you have a point of view and you'll defend it no matter what the facts say.

 

Also you seem very certain now that Roark's and Keating's contract was fraudulent. That wasn't always the case in this thread so what has made you so certain.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Marc K.

[ruveyn1]

So you have no opinions of your own about what supposedly makes Roark's contract fraudulent? Compelling indeed.

The valuable consideration that Roarke set out to get was having his design be used in the housing project.  There is only one trouble. Keating did not have legal standing to guarantee the design would be used.  The decision to build and how to build the housing project was not in Keating's hands. All Roark could hope for was that Keating had enough clout to see to it that Roark's design would be used.  But Keating did not have enough clout. To bad for Roark.

 

ruveyn1

[Marc K.]

The valuable consideration that Roarke set out to get was having his design be used in the housing project.

 

Not that it really matters but since others here have said something to the contrary: Keating went to Roark. They contracted to trade value for value.

 

 

Keating did not have legal standing to guarantee the design would be used.

 

Of course he did, he was one of the principals of the architecture firm.

 

 

But Keating did not have enough clout. To bad for Roark.

Nope, read the book, Keating didn't have enough balls to see it through -- he certainly had the clout.

 

And just as a friendly reminder: "To" is spelled "too".

Edited February 20, 2013 by Marc K.

[DonAthos]

So why are you not defending Howard Roark's rights? Let us remember who initiated force.

 

Largely because I've been busy trying to answer the myriad of bad claims that have been made in the thread about how a sufficiently moral man may morally initiate force, and how one cannot analyze particular aspects of a novel, or that this analysis takes place on the wrong level (for instance, your implicit claim that "Howard Roark has rights," which some here may account as somehow taking things "too literally"), and etc.  Sadly, not much discussion of the actual material has taken place lately, and I'm glad you want to put us back on track.

 

Don't tell me you've accepted Jonathan's characterization of fraud and such, have you?

 

Well, I think his argument seemed pretty good -- and I certainly didn't feel I had the material to challenge him -- but then it's been a while since I've read The Fountainhead. If someone more knowledgeable (such as yourself) thinks his argument faulty, I'd like to see an attempt made to demonstrate the fault. Though perhaps you'd do better to argue against Jonathan's claims yourself than to ask me about Jonathan's claims? I think his post(s) still stand in the thread, after all, and I expect/hope that he'll be willing to defend what he's had to say, if challenged.

But okay, reaching rather blindly here, and since you did address me with this, allow me to ask you a few questions...

In dealing with Keating, was Roark trying to hide his involvement from anyone? (Or was he going along with Keating's scheme to hide Roark's involvement?) If either of those is the case, why should Roark's involvement need to be hidden? Would those with whom they were contracting not agree to their deal, should they have known the truth about Roark's involvement? And if that's the case, does hiding Roark amount to fraud?

If the contention is that Roark felt violated, I'm on board with that. And I accept his act at Cortlandt as a dramatic and romanticized method of "fighting back." Yet, at this point -- though maybe you can show otherwise? -- I wonder whether Roark put himself into that very position through trying to deceive others (or allowing them to be deceived)? And moreover, was he deceiving himself? At that point in the novel, knowing Keating as he did and for so long, could he have reasonably expected better/different results?

Edited February 20, 2013 by DonAthos

[ruveyn1]

Not that it really matters but since others here have said something to the contrary: Keating went to Roark. They contracted to trade value for value.

 

 

 

Of course he did, he was one of the principals of the architecture firm.

 

 

Nope, read the book, Keating didn't have enough balls to see it through -- he certainly had the clout.

 

And just as a friendly reminder: "To" is spelled "too".

I read the book twice.  You might say  "I did too".  Or even better "I did two (times)".

 

Keating was not a strong person.  He drifted with the tides that moved him.  

 

Yes, he failed to carry out his end of the contract.  

 

However, legally speaking,  he did not have fiduciary authority in the matter of funding or determining how the project would be built.  He was a consultant,  not the Man in Charge.   

 

Keating was a pitiful case.  He was not stupid.  But he lacked courage,  as you point out.

 

ruveyn1

[Jonathan13]

Apparently you don't understand the way the world works. You see there are these entities called corporations or architecture firms. They have many people working for them. They all contribute to a project. No one person could handle all of the design and logistics and dealing with clients. So there are people who run these businesses and they take credit and responsibility for the work that is produced by the people they employ. If you don't like it, start your own firm and be the boss yourself. It is not fraudulent when Steve Jobs says "I designed this iphone".

 

Your faulty line of argument above was already tried by Kendall on a previous thread. I thoroughly refuted it.

 

Here are some highlights:

 

From here:

 

When hiring an architect at that level, people are purchasing much more than a utilitarian structure. They are purchasing what they also consider to be a work of art from a renowned artist, and if that artist is "subcontracting" the entire project off to another artist while withholding that information from the client, he is engaged in the same type of fraud that Milli Vanilli were engaged in.

Despite holding the official title, Keating was not actually the "architect" on the Cortland project, and Roark was not a "subcontractor," just as Rob and Fab were not actually the "singers" of Milli Vanilli, despite being portrayed as such, and the people who actually did the singing were not "subcontractors." Milli Vanilli was sued for consumer fraud, and if they had employed the word-game strategy of calling the actual singers "subcontractors" who were trying to "hold private their involvement," no one would have fallen for it.

 

 

From here:

 

Why are you trying to pretend that this about "subcontracting," and about Keating not bothering his clients with a tedious list of all of his minor employees, and that it's not an issue of Keating passing off Roark's work as his own? When Keating and Roark initially discussed the project, Roark told Keating that he could take all of the credit, and that's what Keating did. When questioned by Wynand, Roark lied and said that Keating designed Cortland. When grilled by Toohey about who actually designed Cortland, Keating repeatedly stated that he, Keating, had designed it. How much more clear could Rand have been in informing the reader that Roark and Keating were presenting work completely designed by Roark as if it had been completely designed by Keating?

 

Yes, the idea of aesthetic authorship holds true of architecture, especially in the upper echelons of architecture in which Keating and Roark were working (or hoping to continue finding work). If you hire Calatrava to design a building, you're not going to get a design which was created by someone else, and in which Calatrava had no creative input.

 

Roark didn't "contribute" to the design. One doesn't "contribute" to a "cooperative" design by designing it in its entirety. Keating also didn't contribute. He had nothing to do with the design. So, I think you should stop playing word-games.

As I implied earlier, all of your arguments could be applied to Milli Vanilli: Music production is a collaborative effort; there are performers, and studio musicians, and engineers and other techies, and they all might contribute aesthetic elements; no one wants to see a list of all of the minor employees who may have made some minor creative contributions; therefore Milli Vanilli wasn't a fraud! Is that what you believe? Is that really the type of reality-denying argument that you want to make?

 

 

From here:

 

I agree that Roark's designing the project was not fraud. What was fraud was Roark and Keating claiming that Roark's design was Keating's. Roark even explicitly lies when confronted by Wynand about who designed the project. He says that Keating designed it. Essentially, the issue is that Roark knows that the owners of the project will not hire him, yet he decides not to respect their right to not hire him. He sees Keating's request for help as an opportunity to subvert the owners' right to have nothing to do with him. Read the novel. Roark clearly identifies this as his motive for passing off his work as Keating's.

 

Look at it this way: If a publishing house or government agency doesn't like me, what I stand for, or what they think my paintings represent, and I know that they are opposed to publishing prints of my work, it would be fraud for me to conspire with a friend to submit my art under his name to try to trick the publisher or agency into publishing my art. In effect, it would be theft of their materials and labor if I were to try to circumvent their desire to not work with me. The same is true of an architect trying to subvert a property owner's (including public ownership) unwillingness to hire him. He doesn't have the right to use fraud in order to see his dream project realized with others' wealth and labor.

 

 

From here:

 

The injury is that Roark violated the owners of Cortland's right to not hire him, and to not use their (and the taxpayers') wealth and labor to satisfy his desire to work on his dream project against their will. The owners were led to believe that they were buying a work of art-architecture by Keating. They were defrauded just as they would have been if they had purchased a "Vermeer" painted by Van Meegeren.

 

Roark and Keating agreed that Roark would design the project and Keating would take the credit for designing it. They agreed not to meet at Roark's office so as not to be seen together -- they thought that "somebody might guess." Roark told Keating to redraw the sketches in his own manner because some people would recognize Roark's way of drawing. Roark lied to Wynand about who designed Cortland. Keating lied to Toohey about who designed Cortland. How are you not understanding that they were committing fraud -- that they were acting with the purpose of deceiving those in charge of the project?

 

J

[Marc K.]

Largely because I've been busy trying to answer the myriad of bad claims that have been made in the thread about how a sufficiently moral man may morally initiate force, 

I should think then that you would want to be clear in your own head about who initiated force and you admit below that you don't.

 

 

 

Though perhaps you'd do better to argue against Jonathan's claims yourself than to ask me about Jonathan's claims?

I am asking you about your claims. I have no intention of talking to Jonathan. He is a troll whose only purpose here is to bash Ayn Rand and Objectivism and to do it using mischaracterizations and dishonesty.

 

 

In dealing with Keating, was Roark trying to hide his involvement from anyone? (Or was he going along with Keating's scheme to hide Roark's involvement?) If either of those is the case, why should Roark's involvement need to be hidden? Would those with whom they were contracting not agree to their deal, should they have known the truth about Roark's involvement? And if that's the case, does hiding Roark amount to fraud?

 

There is absolutely nothing morally or legally wrong with hiding one's involvement in a project from those not involved in said project, if for no other reason than that one wants to maintain their privacy. So lying to Toohey or Wynand is perfectly acceptable.

 

As for the clients, they were not deceived. They wanted a certain value and they got it and they, of course, had the opportunity to see what it was they were getting. Except for Toohey (who wasn't a party to the contract) no one else in the novel (who were party to the contract) cared one way or another about Roark.

 

And moreover, was he deceiving himself? At that point in the novel, knowing Keating as he did and for so long, could he have reasonably expected better/different results?

 

 

That is why he had a contract.

[Marc K.]

Jonathan:

 

You are intellectually dishonest. The only way I will entertain any of your assertions is if you admit that in this thread you have mischaracterized Ayn Rand and outright lied about what was in the novel. 

[Jonathan13]

I am asking you about your claims. I have no intention of talking to Jonathan. He is a troll whose only purpose here is to bash Ayn Rand and Objectivism and to do it using mischaracterizations and dishonesty.

 

Heh. In other words, don't provide overwhelming evidence that Marc can't answer. Providing such factual content and analysis is an act of trolling and dishonesty!

 

J

[Marc K.]

However, legally speaking,  he did not have fiduciary authority in the matter of funding or determining how the project would be built.  He was a consultant,  not the Man in Charge.   

No, apparently you don't understand the nature of the relationship between client, contractor, and subcontractor. The client pays the contractor and says "get it done". The contractor may then hire anyone he likes unless it is specifically stated otherwise in the contract.

[Marc K.]

So Jonathan are you stating emphatically that you haven't mischaracterized or lied about what occurred in the novel and daring me to prove it?

[Jonathan13]

Jonathan:

 

You are intellectually dishonest. The only way I will entertain any of your assertions is if you admit that in this thread you have mischaracterized Ayn Rand and outright lied about what was in the novel. 

 

I couldn't care less if you don't entertain my assertions. I recognize when I'm dealing with someone who has a closed mind which is impervious to the facts. I've presented a very potent and detailed case above. If you can't handle it, but instead need to smear me as being dishonest, so be it.

 

J