JASKN Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 For anyone interested, The Objective Standard is currently hosting, for free, a debate (followed by a question and answer session) between Yaron Brook and Jeffrey Finkle on the government's right to seize private property, inspired by the Supreme Court's 2005 decision on eminent domain. I enjoyed this, and it couldn't have been more perfect if planned, almost right out of a Rand novel; Finkle (perfect name) vs. Brook, shaky voice and shaky morals vs. confidence in speech and confidence in principles. I was impressed by Brook's ability to pull out and focus on the root of Finkle's evasion and wishy-washy assertions. I almost couldn't believe it when Finkle flat-out stated his rejection of individual rights over the rights of the collective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Thanks, James. Dr. Brook is lucid as usual. You're not kidding James ... Mr. Finkle: "I don't see the individual rights as superseding community rights ... the idea ... is abhorrent to me. ... If you can not pay for a meals on wheels program or police and fire services because there is no tax base left in a community, I argue that it is the responsibility of the local leadership to figure out how to pay for those services first, and if it means TRAMPLING on somebodies personal property rights, then TRAMPLE on them." I had to hit the pause button after I heard this. I don't know how, but no matter how many times I hear things like this I am still momentarily stunned every time. I started writing a reply to Mr. Finkle's arguments, but quickly discovered I'd have gone on for pages and pages. Mr Finkle has a strongly malevolent outlook and has fallen hard for the practical side of the false dichotomy of the moral vs the practical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Good catch James. Mr. Finkle is just so wrong on just about everything that Dr. Brook comes across as incredibly lenient, letting him get away with using terms such as "community rights" in the first place. The hardest hitting line in the whole segment, in my opinion, is delivered by a woman in the audience (and I paraphrase): "I don't want a 7eleven beside my house. I can buy that land if I want to prevent it. With eminent domain there is nothing I can do if the government decides to place a 7eleven on my street corner, your argument defeats itself". Still, a good showing by Dr. Brook. It takes a special kind of person to sit and listen to that much nonsense and keep cool. I'm certain that his manner keeps doors open for him to speak that would otherwise be closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimpy Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 This is the first time I'm hearing Dr. Brook's voice. He's very confident!! And I just love that accent. Finkle was a mess compared to Dr. Brook's general composure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 One other comment, after some thinking about the debate: The relevance of the absurd non-sequitur by Mr. Finkle when asked if he thinks there is an overarching morality that is higher than law: "I believe Quakers have the right not to go to war" struck me full in the face. Everyone holds a stunned silence for a few seconds, you can hear the mental "WTF?" clearly. That statement is a testament to the level of Disintegration in that poor idiot's mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweiss Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 One other comment, after some thinking about the debate: The relevance of the absurd non-sequitur by Mr. Finkle when asked if he thinks there is an overarching morality that is higher than law: "I believe Quakers have the right not to go to war" struck me full in the face. Everyone holds a stunned silence for a few seconds, you can hear the mental "WTF?" clearly. That statement is a testament to the level of Disintegration in that poor idiot's mind. Yeah, that statement struck me odd. My mind asked the question: If Quakers are to have the right not to go to war, then what about people of other religious, or non-religious beliefs? The debate made me angry, especially with this Sword of Damocles that hangs over my home ownership for the past couple of years. That there are even people at all who believe in collectivist ideas like Mr. Finkle's is very upsetting. If there is one reason why I'd kill another man, it would be over something like this. ' I was delighted to see how many audience responses were rational and critical of Finkle's position. Many of them sounded like older, retired homeowners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakarmaskannar Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Thanks for the link. I've watched Mr Brook's lectures before, but this is the first time I've heard him debate and it was an enjoyable time spent, especially the Q&A at the end. His opponent truely seems to be lost in a socialist fantasy, and falls back on precedent, rather than on justifying Eminent Domain on logical grounds, as his only arguement. I'd love to know how such a supposedly educated man can hold such incorrect premises, but I guess I'll grasp it better when I get around to studying the DIM Hypothesis when I get the chance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychotrope Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Finkle: "If you cannot pay for a meals on wheels program or police and fire service because there's no tax base left in the community, I argue that it's the responsibility of the local leadership to figure out ways to pay for those services first, and if it means trampling on somebody's property rights then trample on them. (emphasis mine) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Great debate. It is nice to hear the audience on the Objectivist's side, for a change. 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.