Legal foundation for public decency, lewdness, nudity

[Inspector]

No, just engaging in a genetic fallacy. Amount of thought, amount of past rationality of the thinker, amount of self-esteem one has about one's own mind does not make a given belief any more true.

Where did he say that it made a belief true? He said you should take that view seriously, that you might have a problem if it conflicts, and that "For me to conclude that she was wrong on a certain point has to take a very solid indisputable proof because I know just how powerful and precise her mind (and writing) was."

[Seeker]

What public spaces? There should be only three types of "spaces": unowned, private property, government property. None of those are "public" (i.e. government property does not belong to "everyone", it belongs to the government).

Rand was not referring primarily to ownership but rather to "the public", meaning all of us who go places. Here again is the passage by Ayn Rand:

This aspect of the issue is wider than religious influences: civilized men do not tolerate public displays of sub-animal sex. Many people regard a public representation of sexual intercourse to be disgusting - not because sex is evil, but precisely because it is a value, an exception-making value that requires privacy. Censorship, however, is not the solution: resorting to censorship is like cutting a man's head off in order to cure a cold.

Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults. Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper - but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality.

No one has the right to do whatever he pleases on a public street (nor would he have such a right on a privately owned street). // Similarly, the rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive - e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden on public places; warning signs, such as "For Adults Only," may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech.

Here you can see "public" being used in a consistent way that does not involve ownership. First, to characterize types of representations and displays: this means "viewable by all", irrespective of ownership. Second, to characterize a type of street: this means "open to all" (though distingushed from privately-owned streets). Third, to characterize types of places: here again this means "open to all". Fourth, to describe the populace, i.e. "the public", meaning all of us. So it is not (or not so much) an issue of ownership as one of access: specifically, if the place or display is accessible to everyone, regardless of ownership, then warnings may be required to protect the unconsenting.

Thus, the issues Rand raises would be still be issues even if the anti-concept of "public property" were done away with. These issues would still exist in a perfectly capitalistic society because some places would still be open to all.

[Capitalism Forever]

The example that triggered the last 3 or so pages of discussion--the package with the dead head--can be dealt with very easily by recognizing that your mailbox is private property. No one may send you a package you do not consent to receiving. It's that simple--it has nothing to do with psychological assaults, bad emotions, need for pleasure, or anything like that.

The above does not mean that you always have to ask for the recipient's permission before sending a package or that surprise birthday packages are to be outlawed. This is one of the cases where consent can often be reasonably presumed. For example, if a lady friend of yours loves a certain brand of perfume, you have every reason to presume that she will not mind if you send her a bottle of it for her birthday. As a less clear-cut example, advertisers often presume that you consent to receiving leaflets and brochures in your mailbox. Whether or not that presumption is reasonable is up for debate; a government might say that they can presume your consent and you have to put up a sign if you do not want such things in your mailbox--or it might say the reverse; this is something I consider to be quite optional. But to presume that you consent to getting the head of a corpse delivered to you--that is never reasonable in any normal context. The head of a corpse is one of those deliveries where you do have to ask the recipient for permission.

The fact that posters have been thinking of emotional justifications for this, when in fact it's simply a matter of your owning your mailbox, suggests that many still think that Miss Rand's sex-related quote is about an emotional "right"--something like a right not to be offended, a right protecting you from the emotional reaction to sex, a right protecting you from whole classes of negative emotions ... you name it. It is nothing of the kind. Under a proper government, the law cares as much about your emotions as an approaching cold front cares about what you think of the weather. The law is only concerned with existential values, and with whether or not you have a claim of ownership on them. So, to clarify again, what I am saying and what the quote from Miss Rand seems to affirm is that your sex life is an existential value, and you do have a claim of ownership on it.

[Seeker]

The fact that posters have been thinking of emotional justifications for this, when in fact it's simply a matter of your owning your mailbox, suggests that many still think that Miss Rand's sex-related quote is about an emotional "right"--something like a right not to be offended, a right protecting you from the emotional reaction to sex, a right protecting you from whole classes of negative emotions ... you name it. It is nothing of the kind. Under a proper government, the law cares as much about your emotions as an approaching cold front cares about what you think of the weather. The law is only concerned with existential values, and with whether or not you have a claim of ownership on them. So, to clarify again, what I am saying and what the quote from Miss Rand seems to affirm is that your sex life is an existential value, and you do have a claim of ownership on it.

The connection to emotions is one's mind, which could certainly be descibed as an "existential value" every bit as much as one's sex life, could it not? This is setting aside whether or not seeing a depiction of sex is, in fact, part of one's own sex life - a contention that has always struck me as tenuous at best. Also, Rand did not seem (in my view) to advance that argument exactly, referring to the fact that "many people regard a public representation of sexual intercourse to be disgusting" as well as "the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome" and also "protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive..." - disgust, loathing, offense are all mentioned. Why, if the argument rested solely on the identification of the existential value of one's sex life, was that necessary?

[Inspector]

Once again, Captialism Forever has it exactly right.

[Seeker]

Once again, Captialism Forever has it exactly right.

Except that the reasoning is incomplete. It simply isn't enough to observe that "the head of a corpse is one of those deliveries where you do have to ask the recipient for permission" - particularly after one has just expressly disavowed "psychological assaults, bad emotions, need for pleasure, or anything like that" as justification. While the social conventions may be wholly arbitrary, we are right to demand an objective justification for why consent ought not be presumed, lest the laws passed be equally as arbitrary.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Seeker

[IAmMetaphysical]

Having a mailbox is an implicit agreement to recieve ANY AND ALL non-threatening packages. That is what a mailbox is for, for recieving packages, if you want to have conditions on what kind of packages you wish to receive, you have to write that on your mailbox. (I would argue that, like The Godfather, a dead (horse)head can be seen as a threat of violence objectively, btw)

Where did he say that it made a belief true? He said you should take that view seriously, that you might have a problem if it conflicts, and that "For me to conclude that she was wrong on a certain point has to take a very solid indisputable proof because I know just how powerful and precise her mind (and writing) was."

"Taking an idea seriously" means giving it a status along the continuum of "true." Let me elaborate. Ideas about reality fall into three categories: true, false, and arbitrary. If a view is in a corresponding relation to reality, it is true. If it is in contradiction to reality, it is false. If it has no relation to reality whatsoever, it is arbitrary. How much an idea stands in correspondence to reality, or contradiction to reality, or in no relation whatsoever to reality can be expressed with the concepts of "possible," "probable," and "definate/certain." Discovering how an idea stands in relation to reality and how much so is the task of reasoning, and this task is done on the basis of evidence and logic. Evidence is collected and evaluated and an assessment is made. The nature of the evidence determines the status of the relationship, i.e. whether it is true or false or arbitrary; the amount and proximity of that evidence to the perceptually self evident determines the level of certainty. (Note: "possible" does not mean "not impossible", i.e. for something to be possibly true, it does not merely have to be non-contradictory to the already established facts about reality. For something to be possibly true, there must be some evidence in support of its actually being true, not a lack of evidence of its being not-true. For a further discussion of this, I defer to Leonard Peikoff in OPAR.) So, to suggest that something is possibly true is to suggest that there is some positive evidence of it's being true although not enough to warrant an assignment of the label "definately true" or "probably true." To suggest that since Ayn Rand was a genius and an incredibly intelligent and rational person (which she was) is reason enough to take the positions she maintained as "possibly true" because she is the one who maintained them, is to give the simple fact that she maintained them the status of positive evidence of the truth of those positions. The sheer fact that she maintained a position has no bearing on the truthfullness of said position because her consciousness doesn't (nor does anyone else's) control reality. Any evidence in favor of her position is to be found in her arguments or from the facts of reality, i.e. the facts relevant to the position she held, not the fact that she was incredibly rational, or the fact that Inspector and Capitalism Forever vehemently disagree with me. Those facts are irrelevant and, if they were the only peices of evidence on which to judge her position, it would relegate that position to the realm of the arbitrary. However, since her position (seems to) stand in contradiction to already established fact about the nature of the human mind and the principle of rights, there is enough evidence (since the level of certainty of the truth which her position seems to contradict is high) to label her position as "highly probably false"(I only hesitate to say "definately false" because I have not read that essay and am not sure as to what her exact position is.)

[Inspector]

Except that the reasoning is incomplete. It simply isn't enough to observe that "the head of a corpse is one of those deliveries where you do have to ask the recipient for permission" - particularly after one has just expressly disavowed "psychological assaults, bad emotions, need for pleasure, or anything like that" as justification. While the social conventions may be wholly arbitrary, we are right to demand an objective justification for why consent ought not be presumed, lest the laws passed be equally as arbitrary.

Not really. Consent is required to send anyone anything in the mail by dint of their property rights to their mailbox/house. Consent is presumed for reasonable things. It is not reasonable to presume that most people would want a severed head. You don't have to prove an assault.

[Inspector]

To suggest that since Ayn Rand was a genius and an incredibly intelligent and rational person (which she was) is reason enough to take the positions she maintained as "possibly true" because she is the one who maintained them, is to give the simple fact that she maintained them the status of positive evidence of the truth of those positions.

Yes, it is, and your position that a given point of Ayn Rand's philosophy should be treated as totally arbitrary until you prove it to yourself, to be given no more consideration than the random ravings of any bum on the street, is untrue and highly disrespectful. This explains your disrespectful attitude toward Ayn Rand and Objectivism (which goes beyond your claim that you just don't understand it and want it proven) And it also explains your unreasonable assertions of dogmatism on this board; your standard of what is dogmatic is highly flawed.

Nobody has claimed that because Ayn Rand made a philosophical claim, that makes it true. But it does remove it from the realm of the arbitrary-and-to-be-casually-dismissed. Nothing is proven until you have connected it solidly to reality, but Ayn Rand deserves more than dismissal - you had better be solidly sure she is wrong before you do so, if you have the proper level of respect for her obvious and demonstrated level of genius.

The same is true, on a continuum, of anyone making a claim. If a respected, intelligent, and most importantly very well integrated man makes a claim, his character is a form of evidence for that claim and the amount of consideration it deserves. The same goes for a crazed bum and the amount of consideration a claim of his deserves, if you see no other obvious reason to do so. If someone has given you reason to believe that they are in the habit of making arbitrary claims, then sure - dismiss their claims. They deserve it. Ayn Rand does not.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Yes, it is, and your position that a given point of Ayn Rand's philosophy should be treated as totally arbitrary until you prove it to yourself, to be given no more consideration than the random ravings of any bum on the street, is untrue and highly disrespectful.

Did I not say that I think her position is false(not arbitrary) AFTER considering it against the "already established fact about the nature of the human mind and of the principle of rights?"

In regards to relegating it to the bin or the arbitrary I said this:

Those facts are irrelevant and, if they were the only peices of evidence on which to judge her position, it would relegate that position to the realm of the arbitrary. Bold added

I continued saying:

However, since her position (seems to) stand in contradiction to already established fact about the nature of the human mind and the principle of rights, there is enough evidence (since the level of certainty of the truth which her position seems to contradict is high) to label her position as "highly probably false"(I only hesitate to say "definately false" because I have not read that essay and am not sure as to what her exact position is.)

Nothing about this is a dismissal, I expect an apology.

If a respected, intelligent, and most importantly very well integrated man makes a claim, his character is a form of evidence for that claim and the amount of consideration it deserves.

No it is not. Evidence for a claim is dependant upon the facts of reality, not the facts about someone's consciousness. Nobody's character can serve as evidence of the truth of the views he espouses. Wishes don't change reality, prayers don't change reality, belief and the character of the believeer doesn't do so either.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Nobody has claimed that because Ayn Rand made a philosophical claim, that makes it true.

Nobody has said that it makes them certainly true, I agree, but like I said:

...to suggest that something is possibly true is to suggest that there is some positive evidence of it's being true although not enough to warrant an assignment of the label "definately true" or "probably true." To suggest that since Ayn Rand was a genius and an incredibly intelligent and rational person (which she was) is reason enough to take the positions she maintained as "possibly true" because she is the one who maintained them, is to give the simple fact that she maintained them the status of positive evidence of the truth of those positions.

[Inspector]

Did I not say that I think her position is false(not arbitrary) AFTER considering it against the "already established fact about the nature of the human mind and of the principle of rights?"

Yes, although that consideration is flawed.

But I digress. You are concerned that I am accusing you of dismissing Ayn Rand's position as arbitrary. I was speaking of your general stance toward Objectivism, not this particular instance. I don't believe that I stated I was referring to this particular case and I didn't think there would be confusion since you clearly stated that your position is that Ayn Rand was wrong.

Clearly, you do not consider it arbitrary, but false. There are indeed a handful of topics that you consider Ayn Rand to be wrong about, and it seems that they all revolve around sex. I admire your independence (and no, I am not just saying that), even if I am unconvinced of your position. But I really think you should take your disagreement to some other place; by the forum rules, it's not appropriate here.

No it is not. Evidence for a claim is dependant upon the facts of reality, not the facts about someone's consciousness. Nobody's character can serve as evidence of the truth of the views he espouses. Wishes don't change reality, prayers don't change reality, belief and the character of the believeer doesn't do so either.

That's a fancy Objectivist-sounding way of putting it, but doesn't say a thing toward what I actually said.

I did not say that someone wishing it so makes it so. I said that the stated opinion of someone who is of genius stature, superlatively integrated consciousness, and impeccable character is a form of evidence that should lead one to give a claim serious (non-arbitrary) consideration until one has enough facts to decide one way or the other. That doing otherwise is disrespectful, which is exactly what you have been toward Ayn Rand and Objectivism. And not only that, but you have accused others - who have shown that respect - of being dogmatists. All because of this error.

[blackdiamond]

So, to suggest that something is possibly true is to suggest that there is some positive evidence of it's being true although not enough to warrant an assignment of the label "definately true" or "probably true." To suggest that since Ayn Rand was a genius and an incredibly intelligent and rational person (which she was) is reason enough to take the positions she maintained as "possibly true" because she is the one who maintained them, is to give the simple fact that she maintained them the status of positive evidence of the truth of those positions.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. What? No, I'm actually saying a bit more than that: I'm saying that the fact that she held a position does in fact warrant an assignment of "probably true" to that position.

The sheer fact that she maintained a position has no bearing on the truthfullness of said position because her consciousness doesn't (nor does anyone else's) control reality.

You are stuck with your straw man. Yes, it has no bearing on the truthfulness of said position, but it has a bearing on MY mind, my attitude, my approach, to the issue.

However, since her position (seems to) stand in contradiction to already established fact about the nature of the human mind and the principle of rights, there is enough evidence (since the level of certainty of the truth which her position seems to contradict is high) to label her position as "highly probably false"(I only hesitate to say "definately false" because I have not read that essay and am not sure as to what her exact position is.)

And that's where my big disagreement comes in. When you are so unsure about her position's "contradiction to already established facts" that you have used the word "seems" twice in your evaluation of her position's contradictory nature, it is difficult for me to side with you against Ayn Rand, or even to agree that you have shown that her position is "highly probably false" (and only saved from "definitely false" by the fact that the rest of the essay hasn't yet been availed to your eyes).

But don't worry (about my cultic tendencies), this (my attitude) is not any special attitude I reserve for the great Miss Ayn Rand or philosophy per se. If I ask a question like "who was the greatest chess strategist in history?" and I have five randomly chosen strong college chess club players say it was Capablanca, while five randomly picked chess grandmasters tell me it was Fischer, I will tend to think that the position of the grandmasters at the very least qualifies as "positive evidence" of Fischer's overall supremacy in chess strategy (or at least supremacy over Capablanca). I can make this soft, preliminary judgment even before I hear the evidence (involving an analysis of the two players' games) from either camp! If one of the college players makes the argument for Capablanca among his internet chess friends, I would not consider it irrational or fallacious for one of his friends to just say "but we have a problem here, Kasparov and the other grandmasters disagree with us". If the disagreement is only coming from another rival college club, it would indeed be strange for someone to label it "a problem".

Is this primacy of consciousness? Does it suggest that I think the grandmasters (who have played the game at a high level for many years) control (chess) reality?

[IAmMetaphysical]

Clearly, you do not consider it arbitrary, but false. There are indeed a handful of topics that you consider Ayn Rand to be wrong about, and it seems that they all revolve around sex. I admire your independence (and no, I am not just saying that), even if I am unconvinced of your position. But I really think you should take your disagreement to some other place; by the forum rules, it's not appropriate here.

I think it is up to David Veksler(and the moderators) to decide whether or not what I say is appropriate or not for this forum. I have shown the greatest respect for Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff and Objectivism here. Where I have disagreed with Rand and Peikoff I have done so respectfully, never engaging in personal attacks nor anything else that can be construed as an attack on them. The fact of my disagreement is not disrespect, in fact, it is since I respect the principles that Ayn Rand discovered and/or formulated so greatly that I am independant enough to take what she says and subject it to the greatest amount of scrutiny.

If you two can not see that point I am trying to make in regards to assigning the status of evidence of a claim's truth to the fact that someone smart made the claim with I have said already, then you never will. It is pointless for me to continue down that road.

[blackdiamond]

If you two can not see that point I am trying to make in regards to assigning the status of evidence of a claim's truth to the fact that someone smart made the claim with I have said already, then you never will. It is pointless for me to continue down that road.

I don't know if you always just do this deliberately or you construct your straw men honestly, but neither Inspector nor I said her smartness is the only thing that gives her "claims" that status of "evidence". Neither of us would say that we would treat Einstein's comments on philosophy (of law) in the same way, nor indeed that we would take Miss Rand's opinion of history's greatest chess tactician as seriously as we would take Gary Kasprov's opinion (of course we would be shocked if she even gave such an opinion authoritatively because it would be totally out of character for her). What I find difficult to believe is that you honestly think Gary Kasparov's opinion on a certain chess opening carries as much weight (i.e. no weight) as any other chess player's opinion before you understand the precise reasoning behind their "claims", which implies you would not at any point think that Kasparov is (at least) "probably right" just because he is a chess genius who has made very few mistakes in his game and has made some important and amazing contributions to the theory of chess openings.

If you don't understand this already, you never will.

[Inspector]

I think it is up to David Veksler(and the moderators) to decide whether or not what I say is appropriate or not for this forum.

Yes, and you've heard my opinion. That's all I gave - a personal opinion. I've not reported anything to any moderator, to be clear. If they have anything to say to you about what you do here, then they will say it.

[JMeganSnow]

Not really. Consent is required to send anyone anything in the mail by dint of their property rights to their mailbox/house. Consent is presumed for reasonable things.

Actually, it's not presumed by the law, although it may be presumed by the sender. What this means is that if someone sends you something you don't want you may not be entitled to some sort of damages from them (and they won't be fined or go to jail) but you certainly can get a legal injunction to prevent them from sending you anything else.

My whole take on the public decency issue comes from the standpoint that there's no objective standard. Non-objective law is a horrific monster that cannot be set loose. Even worse are laws that restrict someone's freedom before they've done anything wrong, such as laws that say things like "you cannot send X, Y, and Z through the mail".

Furthermore, I don't think it's been demonstrated that in a free country where public property is abolished that something like this will be necessary. People that operate roads and sidewalks that are actually thoroughfares will, of course, have an incentive to provide a mild and inoffensive environment (probably one full of advertisements or shops) that people can enjoy. Even shops on these thoroughfares that some may consider offensive will have good reason to be discreet because they gain more from being convenient than from loud and or obnoxious advertisement. The only time I've seen that sort of public advertisement was in the locale of something like a red-light district where you have to be louder than your many local competitors. Now, whether this is a naturally-arising situation or simply a result of restrictive legislation, I couldn't say.

Now, as for sending someone a corpse's head in the mail: I don't think there needs to be a special case for that, either. Why? Because it's ignoring several important factors that are already covered by law. WHERE did they get the head? I'm sorry, but even in the case of John Doe where you have no idea who wants what done with the corpse it should still be illegal to do anything with a corpse that the previous owner did not consent to, and that includes cutting the head off and mailing it to someone. Even if you have a truly weird case where someone signed a document that said "when I die, cut off my head and mail it to my ex-wife", you still have other issues.

How about the fact that most commercial carriers don't transport hazardous waste (human body parts are a biohazard)? So how did you get it sent? Lie about the contents? That violates your contract with the carrier and they can sue you. If they do transport hazardous waste then they label it. If you're a homeowner and you receive a package labeled "biohazard" that you aren't expecting and you open it, then you're an idiot.

Not to mention that human body parts actually are a biohazard due to the risk of disease: sending someone a head in a box is analogous to sending them a baggie full of anthrax. There's a physical harm issue involved here, which makes it an inappropriate example for something that simply involves psychological harm.

In discussing whether you need a law to protect people from something, you have to consider several points:

1. Is this protection absolutely necessary for the general population?

2. Are there other laws that will also have the effect of allowing people to seek legal redress for the problem (i.e. are they already indirectly protected from this sort of thing)?

3. Will enforcing this law violate someone's rights?

In most of the cases of supposed psychological harm that I have seen, the answers to all three questions have been as follows: 1. no, 2. yes, 3. yes. I could provide numerous examples. I have never seen a case where I thought that type of legal action was called-for.

[IAmMetaphysical]

If you don't understand this already, you never will

I will answer this because I think your point about chess is a result of a misunderstanding and that you're open to reason.

I know that no one is saying that Ayn Rand's intelligence is the only factor in deciding that a given statment is true or not. The specific thing I was responding to and what sparked this tangent was the comment made by Seeker who said that the simple fact that Ayn Rand believed something is a "problem", implying that that is in the fact the only factor in the formation of said problem, which implies that the fact that Ayn Rand believed something is evidence in favor of its truth.

I do not advocate that people automatically dismiss anything that anyone says simply because they said it, that would be the flip side of what I am arguing against.

Now, in terms of an "expert opinion" I do think it is proper to assume that an expert knows what he is talking about, and that his view is slight evidence of a given proposition's truth, as long as that view is a matter of perceptual self-evidency or closely tied to it. It is safe to assume that if someone says that they saw the sun rise this morning and there is no reason to believe they are lying, that they did in fact do so and that their statement is possibly, if not probably true. But, this is NOT because they are a smart person, it is because seeing the sun rise is an occurence that happens on the first level of epistemological awareness and as such is not subject to the possibility of human fallibility (barring instances of mistake in interpretation of sensory data, in which case the history of the person in question's history of mental wellbeing will come into play as he is making a claim about his sensory experience which in that case would be subject to skepticism.) In cases where the person is making a claim involving higher level integrations of data, the possibility of human fallibility is more likely and it is necessary to know more about the statement in order to assign a positive evaluation of the status of its truth. It is important here to realize that I am not saying that all statements have to be treated as false or arbitrary until proven true, any statment once made and understood can be evaluated based on its relation to the evaluator's prior hierarchy of knowledge. E.g. if Ayn Rand says "existence exists" that statement is absolutely true, but not because she is smart and she said it, but because it is an entirely accurate representation of how reality actually is and must be. That statement is as equally true as if a dirty bum said it. The person making the statement has no bearing on the validity of said statement. If Ayn Rand said that the world was flat, there would be no reason (in light of modern knowledge) to take her seriously, you understand this obviously in the case of Einstein. A statement of fact has to be taken as first -hand knowledge and scrutinzed by the same standards. The expert opinion is only as valid as the statement being made. It is not proper to regard a statement as arbitrary simply because someone else said it, that is not what I am advocating. A statement has to be judged by ITS merit, not by the merit of its espouser. In terms of expert opinion, that is how it should be viewed, as opinion, and opinion need not be dismissed as false without reason.

To sum up: an expert's opinion is only as good as its relation to the perceptually self evident and as an opinion. When a chess expert states that a certain starting move is superior to others they are expressing a statement regarding a higher level of integration and as such deserves more consideration before being considered true, false or arbitrary. One must obtain more relevant information on the subject in order to form an opinion oneself, to do otherwise would be an act of faith. All first-hand knowledge, i.e. asessments of truth must be made based on first hand knowledge of the material at hand

Back to the subject at hand to concretize this:

The statement is: sex is something which must be hidden from the unconsenting.(basically)

I am not saying that one should dismiss this statement as false or arbitrary WITHOUT considering it, quite the contrary. One should consider everything one encounters and weigh it with one's previous knowledge of reality and one's present knowledge, i.e. perceptual experience with reality. One should do this not because of where the statement comes from, i.e. who says it, but because all statements of fact have a bearing on one's knowledge and one's life. One should not dismiss a statement about reality simply because it comes from a bum, nor should they lend more credence to a statement simply because it was uttered by a genius.

My contention with the above statement about sex stems from my understanding of sex and of rights and reality. The fact that Ayn Rand (might) disagree with me is not a problem for me. I do not dismiss her, but I do dismiss those things I consider false. I considered her argument and find the principle "the right to look and listen means the right not to see or hear" as being an equivocation. The fact that she engaged in said mistake does not alter my respect for her as I did not think she was infallible and making mistakes is not morally reprehensible. She is still the greatest human to ever live, in my opinion.

I think what may have happened here is a misunderstanding of my position as saying that one should dismiss as false anything that is said by anyone else because they are someone other than oneself. My position is that the intellectual status of an expert is not evidence of its truth, or its falsity, or its arbitrariness, one must find out which category a statement falls into by first hand asessment of the statement involved. To subsitute this asessment with an asessment of the author of the statement is to substitute others for reality and become second-handed.

IF you are saying that I should consider her statement because it regards an important part of human life, then I agree. If you are saying that I should consider it because Ayn Rand said it, then I disagree. I am curious to find out her opinion on a lot of things because I respect her mind, but that does not mean that I consider what she says as being closer to truth before I consider the matter for myself. Does that clear things up?

[Capitalism Forever]

The connection to emotions is one's mind, which could certainly be descibed as an "existential value" every bit as much as one's sex life, could it not?

Emotions are automatical reactions based on your evaluations. To say "This makes me feel bad" is to say "I consider this to be a disvalue to me." That alone is never a justification for a legal ban on anything. If you want legal recourse against something you consider to be a disvalue, you have to demonstrate in what way it interferes with your pursuit of a rational life. Saying "I don't like it" won't do; it's like trying to prove a mathematical theorem by saying "I'm convinced it's true."

whether or not seeing a depiction of sex is, in fact, part of one's own sex life - a contention that has always struck me as tenuous at best

Just consider how many dollars and hours have been spent worldwide on watching pornography. Why do you think people view such movies? What do they seek in them? Education? Humor? Inspiration? Hell no! They watch them for the sex--as an ersatz for their own deficient sex lives.

Also, Rand did not seem (in my view) to advance that argument exactly, referring to the fact that "many people regard a public representation of sexual intercourse to be disgusting" as well as "the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome" and also "protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive..." - disgust, loathing, offense are all mentioned. Why, if the argument rested solely on the identification of the existential value of one's sex life, was that necessary?

I think it wouldn't have been necessary. I don't know how developed Miss Rand's position was and how she arrived at it; it is my own position I am advocating here, which I consider to be at least compatible with Miss Rand's. I don't think the emotions Miss Rand mentions (disgust, loathing, offense) form a part of her reduction of the proposed legal measures to individual rights--and they certainly don't form a part of mine.

[Capitalism Forever]

we are right to demand an objective justification for why consent ought not be presumed

There can be no objective justification (i.e. proof) of a negative. The burden of proof is always on him who presumes; if he cannot give a rational explanation for his presumption, then he is not presuming reasonably.

In the case of the perfume, the explanation is easy: she loves me, she loves this perfume, it's her birthday--ergo, I can expect her to be happy to get this perfume from me for her birthday. In the case of the advertisements, as I said, it's trickier, but the argument might go along the lines of "We are advertising products that people generally find useful; it is merely small leaflets we are distributing, which can be easily recognized as such and thrown away if not desired; they do not obstruct the recipient's exercise of his rights in any significant way." Now try making an argument for presuming the dead head as desirable for its recipient!

[Seeker]

Emotions are automatical reactions based on your evaluations. To say "This makes me feel bad" is to say "I consider this to be a disvalue to me." That alone is never a justification for a legal ban on anything. If you want legal recourse against something you consider to be a disvalue, you have to demonstrate in what way it interferes with your pursuit of a rational life. Saying "I don't like it" won't do; it's like trying to prove a mathematical theorem by saying "I'm convinced it's true."

Absolutely I agree that interference with a rational life is a necessary condition. The question was whether certain emotions (especially strong emotions of disgust, loathing, and offense) can ever of themselves interfere in such a way. Sometimes extreme emotional reactions can actually induce nausea, for example. Seeing that severed head might do the trick. It's easy to just say "humans have volition, you can choose your response" but I wonder whether in some extreme cases that might be untrue.

Just consider how many dollars and hours have been spent worldwide on watching pornography. Why do you think people view such movies? What do they seek in them? Education? Humor? Inspiration? Hell no! They watch them for the sex--as an ersatz for their own deficient sex lives.

Okay, but here my thought is: they want it, and the wanting is an essential ingredient. If you don't want to be turned on, don't let yourself be turned on by what you see. Don't give yourself permission. Exert some self-control. Ignore it. The idea that you won't be able to enjoy sex later on in private, because of the nude poster you saw in public earlier that day doesn't make sense, unless you're completely out of control. The solution is better discipline and control of yourself, not others.

I think it wouldn't have been necessary. I don't know how developed Miss Rand's position was and how she arrived at it; it is my own position I am advocating here, which I consider to be at least compatible with Miss Rand's. I don't think the emotions Miss Rand mentions (disgust, loathing, offense) form a part of her reduction of the proposed legal measures to individual rights--and they certainly don't form a part of mine.

The problem I see here is that Rand chose to use specific words in making her argument. Those words illustrate her reasoning. To say that we are free to ignore what she said, and after our excision of her words say that her reduction didn't involve the very things we excised, is a feat of intellectual gymnastics I'm just not capable of.

[Capitalism Forever]

Having a mailbox is an implicit agreement to recieve ANY AND ALL non-threatening packages.

Suppose then that I, a stranger, decide to send you a set of worn-out truck tires. You haven't asked for them, you have no use for them, but neither have I, so I just decide to dispose of them by sending them to you, since you are willing to receive any and all non-threatening packages. Suppose futher that I have been so satisfied with my newly-found tire disposal solution that I decide to send all of my worn-out truck tires to you from now on--and, since I run a rather large shipping company, that means one set of tires about every day.

What will you do with all those tires? Won't you need to get rid of them somehow, at least so you can receive further ... um ... deliveries? Won't you incur significant costs in handling them, both in terms of time and money (not to mention soap)? Isn't that a violation of your rights?

[Seeker]

Now try making an argument for presuming the dead head as desirable for its recipient!

I see. The problem then is not that it's a dead head, it's that it's not something for which we can fashion of presumption of desirability. On that score, the dead head is the equivalent of junk mail, which we also cannot presume that anyone desires (now try making an argument for presuming that junk mail is desirable for its recipient!). Or used tires, to use your latest example.

I actually have no problem with the existence of such a presumption. The problem only begins when the legislative power is exercised as a means of enforcing such presumptions. At this point, I tend to find the rationale that "all that matters is that the presumption exists, whatever it is" to be unsatisfactory. I also want the presumptions to be demonstrably rational, if laws are going to be made based on them. I also want specificity - the idea of a judge asking a defendent in a court proceeding "now come, Mr. Jones, you didn't really think that Miss Smith wanted your advances?" and off to jail he goes - sends shudders down my spine.

I actually don't think that this is a terrible hurdle to overcome. All we need to do is to make explicit what is typically implicit in the argument - as we have started to do with the example of unwanted tire delivery - by demonstrating how the violation actually interferes with the pursuit of a rational life. The same goes for touching the hair of the girl you're sitting next to on the airplane, the deliveryman bringing the package to your front door, or whatever other example of default presumption you can come up with.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Its an agreement to recieve mail, not to obtain ownership of said mail. If someone sends you something you don't want to keep and disposing of it would produce a great loss to you, then it is their resonsibility to remove the package. Then, you can tell them that you do not wish to recieve mail from them and if they insist on doing so, legal recourse is justified.

[Capitalism Forever]

The question was whether certain emotions (especially strong emotions of disgust, loathing, and offense) can ever of themselves interfere in such a way. Sometimes extreme emotional reactions can actually induce nausea, for example. Seeing that severed head might do the trick. It's easy to just say "humans have volition, you can choose your response" but I wonder whether in some extreme cases that might be untrue.

You never actually choose your emotions--not directly, that is. You choose your values, and your emotional reactions are a consequence of those value-choices.

Now, what does this mean for individual rights? Suppose, for example, that an environmentalist hates SUVs so much that he has to vomit whenever he sees one. So if you drive past him and he throws up, can he sue you for causing him to throw up? I am sure you will agree that he cannot, because the responsibility for his value-judgments lies with him, so it was he who caused himself to throw up, by entertaining such irrational evaluations.

But there is a fundamental difference between the reaction to an SUV and the reaction to a severed head. If I told you that the President of Iran had his head sawn off--or, to get more graphic, if you saw in the Wall Street Journal a drawing of his head apart from his body--what would your emotional reaction be? As far as I'm concerned, I would be very pleased ! But if I actually saw his severed head in front of me, and smelled the blood etc., I might well get nauseated. Pleased, but nauseated. The former would be my emotional reaction, based on my evaluation of him as a person. The latter, an automatic reflex to a set of sensations that is built into all sane men who have not actively desensitized themselves, or been desensitized by others.

And that kind of automatic reflex can serve as a basis for claiming that someone has induced nausea in you.

Okay, but here my thought is: they want it, and the wanting is an essential ingredient. If you don't want to be turned on, don't let yourself be turned on by what you see.

Being "turned on" is an automatic reaction to what you see. Just as I said above: a reflex to a set of sensations that is built into all sane men who have not actively desensitized themselves, or been desensitized by others.

The problem I see here is that Rand chose to use specific words in making her argument. Those words illustrate her reasoning. To say that we are free to ignore what she said, and after our excision of her words say that her reduction didn't involve the very things we excised, is a feat of intellectual gymnastics I'm just not capable of.

Yes, those words do illustrate her reasoning, but they are not essential to her justification of why the legal measures in question should be taken. As an analogy, take the following statement: "It is important to protect the rights of those who love to drive SUVs." Does this necessarily mean that the author thinks that loving SUVs gives you a right to drive them? Perhaps it is not the best possible way of expressing what the author wants to say; perhaps some people who are not familiar with the author's reasoning might think that the word "love" is somehow key to the rights he wants to protect; but, if we give the author the benefit of the doubt, cannot we just suppose that "...those who love..." is merely a way of referencing the group of people whose rights he advocates protecting?