RoR: Forum

Aaron, I specifically said about censorship:

"I don't support it at all, I prefer to know where people stand and all censorship does is prevent you from getting a warning when they come for you."

Glenn, this is what your questions sounds like to me; if i'm a criminal about to break into your house, and I'd know you'd shoot to defend it, don't I have the right to shoot you first?

Matthew, yes you're right there is a line and, using your example, yes they do. If someone says they want to kill me, what am i supposed to do? Stand there like a damn fool waiting to get shot in the back? No you go out and off their ass or whatever. I remember back in high school this kid was bragging he was going to get me after school because he thought I made an illigal tackle on him during football practice the day before. He was the fighting type and I absolutely believed him so I snuck him in the locker room before school let out. He stayed away from me after that.

And thats what you have to do. And this ain't high school, these islamiofacists want to kill us and when they make their intentions know, we need to jump on them. The best form of self-defense is stoping the violence before it can happen...or at least make it on your terms.

Post 41

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 6:11am

Clarence,
I said:

In post #7, Clarence threatened to kick my ass if I show up in his 'hood wearing a bin Laden shirt. So, do I have the right to preempt Clarence by using force, since he has threatened me in writing?

You responded:

this is what your questions sounds like to me; if i'm a criminal about to break into your house, and I'd know you'd shoot to defend it, don't I have the right to shoot you first?

I don't see the parallel. In your example, a criminal has no right to preemptive action against someone who will protect himself from the criminal who is engaged in a criminal act against him. In my example, I am not a criminal. You have threatened to do bodily harm to me for doing something that is legal and only offends you.

So, as per your personal example in post #40, don't I have the right to assume that you are telling the truth and so show up in your town wearing a bin Laden tee-shirt and take you out before you do me bodily harm?

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 42

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 6:57am

"And this ain't high school, these islamofacists want to kill us and when they make their intentions known, we need to jump on them. The best form of self-defense is stoping the violence before it can happen...or at least make it on your terms."

Clarence,

I loved this part of your post. Ever thought of becoming a speech writer for Bush?

Post 43

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 9:08am

Marcus, its all depends on the $$$

Glenn, "In my example, I am not a criminal."

Ha, thats rich. You ally yourself with bin Laden and not call yourself a criminal? (not you, just the hypothetical you with the tee-shirt). Anyway, I thought I made at clear earlier; I don't remember saying innocent people should jumped on so I'd though you would assume I was saying you were guilty.

Post 44

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 9:09am

Has anyone read The Fountainhead? It is a story about a so-called "rugged individualist" who blows up a housing project.

In another "rugged individualist" novel, Atlas Shrugged, the world is destroyed by engineers who cause train wrecks and bridge collapses and eventually, they literally "shut off the motor of the world" with a new kind of electromagnetic wave generator that dampens all electrical output. They commit these acts of terrorism to blackmail the governments of the world into abolishing all income taxes and all other "unnecessary" regulations.

Both of these books were written by a Russian radical who was born Alice Rosenblum but who -- like Lenin and Trotsky -- took a pen-name, calling herself, "Ayn Rand." (Yes, she actually named herself after her typewriter!) "Ayn Rand" also wrote a book titled Anthem -- more about Anthem below.

These books are popular with a certain element of rightwing extremists who call themselves "Objectivists." However they may disagree among themselves, they all agree that modern education is polluted by the ideas of Plato and John Dewey, that all religions are false, that commonly accepted moral strictures are all mere superstitions. These "Objectivists" claim that they are "new intellectuals." They say that they have special knowledge of metaphysics and epistemology. Some of them even claim that their lofty insights give them the right to take "pre-emptive action" against anyone who disagrees with them.

As if this were not shocking enough in the post-9/11 world, worst of all, Anthem -- which describes a savage future world -- is often assigned as reading to unsuspectiing children in middle school and high school by teachers who seek to "challenge" their pupils. Communal orgies are among the many disgusting elements in this lurid tale -- which begins "It is a sin to write this."

The idea of this violent, purient "literature" being sold openly certainly does violate anyone's sense of decency. That your tax dollars pay for it to be given to children is all the worse. Freedom of speech is fine for speech that deserves freedom, but this filth deserves to be stamped out.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/26, 9:10am)

Post 45

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 9:23am

Clarence,

So you would suggest that the action itself is not what establishes criminality, but instead the written intent to commit the action, or an apparent sanction (in the case of the bin Laden t-shirt) of the action?

Referring back to Glenn's question in Post #41, isn't your written intent to commit a violent act, given that such is legally criminal, (even though it may be morally, "legal") enough to validate preemptive action against you in the name of, "self defense?"

The important question, if I understand your position correctly, is where do you draw the line? What exactly qualifies as a threat? Does it matter whether or not the threat is directed at you, precisely? If so, how do you determine whether or not a particular threat is addressed, or should be of concern, to you? Do you have an objective way to determine this or are you comfortable going around beating people up, dropping nukes, violating rights, etc, based upon your generalizations and estimations - citing YOUR right to life as all the validation you need?

MCD

Post 46

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 9:50am

Mr. Marotta,

To be honest, I am as yet unable to decipher when you are joking and when you are serious. I don't know you well enough to know the difference, so I'll assume for the moment that you were serious. I ask your forgiveness for questioning otherwise, if you were.

Though I don't know why you bother getting into pen names, I've read somewhere that Ms. Rand did not draw her choice of name from the Remington-Rand typewriter she used, but I'm sure Ms Branden would be a better source of information in this regard.

You appear to have drawn your complete evaluation of Atlas from the actions of Ragnar, and the "blackout" in NYC caused by Galt toward the end of the book. I'm not exactly sure why Rand felt it necessary to include the use of those actions, so I agree with your assessment of those particular actions as, "terrorism" though I don't particularly recall use of blackmail by any of the, "heroes." To me, the actions of Ragnar, as well as the NYC blackout were completely superfluous and demeaning to the cause itself. Merely refusing to continue to produce, that is withdrawing themselves and the products of their efforts to Galt's Gulch, was the sincere catalyst of the stoppage of the, "world's motor" and I believe was Ms. Rand's sincere, intended message.

You suggest that Objectivists claim to possess superlative knowledge of epistemology and metaphysics, giving rise to their right to act preemptively to protect themselves...then you go on to suggest that preemptive action is necessary in the form of free-speech restriction, which I can only assume is based upon some sort of superior epistemological/metaphysical knowledge you possess which would dictate that such is necessary.

MCD

Post 47

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 9:57am

Marcus, its all depends on the $$$.

Good answer!

Matthew,

I don't think that you are arguing about censorship anymore, but when self-defence is appropriate. Clarence already clearly stated that he does not support censorship.

Michael,

The idea of this violent, purient "literature" being sold openly certainly does violate anyone's sense of decency.

Are you having one of your turns again?

Why do you contribute to discussions on this "objectivist" site if you think that way? Are you just gloating with some superior sense of self-satisfaction? Do we amuse you?

Post 48

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:02am

Marcus,

If wearing a bin Laden t-shirt amounts to a sanction of evil and declaration of intent to murder, which in turn gives rise to preemptive action, both legally and morally, against the person who wears it, that is quite effectively restriction of free-speech.

It basically amounts to saying, "Well, you can say whatever you want, sure...just know that doing so may give us legal grounds to kill you or otherwise violate your rights."

MCD

Post 49

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:14am

Marcus,

I�m not among those whose sanctioned Michael�s post 44, because it isn�t funny enough.

He�s joking. He�s saying Rand�s works contain violence, and threats and sex and all the things that could get it censored if censorship is allowed and gets out of hand.

Jon

Post 50

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:21am

Matthew Diehl: "Sarchasm" is the gulf between the humorist and the reader. My point was that if we are to outlaw "terrorist" literature, then there is no stopping the process. As for the rest, as you study more about Objectivism you will find the answers.

Marcus: I do not understand what you do not understand.

Jon: Not funny enough? You cut me to the quick, sir.

Post 51

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:59am

Micheal,

I acknowledge the, "sarchasm" in this case...though I'd attribute such equally to my not knowing you well enough to know your style, and your style being a bit vague.

"As for the rest, as you study more about Objectivism you will find the answers."

To which, "rest" are you referring?

MCD

Post 52

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:39am

I'm not sure this thread is where it's most apropos, but I really enjoyed the facetious call for banning Rand's dangerous literature.

Post 53

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 4:15pm

Matthew,

If wearing a bin Laden t-shirt amounts to a sanction of evil and declaration of intent to murder...

Clarence was trying to illustrate with this example, how he would respond if he believed someone were going to attack him. The T-shirt example (I think) was just symbolic.

Everyone,

Should terrorist propaganda be legal if it gives moral and technical support to murderers?

A direct incitement to imminent violence or murder is illegal whether it is done in public or private. Does anyone here agree or disagree with that law?

Micheal,

Fiction doesn't count.

Post 54

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 4:58pm

I think Michael hit the nail on the head in post 44. There are several ideological justifications for mass murder that remain in print to this day, Mein kamph, the communist manifesto, and various others. Are they evil? Yes. Are there non-violent individuals who hold these ideas sacred and if pressed MAY act on them, but to ban their release would simply make them more dangerous and open the door to widespread banning of anything someone in power may deem threatening.

It also works in the same manner as banning non-violent crime. Think about your corner liquor store, basically a safe place, they probably have some bullet proof glass and maybe a gun for self protection, because they tend to be good targets for quick money and sometimes drunk people can become dangerous. But compare this to an average hard drug deal, two individuals meeting in a hidden location, armed to the teeth, maybe the deal will go down without a hitch, maybe one guy will leave with the drugs and the money and the other will just wind up in a river or a shallow grave somewhere. I'd rather have my potential terrorists debating it peacefully among themselves at area businesses than the material only making it into the hands of people ready to act on it.

---Landon

Post 55

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 6:35pm

"Should terrorist propaganda be legal if it gives moral and technical support to murderers?"

Well if the would-be murderer is smart enough he could find technical support just about anywhere including standard University reference books like Vogel's encyclopedias of organic and inorganic chemistry. Then there is the The Anarchist Cookbook etc. And even if the murderer wasn't smart enough to read he could always just drop these tomes on someone's head and I'm sure that that would be almost as lethal as having to study Vogel in preparation for an exam...

So I agree that such publications shouldn't be censored. However, I don't see any reason why the possession of or the authoring of terrorist propaganda shouldn't be count towards the "reasonable cause" evidence used to obtain a search- or a arrest-warrant or permission to place listening devices & cameras in your Mosque...

I mean if you announce your intention to kill Americans, why shouldn't said Americans be able to stick you under a microscope and see what makes you tick?

Consider that if the Police had used the demented internet-ravings of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as evidence that these two fruit cakes were up to something, then maybe the Police might have discovered their plot to blow up Columbine High and put a stop to it.

Post 56

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 7:02pm

Matthew for the last time...First of all, Marcus is right, the t-shirt is just one thing. Thats why I brought up the example of that guy at my high school. But basically you asked whats the line and Landon just pointed it out. There are several reasons why I could buy a copy of "Mein Kumpf" (yeah right) and a perfeftly justifiable one is anagalous to "know your enemy." On the other hand, there are zero good reasons I'd wear a bin ladan shirt at an anti-american protest. In any event, I don't want censorship in the first place so its a moot point. I want you to wear that shirt so I know who you are and can respond appropriately.

As for the intent and the immediacy of the issue, look at it this way. Say you're accross the table from me, declare your intent to kill me, and start loading a gun. Of course I'd have the right to shoot you first (if you don't get that, I don't know what to tell you). Now say you're accross town and you go on the radio and say you're going to kill every nigger in this city. How would I be any less justified in again trying to shoot you first? If I believe your intent it crediable, then I of course have every right to defend myself. And that is even more pressing if you AREN'T accross the table from me cause you can do it anytime and I won't be ready. I HAVE to go out looking for you if I want to protect myself the best.

Post 57

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 7:32pm

Micheal,

Fiction doesn't count.

I'm sure Galileo would've taken great comfort in that when they were torturing him for presenting his astronomical theories in a work of fiction.

---Landon

Post 58

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 2:55am

I think Robert got it right, too. If I write in my diary "I will kill this stupid math teacher sometime!" and my diary falls into the hands of a man who gets it to print. The printed edition should not be censored. However, the police has any right to act on these words and look into the matter, whether I am really about to kill my math teacher.

That's only fair, but it is totally different to censor my words or to prove me guilty only because of my words and not due to my deeds.

Post 59

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:56am