So, as you probably know by now the new iPhone has some sort of problem when you hold it a certain way. Apple has apparently been telling people that they’re just holding it incorrectly.

Now, I have no special love or hate for Apple.  I think their products have a really nice design and their user interfaces work well for lots of people.  I think I might get a Mac for my next laptop.

But I have to say I was pretty peeved with Apple’s response here.

As a rule, one does not design for how one wishes users would behave, but for how users really or are likely to behave.

It’s a phone!  Guess what. A WHOLE LOT of people are going to hold the phone by gripping each side.  Even Steve Jobs holds it like that sometimes.

So, don’t tell your users they’re doing it wrong.  Design your product around your customers instead.

I listened to the Stuff You Should Know podcast about oil spills a while ago and ever since I’ve been telling people that the BP Oil Spew in the Gulf really isn’t anywhere close to the largest oil spill in history.  People always raise a skeptical eyebrow to me, but check this out:

That doesn’t make it any less tragic or devastating to the people who live in the Gulf, I know, but if you were judging the size of the spill by the amount of press coverage, you’d definitely get a different impression.

I saved this from FFFFound, but if you know the original source, I’d love to link to it.  (It kind of looks like an infographic from Wired Magazine to me, but I couldn’t find it in the quick few searches I did.)

Update: Commenters have provided the source of this graphic, so do note that the author has pointed out that it is no longer accurate/up-to-date since he created it.

“Email,” “e-mail,” or “electronic mail.”  Which do you prefer?

The debate about the NYC mosque has been raging for some time now, but it seems like Dr. Peikoff’s remarks from last night were gasoline to a fading ember.  Vitriolic comments on both sides of the debate have blazed across blogs and social networks.  I have yet to fully articulate my arguments against Dr. Peikoff’s position on the matter and I’m not sure I will do so publicly.  Dr. Diana Hsieh has been doing a good job of it in my opinion.

What I’d like to talk about is a pretty specific issue related to online debates.  A lot of awful, silly, stupid things happen when people debate ideas online, but the issue I’m concerned about right now is cowardice in those discussions.

Cowardice is an antonym of courage, which is a manifestation of integrity.  Here’s a brief excerpt from Tara Smith’s book Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist:

An additional practical requirement of integrity is courage. Courage is a matter of acting on behalf of one’s values in especially dangerous or fearful circumstances.  [...] Several philosophers have described courage in ways that are broadly similar to this. James Wallace classifies courage with virtues that reflect a “positive capacity for acting rationally when certain motives are apt to incline us to do otherwise” and holds that the function of courage “is to preserve practical reasoning and enable it to issue in action.” (p192 – 194)

It’s a really good book. I recommend the whole thing.

Online cowardice may manifest in a number of ways, but the one that I find most obnoxious is casting aspersions and insinuations about another behind their back.  And by “behind their back” I mean doing so in ways that they are unlikely or unable to see.  The specific example I would cite is Facebook because I’ve been a victim of this dishonorable behavior recently.

Ed Cline commented last Friday at 8:24pm as follows:

Also, because Ari Armstrong decided to make his disagreement over the Ground Zero mosque public (through an article on his site, and featured in the Objectivist Roundup), I’ve defriended him, and fortunately was never “friends” with Ben Bayer, who has apparentlydeleted his comments from this page. I think it’s significant that for all the well-received commentaries I’ve had published on censorship, including the Big Journalism piece, nothing of mine was included in this month’s Objectivist Roundup. Was this an oversight, or an instance of snubbing? Only Trey Givens knows for sure.

I didn’t know he commented thus and he didn’t reach out to me with his concern.  I was alerted to the remark by a friend.

As soon as I saw it, I was embarrassed.  I wouldn’t have weeded Mr. Cline out of the round up because I disagree with him on that.  ”Clearly, I made a mistake,” I thought.  I checked the code of the post to see if maybe his post got commented out whilst I was tweaking the HTML. Nope.  I checked the email from which I received the HTML.  Nope.  I checked all the submission alerts I’d received from the Blog Carnival system. Nope.  I asked Jenn Casey, the administrator of the carnival, to check.  Nope.

It looked to me like Mr. Cline was mistaken about having submitted a post for the round up, so then I was stuck with a conundrum: Should I comment on his post?  I mean, he insinuated that I had engaged in some rather shameful prejudice against him without, in my opinion, just cause and without even telling him I was doing so!  That would have been very shameful and cowardly.

But the reality is that Mr. Cline was neither overlooked nor snubbed.  He should know about it!  And my name should be cleared of that!

But if I commented in the offending chain, my remark may have fueled Ed’s ire over the issue.  I decided the correct course of action was to contact him privately.

As it turns out, Mr. Cline was ignorant as to how posts get entered into the carnival.  (Yes, multiple emails are sent out to the Obloggers’ lists and Twitter announcements and Facebook updates, etc.  But I don’t presume to think everyone is paying attention to me as much as I pay attention to me.  He honestly didn’t know.)  He just didn’t submit anything.

Generously, I offered to not only update the carnival post, but create a subsequent post calling special attention to his blog.  All I asked is that he post some public statement retracting the insinuation against my character.  He agreed.  And I kept up my end of the bargain here and here.

He said that he posted a correction, but I watched the offending comment thread, but didn’t see Ed post any update.  Today, I commented on my own to set the record straight.  Ed deleted that comment.  When I pressed him again for a correction, he said he posted one, but he hasn’t provided me with a link so I can see it and I can’t seem to find it. (If anyone else finds it, I would appreciate it.)

But even in his ignorance over how the blog carnival works, why didn’t he reach out to me if it was an item of concern?

In watching his Facebook wall for my promised correction, I noticed that a lot of Mr. Cline’s friends were commenting about how bad Diana is and about how she was rude and mean for calling people names.  Check out this comment thread on his wall.

Mr. Cline himself describes her argument as a rationalization while others call it an equivocation.  Others insinuate that Diana is a hypocrite because while she said someone is a jerk. So, I felt compelled to comment because Diana apologized to Mr. Cline and the folks on his wall.  She even admitted her fault on her wall.  So, I commented pointing out that it’s not just to comment on Diana’s conduct in that way behind her back, particularly conduct about which she has admitted was wrong and apologized.  I argued that if one has an issue with what she says, then one ought to bring their concerns to her.  Mr. Cline’s friends, Mr. Grant Jones in particular, disagreed with particularly rude remarks.

Mr. Cline and his friends on Facebook have stated repeatedly that they feel no obligation to try to change Diana’s mind on this or any other issue.  And I agree that no such obligation exists so long as one harbors no desire to spread the right ideas or fuel a substantive, productive discussion on the issues.

Now, I will be the first to admit: I am prone to a hot temper and some down-right obnoxious behavior, particularly in these online debates.  So, I’m not making this complaint with the suggestion that I have the most polished manners in the world.  (You might think so with as frequently as a berate people for being uncivil.)  But one thing I never do is go behind someone’s back.  Even when I complete this post, it will send out trackbacks to blogs, get posted to Twitter and Facebook.

Some argue that because some people’s Facebook walls are open to the public that it constitutes an open remark to which the victim might respond.  Unfortunately, I can’t comment on Mr. Cline’s wall even though he wrote this about me:

Trey Peden: I would appreciate it you posted no more comments on my page or wall here. You as much as called Grant Jones, a history and military history scholar, a liar and a fool. I am deleting your remarks here because I have grown weary of reading them.

Point of fact, I did not call Grant Jones a liar or a fool.  I suggested that he is willfully uninformed (he did flatly refuse to go check out Diana’s wall where she admits the fault for which she was being accused of hypocrisy, though) and that he is a coward because he claimed such deep concerns about Diana’s conduct but refused to air those grievances where Diana might see and be able to address them directly.

To Mr. Cline’s credit, he did delete Mr. Jones’ comments along with mine including the implication of a threat that Mr. Jones posed when I called him a coward. (Note to all: I do not believe Mr. Jones was really threatening me. I ired him with my remarks and provoked him into his remark.  I am fairly certain — just because I can’t imagine anyone like Mr. Jones behaving this way — that he would not do violence toward me.  But I do want Diana to notice that I just might have a reason for dueling after all!)

Diana may be used to this sort of conduct because she has far more visibility than I do in the online community, but I am not.  I’m really shocked by it.

I’m shocked that someone for whom I used to hold such respect like Mr. Cline would permit and condone by his silence and his actions this sort of dishonorable behavior.  Even though he deleted a number of the offending comments, he didn’t delete them all.

I do also want to be clear: while I do regard it as cowardly to talk about someone behind their back as these people did and as one Froi Vinci did in my comments and on my Facebook wall this morning, I do want to point out that in these cases the moral failing is rather minor on the parts of these individuals.  It is easy enough for them to correct their actions by either apologizing or going to the person and say, “Hey, I’m talking shit about you over here in case you’d like to argue with me.”

I just don’t think it’s right to complain about one person’s behavior when that one person has made themselves available and open for such complaints.

Of course, I also think it’s bad form to have those arguments on someone else’s wall — like I did to Mr. Cline today — but sometimes that’s the only recourse you have.

I guess all this lament amounts to is this: It really sucks how bad this discussion over this stupid mosque has gotten.  I think people like Ed Cline and Dr. Peikoff have a point to make that should be carefully considered, but that consideration is swept away in remarks like “You don’t understand Objectivism” and “You’re rationalizing and equivocating” and “I’m vindicated now.”

It seems we’re all due for a deep breath and a refresher on our manners.  It would help if we, Objectivists, granted as much benefit of the doubt to one another as we are due — after all, isn’t rationality one of the virtues we all claim to value?

I’m actually dreading OCON a little bit now because this issue has become such a to-do.

UPDATE: Please see comments.  Much thanks to DJ Fleming for finding Mr. Cline’s correction.

Update 2: added link to explain dueling joke.

I like things to be written out better than listening, so here’s a transcription of Dr. Peikoff’s response to the question on the NYC mosque.

A question I’ve been asked a number of times: What do you think of the plan for a mosque in New York City near Ground Zero? Isn’t it private property and therefore protected by individual rights and no one has a right to interfere?

Now, I don’t take concrete political issues like this, but in this case it is an issue of such ramifications that I just can’t ignore it.  I also am going to lie to or deceive you in this way: not in the content of what I say, but in the manner. left to my own devises, I would be enraged and spout off all the way through my answer on the wickedness of the people who believe this or the non-knowledge of the people who agree with them.  But I asked for questions and therefore if I take it, well, nobody forced me, I gotta be calm, just as if it was any other question.  So, do not let my manner deceive you as to my opinion, my evaluation.

Let’s start with property rights.  Property rights are limited and they are contextual.  You cannot do anything you want with property even though it is yours, not if its ramifications objectively entail a threat to the rights of others. You can’t build a bomb in your home. You can’t even build a big bonfire in your backyard legitimately because the principle of rights is that property rights are a derivative of life as the standard and there can be no right to threaten anyone’s life nor indeed to threaten anyone’s property. Second, rights are contextual. In any situation where metaphysical survival is at stake all property rights are out. You have no obligation to respect property rights. The obvious, classic example of this is,  which I’ve been asked a hundred times, you swim to a desert island — you know, you had a shipwreck — and when you get to the shore, the guy comes to you and says, “I’ve got a fence all around this island. I found it. It’s legitimately mine. You can’t step onto the beach.” Now, in that situation you are in a literal position of being metaphysically helpless. Since life is the standard of rights, if you no longer can survive this way, rights are out. And it becomes dog-eat-dog or force-against force.  Now, don’t assume that any unsatisfied need therefore puts you in this metaphysical category. For instance, you are very poor and you are hungry. Well, you need feed. But in a capitalist society, even in a mixed economy, that is not a metaphysical deprivation. There’s always all sorts of choices and ways in a free society for you to gain food. Always.

Now, let’s apply apply this to the foreign relations issue.  The context today is that we are at war and not a cold one. A real one. We are facing widespread terrorism sponsored by a number of governments with tremendous popular backing in virtually every Mid-East Islamic country. Even Turkey, the one priding itself on its secularism, has now gone Islamic.  Now, the United States’ response, the western response to this is a continuation of the appeasement that was started back in the ’50s with Eisenhower when Iran seized western oil companies. The Americans, the British, and the Israelis, as I remember, launched an attack to try to reclaim it and — or at least the British and the Israelis did and Eisenhower vetoed it. Since that point there’s more and more and more craven appeasement by the west and across 50 year the audacity and scope of outrage of the Islamic world — I mean by that, the activists, the militants, the terrorists, and their countless followers — the have continually upped the deaths, the assaults, the horror, while the US has continually upped its appeasement — of course, the appeasement includes the pretense of a war which consists of bombing empty fields and letting innocent American soldiers be slaughtered because we mustn’t harm the lampposts or the people down the street.  The government under this present individual is not even allowed to use the word “terrorist” anymore, let alone suggest that Muslims are involved.  He’s just continuing Bush’s policy. Bush’s first speech after 9/11  was that “of course, Islam and Islamics and people who believe in Islam have nothing whatever to do with it  It’s just a tiny lunatic fringe.” And so Bush had a non-policy in the same way Obama does and since there’s no enemy — it’s correct that “terrorist” is a stupid word because terror is a tactic. It’s not an idea. So we have no identified enemy and no war, nothing except – and you notice if anything happens, anything at all that would suggest — some kind of violent act — the first thing the authorities say is that, “It’s not terrorism. It’s not a foreign policy incident.” And when they finally discover, they say, “Well, it’s an exceptional case. We have to investigate. And we have to have a special trial in New York City which will take 13 years. And we have to give him lawyers…” It’s just historically unbelievable that the worse the enemy becomes, the weaker the United States becomes.  Now, it should be obvious that there is no end to this, no final result, and not to far from now in time before there will be Islamic devastation or even take over of a paralyzed United States. Now, I know that seems fantastic and it’s still fantastic today, but ask yourself, in 1990, if you would, what people thought the reaction would be to 9/11 and then what it actually was.  You just project by degrees what’s gonna happen.

Now, the proper reply to the whole evil of terrorism, Islamic Fundmentalism if you want to call it that,  would be to state the right morality firmly — the morality of the founding fathers — declare war on the appropriate state — now that’s a different topic but I would say you have to start with Iran. Give notice and bomb Tehran as a beginning — but, we can’t do that.  But right now the question is: What should we do in this case?

Now, my view in this context, any objective sign — not what could be subjectively taken one way or the other, but any objective sign sign of our weakness, it is immoral and catastrophic for Americans to permit it insofar as they could stop or weaken the effort to it.  And the mosque is absolutely a textbook example of this.  There is only one objective message.

Now, let me give you an analogy if it’s not self-evident. Japanese strike pearl Harbor. We declare war. Japan, the Japanese, are then given a large spread of land in Pearl Harbor to build a temple celebrating — I don’t care what. The Japanese superiority or Shinto peacefulness or — I don’t care what.  Now, if you can even conceive of that as justified because of “property rights,” then I say you haven’t a clue what property rights, or individualism, or Objectivism is saying.  Because what permitting that amounts to is “Roll over. Kick me. Kill me. I have nothing to say.”

If someone down the street lobbied grenades into your harm which you were renting. And the police wouldn’t do a thing. And you fled. And he buys the property and builds the Church of Home Bombing on your land. Would you say, “Oh! Well, it’s his. It’s his property.” And don’t think that’s a false analogy.

Now some of you are going to ask, “Well but this is unfair to the Muslims that are innocent. You’re talking about how we should deal with the terrorists.” And I say that’s irrelevant.  Even if there were innocent Muslims involved in this mosque, the alternative we have is their right to property versus our right to survive as the only property defender left in the west. And there can be no question about what the proper choice is here.

I don’t, by the way, believe that the great majority of Muslims are innocent. I think they are passive because it is very rare to hear any anti-terrorist voice. There are some, but very rare to hear… There’s nothing to suggest a “schism” within the Islamic movement, so I don’t even consider that. Plus, I add that what I’ve said in the past shows here we have to go by probability which is not collective judgment.  I’ve talked, in the past, shows why it is legitimate for New York taxi drivers, black and white, to hesitate and refuse to accept fairs going into Harlem, so you can check that out.

Now, I can’t resist taking a second with regard to this issue of the Ground Zero mosque.  I want to read you two quotes without comment from the New York Post of when? June 19th. This year.

The imam behind plans to build a controversial Ground Zero mosque yesterday refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. “The issue of terrorism is a very complex question,” he told our interviewer.

I have no more to say about “what about the innocent muslims.”

Now if you ask me, in conclusion, “Well, what, then should properly be done?” Obviously war, but I mean in regard to this issue I would say:  Any way possible permission should be refuse and if they go ahead and build it, the government should bomb it out of existence, evacuating it first, with no compensation to any of the property owners involved in this monstrosity. You know, a nice little example would be Howard Roark is relevant here.

I want to just conclude by saying that I’m doing these podcasts for nothing but the enjoyment of talking to young people about important issues. I am not here to have a heart attack, so please don’t send me any more questions like this. I will not answer them.  Thank you.

OTHER PERSON: Dr. Peikoff has asked me to state, in case anyone misinterpreted, that the blowing up of a building mentioned near the end is an action, which like all foreign policy issues, can properly be taken by a government.  He in no way suggests or condones private action in this issue.

UPDATE:

• Here’s a link to the NY Post article he quoted. Note, the exact quote from the online version of the Post currently reads:

The imam behind plans to build a controversial Ground Zero mosque yesterday refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization.

[...]

“The issue of terrorism is a very complex question,” he told interviewer Aaron Klein.

The differences between what Dr. Peikoff read as I transcribed it and what this says  may be attributed to variations between the print and online versions or even errors on my part in transcribing the message.

• Does anyone know where I can find his comments about taxis going to Harlem?

This evening, Dr. Peikoff posted in his podcast his thoughts about whether the government should intervene in the construction of the mosque near Ground Zero here in NYC. He made it clear in no uncertain terms that he supports government intervention and that if you oppose this, then you do not understand Objectivism.  He even says, “The government should bomb it out of existence — evacuating it first — without any compensation to the property owners.”

In spite of what people may conclude from my brief, humorous post on the location of the mosque, I do not support building a mosque. Anywhere.  I also do not support the building of churches, synagogues, or any other buildings dedicated to the practice of mysticism.  But I do not support government intervention to prevent people from building such buildings if they so choose.

So, on the issue of this mosque, it is my opinion that folks can voice their objections, but the decision is ultimately up to the property owners.

My opinion on this would change if the organization building this mosque where Al Qaeda or Hamas; a known terrorist group. Or if there were some evidence that the group behind it were actually plotting some sort of criminal act.  But that’s not the case and so I cannot agree with Dr. Peikoff here.

Dr. Peikoff says in his comment that if I disagree, then I don’t understand Objectivism.  I’m fine with that.

I do not subscribe to Objectivism so that I might call myself an Objectivist.  I call myself an Objectivist because I agree with all that I know and understand about Objectivism.  Part of that understanding is that I make up my own mind about these things.  Dr. Peikoff can think whatever he likes about things, but his thoughts are not mine.  I will not accept an argument from authority.

All I can say is that I will re-listen to the podcast and re-consider what he says and see if I agree.  At present, I do not.

Yesterday, Shea, Qwertz, and I got into a discussion about why you can’t sign away your rights.

It started because Shea remarked on how broad the terms of service on Pandora are.  In his view, it would prohibit him from suing them if they deliberately and maliciously put some virus or something on his computer.  (Note: Qwertz reviewed the terms of service and found that it did not limit their liability in that way, so if Pandora does deliberately harm your computer, you may have grounds to sue.) Well, I remarked on how outrageous and even ludicrous it would be if Shea’s interpretation were correct and I happened to make the cast-off comment, “You can’t sign away your rights.”

I made this comment because in my view just because you agree to the terms of service for Pandora does not mean that you agree to allow them to destroy your property.  You go to Pandora to load their player and listen to the music they serve up.  If they accidentally hurt your computer in the process, that’s one thing.  But if they deliberately set out to blow up their users’ computers, then that is something quite different. I see it as at least fraud of some sort if not some sort of electronic vandalism.

Anyway, Shea said he didn’t quite understand why you couldn’t sign away your rights and so we launched into a stuttering, 140-character discussion of tweets.  I’d link to it, but it’s probably really confusing to read, so I want to discuss the issue here where I have some room to stretch out and folks can comment at length as well.  (I’m particularly interested in Qwertz’s thoughts since he’s all lawyerly and such and Shea’s thoughts because he came up with the creative challenge to the discussion.

First, let’s talk about rights and what they are.  I’ll quote Ayn Rand at length here because the focus of this discussion is not how rights are protected in the current US environment, but how they ought to be protected in an ideal, Objectivist form of government.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 93. [EMPHASIS ADDED]

So, note that by this formulation a “right” is a condition necessary between humans for human survival as humans.  We also see that when we state a particular right, it is in the form of a description of a freedom of a particular action, eg. freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of ownership.

A notable and critical aspect of rights in our discussion as you will see is that rights cannot overlap.  One person’s rights cannot require the abrogation or limitation of another’s rights.  So, if my ability to remain alive is contingent upon me being allowed to consume a bit of your hair every day, then I can survive only at your pleasure.  Should you decide not to allow me to eat some of your hair, then I will die, and I have no proper claim that can compel you to continue providing me with hair to eat.

As an aside, you can see how this fact comes up in Objectivist discussions on abortion.  Even if you could reasonably claim that fetuses are human beings, which I don’t believe you can, we cannot enslave mothers just to keep them alive. That would be perverse.  Not surprisingly, few Christians likely observed the parallel in the Matrix of those robots — arguably alive — who were farming humans for sustenance. I believe the objections to being farmed by robots were universal, and so ought to be objections to forcing mothers to carry babies they don’t want to term.

The foundational right is the right to life, so let’s restate it in more basic terms.  In order for human beings to associate with one another and live as human beings, then they must be free from interference from one another as they sustain their existence.  That is to say, they must not live off of one another.

Humans require the free exercise of their brains to survive, which requires the free expression of their ideas. As we bridge into the physical world from the world of brains mulling over ideas, we can see that humans need to be free to move their person about space.  Hence the freedom of movement.  They need to be able to act to sustain their life biologically, which is protected by your right to your person described in several freedoms.

But the essential right when it comes to the implementation and protection of individual rights is the right to property. This is because when it comes to interacting with other people, that is where we experience them directly and it is within the context of that right that we gain the exercise and protection of the others. Sure, you can speak your mind, but you can only do it in my house with my permission.  Yes, you are free to move about the cabin, so long as I’ve given you permission to do so within my cabin.

Because the rights of one individual cannot interfere with the rights of another individual, individuals must trade if they’d like to gain from that association.  This is why the right to property is expressed as the freedom of trade.  It is your freedom to do with your own property as you please, with the only constraint on that action being the rights/freedoms of others and their property.

In the course of trade, individuals may draw up contracts.  Contracts are really just agreements that are enforceable by the power of the government.  (There are several conditions for determining whether a contract is valid. I’m not going to discuss that because it’s not really necessary to what I’m driving at here and because that could fall into a level of legal knowledge that I simply don’t have. Just read Wikipedia to start.)

One implication of that statement is the fact that there are unenforceable agreements and it is one such agreement that Shea outlined in our discussion yesterday.

Consider a scenario in which I rent my bike to Shea for one hour in exchange for punching him in the face five times.  Like, REALLY hard.  So, we agree and maybe we even write this down in the form of a written contract and Shea rides around all happy and stuff for an hour. At the end of the hour, he gives me my bike and stands ready to receive his punches to the face.

Now, if Shea stands there and receives his five really hard punches to the face as he agreed, we really have no issue.  But this contract is not enforceable by the government, so if Shea screams like a little baby and tells me to stop punching him in the face when I have only barely raised my fist, I cannot legally punch him in the face.  If I do punch him in the face anyway, he could bring charges against me and our ridiculous contract would not likely be a help in my defense.

So, Shea’s question is why not?  If we can sign a contract that requires the exchange of money, why can’t we sign a contract that requires the exchange of punches?

The reason is because our contract places our rights in conflict with one another.  In order for me to be “made whole” or have my freedom satisfied, I have to deny Shea of his freedom to not have his face punched in.

By contrast, if we exchange money for renting the bike for an hour, we are mutually exercising the freedom of our property.

So, if we went into court with our contract and I tried to say, “Dear, court. Please make Shea let me punch him in the face. I let him ride my bike for an hour and now he keeps crying like a little baby when I go to punch him per our agreement,” the court would say, “You must be joking me with this.  You expect me to protect your right to your property by violating his right to his person? GTFO.”

The confusion for Shea comes, I think (Shea, please hop in here if I’m wrong on this.), from the following: If property rights are the most basic right when it comes to implementation of individual rights and our right to our person can be seen most clearly by regarding our person as property as well, why can we not exchange persons for property?

We all know that there is a great danger in treating human beings like property.  Some people get confused about persons and property and they suddenly start thinking they can buy and sell human beings.  So, the answer to the question above is how persons and property are distinct.  And persons have rights, property does not.

In a valid contract, such as a bike rental agreement, money is given in exchange for the use of the bike.  Once the bike is ridden, payment is due.  Failure to pay constitutes a violation of my rights because the money in question belongs to me at that point and Shea would merely be keeping me from my property.  The court would step in to get it for me, but they can’t take Shea’s body from him.  Shea is the one with rights and I can’t own him. Shea is Shea.  (hahahahaaa…)

The key distinction for this question in my mind is the simple fact that you cannot dissociate a person from his or her rights, just like there is no mind-body dichotomy.  If it were possible to take my mind from my body and put it in another body, then, sure, we could use bodies as a medium of exchange some times.  But it’s not and it’s unlikely to ever be possible.

One final example: You cannot sign a contract to make yourself a slave for the same reason.  Sure, could sign a paper that says that and you could go along with it for a while, but as soon as you don’t feel like being a slave any more you could walk away.  If I try to keep you from doing that, you could press charges against me for violating your rights.

A lot of people object to the idea of indentured servants claiming that such people are slaves, but that is untrue.  It may be that the agreements have been poorly written and poorly enforced/interpreted by the government, but it is perfectly legitimate to exchange a fixed term of labor in exchange for other property, money, or services, like passage across the ocean. In those situations, if the indentured servant doesn’t want to serve any more, a court should properly calculate the cost of passage, determine how much of the contract has been fulfilled, and tell the servant that they have to pay the balance.  So, if the term of the contract was seven years and the cost of passage is $70 and the servant wants to leave after five years, the court would demand that he pay the balance of $20. ($10 per year.)

Comments welcome!

A few weeks ago, I was on a train back from visiting a friend in Pennsylvania when I saw a family get on and sit in the seats in front of me.  The mom and dad were directly in front of me and there were four children sitting in the seats across the aisle from them.  One of the little girls was wearing her backpack as she slid into the seat.

The dad called out to her, “Take off your backpack,” but she either didn’t hear or acknowledge him, so he repeated his command.

She took her backpack off.

Now, I don’t know all the details of that backpack, but there was no apparent need for the girl to remove her backpack.  I don’t understand why he was so insistent that she take it off.

I don’t understand this style of parenting.  I have an aunt and uncle who parents this way, actually.  They issue streams and litanies of orders and commands.  There’s no clear rationale behind the commands, but you had better obey.

I’m not a parent yet, but I have never understood this particular mentality.  What difference does it make if the child wears her backpack while sitting on the train? If it’s uncomfortable to her, I’m sure she’ll end up taking it off.  If it’s dangerous to her, I fail to see how and I should think an explanation for the child would be warranted in such a situation.

It’s a parent’s job to raise children to be adults and they cannot possibly do this when their behavior is being governed by the whim and will of someone whose authority is apparently derived from the simple fact that they’re bigger.  No, parents need to teach children to be thoughtful and rational about their actions and you cannot possibly do that by edict.

1. Ask the server to allow the lady to order first.
2. Stand when she leaves or arrives at the table.

Diana posted a comment on her Facebook page about how she doesn’t like when Objectivists act/think like conservatives and explains why we should allow a mosque to be established near the World Trade Center site.  I agree with her completely.  It’s ludicrous to me that anyone who claims to support and defend individual rights would protest that some people aren’t allowed to exercise those rights.

But can I tell you what else annoys me about all these people who are all in a tizzy about there being a mosque at the WTC?

IT’S NOT AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER SITE!  IT’S TWO BLOCKS AWAY SO STFU!

Look:

These silly fussbudgets complain, “Ok. It’s not AT the WTC, but it’s close!”

Newsflash: This is NYC.  Everything is close.  Again, please be quiet.

Assholes.

Updates: Removed “supposed” from Objectivists in the first sentence.  Added “/think.” Added bolding. moved “/think” to the right spot.