Biden to cancel $39B in student debt

@athousandyoung said
Van Gogh’s Starry Night is a subjective view of a man sitting in an insane asylum hallucinating a village and LSD like effects in the sky. I think YOU are missing the point…unless your point is to emphasize the irrational, delusional and inconsistent with reality content of the artwork in question.

@wajoma said
So we agree. As the person that thinks their 10 year old niece can paint better sky's than Van Gogh missed the point of the painting, you missed the point of Atlas Shrugged and the motor.

Wajoma you remind me of those radical capitalists who love to reference Adam Smith but never actually read it and get all flustered when they find out that Smith believed that

https://political-economy.com/adam-smith-government/comment-page-1/

(Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 1, Part 3).

The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain.

Perhaps one of the most important ideas being communicated in Rand's work is that the actions of self-proclaimed morally superior conservatives do not reflect their lofty vocalizations; that they are hypocrites who talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Wajoma, what is your interpretation of Howard Roark selling his property to someone else and then vandalizing it afterwards? I'm of course referring to his terroristic dynamite demolition of land and buildings he had sold to someone else because he disapproved of what the buyer did with his newly purchased property. Is that how property transactions should occur in a moral, civilized legal system? Roark is clearly presented as the hero - the ultimate in human moral perfection - in that novel.

You have studied The Fountainhead...right?

@athousandyoung said
Perhaps one of the most important ideas being communicated in Rand's work is that the actions of self-proclaimed morally superior conservatives do not reflect their lofty vocalizations; that they are hypocrites who talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Wajoma, what is your interpretation of Howard Roark selling his property to someone else and then va ...[text shortened]... mate in human moral perfection - in that novel.

You have studied The Fountainhead...right?

@wajoma said
Thought that was fairly obvious to anyone that has read the book, they broke the contract. There was an agreement about how the buildings should be built, that did not happen so the contract was voided. I read it, not studied it.

There are dozens of vids online about builders tearing up the work they've done because clients did not honor their side of the bargain, usually ...[text shortened]... of the story would have been let dishonest people walk all over you, some people prefer it that way.

I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building superseded all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it."

https://c4sif.org/2022/04/on-the-fountainhead-as-ip-terrorism-i-designed-cortlandt-i-gave-it-to-you-i-destroyed-it/

Now let’s stop and think about the message that Rand – via Roark – is trying to convey here. Roark did not own the land Cortlandt was built on, nor any of the materials used in its construction. Roark possessed no tangible property rights here. But he claims that his intangible rights in Cortlandt’s design make him the true owner.

Except for one thing: Roark wasn’t the designer of Cortlandt! The whole impetus for Roark’s actions was that the design was altered – “disfigured” – from the plans he gave to Keating. But the actual Cortlandt wasn’t Roark’s design. It was an amalgamation of Roark’s design and whoever made the alterations. But Roark has no more claim to “intellectual property” in Cortlandt’s design than Keating or anyone else involved with the design.

Then there’s the matter of Roark’s verbal contract with Keating. Roark claims his “payment” for services rendered was seeing Cortlandt built exactly to his design. Since Keating didn’t own Cortlandt any more then Roark, however, such a promise is meaningless. A superior, rational man like Roark should have known this. And even if Cortlandt had been built according to the Roark design, what about future changes made by the owners? If the design is altered five years after Cortlandt opens, can Roark come in one night, demand the evacuation of all tenants, and dynamite the place then?

@athousandyoung said in every legal sense.

@wajoma said
You're on the cusp. Keep trying.

@athousandyoung said

https://c4sif.org/2022/04/on-the-fountainhead-as-ip-terrorism-i-designed-cortlandt-i-gave-it-to-you-i-destroyed-it/

Now let’s stop and think about the message that Rand – via Roark – is trying to convey here. Roark did not own the land Cortlandt was built on, nor any of the materials used in its construction. Roark possessed no tangible property rights here. ...[text shortened]... Roark come in one night, demand the evacuation of all tenants, and dynamite the place then?

@wajoma said
He supplied his work on condition it be built the way it was designed. Keating knew that was the condition. If you have a beef go talk to Keating.

@athousandyoung said
You're on the cusp of justifying indigenous terrorism because they "really" own the land.

Who cares who owns the property deed?

@wajoma said
He supplied his work on condition it be built the way it was designed. Keating knew that was the condition. If you have a beef go talk to Keating.

@wajoma said
I thoroughly agree with builders who go to homes and tear up their work when clients do not uphold their end of the deal, written or verbal. The intricacies of contract law, which runs to thousands of pages and has no doubt has changed dozens of times and had hundreds of pages and clauses added to it since 'The Fountainhead' was published is not what is being discussed. It's ...[text shortened]... yet another sign I'm wasting my time, which I acknowledge most of posting here is, a waste of time.

Objectivism in action?

https://www.newsweek.com/video-shows-contractor-destroying-his-own-work-sledgehammer-over-payment-dispute-1630990

"This is my property. I have receipts for everything," the man says as he points at the woman recording the video. The woman replies again that she understands and the contractor starts violently hammering at the tile and yelling "no you f***ing don't."