Anthem

[Cristo Summit]

Hi All:

Just thought I would share some thoughts on this book that I read today. I know that most of you have already read this book so please offer any insights that you feel are important that I am missing.

I have previously read her most famous book, Atlas Shrugged, and wanted to give this one a try for the past three years. It is a rather short book, registering at about 100 pages. The story is about how one might feel under a totally collectivist society, and how one should feel after escaping it. I just want to put a few quotes down that I found interesting throughout the book.

"The laws say that none among men may be alone, ever and at any time, for this is the great transgression and the root of all evil."

This description of the collectivist struck me as the one that most wholly applied to the world today. When I was in England and taking a bus ride, I saw the following sign:



This is the exact thing that Rand was predicting in her book. We may not isolate ourselves from others, we must only live for others. By being unwilling to speak or just being naturally introverted, a person could be investigated. What an abridgment of freedom that is.

"But I still wonder how it was possible, in those graceless years of transition, long ago, that men did not see whither they were going, and went on, in blindness and cowardice, to their fate."

To a certain extent, I think there are people who see that we are giving up a lot of our individual rights in the name of equality. While I would like to say that the tea party represents the culmination of people with that foresight, I think that most of them are blind sheep following their favorite radio personalities. I was listening to NPR a few days ago and heard someone say that tea partiers would rather receive tax cuts than pay down the debt, and I would link to this poll if I could find it. My opinion is that public tax and debts are both slavery, and that until both are eliminated we will always be obligated to work for the benefit of others.

"There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers. That is freedom. That and nothing else."

What an insightful statement!

Rand ends on a bit of hope:

"Through all the darkness, through all the shame of which men are capable, the spirit of man will remain alive on this earth. It may sleep but it will awaken. It may wear chains, but it will break through. And man will go on. Man, not men."

[Kushan]

Is that image a joke of some sort? I certainly hope so O_o

I got the kindle version of anthem recently, will read it the next time I'm bored on a plane or some such.

[Piye Shu]

As the Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) is a civil order, the defendant has no right to evidence that might disprove the assertions of the plaintiff, though violating an ASBO can incur up to five years imprisonment.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... iour_Order

[Cristo Summit]

Kushan, I took that image myself in the Bradford, England interchange. That's where you can transfer from buses to rails. Obviously, it was such a shock that I took a picture. I am American, so seeing such a sign was a wtf experience.

I read the kindle version. It was good quality for the dollar that they charge - I did not see any conversion errors. I have downloaded some free ebooks from Amazon which do not quite transfer over 100%, especially with numbers and symbols like currency signs.

[Kaelan]

re ASBO,
This is a semi-failed policy where rather than imprison or fine a criminal for commiting crimes such as assault, theft or vandalism of private property the courts would just let you off with a warning saying please don't do it again.

Criminals ignore them and thugs treat them as a badge of honour.

[Sylvia Lafayette]

this women broke the ABSO law

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 021185.stm

[Redslay]

this women broke the ABSO law

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 021185.stm

If loud sex is a crime they must execute anyone who caught farting in an elevator while denying the holocaust.

[Oleksandr]

Dear god, yet another reason for me to never step outside of US.

A perfect case where laws based on "the good of society" has to degenerate into its logical conclusion, such as banning noisy sex, lol.

[Kaelan]

Unless its me having fun I think all noisy sex should be band. It get in the way of eve

[Zweet Zen]

If you are too lazy to read or have a long commute here is Anthem for free in audiobook form. The reading is well done,not top quality but well worth the price.
http://librivox.org/anthem-by-ayn-rand/



As for the book,chapter 11 is a strong message of self, and a core of the values that all people should live by. I hope that we wont sink to the level presented in the book,but I fear that the road that we currently walk down will lead us there.

[RoarkRangor]

this women broke the ABSO law

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 021185.stm

I think even in a free society, this woman could get punished by law. It's a matter of property rights. Does she have the right to make loud noises in her own home or does the neighbour has a right to piece and quiet in his own home?

This is not something that can be decided just on principal. Property rights in this area are kind of vague. For example, if you open an airport inside a residential neighbourhood, you would infringe open the property rights of the residents. If you move near an existing airport, the airport has the right to make a lot of noise.

The particular case of the noisy woman, it needs to be decided on a case by case basis. It can for example depend on the loudness of the noise, in a residential neighbourhood it is common to make some noise but you can't open an airport, it can depend on the time, neighbours have the property right of a quiet night,...

If you want to make a lot of noise in your own home, that's ok. But you are not allowed to make so much noise so that you infringe on the property rights of your neighbours. If you still want to make a lot of noise, negotiate something with your neighbours or install better sound proofing.

The basis where I would find making noise illegal, isn't because it is anti-social behaviour, but it's because of property rights. Something the ABSO law misses completely, so I don't agree with that law per se.

[redhotrebel]

If you want to make a lot of noise in your own home, that's ok. But you are not allowed to make so much noise so that you infringe on the property rights of your neighbours. If you still want to make a lot of noise, negotiate something with your neighbours or install better sound proofing.

I disagree, I think it should be on the onus of the person bothered by the sound to sound proof their own home. Also "noise pollution" isn't violating peoples property rights, nothing has been infringed on in any meaningful way. What has been damaged? What has been taken? What objective measurement do you have for what is and is not "loud" or "too loud". I think those questions should be considered before saying that a "right" has been taken or abused by another.

[Nummers]

If you make an obscene amount of noise that bothers multiple neighbors or is above and beyond reasonability you should be expected to tone it down or fix the problem on your end, or be ostracized by the society/neighborhood that you refuse to respect. We don't do enough of that in this country anymore, either saying nothing or passing a law, with no middle ground. Passing laws for things such as this is insane, because we all know how much the enforcement of such a thing by police/bureaucrats would fail. But ignoring assholes that scream through your wall is also fairly absurd. Shame is a valuable tool that our society has lost that should and could resolve situations like these without involving the failure of law of enforcement/legislation.

What's interesting is that even with the idea of upholding individual rights agreed upon by everyone here people disagree on its application in a real world situation like noise pollution. You then see how easy it is for us to get a simple loud majority of soccer moms or whoever in this country get law after law passed that sound sensible to them but absolutely fail in application.

[Yeshmiel]

This is a point of contention with me and some of other the person's views on Objectivism and it's core values. Objectivism seems to be perceived as a ground to disavow the value of the other and Rand even stated "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." The core value of Objectivism is to be responsible for oneself and in that not need a legislative entity to make us do it. Objectivism is not just about personal values but about self moderation and self monitoring and using rational thought to promote an environment that we can pursue our self betterment. It's not called hedonism. Rand's egoism rejects subjectivism. There is a difference between rational self-interest as pursuit of one's own life and happiness in reality, and whim-worship or "hedonism".

A whim-worshiper or "hedonist", according to Rand, is not motivated by a desire to live his own human life, but by a wish to live on a sub-human level. Instead of using "that which promotes my (human) life" as his standard of value, he mistakes "that which I (mindlessly happen to (editted by Yeshmiel i.e. your loud music/sex/fighting) value"

This is the core of my issue with "noise pollution". How is making so much noise that I am intruding on my neighbor justified? Your rights, even according to Objectivism, are to your life and when you put your happiness above the other then you are going from Objectivism to, as Rand would say, "hedonism".

"editted/added" Does this mean I should call or rely on the police to enforce this no? In a truly Objectivist world, which will never happen as humans seem to be unable to self monitor and moderate, people would live in a rational way. But if I can not get the satisfaction that I require on my own I will not hesitate to use what avenues are available to me."

To get to the original post. The sign in England was about anti-social behavior. This does not refer to keeping to oneself but to those who go about and harass and otherwise make a person feel threatened or endangered. Thugs and bullies are placing their happiness above those of others and though I am not one for regulation of much kind and where Rand believes in not sacrificing one's life for another she was not one to abuse her philosophy for her own selfish interest.

[Nummers]

dictionary.com reference for Antisocial:

–adjective
1. unwilling or unable to associate in a normal or friendly way with other people: He's not antisocial, just shy.
2. antagonistic, hostile, or unfriendly toward others; menacing; threatening: an antisocial act.
3. opposed or detrimental to social order or the principles on which society is constituted: antisocial behavior.
4. Psychiatry . of or pertaining to a pattern of behavior in which social norms and the rights of others are persistently violated.

Observe the huge gulf between the first and fourth definition and you see one of the main battlefields we have to wage the war for rationality on: that of language. Rand points out countless ways in which the irrational and simply misguided have claimed words with clear meaning and distorted their perception, and this is a good example of the problem. I tend to believe the message of the billboard is reasonable as antisocial is defined in its original psychological context, and that the word antisocial is incorrectly used by laymans to mean introverted, and unfortunately is now commonly perceived as the same.

With the spread of the internet and as a result the English language (hopefully a global language) its more important than ever that we arm ourselves with an expert understanding to combat ambiguity in words. We have enough of them. 4 definitions ranging from one extreme almost to another is unacceptable.

[Yeshmiel]

You make a very valid point Nummers.

[RoarkRangor]

I disagree, I think it should be on the onus of the person bothered by the sound to sound proof their own home. Also "noise pollution" isn't violating peoples property rights, nothing has been infringed on in any meaningful way. What has been damaged? What has been taken? What objective measurement do you have for what is and is not "loud" or "too loud". I think those questions should be considered before saying that a "right" has been taken or abused by another.

Property right means the right the decide about a property and also to protect the property from physical incursion from others. Sound is not something subjective. Sound is an objective physical phenomena. Hearing sound on your property is not the same as not hearing sound. If someone's sound waves enter your property than this can be considered physical aggression by that person on your property. I think it can be seen as some form of trespassing. If someone walks over your land, he creates a physical presence that is not wanted by the owner. It is of course hard to measure the damage that is caused by the trespassing, but 'hard to measure' does not mean 'not objective'.

So I would argue that sound waves do create a physical presence and thus there are property rights regarding who is the legitimate owner of this presence. These property rights are established in the same way as all other property: homesteading. Eg if you move in a residential neighbourhood, then your neighbours have established the right to make the 'normal' (again a measurement problem but not subjective) amount of sound for a residential neighborhood and they have established the property right to a certain silence. If a dance club opens in the middle of nowhere then is homesteads the right to make noise in its surrounding area. If a dance club opens in a residential neighbourhood, the property right is already homesteaded by the residents and thus the dance club must make sure that the sound that it generates does not leave the property.

[Kaelan]

For info,
Noise comes under enviromental laws. As an engineer I know that noise is harmful, hence the requirement for ear protection at work. I think its fair to say that you should not have a requirement to protect your ears because of actions your neighbours are undertaking.

http://www.environmental-protection.org ... ion/#wa469

[Sir Fury]

Aawww Red.....your Succubbus charms don't seem to be working on the fellas above.

Need a hug.....








p.s.
Of course, nothings free.....

[redhotrebel]

We don't do enough of that in this country anymore, either saying nothing or passing a law, with no middle ground. Passing laws for things such as this is insane, because we all know how much the enforcement of such a thing by police/bureaucrats would fail.

I'm in complete agreement and I should have clarified that in my post- My main concern is with the phrase or thought process that "there ought to be a law..." Which I tend to draw the line at. I just generally assume from previous experience that that is what people tend to mean.

So yes, shaming, boycotting, angry letters, sound proofing- all acceptable forms of coercing your neighbor into being more considerate. However, should that fail, it is still on your onus to protect yourself. I guess to sum it up, that's what courts should be for not laws. Was their damage? What is the extent of the damage? And is it objectively measured (not BS pain and suffering)...

Roark: I understand what you're saying, but I still believe it is ultimately the individuals responsibility to cover their own ears.

[Nummers]

Absolutely redhotrebel, a knee jerk reaction against the "there ought to be a law" rationale is understandable and supported given the current world we live in, and the knowledge that even good laws and policies will inevitably be distorted in their application.

Also there is an objective scientific measurement for sound intensity and experiments that can demonstrate at what point sleep and concentration is affected, so I feel like as long as we didn't lose our heads situations like these could be resolved fairly objectively.

Its very likely that for many people once they realize the muffled noise coming through the wall is another person having sex they decide any sound is 'too loud'

But seriously, how about closing your mouth [insert off color joke] while you're coupling in an apartment building? Relatively quiet sex isn't difficult to achieve. In fact my partners have historically never uttered a sound....

[Petyr Baelich]

But seriously, how about closing your mouth [insert off color joke] while you're coupling in an apartment building? Relatively quiet sex isn't difficult to achieve. In fact my partners have historically never uttered a sound....

You're going to fit right in.

[RoarkRangor]

Roark: I understand what you're saying, but I still believe it is ultimately the individuals responsibility to cover their own ears.

If it is my own responsibility to cover my own ears if faced with noise pollution,

If it is my own responsibility to cover my own ears if faced with extreme noise pollution, for example, sound waves so loud that my house collapses?

is it also my responsibility to my mouth when my neighbour is making sarin gas?

Or in the extreme case is it also my responsibility to wear a bullet proof vest when my property lies just behind my neighbours firing range?

In my opinion these are all physical intrusions by one person on the property of another. The only difference between them is the degree, hearing your neighbours moan is just a small infraction whereas sarin gas is a larger infraction.

So my question to you is:
1) where do you draw the line? Why is it absurd to say 'wear a bulletproof vest when your neighbour is practicing his firearm' and why is it not absurd to say 'wear ear protection'.
2) perhaps there is not only a difference of degree, but also a difference of kind, in which case: i don't see it.

[redhotrebel]

So my question to you is:
1) where do you draw the line? Why is it absurd to say 'wear a bulletproof vest when your neighbour is practicing his firearm' and why is it not absurd to say 'wear ear protection'.
2) perhaps there is not only a difference of degree, but also a difference of kind, in which case: i don't see it.

That's a slippery slope argument and compares apples to oranges. One gets you dead- big difference from being annoyed. If physical harm comes to you (i.e. your ear drums burst) that =/= nuisance.

[Petyr Baelich]

Noise pollution is annoying, however. If your neighbors are making too much noise, you knock on their door politely and lie about doing something important that requires utter silence. If that doesn't work you burn down their house, obviously.