Applied Philosophy Online .com 

Where Ideas Are Brought Down to Earth!

Writings based on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand's most popular novels are Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, which present her philosophy, Objectivism, in vivid characterizations.

  Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, esthetics, and  politics are the five main branches of philosophy that she identifies. Utilizing her methodology, one can be rational about all aspects of life. These essays present my understanding of Objectivism.

Older Essays

This is Your Mind

Independence Day Special 2005

Copyright Issues Statement

Independence Day Special 2011:

 Jesus or Ayn Rand?

Don't Blame Wall Street

Governments and Individual Rights

Anarcho-Capitalism rebuttal

Doctors and Individual Rights

Internet Freedom VS On-line Piracy

Laws Must be Specific to Preserve Freedom

To Students of Objectivism

Kant as Founder of Modern Art

Thinking in Terms of Principles

The Purpose of Art

On Objectivity -- The Method of Thought

Applications of Philosophy

Happiness by a Proper Standard

Morality and War

Induction and Anarchism

Immigration and Applied Egoism

Independence Day 2012:

  Losing the Battle

On Civil Society

Batman and Justice

Paul Ryan and Objectivism

Philosophy in the Workplace

Articulating Freedom

The Argument for Freedom

Psycho-epistemology

Black Friday Special, The Morality of Profit

Intellectual Property Rights

How The Internet Works

Carnegie Museum of Art and Natural History

The Morality of Copyrights and Patents

Justice

Freedom of Speech -- a Sacred Right

Objective Value

Teleological Measurements

Induction

Causality

Cognition

Ayn Rand as a Moral Hero

Moral Integrity

On Dualism

Protest NSA Spying

The Objectivist Trilogy

The DIM Hypothesis

Tolerance and DIM

Individual Rights

How We Know

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laws Must be Specific to Preserve Freedom

By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

01/21/2012

 

In light of the recent controversy regarding SOPA and PIPA (PROTECT IP), I think I need to say something about the necessity of the law being specific in every regard with a primary focus on protecting individual rights. A law that is specific is considered an objective law. For example, if a law was written that says one must pay royalties to the producer of a digitized work if one is going to use said product as background music for a posted video, and the remedies / fines / royalties are spelled out in the law, then this law would be an objective law. One might disagree with the specifics, but so long as the law is clearly stated, then one knows what one is in for in using someone elses copyrighted work as part of ones own creation. On the other hand, if the law is vague and non-specific regarding the penalties for violations, then it is open to interpretation by the government and / or bureaucrats, making the country one of men instead of laws. Such laws are called non-objective laws.  I see this as the primary problem with SOPA and PIPA (PROTECT IP). Neither law spells out the specific violation of copyright usage or what the legal remedies are for making a violation. Some are of the legal opinion that the law would then revert to more specific laws already on the books i.e. current copyright laws but this is not a necessity of poorly written laws. If a law is open to interpretation, then the government is granted the power to do whatever they want to do such as appointing a Congressional subcommittee or an Internet Czar that would have the sole power to regulate the internet for content and usage of copyrighted material.  If we are to continue to have free speech on the internet, then this sort of power granted to the government must be avoided.

Remember when ObamaCare was being debated in Congress before it was being voted upon and Nancy Pelosi said that we wont know what is in it until it passes? In other words, she and her cohort wanted unlimited power over the medical profession, and since the law was vague enough, they basically got it. This is evil as doctors and others in the medical profession would have no idea of what is legal and what is illegal as they practice their profession. Similarly, if SOPA and PIPA (PROTECT IP) are passed in their current form, then unlimited power would be granted to the government to regulate internet usage and content, including links to other content on the internet because the laws do not specify that what the want to stop is internet piracy of copyrighted material and ungranted permission to use copyrighted material [02/04/2012: at least my reading of the bills do not make it that clear and what level of violations would lead to an internet delist order]. Effectively, the bureaucrats would have taken over the internet*.  While this is not specified in the proposed laws, their very vagueness would necessitate someone to interpret the law, which means a bureaucracy would be formed to regulate the internet.

If law makers cannot not be specific as to what is legal and what is illegal, then anything goes and the first thing to go would be freedom of speech on the internet. Neither law says that one would have to get governmental permission before posting something, but effectively the vagueness of the law would lead to that necessity.

For more information on non-objective law, I would recommend reading the entries under non-objective law on the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/law,_objective_and_non-objective.html

 

* 02/21/2012: I don't mean to imply that SOPA or PIPA were directly like ObamaCare in the explicit legal mandate to have bureaucracy take over the internet. My concern is more the idea that since the laws were not specific for minimum violations that would trigger the law and non-specific regarding punishments for not obeying the law, and were very intricately tied to current intellectual property laws, that are tied to other laws, etc. that this would be very difficult to enforce in a consistent manner, which would probably give rise to a bureaucracy to make those decisions. After all, someone has to interpret vague laws, so it would either be a judge or a bureaucracy -- and our government makes it a point to have bureaucrats these days.

 

 

Matt Sissel Fine Art

Need a poem or a short story written for a special occasion or to commemorate one?

Drop me a line and we can talk terms!

Click here for examples

Be sure to check out the essays dedicated to applying Objectivism

to a wide variety of topics

 

All rights reserved, entire contents of web site.

Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

tmiovas@appliedphilosophyonline.com

disclaimers

 

If you are interested in following my writing, check back periodically or hit me up on FaceBook

 

 

 

 

Objectivist related book reviews on amazon.com

 

Proud to be an Objectivist -- one who follows Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism: I've earned it.