I have to admit, that's one of the few Elijah quotes I do find genuinely funny. You should have picked another one.

EM: I am not some wimpy girlie man who can be gotten the better of from some ignorant illiterate Maori criminal....and the idea that I would shed crocodile tears, seek blood, seek vengence, want a pound of flesh, and go snivelling for justice in a courtroom is simply unthinkable!

I expect everyone reading this post to entirely miss the point I am making...

Well, be fair, Mr Peevish . . . what would an uninformed reader think of the above? Firstly that you equate Maoris with ignorance, criminality and stupidity, secondly that you have the shrunken heart of a misanthrope.

Maybe that same uninformed reader has also read this from your pen:

I have some experience of the Justice and Court system..*blushes*..and over the years I have received rather stiff sentences (in my opinion) for matters as minor as gold smuggling, resisting arrest, assisting escape from lawful custody, contempt of court, money laundering, criminal nuisance, assaulting a Police Officer and conspiring to defeat justice.

WSS

                           miss your point, that is.

You are too egoistical to be a victim. If people (despite their lack of breeding) would only achieve egos the size of yours, they wouldn't be subject to spousal abuse, mugging, home-invasion, etc. Isn't that the point?

Mindy

Joe, I do believe domestic violence is a bad thing, or, indeed, any sort of violence.

However, I believe that 'these things happen' ...and once things have happened they cannot be disinvented, and what is important is making things right for the wronged party.

The problem I have is that in Court or legal situations people tend to seek 'blood not justice'..(to quote Sir Robert Jones)...there is usually a great deal of exaggeration, crocodile tears, preciousness, so called 'victims' claiming things are considerably worse than they are....to ensure the perpetrator is barbequed

I happen to think this behaviour is 'medieval' (to put it mildly), undignified and pathetic.

I think that honest and honourable people would tell a Judge they have forgiven the accused, that these things happen and life goes on.

On the sole occasioned I was wronged... at the conclusion of the trial I am proud to say I did tell a Judge I had forgiven the chap, that 'life goes on', and not to do anything on my account and all I wanted was my stolen money back.

The Judge, despite his astonishment, shrugged his shoulders, told the accused to repay my money and gave him community service....(rather than the expected prison sentence).

The reason for my attitude was that I am not a 'victim', I do not require 'protecting', I am not some wimpy girlie man who can be gotten the better of from some ignorant illiterate Maori criminal....and the idea that I would shed crocodile tears, seek blood, seek vengence, want a pound of flesh, and go snivelling for justice in a courtroom is simply unthinkable! ..(my ego is the size of the African continent for a good reason)

But such things are entirely lost on the masses, who seem to enjoy playing the role of victim and innocent/wronged party on a surprisingly regular basis.

I expect everyone reading this post to entirely miss the point I am making...

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

The ex is making a formal complaint. Meaning the police have the opportunity to lay charges. Let justice take its course.

The court's purpose is to enforce the law but, excluding strict liability and criminal offences, only for those who cannot find resolution outside it.

My heart has been broken in four places. I'm wondering whether the perpetrator is going to offer me $100,000. Lol

Rosie

"Still, I sense very strongly that Rand would be right with me on this one. Can't prove it of course."

And we could go back and forth providing quotes to prove our perspectives. So we'll agree to disagree on that as well.  At any rate, it's not about whether "Ayn" would agree or not (what an argument from authority!). Rand thought homosexuality was immoral! It's about whether or not we're advancing Objectivist ideals. 

I will "agree to disagree," with the added disagreement that you are helping the cause of Objectivism with this argument of yours.

I presume that should be *not* helping?

It's a personal view. Note there was no reference to "SOLO Principal Lindsay Perigo" in the press release. And even as "SOLO Principal" I don't purport to speak for Objectivism.

Still, I sense very strongly that Rand would be right with me on this one. Can't prove it of course.

 Your question: "Mine again: should the police prosecute regardless? Should Kristin be forced to testify (held to be in contempt of court and jailed if she doesn't)? Should she be charged as a co-conspirator?"

Again, I haven't studied law, so if you're asking me my opinion, YES. 

I will "agree to disagree," with the added disagreement that you are helping the cause of Objectivism with this argument of yours.  

Why he's a tall poppy is already explained in my press release. If that's not to your satisfaction, tough. Why does he get your sympathy? He doesn't. At least, not for his vile and unforgivable assault. Qua object of TPS ... well, what can I add to what I've already said?

I think this is agree-to-disagree time on your questions.

Mine again: should the police prosecute regardless? Should Kristin be forced to testify (held to be in contempt of court and jailed if she doesn't)? Should she be charged as a co-conspirator?

Let me suggest two examples of different crimes, intentionally polarised, which are on a gradient of seriousness:

1. A night out on the town gets out of hand and Fred ends up punching John in front of several witnesses.  In the morning, Fred apologises to John and John declines to press charges.

2.  Hank is brutally beaten by the Mafia.  Two bystanders see the crime.  The Mafia men threaten Hank's family if he sings.  Hank is taken to the hospital and the matter is reported to the police, but Hank refuses to press charges.

In the first case it is a minor crime, and there appears to be little public danger.  The Police might accept that John does not want the case to go any further, and not pursue the case.

In the second case, it is a very serious crime and the police should pursue the matter even in the absence of Hank wanting to press charges.

The question is, where should the line be drawn?  In what circumstances should police continue to pursue matters even after the victim declines to press charges?  Obviously the seriousness of the crime and any continued threat to the public are part of the decision.  What else?

Another question is, how much do the wishes of the victim count in the Police's decision?

..Everyone thinks domestic violence is vile. Everybody thinks envy is vile. 

Except for Eil, of course... 

... and I'll answer yours.

Again:

But your position on the legal question is that the police should prosecute regardless [?]. Should they also force her to testify? Should they prosecute her for her part in the "cover-up"?

I think the problem here is you've turned the 'tall poppy' aspect into a red herring which has sent you haring along the wrong path. The reason this is being played out in the public is because Veitch is, as you stated, a public figure, as Linz said, he has put himself 'out there' (tall poppy). Don't let that distract you from the fact that your call for a public outing, and that's what you're implying, is a statement that you think you/society own Vietch's life: and there's the issue. You don't.

Let the police deal with it, leave Veitch and his victim alone (that is explicitly her wish in all this).

I'll get really boring and relate this to my own past again. When my parents were kicked out of the Exclusive Brethren, my grandmother secretly visited them. When this was found by the sect, part of her punishment was a 'public outing': to stand and confess her sins to the congregation. Why? Because she did not own her life, the Church did. Get it?

This public destruction of Veitch has nothing to do with his crime - that is how I interpret Linz. Those of you demanding the 'outing' are stating you own his life, and by proxy, that of his victim. You are siding with the Stalins and the Exclusive Brethrens' of this world: you can have that society. It's not a free one, in fact, it's hell.

If I may address just that one of your statements: [the media's actions] "look really ugly in a society that is supposedly free," it is the idea that a media frenzy somehow isn't consistent with Veitch's "freedom" that bothers me, and, I think, many others.

Everyone thinks domestic violence is vile. Everybody thinks envy is vile. There's no controversy until you make a comparison. The comparison Lindsay made doesn't sit right. Much like your statement doesn't sit right. How is Veitch's freedom infringed by the media frenzy?

Mindy

Meh. I have already stated that my original posts were rants. Intentional hyperbole, whatever. I thought getting passionate about things was part and parcel of posting on SOLO ... ?

It is, Luke, it is. Try to keep the "rational" part in mind too, lest you say something ... erm ... ill-advised. (Goes for all of us.)

 How is it similar? You'd have a right to intervene, but what if the victim said "stay out of it!" during the attack? If it's after the attack, and the victim says stay out of it, is it not the same thing? 

 It also assumes that the victim is competent to decide what is justice. (Beyond their own personal compensation.) A victim can rightfully say they don't want to pursue it for themselves, if they so choose, but that doesn't mean the matter is settle via society, if one holds to the delegation of justice to the government. (Could you imagine if Bin Laden tried to pay off the families of the victims of the WTC? Call off the hunt!) Who is the victim to say that the person should walk free? If Veitch, for example, was not found out, and got involved with someone else, and "just snapped" again, does the original victim not have some moral responsibility for her silence? She knew he was not the "tall poppy" he was believed to be, and allows the public to believe. She got paid, so it's over? No.  

"Only when it's something Linz agrees with. I think that's obvious at this point. "

Yes, and disagreement is met with emotionally charged ad hominem name-calling and attacks on the libertarian credentials of entire regions. Such is rational debate, eh?

Linz, your argument sounds familiar to the Rothbardian argument that neighboring nations have no right to intervene in invasions.

How is it similar? If we observed Veitch beating Kristin, we'd have an absolute right to intervene. Do you imagine I think otherwise?

But as it happens, we didn't, and they struck a deal. She subsequently quite expressly declined to press charges by doing a no-show at a meeting set up by the police for that purpose. She still declines to do so, or even talk about the incident. But your position on the legal question is that the police should prosecute regardless. Should they also force her to testify? Should they prosecute her for her part in the "cover-up"?

"But morally, the public has a right to know that someone is a possible menace, which is why the police reports are printed to the public"

Well thats a step backward. There is a difference between the media blowing up in an orgasm over 'toll poppy fuck ups' and a well investigated and concluded case from the Justice department.

 "Intentional hyperbole, whatever.  I thought getting passionate about things was part and parcel of posting on SOLO ... ?"

Only when it's something Linz agrees with. I think that's obvious at this point. 

"Though I guess "ill-advised" is not as bad as "vile and unforgivable.""

Meh.  I have already stated that my original posts were rants.  Intentional hyperbole, whatever.  I thought getting passionate about things was part and parcel of posting on SOLO ... ?

"I'm mystified by this whole damn thing. I see the distinction Linz is making, and it is quite reasonable and consistent with Objectivism as I see it. What is stopping you guys from getting it?"

 I don't think anyone here is not "getting it." We all know the story of Gail Wynand and his "Banner smear campaigns." What we don't get is why this guy is considered a "Tall poppy" to begin with. The part that was "ill-advised" is the choice of subject, being asked to feel something for someone like Veitch. The whole bit about the payoff is irrelevant at this point. (Criminals pay off their victims all the time, doesn't mean it's justice.)  

I'm mystified by this whole damn thing. I see the distinction Linz is making, and it is quite reasonable and consistent with Objectivism as I see it. What is stopping you guys from getting it?

Thank Galt you said that! I'm quietly going crazy here. Thank you!!

 ... in the press release was not the legal question but the moral one. My answer to the legal question would be the one I gave Goode (I think)—if he came around and beat me up (a ludicrously unimaginable proposition) and we then struck a deal, that's where it should stop. If you found out about it and got all huffy that I hadn't taken Goode to the cops, I'd tell you to fuck off and mind your own fucking business.

Linz, your argument sounds familiar to the Rothbardian argument that neighboring nations have no right to intervene in invasions. Anyway, that's all well and good for you, but there are cases where it's not simply the attacked that's effected, but others by proxy. In domestic assault cases, there are often kids involved. And there's also the possibility that the attacker will attack others, which may require you to MORALLY turn him in. I'm not going to pursue this line of reasoning in this case, though, because I'm admittedly not familiar enough. But morally, the public has a right to know that someone is a possible menace, which is why the police reports are printed to the public.

"Ill-advised," was it? Oh dear. So sorry old boy. I'll try not to do anything "ill-advised" ever again. Though I guess "ill-advised" is not as bad as "vile and unforgivable."

I'm wondering how I committed treason toward Kristin, exactly?

There's also the issue of the newsmen reporting news: are they not doing their job? You have a public figure held up as some pillar, does the public not have the right to know about such things? Does the person have the right to walk around with such a secret when he has initiated such force?

This aspect of a newsreader/celebrity being public property, is such bullshit. Just because someone reads the damned news doesn't mean the pubic, doesn't mean I, own them or have any claim on their life.

Lawmakers, yes, because if they're legislating how I live my life, then they better not be hypocrites. But newsreaders! Seriously.

These two individuals came to their own agreement which should have been respected, unless criminal laws (use of force) were broken, which I think they were, so this should have rightly been a matter for the police. But as Linz states, the Dom did not go to the police, they went public, that was reprehensible. You and I do not own Veitch, and his life, or the ilife of the victim (who is constantly being forgotten here): this entire matter is none of our business. So long as there is a process in place that will punish him for the use of force in the manner he has used it, that is all that is required in a free society: but the public outing, which is simply the voyeuristic claim of ownership of another's life, is a Stalinesqe phenomenon, and looks really ugly in a society that is supposedly free (snort).

I'm mystified by this whole damn thing. I see the distinction Linz is making, and it is quite reasonable and consistent with Objectivism as I see it. What is stopping you guys from getting it?

Luke, I stand corrected in my last post. YOUR explanation is much more concise and direct as to the crux of this issue. I'd only ad that it's possible to feel contempt for the perpetrator (in this case, Veitch) without excusing the media for its poppy-lopping in other cases. It's not an either-or. 

.... in the press release was not the legal question but the moral one. My answer to the legal question would be the one I gave Goode (I think)—if he came around and beat me up (a ludicrously unimaginable proposition) and we then struck a deal, that's where it should stop. If you found out about it and got all huffy that I hadn't taken Goode to the cops, I'd tell you to fuck off and mind your own fucking business.

And just as you will get in bed with the Republican party to get at the Middle Eastern thugs, I'll let the press expose this guy's act.

So will I. But I won't pretend they care about Veitch's victim or that their motive isn't to bring Veitch down because of his excellence as a broadcaster.

There is another Rand quote which is relevant to the Veitch case:

 "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent."

“Bootleg Romanticism,” The Romantic Manifesto, 131.

She expands on this in the 1964 Playboy interview:

"I regard compassion as proper only toward those who are innocent victims, but not toward those who are morally guilty. If one feels compassion for the victims of a concentration camp, one cannot feel it for the torturers. If one does feel compassion for the torturers, it is an act of moral treason toward the victims."

I believe her feelings here reflect why Joe, Richard and I, among others, think your Veitch PR was ill-advised.

"According to the Journals, Rand believed the public's hatred of Hickman was "because of the man who committed the crime and not because of the crime he committed." Well, it's absolutely the case that I believe that of Veitch. On that level of generality, yes there's a parallel. So what?"

 So what indeed...and again, simply because it was discussed on O'living doesn't mean it's not worth examination...

it was her choice of using a murderer as a model that was reprehensible, akin to the aforementioned DEAD MAN WALKING. Again, Rand outgrew it, or thought better of it. And she did NOT ask for the public to make an apology to the real murderer. Rand did qualify her thoughts, as did Harriman, the editor. 

Rand: "[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."

 Based on this, Linz, I'll submit that on that level of generality, Rand did you one better. She disowned the actual person, and projected her own early vision of Roark. You, on the other hand, are asking us to consider a real person as worthy of an apology. Rand knew better, so should you, even if the media is Wynand-esque. 

 " Veitch, an outstanding broadcaster, did something bestial and criminal. He and his victim settled the matter privately. Two years later a newspaper finds out and instead of going to the police, grandstands, and enjoins the mob to bray for blood, which it duly and dutifully does—because Veitch is an outstanding broadcaster, not because he did something bestial and criminal. Hence who owes whom an apology, in the context of Veitch having apologised to the "New Zealand public" (i.e. the mob)."

Now THIS is the real crux of the issue, isn't it? It could actually be a good episode of LAW AND ORDER. Here's my problem with this defense: besides the implications that justice can be bought off...the point is not simply retribution to the victim. Here's my problem: if government has the monopoly on force, and a duty to protect the individual from other people...if the individual is required to delegate the right to initiate force, then are they not required to also delegate the judgement in such a violent case? I know this brings up shades of the previous debate on forced testimony, but consider it: what right does a victim have to keep it to their self when a person has the potential to be this violent? Is there not a right on behalf of society to know this fact, the same way a sex offender must make himself known?

There's also the issue of the newsmen reporting news: are they not doing their job? You have a public figure held up as some pillar, does the public not have the right to know about such things? Does the person have the right to walk around with such a secret when he has initiated such force?

This is a legal issue beyond me, I won't pretend that I have the answer, but I will say that this is part of my reasoning for why I don't feel that this Veitch guy deserves any sympathy. Yes, he paid money. It wasn't enough. And just as you will get in bed with the Republican party to get at the Middle Eastern thugs, I'll let the press expose this guy's act. 

You say there's a parallel with Hickman. The onus is on you to show that, and if there is, what its relevance is. I point this out, noting that only you and the odious Campbell have raised the Hickman matter, not me (I'm now told the Hickman thing was a cause celebre on Lying at some point). That doesn't mean I'm sidestepping the issue. I haven't accepted the parallel yet! You haven't made the case, you've just asserted it.

According to the Journals, Rand believed the public's hatred of Hickman was "because of the man who committed the crime and not because of the crime he committed." Well, it's absolutely the case that I believe that of Veitch. On that level of generality, yes there's a parallel. So what?

Veitch, an outstanding broadcaster, did something bestial and criminal. He and his victim settled the matter privately. Two years later a newspaper finds out and instead of going to the police, grandstands, and enjoins the mob to bray for blood, which it duly and dutifully does—because Veitch is an outstanding broadcaster, not because he did something bestial and criminal. Hence my view of who owes whom an apology, in the context of Veitch having already apologised to the "New Zealand public" (i.e. the mob).

As an aside, these days, just about every week there's someone famous, usually an All Black, apologising to the "New Zealand public" for some lapse or other as a "role model," usually involving alcohol. The world is perishing from an orgy of apologising to the "New Zealand public." As a member of the "New Zealand public" I might be tempted to wonder why any of these folk are apologising to me. But it's all part of their ritual humiliation.

Now, it's true that I don't see literally every single member of the "New Zealand public" as "mob," but I would have thought that to be obvious enough not to need spelling out in the relatively un-nuanced confines of a press release.

Here's a letter-writer, one Colin Moore, who isn't mob, in yesterday's Dom-Post:

"The treatment of Tony Veitch by the media is very one-sided; his former partner has yet to comment, and mightn't want to. Some might call the $100,000-plus he paid her 'hush money,' but it might also be an agreement made by two intelligent adults who accepted a wrong had been done and solved their problem to both parties' satisfaction. ... Unless an individual [Veitch's victim] wants their story told, maybe we should keep our noses out of personal lives."

Especially if the motive for intervention is tall poppy-cutting.

It was just a suggestion for a higher level of dramatic conflict.

www.michaelnewberry.com

 And what do you hope to accomplish with that, Michael?

 Perhaps you guys can communicate by private email, then post the correspondence--then it would be more amusing to read.

www.michaelnewberry.com

I've read the damn passage enough, even I have it right in front of me. I know ALL about Rand's use of criminals as heroes, given my study of the Trickster archetypes. Only Rand had the good sense NOT to publish the Little Street, but also, not to make a public appeal for the actual murderer. Take a cue from her, Linz.

And while we're at it, since you had to take it personal, just because it's Campbell making an argument doesn't mean it's wrong. Talk about being concrete-bound! Other people who don't like Campbell are making the argument as well, which you've chosen to ignore, aside from some comments about being "concrete-bound." Pretty disingenuous, Linz. Don't use the fact that I agree with Campbell on this to side-step the issue. 

  You still haven't explained satisfactorily why the public owes this guy an apology.It's even more bewildering that you'd write this about him considering that you DON'T consider him a hero.

"I have watched and enjoyed him for years and thought, it's no surprise that he's not celebrated; he's too good to be celebrated by crimped, mediocrity-worshipping, talent-resenting Kiwis. 

 So fucking what! The fact that you enjoy him means nothing to me, and still doesn't say why he deserves an apology, let alone be celebrated.

 Find a better victim for me to care about.

... stands out from the crowd. Hero status is something else again.

Linz,  you called him a "tall, tall poppy."if a tall poppy is not a hero, then what the hell is it? 

Joe, I'm astonished at how little of what I've said you've taken in. First, I have at no point called Veitch a "hero." The fact that you consider the term "tall poppy" too "silly-sounding" is irrelevant. It doesn't entitle you to rewrite what I wrote or alter its meaning. Second, I have not tried and would not try to reconcile his tall poppy status with his destructive behaviour. I called the latter "vile and inexcusable," and, believe it or not, that's what I actually regard it as. "Inexcusable" means just that. No excuses, including "he just snapped."

Did you actually read a single word I fucking wrote?

You're the one making the Hickman parallel, not me. You and the fetid fraud Campbell. And you know bloody well that Rand used Hickman as a model to a drastically and explicitly qualified degree. Read pp 22-23 of the Journals if you don't know that. Actually r-e-a-d them.

Is this some kind of Fatwa? 

 You're asking us to accept on faith that this guy's a hero. I don't know why the media SHOULDN'T rip this guy to shreds. I don't care how much he paid, let him lie in a hospital bed with a broken spine. And if the media is indeed guilty of "crab bucket mentality," well, in this case, their victim is no less deserving. 

 I'm still waiting to see something more substantial that this Veitch truly was a hero to begin with (sorry, "tall poppy" is just too silly sounding.) And how do you reconcile the actions of such a hero, if he was one, with his destructive behavior? (And let it not be that he "just snapped.")  

 Linz, do you think Rand was right to use Hickman as a "role model?" 

... is very pertinent to the Veitch thread. In particular, my post about concrete-bound mentalities. A challenge to concrete-bound mentalities: discern the connection.