#note that theft and immoral are not necessarily the same

[femkethefaineant]

Yeah these research suggestions are strange. Neither copyright legislation nor the effectiveness or existence of personal actions against data scraping has any bearing on whether the thing itself is theft or not, only on how much work is put into the theft. If I don't lock my bike I might be partly responsible for it being stolen, but it's still theft. If I do lock it, you can take it with the lock or you can destroy the lock; both are still theft. If a hundred people walk by before someone takes my bike, it's still theft. If there is a law protecting the thief but not me, still theft. If the thief is a small company with the best of intentions, still theft.

And the fact that the datasets aren't stored doesn't exempt them from theft, it only means the evidence is destroyed. If a thief takes my bike, uses one wheel for something else and destroys the rest, it's still theft.

Here are some research and/or thought suggestions that I based my opinion on:

- Look up AI companies' responses to 'data poisoning'. Whose responsibility is consent? If you post a picture online, is it your responsibility to use a watermark or everyone else's to credit you properly? What if someone removes your watermark? If you don't use a watermark, you don't explicitly say no, is that consent? What does that mean for nightshade/glaze and the companies that try to circumvent them? What about recommendations to remove poisoned data, do they give moral or practical reasons to do so? What does that say about the value they place on your consent?

- What do you consider immoral theft (of intellectual property)? Must something be removed from someone, or just used without their permission? What about plagiarism? What about potential gains from it? Can artistic recognition, satisfaction or achievement be stolen?

- What do you consider art? Does there need to be a creative process, must there be a human involved and in what way? Must art always be new or original or meaningful? Can someone be mistaken about something being art? What distinguishes art from non-art?

- Look up the Chinese room thought experiment. Look up what words actually are (fair warning, there is no clear consensus). Are they only the word itself, or do they have a meaning beyond semantics? What does this say about language, and about entities who only interact with one aspect of it? Can a language predictor grasp meaning?

-What is the actual meaning of 'AI'? Are current machine learning models really intelligence? What kind of models are used to 'make art'? Does that really produce art?

- Are there any ways you can think of in which a computer could make valid art without theft? What must change about the current system to reach that? Are there ways to do so in a morally sound way?

For the purposes of this poll, research is defined as reading multiple non-opinion articles from different credible sources, a class on the matter, etc.– do not include reading social media or pure opinion pieces.

Fun topics to research:

Can AI images be copyrighted in your country? If yes, what criteria does it need to meet?

Which companies are using AI in your country? In what kinds of projects? How big are the companies?

What is considered fair use of copyrighted images in your country? What is considered a transformative work? (Important for fandom blogs!)

What legislation is being proposed to ‘combat AI’ in your country? Who does it benefit? How does it affect non-AI art, if at all?

How much data do generators store? Divide by the number of images in the data set. How much information is each image, proportionally? How many pixels is that?

What ways are there to remove yourself from AI datasets if you want to opt out? Which of these are effective (ie, are there workarounds in AI communities to circumvent dataset poisoning, are the test sample sizes realistic, which generators allow opting out or respect the no-ai tag, etc)

–

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[charliejrogers]

First Cow (2020)

It’s impossible for me to write about First Cow without thinking that this movie is some sort of sublime cross-over between Joaquin Phoenix’s worst nightmare and joyous fantasy. Running at odds with his oddly emotional anti-milk Oscars acceptance speech back in February 2020, First Cow is a love letter to the power of milk in the realm of baking. The sweet, sweet udder juice provides the very backbone of a community’s happiness and two men’s livelihoods. But, where Phoenix’s nightmare turns to fantasy, the universe gets justice. No milk theft shall ever go unpunished! Move over, Herman’s Hermits; it’s not just “No Milk Today,” it’s no milk ever!

My kidding aside, I was pleasantly surprised by First Cow, though truthfully I’m not sure exactly what I expected besides knowing it was a movie set in nineteenth-century America. Acknowledging my own biases and knowing ahead of time that the director was a woman, I was surprised by how decidedly male this film was. There are really only three female characters of note throughout the whole film, and none of them have prominent speaking roles… in fact the only one who does speak English merely serves as a translator for men.

I wonder in what way the director, Kelly Reichardt, sees herself as fulfilling that role in making this film. That is, in choosing to deliberately make a movie about the nineteenth-century fur trappers in the harsh, male-dominated world of Oregon Territories, Reichardt wanted to highlight an aspect of the dominant “alpha” male society that is most certainly experienced by males but is rarely commented on, largely because it is considered female. I’m talking, of course, about love. I doubt there are viewers of this film who would disagree with my assessment that the two male protagonists shared a love for one another, but I’m sure many would categorize that love as merely representative of “deep friendship” or “platonic” (in the layman’s sense) at the most. While I’m not going to sit here and necessarily argue that the two characters shared an erotic love and I do not think that is the intent, I really do believe characterizing their relationship as merely “two great friends” would be received by the pair as a great insult. The two share the type of relationship seen among men that is rarely seen in the media save for war movies where “brotherhood” is a dominant theme. Outside of war, it’s a relationship that is largely reminiscent of the beautiful love seen between Midnight Cowboy’s Joe Buck and “Ratso” Rizzo. It’s the sort of sacrificial love that dominates the thoughts of Christian scholars. Still, it can be easily misinterpreted as erotic love. What I think Reichardt does beautifully is develop the love between the two carefully so you see it organically develop such that by the time we get to the final scene, we are unsurprised by one of the two character’s sacrificial acts of love.

The key scene, as I mentioned, comes at the end, but it’s noteworthy to mention that the pair’s ultimate fate is made plainly clear in the first few minutes of the movie. The movie starts (almost paradoxically) with an epilogue of sorts. We’re in the modern day, and a woman is exploring the forests of Oregon when her dog stumbles upon some bones that (with a little more digging) reveals two skeletons lying next to one another, like two lovers lying in bed. The best reason I can think of as to why Reichardt includes this epilogue before the rest of the film is because as soon as we the audience realize that two males are the most dominant couple in the film, we more readily anticipate and are more open to seeing love develop before our eyes.

So accordingly, after this brief pre-movie epilogue, the film jumps backwards in time to the nineteenth-century where we meet Otis “Cookie” Figowitz (John Magaro), the cook for a trapping company who is runs a little out-of-step with the rest of his crew. It is embodied in a visual motif that is repeated often throughout the film. We will have a shot of either of the two main characters, Cookie or his eventual companion King Lu (Orion Lee), doing something quiet in the foreground while characters perform some other more exciting activity in the background which in any other movie would take center stage due to the inherent spectacle. But it’s clear that Cookie is a more sensitive soul, he enjoys his time in the woods collecting mushrooms, and he does not have any interest in violence whatsoever. But that does not mean he isn’t without courage.

Early in the film, he comes across King Lu, a Chinese immigrant who is on the run after killing someone to avenge the killing of one of his good friends. Notably, when they first meet, King Lu is completely alone, hungry, and naked. While it isn’t addressed specifically, it is implicit in King’s and Cookie’s first meeting (and during other character’s subsequent interactions with King later in the film) but racially hostile undertones almost threaten to undermine King’s and Cookie’s initial friendship. Yet, like the story of the Good Samaritan, Cookie puts away his initial feelings of racial bias, and goes out of his way to clothe King with a blanket before allowing him to speak any further. Cookie grants King with a great deal of dignity, and goes one step further, offering to smuggle him among the various bags and supplies on his travels, knowing full well that if the rest of his crew find out that Cookie was hiding a “Chinaman murderer,” that he’d be in deep shit.

Cookie and King separate after this initial meeting, but upon reuniting later in the film, they never separate from one another until the very end. In what is the most puzzling choice in the film to me is Cookie’s initial decision to join King for a drink at King’s home. The two reunite in a trapping fort bar after a fight breaks out and the two are the only customers not drawn outside to enjoy the spectacle (the outsider/outcast motif returns). However, just before the start of the fight, one of the primary instigators of that fight requests for Cookie to watch over his infant whom he had brought to the bar. Therefore, when King asks Cookie to join in at his home, he is also asking him to abandon this helpless infant. The image of the baby swaddled in a basket recalls the previous imagery of King swaddled in the bags and supplies within which Cookie was smuggling him. And ultimately Cookie does abandon the baby for King, and in joining King for a drink at his home, never actually leaves. The two begin living together. So I’m not sure of the significance of the baby. Is it that Cookie had the choice between two “new lives,” one a literal new life of someone else and the other, in King, a chance at a new life for himself? Or is it simply just to serve as foreshadowing that in following King, Cookie is opening himself up to a life of indulgence where the concerns of others are less important than his own happiness?

As for the latter question and the plotline that develops around it, it really serves as a bitter critique of American capitalism and the American dream. While we love to tout the “by the bootstraps” myth, this movie serves as a simple morality play about how no matter what, pursuing the American dream means ripping somebody off for your own benefit. In this instance, it means Cookie and King nightly sneaking onto the property of the leader of the trapping fort and stealing milk from the only cow in the area in order to essentially have a monopoly on baked goods and make a pretty penny. Now, we can sit and debate about the morality of “owning” a cow, and whether Cookie and King are even doing anything immoral since it is preposterous to own an animal! Or I’m sure there are those (Joaquin Phoenix) who think Cookie and King are just as immoral for taking ANY milk from a cow as the man who owns the cow in the first place. This is not the time to discuss animal rights. But it is notable what the cow, too, has had to suffer in order allow for Cookie and Lee’s successes. She was initially transported to the trapping fort along with a mate and her calf, but both died en route. She spends her time tied to a tree and by the film’s end locked up within a small cage.

In sum, the love that Cookie so beautifully shared with King at film’s beginning does not seem so equally shared by the pair in regards to their relationship with others. And in their pursuit to become successful capitalists in a system rigged against them, they ultimately hurt some of those around them, most notably titular cow with whom Cookie has almost romantic relationship with, which in some ways makes his treating her as little more than a literal cash cow so egregious, even if he cares deeply for her.

Hence the morality play. I don’t have to spell it out for you what might happen if two people repeatedly rob the same person in the same way again and again and again. But even if we as the audience agree that the cards are stacked against Cookie and King from the start in their attempt to become independent, to achieve the American dream, the film never pretends that they are acting as virtuous agents. In the end, though, they get their redemption even as they receive punishment. King is given a chance to abandon Cookie outright who in an attempt to flee their pursuers has become badly injured. King realizes he can just take his riches and run. But he doesn’t. He decides to lie next to his dearly beloved companion. While he could not have predicted what would be the fatal consequences of this decision, he knows that sticking with Cookie in his current state will only cause him trouble. But that’s where the beautiful sacrificial love that defines this pair comes in. Whereas many will view this film and remember it as a cautionary tale about the American dream, I will forever remember the realistic love of brothers shared between these two wayward men.

***(1/4) (Three and one fourth stars out of four)

[sadkittyworld]

NS_ Wk 2

Id, Ego and Super-Ego

In the original story, we see the events of the story through Gabriel Utterson’s POV (so far). I don’t think that he is the protagonist of the story even though we see through his eyes.

In chapter 2 we are introduced to 2 new characters, Poole (Jekyll’s Loyal servant) and Dr. Hastie Lanyon (old friend of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Utterson).

Utterson starts to suspect that Hyde is Jekyll’s Gay lover or his illegitimate child. Utterson is haunted by Hyde because he doesn’t know how he looks like.

Utterson’s doubts clear when he finally meets Hyde. Like the other witnesses, he also finds Hyde indescribably loathsome. This feeling is slightly understood when Utterson and Hyde have a conversation.

Utterson visits Jekyll but he’s not home, at this he is relieved.

Utterson looks back at the time when they were young. He states that Jekyll was ‘wild when he was young’: and thinks that Hyde is ‘the ghost of some old sin, the cancer of some concealed disgrace’ returning to ruin him.

He worries that time is running out for ‘poor Harry Jekyll’.

Utterson thinks of his own past. ‘groping in all corners of memory, lest by chance some Jack in the Box of an old iniquity should leap to light there’ (Stevenson, 1979, p.42)

Stevenson, R.L. (1979) Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde and Other Stories. London: Penguin Classics. Reprint, 1999.

Iniquity - wrongdoing, misdeed, sin, immoral behaviour.

Utterson is a character who represents the theme of ‘Repression’. He represses his natural instincts.

Utterson becomes obsessed with Hyde as the story progresses.

In most adaptations Hyde is shown as a hideous monstrous creature. In my version Hyde is too pretty to hate. He has almost everyone tied around his finger. The other character’s in the story are bewitched by his appearance, both men and women alike. This situation causes my Hyde to want to punish those men who pursue him. This leads to the killing of Danvers Carew in my story though he will be named differently to the original.

In the original text we are shown Hyde as:

‘a kind of black sneering coolness - frightened too’ (Stevenson, 1979, p.32)

‘He must be deformed somewhere; he gives a strong feeling of deformity’ (Stevenson, 1979, p.34)

‘an odd light footstep’

‘He was small and plainly dressed’

‘extraordinary quickness’

‘he spoke with a husky, whispering and somewhat broken voice’  (Stevenson, 1979, pp.38-40).

- pale and dwarfish

We know that Hyde and Jekyll are the same person. In my version They are 2 souls in 1 body. The effect of the drug makes the Hyde character able to shape-shift to anyone at will as long as he can picture the appearance in his mind.

If you look at the story carefully it’s not Hyde who is bad but Jekyll who created Hyde in the first place to do bad and get away with.

‘Henry Jekyll [...] is nobody’s hero... He represents the ‘cry of Victorian man from the depths of his self-imposed underground’ (Saposnik, 1971).

Saposnik, I. (1971) The Anatomy of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in English Literature. 1500-1900. Vol.11 No.4, Nineteenth Century, pp.715-731.

In the final chapter we learn that Jekyll cannot reconcile ‘an impatient gaiety of disposition’* with his ‘imperious desire to carry [his] head high’ (Stevenson, 1979, p.81).

He wants to appear better than everyone else.

* ‘loose’ morals

‘Victorian man was haunted constantly by an inescapable sense of division. As rational and sensual being, as public and private man, as civilised and bestial creature, he found himself necessarily an actor, playing only that part of himself suitable to the occasion’ (Saposnik, 1971).

Though many views and attitudes have changed over the years since the Victorian Era, there are still many rules and restriction, old and new, that make people continue the dual or even multiple lifestyle depending on the situation they are in.

Our societies are built around Social Emotion. The way people of the 19th Century saw emotion was very different to the way we see it today. There were different categories of emotion, e.g. ‘appetites’ relating to ‘base’ desire (such as ‘lust’) and ‘sentiments’ which were seen as voluntary & associated with moral behaviour.

When the word ‘emotion’ was used, it was related to movement, or disturbance, usually of a riotous political nature.

We carry some of this meaning into English today: ‘emotional’ people are seen as ‘out of control’, less rational.

According to Hewitt (2017) language ‘offers the clearest view of how cultural attitudes shape our personal experiences of feeling’.

As Hewitt notes, English is full of words relating to embarrassment, including: Discomfiture Awkwardness Mortification Humility Uneasiness Self-consciousness Shame

They reflect the importance to English culture of ‘propriety, decorum, politeness and respectability’ (Hewitt, 2017). 

‘Emotion is… produced at the intersection between each person and the culture they inhabit’ (Hewitt, 2017).

‘I never saw a circle of such hateful faces.’ (Story of the Door)

In the novella, the Victorian gentlemen and ladies think they have civilised themselves out of feeling ‘base’ emotions. But Enfield & the others want to kill Hyde just because he injured the child.

Wanting to KILL because he INJURED, is too much. It is definitely not right.

It’s like those self-proclaiming righteous people we see on the Internet. They think they are doing the world a favour but they could be hurting the other person they are persecuting through words. This favour you are doing could well end up being a double-edged sword that will comeback to hurt or ruin you.

Sublimation: diverting a ‘base’ sexual or biological urge into something more socially acceptable.

‘Killing being out of the question, we… should make his name stink from one end of London to the other’.

Shaming is a substitute for what they want to do – which is murder Mr. Hyde.

In 1923 Sigmund Freud identified the so called ‘psychic apparatus’ of the mind.

Id - instincts.  (‘Es’): ‘Primitive, unorganised, emotional: “the realm of the illogical”’ (Storr, 1989, p. 60). Governed by the ‘pleasure principle’. Represents the unconscious.

Ego - Reality. (‘ich’) = represents the conscious mind & the ‘reality principle’. Able to defer gratification. ‘Mature’ and ‘reasonable’. ‘Acts as an intermediary between the id and the external world’ (Storr, 1989, p. 62).

Superego - Morality. (‘Uber-ich’): our internalisation of cultural rules (how we ought to behave). Usually works in opposition to the id.

Hyde represents the Id but also display ‘ego’ as he acts in order to prevent his capture. 

Jekyll represents the superego but also displays the ego and and the id, I think because it was his idea to create Hyde which came from his inner desire to do bad without being affected by it’s consequences.

We see Utterson as the character of Superego occasionally showing ego.

Freud was inspired by Dr. Charcot of Paris, who treated women diagnosed with Hysteria using Hypnosis. Freud also started a psychiatric clinic the year Stevenson released his novella in 1886. He started the clinic using Hypnosis but later moved on to a new method he invented with his friend Josef Breuer. This method was a ‘talking cure’ called ‘psychoanalysis’. 

Psychoanalysis aims to bring out the unconscious (i.e. hidden) desires and memories through ‘free association’ and analysis of dreams. This technique seems to be used by the police nowadays to find out about the criminals and understand their reasons for their crime.

Freud theorised that repression of desires (especially as a child) could lead to ‘fixations’ (obsessions) in later life.

‘Free association’ - the totally free, uncensored expression of thoughts and ideas.

If a patient could recall (out loud) the first instance they experienced a troubling symptom... the symptom would then disappear.

Freud’s idea originated from a German writer.

Art is sublimation according to Freud. He believed that artists and writers had a special skill for sublimation. I agree with his theory in many way. I suppose as an artist myself I tend to draw/ sketch or paint etc... to let out my fixations, my parents say that my drawing seem to reflect on how I am feeling. They can’t seem to figure out much when they look at me, but when they look at my work they say that it looks sad, happy, angry, frustrated etc...

Stevenson was definitely obsessed with the ideology of ‘double life’.

R.L.S’ inspiration for Jekyll/Hyde came from the gentleman William ‘Deacon’ Brodie (1741-1788). During the day, Brodie was a cabinetmaker and the town councillor but at night he was a burglar. Brodie frequented the taverns of Edinburgh’s disreputable Fleshmarket Close. He had two mistresses and five illegitimate children to support. Huge crowds came to watch him get hanged for his crime of theft in Edinburgh’s Lawnmarket on 1st October 1788.

Stevenson’s childhood room contained a cabinet designed by Brodie himself.

Stevenson was fascinated by Brodie.

Before his hit novella about Jekyll and Hyde he co-wrote a play about Brodie in 1878.

The fact that Stevenson dreamt this story is even more significant from a Freudian perspective.

In 1888, in A Chapter on Dreams (Linehan, 2003, pp. 87–91) Stevenson wrote about the ‘Brownie’ like spirits (the ‘Little People’) who brought him his stories while he slept.

‘The dream is a fulfilled wish’ (Freud, 1920).

In The Interpretation of Dreams, written in 1899, Freud, described dreams as ‘the royal road to the unconscious’.

Freudian Dream Psychology:

Freud divided dreams into: manifest content (the remembered details of the dream) latent content (true meaning of the dream).

Dream-work:

Freud’s description for the mental processes by which (potentially disturbing and therefore repressed) desires are made acceptable to the conscious mind – by being disguised as (often bizarre) manifest content.

In Dream Psychology (1920) Freud wrote about the curious category of ‘those dreams which have never been dreamed’ – by which he meant dreams in fiction.

‘During the 20th century, psychoanalysis had a major effect upon both art and literature. Freud’s concept of the unconscious, his use of free association, and his rediscovery of the importance of dreams encouraged painters, sculptors, and writers to experiment with… the irrational, to pay serious attention to their inner worlds of dream and day-dream…’ (Storr, 1989, pp. 90–91).

Storr, A. (1989) Freud: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprint, 2001.

Free association is widely used in creative writing practice.

[thornedflower-blog1]

-Day 8-

Where do they generally align on the morality spectrum? Laurie is Lawful Good.

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. Lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.

What, if any sort of circumstances might sway them from this usual alignment to another?

Laurie is unlikely to change moral alignment, at her heart she'll always believe in the Lawful Good viewpoint. Laurie wants to believe that those in authority have the best interests of others at heart, but she knows that isn't always true. If the law were to stop being "good" she would fight for the downtrodden and suppressed, regardless of what the law said, but she would always believe that the law should already fight for the downtrodden and suppressed.   

{In Depth on Lawful Good Under Cut}    

Detailed Results:

Alignment: Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25) Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (23) Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22) Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21) True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19) Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18) Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12) Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10) Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXX (9)

Law & Chaos: Law ----- XXXXXXXXXX (10) Neutral - XXXXXXXX (8) Chaos --- XXXXXXX (7)

Good & Evil: Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15) Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXX (11) Evil ---- XX (2)

While strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all. Creatures of lawful good alignment view the cosmos with varying degrees of lawfulness or desire for good. The are convinced that order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest.

Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. These characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. 

These characters have a strong moral character. Truth, honor, and the welfare of others is all-important. They are convinced that order and laws are absolutely necessary to assure that goodness prevails. Lawful good beings will not want to lie or cheat anyone, good or evil. They will not stand for treachery and will not let obviously dishonorable people use their own honor against them, if they can help it. They will obey the laws and customs of the area that they are in, but will attempt to find legal loopholes to disobey a law which is clearly evil or unjust.

Lawful good characters are group and order oriented, and will cooperate with authority in all cases to promote the common weal. Not all lawful good beings view the cosmos with an equal desire for lawfulness and goodness, so there is no such thing as a perfectly balanced "lawful good" attitude (nor a perfectly balanced attitude for any other alignment, for that matter). In general, however, a lawful good character promotes the ideals and rights of the majority over those of the individual (and this includes himself as well as others) and upholds the rights of the weak and oppressed members of society, who should be allowed to reap society's benefits with equanimity. The lawful good being feels this is the best way that all members of society can enjoy the rights of existence together. Life is important to the lawful good being, but life is not exclusive of order, and vice versa.

Lawful good can appear to be a difficult alignment to uphold, but it must be remembered that lawful good characters are not necessarily naive or unrealistic. At the heart of a lawful good alignment is the belief in a system of laws that promotes the welfare of all members of a society, ensures their safety, and guarantees justice. So long as the laws are just and applied fairly to all people, it doesn't matter to the lawful good character whether they originate from a democracy or a dictator. Though all lawful good systems adhere to the same general principles, specific laws may be different. One society may allow a wife to have two husbands, another may enforce strict monogamy. Gambling may be tolerated in one system, forbidden in another. A lawful good character respects the laws of other lawful good cultures and will not seek to impose his own values on their citizens. 

However, a lawful good character will not honor a law that runs contrary to his alignment. A government may believe that unregulated gambling provides a harmless diversion, but a lawful good character may determine that the policy has resulted in devastating poverty and despair. In this character's mind, the government is guilty of a lawless act by promoting an exploitative and destructive enterprise. In response, he may encourage citizens to refrain from gambling, or he may work to change the law. Particularly abhorrent practices, such as slavery and torture, may force the lawful good character to take direct action. It doesn't matter if these practices are culturally acceptable or sanctioned by well-meaning officials. The lawful good character's sense of justice compels him to intervene and alleviate as much suffering as he can. Note, though, that time constraints, inadequate resources, and other commitments may limit his involvement. While a lawful good character might wish for a cultural revolution in a society that tolerates cannibalism, he may have to content himself with rescuing a few victims before circumstances force him to leave the area.

When will a lawful good character take a life? A lawful good being kills whenever necessary to promote the greater good, or to protect himself, his companions, or anyone whom he's vowed to defend. In times of war, he strikes down the enemies of his nation. He does not interfere with a legal execution, so long as the punishment fits the crime. Otherwise, a lawful good character avoids killing whenever possible. He does not kill a person who is merely suspected of a crime, nor does this character necessarily kill someone he perceives to be a threat unless he has tangible evidence or certain knowledge of evildoing. He never kills for treasure or personal gain. He never knowingly kills an innocent being. 

A lawful good character will keep his word if he gives it and will never lie. He will never attack an unarmed foe and will never harm an innocent. He will not use torture to extract information or for pleasure. He will never kill for pleasure, only in self-defense or in the defense of others. A lawful good character will never use poison. He will help those in need and he prefers to work with others. He responds well to higher authority, is trustful of organizations, and will always follow the law. He will never betray a family member, comrade, or friend (though he will attempt to bring an immoral or law-breaking friend to justice, in order to rehabilitate that person). Lawful good characters respect the concepts of self-discipline and honor. 

Here are some possible adjectives describing lawful good characters: friendly, courteous, sensitive to the feelings of others, scrupulous, honorable, trustworthy, reliable, helpful, loyal, and respectful of "life, love, and the pursuit of happiness."

Lawful Good and Society

A lawful good being...

Respects the authority figures in his family and obeys their mandates.

Values lifelong commitment to a romantic partner.

Obeys all personal contracts.

Respects the laws and authority figures of the community and nation.

Considers public service in a leadership role an honor.

Supports the legal procedures of the nation, without regard to their own discomfort.

Seeks secure employment, believing hard work will pay off in the end.

Will not want to disappoint his family.

Will support their family even if it means personal discomfort.

Will never betray a friend and enjoys having close friends.

Considers the needs of the community in personal life.

Will give his life in defense of his community.

Will take actions to aid others during times of crisis, even if unprofitable to do so.

Believes everyone should be treated fairly and kindly.

Feels guilt when he commits a wrongdoing and will seek to right his wrong.

Uses wealth to help others who are less fortunate.

The Ten Lawful Good Commandments

A list of Ten Commandments for a lawful good religion may look like this:

1. You shall not lie.

2. You shall not harm the innocent.

3. You shall not murder.

4. You shall help the needy.

5. You shall honor legitimate authority that promotes goodness.

6. You shall follow the law.

7. You shall not betray others.

8. You shall bring criminals and evil-doers to justice.

9. You shall not steal.

10. You shall seek unlimited good for others and unlimited order in society.

Ten Lawful Good Sins

Likewise, a lawful good religion may list the following as sins. This list is given in the order of least severe infraction to most severe.

1. Failing to show respect to lawful good churches, governments, and/or beings.

2. Failing to speak out against corruption, sin, greed, pride, etc.

3. Being motivated by pride, avarice, gluttony, or some other sinful impulse.

4. Theft, robbery, or willful vandalism.

5. Causing harm to a pious or virtuous being.

6. Failing to assist or aid good beings when in need.

7. Blasphemous or heretical acts.

8. Allowing a crime or major act of evil to go unpunished.

9. The murder of an innocent.

10. Aiding the servants of Chaos and Evil.

[adjudicators]

Overview

Essential elements of a contract

 Offer + acceptance of the      offer

 Business v social

 The price paid for the      promise (something for something)

 Ability to enter a      contract

 Genuine and willing      consent

 Legal objects and purpose

 Intention to create legal relations: OBJECTIVELY DETERMINED with the assistance of the following presumptions

 Presumption that parties      DID intend to create a legally enforceable agreement

 Presumption that parties      DID NOT intend to create a legally enforceable agreement

 The circumstances in which      the agreement was reached; and/or

 The express terms of the      agreement

 Intention to create legal relations

 Incomplete agreement and      uncertain terms

 Married couple - no      intention

 Contract of employment

 Family members - intention      

 Neighbours - intention

 Business: "honour      clause"

 Clear statement that no      intention to create legal relations

 Contracts come in 2 basic types

 Require consideration to      be enforceable

 "Simple      contract" reflects the type (as distinct from "formal      contract"), not the content (which can be very complex)

 Specific form -      "signed, sealed and delivered"

 Can be enforced without      consideration (exception to the requirement of consideration)

 What is "consideration"?

  Benefit to the promisor       (directly)

  Detriment to the promisee       incurred at the promisors' request (benefit to a third party at the       direction of the promisor)

  Consideration - rules summarised

 Can be an act, promise or      forbearance

 Must move from the      promisee [not necessarily move to the promisor] this is further discussed      under 'privity of contract'

 Must not be past (it can't      have occurred before the agreement)

 Must be sufficient (can't      be illusory but does not need to be adequate)

 Consideration - sufficient (not adequate) - does not have to be fair but a legal value must be given in exchange for a promise

 Chappell owes copyright in      "Rockin' Shoes" song

 Nestle manufactures      confectionery

 Nestle offers the public      "records" of the song in exchange for one shilling and sixpence      and the wrappers from 3 bars of Nestle's chocolate

 The wrappers were part of      the consideration because Nestle had stipulated so

 That the 3 wrappers were      considered to be of no value to Nestle was irrelevant - a contracting      party can stipulate whatever consideration it chooses

 Consideration - must be sufficient, not illusory

 A son had given to his      father a promise to "stop complaining" as consideration for the      father's forgiveness of a debt

 Held: the son's promise to      "stop complaining" was not consideration for the father's      promise because it was too vague

 Conduct yourself      'properly' sufficiently certain

 Consideration - cannot be past

Cannot enforce promise made     after contract complete: Roscorla v Thomas (1842)

Note 'exception': where     past acts or forbearance are done at the request of the promisor when     there is an understanding between the parties that the services would be     paid for: Re Casey's Patents [1892] 1 Ch 104 then the recipient of the benefit of     the services may come under an obligation to make restitution)

 Consideration - needs to be sufficient

  Contra Glasbrook       Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270 - police going beyond the       public duty to serve and protect

    Stilk v       Myrick [1809]       2 Camp 317 - crew performing existing duty

  Contra Hartley       v Ponsonby (1857)       7 E&B 872 - where crew got paid more because journey was dangerous       and thus different

  Wigan v       Edwards (1973)       can't threaten to break an existing obligation to get more out of the       other side

  Contra       Musumeci v Winadell (1994) where continuing to do what you are obligated       to provides a commercial benefit to the other side such as remaining a       tenant by them paying reduced rent

  Consideration - Part payment of an existing debt

 Full payment required

 Consideration required for      promise to accept part payment (something in addition to existing payment      obligations)

 Example of the rule in      action and outstanding balance recoverable

 Estoppel

 No consideration exists

 The formalities of making      a contract have not been satisfied and estoppel will prevent      unconscionable conduct

 Estoppel - elements Text 6.1230

The     promisee, on reasonable grounds, assumed that a particular legal     relationship existed or would exist between the parties (the     assumption)

The promisor either induced     the assumption or, being aware that the promisee had made the assumption,     deliberately remained silent in circumstances where the promisor could     reasonable have been expected to speak (promisor responsible for     the assumption)

The promisee acted or     refrained from acting on the faith of the assumption (the     reliance)

The promisee will suffer     such a detriment if the promisor is permitted to renege on the promise (the     detriment)

The assumption can be     either one of fact or law

Promise with no     consideration

One party will be affected     badly

 Estoppel - the cases

 Party estopped from      reneging on promise

 Need to identify just what      the promise was

 Party estopped from      denying a contract existed

 Need to identify just what      the detriment is

 Need to identify what is      being relied on

 Here it was too vague

 Just what was the      detriment avoided?

 Contractual capacity: categories

 Mentally impaired

 Intoxicated

 Bankrupts

 Contractual capacity - minors: Text 6.1330

  For benefit of the       minors: s 19

  For sale or purchase of       property: s 20

  Contractual capacity - other classes

 Act through agents having      actual or apparent authority (absence of authority may result in the      contract being of no effect)

 Contract can be avoided by      mentally impaired or intoxicated party if the other party was or should      have been aware that the mentally impaired or intoxicated party did not      understand the contract

 Bankruptcy      disclosed/discovered when contracting

 Contracts can be avoided

 Legality - statutory illegality

 Illegal, and/or

 Void?

 Illegal?

 Void?

 Unenforceable?

 Legality - statutory illegality: Examples

 Law prohibited contract      being formed: could not sue

 Activity illegal but      contracts made during illegal activity enforceable

 Legality - common law illegality: text 6.1430

 Furtherance of crime -      illegal

 Sexual immorality -      illegal

 Oust court jurisdiction -      void

 Unreasonable restraints of      trade - void

 Formal requirements for writing: text 6.1500-6.1520

The main category is     dealings in land need to be evidenced in writing but are 'unenforceable'     as opposed to void

Doctrine of part     performance can assist innocent parties who partially perform their     obligations

Some other types of     contract may be either void or unenforceable under specific statutes

 Voidable contracts

Contract does exist but one     of the parties has the legal right to 'avoid' or not perform

Contract is effective until     one party takes action to terminate/rescind the contract

Terminate means end a contract after     part performance from which time onwards further performance is not     required

Rescind means to restore the     parties to the position they were in before the contract

Rescission must be effected     promptly - right o rescind may be lost if rights of innocent third parties     are affected

Runs until     the innocent party ends it

 Void contracts

Contract does not exist and     so is of no legal effect

Contract ineffective with     no need for parties to take any further action

A 3rd party impacted by the     void contract has no rights and contractual protections

No rights or obligations -     neither party can recover damages for breach and neither party can enforce     the promises

Alternative remedies may     arise independently of the contract for the return of money and/or     property exchanged pursuant to the void arrangement

 Consent - factors affecting consent

 Non est factum (really a      subset of mistake)

 Mistake

 Misrepresentation

 Unconscionable conduct

 Undue influence

 Duress

 Contract is void, or

 Contract is voidable

 Remember that there is a      3rd 'class' contract: unenforceable

 Misrepresentation

  Tort

    Tort of negligent       misstatement

    No remedy in tort law or       in contract (rescission only)

    Misleading or deceptive       conduct

  Mistake: Each type has a specific effect on the contract

 Both parties make the same      mistake

 Mistake as to the nature      of the document signed

 Both parties are mistaken      but about different things: misunderstand each other and deal at      cross-purpose

 Only one party is mistaken      and the other party is aware of the mistake and tries to take advantage      of that mistake

 Unilateral Mistake - nature of a document

Non est     factum: a     unilateral mistake as to the nature of a document signed by the plaintiff     where the document was fundamentally and radically different in character     from that which the plaintiff believed was being signed

VERY hard to establish

Effect: contract is void

 Unilateral Mistake - Petelin v Cullen (1975) 132 CLR 355

 However, the document was      really an extension of the option (which had lapsed)

  The document that Petelin       signed was fundamentally and radically different from the one that he       thought he was signing, and

  His failure to read and       understand the document was not due to carelessness on his part

  Unilateral Mistake - Gallie v Lee [1971] AC 1004

 Gallie's plea of non est      factum failed

 The court held that there      was no fundamental or radical different between what she had signed and      what she thought she was signing - either way, the document was a      transfer (only the transferees were different)

 Unilateral Mistake - identity of one of the parties

Contract is void for the     mistake only where the identity of the other party is of vital     importance to the mistaken party thereby evincing an intention to contract     only with that other party

Lewis v     Averay [1972]     1 QB 198: not void for mistake because meant to deal with the person     standing in front of him. It was fraudulent misrepresentation thus     voidable which was useless on these facts because the innocent 3rd party     had an interest in the car

Ingram v     Little (1961):     Innocent party had evidenced they ONLY intended to deal with an identified     individual: void for mistake

Shogun     Finance Ltd v Hudson (2004): A case of identity theft and documentation dealt with     other the internet: void for mistake

 Unilateral Mistake - Written Documents

 Written contract

 Serious mistake about a      fundamental term

 Knowledge: the other party      is aware that circumstances exist which indicate that the first party is      entering the contract under some serious mistake or misapprehension about      either the content or subject matter

 Unilateral Mistake: Documents: Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422

 Because the remedies      sought were those of equity (not common law), the remedy ordered for the      consequences of unilateral mistake was rescission due to the nature of      the vendor's mistake and the purchaser's unconscionable conduct

 Mutual Mistake: parties at cross purposes

Mutual     mistake: both     parties make a different mistake as to the terms of the contract

Effect: contract is void

Cannot infer any agreement     between the parties not operative if reasonable person can discern an     agreement between the parties (regardless of any subjective intentions of     the parties)

Determined objectively: Raffles v     Wichelhaus     (1864) 159 ER 375 - each talking about a different ship: void

 Common Mistake

Common     mistake: both     parties make the same mistake as to the existence or identity of the     subject matter of the contract

Effect: contract is void

Elements set out in Great     Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd (The Great     Pearce) (2003):     at text 6.1810

 Common Mistake: Examples

Bell v     Lever Brothers Ltd (1932): no common mistake. IT was just that the employer was     unaware of a fact

McCrae v     Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377 Not available were a party promised     the existence of the subject matter (as distinct from being mistaken that     is existed)

Leaf v     International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86: the mistake has to be about identity or     existence. Here it was just about an attribute being the artist

Great     Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd (The Great     Peace) (2003):     common mistake over location of vessel. Too great a delay in notifying     rescission so had to pay fee

 Duress

 Barton v      Armstrong (1973)      47 ALJR 781: threat to injure person

 North      Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd [1979] 1 CQB 705: threat      to break contract but lost right to get a remedy because of delay in      taking legal action was implied affirmation of contract

 Undue Influence

 Here undue influence is      presumed to exist unless proven otherwise - rebuttable presumption

 Where a high degree of      trust and confidence has developed between the parties

 Once established, the onus      of proof is on the dominant party to prove that the contract was      voluntary

 Undue Influence: Case examples

 Example of 'other      relationships' where the friend was proved to being a position of trust      and confidence: remedy

 Established religious      relationship but 6 year delay in taking action meant she agreed to the      gift: no remedy

 Established medical      relationship demonstrates the standard required to disprove influence and      that the gifts were made independently with free judgement

[therichmondpapers]

Not all taxation is theft: On Law and the problem of land and morality.

Dealing with "taxatìon is theft” arguments is a little bit of an arduous process so I’m going to condense it down to this article. The problem fundamentally is a disagreement about what morality is and how it should be applied. It is not, with fiscal conservatives, right wing Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, ultimately, about economics. For them it is a moral imperative that property rights should be paramount. There is, however, some leeway around the concept of a night watchman state. I therefore think it’s possible to discuss helpful compromises between fiscal conservatives and progressives. The place to start, I think, is a contrast between anarchism and Libertarianism. There are three models of anarchism I want to engage with here. The first is simply the true egoist model, might makes right. If I’m bigger and stronger I can take your stuff and there’s nothing inherently immoral about this. People can and do band together to pool their collective might and that’s alright too, there are no rules after all. Of course in this situation people will naturally band together for protection and will therefore create societies and those societies will have rules and thus we have exited anarchism. Next I want to deal with a community view of anarchism, the hippy model if you like, living together in small communities that collectively decide the rules and protect each other. This idea focuses on egalitarianism and I want to come back to that later. Finally anarcho-capitalism, this is important for the right wing Libertarian perspective because it seems like the logical extension of their philosophy. Its focus is on property rights as paramount with everyone enforcing property rights. So why wouldn’t you, as a Libertarian, simply push for anarcho-capitalism, why have a state at all? Well because you want someone to enforce those rights. This is where land comes in. Imagine for a moment that we don’t live in our real world environment of limited land with distances to travel. Instead imagine that each of us has infinite land that we ourselves control and people may only access it with our permission and on terms we decide. We may travel instantly between our land and anyone else's and we all fully understand and comprehend the terms and conditions of any deal. There is infinite land and infinite people. In this scenario many of the normal problems of economics simply do not apply. With full understanding of any deal and an infinite marketplace instantly accessible exploitation simply isn’t an issue. All value created we can meaningfully claim to have created ourselves and no exchange can be claimed to be unfair or made under duress. This is not the case in the real world. In the real world people can come onto your land and take your stuff through force, they can hide their true intentions and deals can be reneged upon without necessarily permanently damaging that person’s reputation. The real world is an imperfect marketplace. That, of course, is still a good case scenario- what if you don’t have land at all? What if you do own land but it poor or you must travel through someone else’s land to even get to a marketplace that is itself imperfect? In the real world we face two huge problems- location and information. Therefore we need a night watchman state to enforce property rights to avoid theft and threats of violence, Libertarians generally accept this. However I would argue we need something more- the state must not only protect people’s liberty via their safety and protection of their property but it must also acknowledge that some information is faulty and we must correct for that and, crucially, that land is not infinite and locations are finite. Many anarcho-capitalists and Libertarians argue that building something on land or using the land is sufficient to claim ownership, this is called homesteading and is a clear case of special pleading. Building on land is merely building next to it vertically, we wouldn’t consider something yours just because you built something beside it horizontally so it’s unclear why vertically is acceptable. Nor do an-caps and Libertarians accept the Socialist argument that capital belongs to those who use it so why would that apply here? In a true free market there should be no monopolies but with limited land every location is a monopoly. Land, even of the same quality, can be worth vastly different amounts depending on location and this simply should not be the case in a true free market. Adam Smith makes this case in Wealth of Nations as do many, many others in other texts. It is my contention that land value is therefore distinct from other forms of capital and should be treated as such. All land is ultimately seized by force, it is not compatible with normal property rights. This leads to the situation where an approach must be chosen- do we accept that might makes right? In which case land may be owned like any other property but we are no longer in the realm of property rights uber alles. Do we accept the community view that we are a collective, in which case land and the value from it is owned by all of us. Or do we accept a property rights view? In which case Libertarians must accommodate the deficiencies of the real world marketplace vis a vie land just as they do with use of force and faulty information- with a night watchman state. This, I would argue, gives us two plausible frameworks for how the state, and therefore the law, should function that are based on internally consistent moral frameworks. The first is an extension of the community idea. Land is owned by all of us because it isn’t really owned by any of us. It is therefore acceptable to state that anyone wishing to stay on that land must follow the laws of the land. If might makes right and we end up with kings and emperors we end up in broadly the same place, especially once those rulers are overthrown by the far more numerous general population. It is easy from there to construct many of the ideas of modern societies and states. In many places in the world a strong centralised system of laws has come to be developed, often called civil law systems, that set out what is acceptable based on a single point of authority. These systems implicitly assume that it is acceptable to ask you to follow their laws within their jurisdictions even if you disagree with those laws and their justifications. Common law countries have come to adopt some of the same ideas. In England the system of equity developed, again originally from a central source in contrast to broader common law and eventually with parliament as sovereign and the incorporation of humans rights into British law there is now clearly an acceptance and understanding of rights and equities beyond simply property rights. It should be noted that it is not possible to argue against taxation on the grounds of property rights in these jurisdictions. They may be argued against for economic, equity or personal reasons but not on the grounds of property rights because within this system the governing body may set any rules it likes within the legal framework laid out by it’s constitutional settlement. This includes taxation. Just to repeat- there is no moral imperative to minimise taxation based on property rights. The second is to take the property rights uber alles principal and fully apply it. Here the situation is different, the state has no right to any property you own or any taxes from you save a tax on the value of land. A tax on the value of land does not tax your personal wealth as you can not be said to meaningfully own that value under a property rights system. It also undoes the power of the monopoly of location by taxing away the benefits of that monopoly. The state may then use those revenues to protect rights and then simply return the excess equally to either all residents or all citizens. Any further revenue may only be collected with the agreement of the individual involved, perhaps in exchange for services provided by the state. This brings us onto justice. Naturally without a state disagreements can still be arbitrated but which decisions are accepted and acted upon is based entirely on people’s willingness to accept those decisions. In a system where the state is merely enforcing property rights this manifests as the state making clear which decisions it is willing to enforce. Some level of enforcement is likely to be necessary to ensure law and order but this fits perfectly well within the concept of a night watchman state. However most modern governments provide services like company registration in exchange for limited liability for shareholders and also intellectual property rights. It seems reasonable that these would be considered above and beyond what is required merely to maintain law, order and basic property rights and so would require accepting additional fees and regulation from the government in exchange for those services. Beyond tempting people into signing contracts in exchange for services however the government would have no right to enforce laws beyond property rights and demand taxation beyond land value taxes. Therefore if you want to make an argument for low or no taxation based on property rights, the famous “taxation is theft” argument, then this is the model you should be advocating.