In the house that Galt built, what was his goal? His original intention?

Was his goal to keep the house to himself in the end or was it to donate the house to someone?

Whatever Galt’s reason, he should follow through on it. Why, because that was his intention from the very beginning.

Just because person _B_ is not worthy of Galt’s house does not change the facts behind why Galt built the house in the first place.

You see, it is not person _B_ that is the issue in the story described. It is the onslaught and afrontry that person _B_ displays which changes Galt’s intention.

What if Galt donated the house years ago – then person _B_ just came along afterwards – would Galt go back and claim it’s still his house?

Is Galt’s new intention really to protect his house or is it to simply keep person _B_ out of the house with the UNINTENDED consequence of keeping everyone else out at the same time?

How about a really short story – a guy builds a house. He allows someone to paint a mural on it. Does that make the painter part-owner?

In most of these hypothetical cases there is an assumption that person B _asked_ person A to build a house.

However, what we are talking about is something entirely different – Person A did it on his own. With no help for many, many years. He built many roads to the house, so friends could find it, all on his own.

And person A let all those who wanted to use his house to have a party and say what they wanted to…

Then person B attacks person A – in his very own house!

Then person B thinks because he and some of his friends can raise their hands and “vote”in a really bad restaurant that they can take over person A’s house?

And Person A can see what is happening – that person B is a psycho-control freak that doesn’t really care what happens to the house?

While person A does really care – he worked hard to build the house – he worked hard to build the roads – he worked hard to come up with ideas to get more people to the house – he thought the house had a really great future and could turn into a major apartment building one day…

And that person B had done none of these things. In fact, he wanted control over every room of the house and threatened those who disagreed with him.

With him around, fewer and fewer came to the house, and of those who did come many didn’t want to stay.

What should person A do? Fight? Shrug? Something else? What will person A do?

Well, it’s longer than I thought it would be and the ending hasn’t been written…guess we’ll just have to wait to find out!

If you were the architect that I hired do build something for me one would think it would be mine. However, that is not necessarily the case. Let’s say I hired you to design and build a building for me, but didn’t give you any money yet. We went through the motions and drew out the designs, where it was going be located etc.

You started by purchasing the property I wanted and started to build the building according to the design. In six months it was completed. It was a fantastic structure, a marvel in its own right. On the seventh month I come along decide to make a slew of changes on that building. Basically, the changes would restructure the entire face of the building into something totally different then what currently exists now. As the architect you decide to destroy the building instead.

Question – do you have the right to destroy the building?
Answer – YES

Why you ask, because you own the building. You paid for the property, materials, you put in the effort etc. to make it all happen. It doesn’t matter that I asked for the building to be built. I never took ownership of the building by giving you any compensation for any of your work. You did not donate the building to me in way shape or form. From a libertarian perspective, as the owner, you have the right to do with it as you will.

If all it took was a vote to gain ownership, try telling your mortgage company you voted to own your house without paying the mortgage. See how long that flies.

I saw the movie “Fountainhead” but never read the book. That was back in my Independent-with-strong-Democrat-leanings days. Even now, I have issues with the totality of architect Roark’s attitude. Generally speaking, architects don’t design buildings for their personal ownership. Their own house is different. The function of the building, by Mises van der Rohe’s maxim, must ever follow form. Function is determined by end users.

It’s a conundrum. Architecture is a service business, and clients have to be satisfied with the service they receive. Enter economics and the principles of free market enterprise. Supply and demand. So who owns the building?

As to foundation, I find the similarity to the US Constitution important. Tinkering with foundation is foolhardy. During the construction phase of a building or a nation, the architects are in charge. Mostly. Are they building a prison or a free society? What to do when second-handers tinker with the furniture arrangements? What if they take it upon themselves to tinker with the foundations?

This is fun, Sean.

I don’t think the comment box is large enough for me to respond so I will turn my response into a post, over the weekend I hope.

Look for it.

As for Crocs, I am not in favor of them. But when it comes to Gators, especially Florida Gators, well, they get to eat whatever they want.

So if more then one person worked on it voluntarily with Roark, say only five percent of the time – does that give Roark the right to destroy that five percent?

What if it was 10%, 15% or 50%? Where is the line drawn or is it even drawn?

The destruction of property is tricky if there are multiple owners. While the goal of the destruction can be understandable, unless it is agreed upon by all parties of ownership, it probably should not be done.

Note – I said ownership – should I let the crocodiles eat the dogs I own, should I protect that dog or should I just kill the dog myself? It all relies on my ownership of the dog. What if I did not own the whole dog but I only owned part of it? What if my kiss and I each paid 20 bucks to get the dog and ownership was split 5 ways? Who makes the decision then?

If Roark was the sole owner of his building then yes, I think I can easily agree with the sentiment he presents and have no argument with the destruction of something he rightfully owns. That would be his choice, it is his sole property and no one has the right to force him to do anything with it that he doesn’t wish to do.

If he is NOT the sole owner – I think there might be some grounds for a difference of opinion. If Roark was forcing his decision on others then he would likely be as wrong in doing so has they would be if they forced their decisions on him. It would have to be an agreed upon solution between all parties involved to make it a right and just solution would it not?