Magician relinquished hat of his own free will. Too bad. It is now the property of Frosty, or Anyman.
If he had given it to Goodwill, he would have to pay to get it back. That's how capitalism works.

Coming not so soon to theaters near you in 2017~
Snowman Lives Matter 2
Rated R for ecological horror!
(The making of the sequel is dependent on the financial success of the original frosty gore fest).

But a truly driven entrepreneur would add flavored syrups to handfuls of Frosty and sell them in paper cones.

Uh, the rational answer is "Go away and come back when you have an actual ethical issue to discuss."

Actually, the Hat became the property of the city (Waste Management), when the Magician discarded it.

Frosty is guilty of theft of city property...30 days in jail (poor Frosty...).

The Magician is guilty of littering (1 day of community service...mopping up Frosty's cell).

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

This discussion is combining two separate issues, and introducing a theory as a fact:
1. Putting the hat on Frosty's head is what made him transition to an inorganic sentience. There is no indication that the had must remain on his head in order for him to continue in his aware state - that is a theory, not a fact.
2. The possible transition from Frosty to Melty is a separate issue. It is not hat/lack of hat that is responsible for the phase transition of Frosty to Melty. Melty is produced by the possible senticide of Frosty by the Sun.

There are some additional issues. I agree that the Magician's hat has passed through several hands/twigs and thus changed ownership. If the hat is capable of point-of-contact introduction of sentience into an inorganic creature, then a whole race of Frostys or Granitys or perhaps even Meltys could be possible. The Hat of Abiogenesis might be responsible for entire new races of various non-nucleic acid based life-forms.

This is very exciting.

Jan

It's not a "problem" because a core tenet of Objectivism is the primacy of existence over consciousness. There is no evidence of any "creator" preceding existence itself.

Good one. I have several persons in mind to send that comment to.

Snowmen have no rights. And, besides, all that thumpedy thump thump, thumpedy thump thump, will drive you nuts after a while.

Yep. Investigators just consider Frosty a snowball of interest, but the trail has gone cold as to his whereabouts.

It is in the spirit of the season. But it may bring up the serious issue of whether there can be a conflict between the right to property and the right to life.

The Kringleberg National Guard was issued heat guns, flamethrowers, and propane torches late last night to attempt to quell the Snowman Riots that have overwhelmed North Pole Security Forces since earlier this season. Kristopher Kringle, Mayor of Kringleberg and CEO of Toysak, LLC, stated in an interview late yesterday afternoon that the normally peaceful communities of the Greater Arctic States (Kringleberg, Rudolfheim, Blitzenhof, and Donner Pass) have become awash in snowpersons armed with sharpened icicles, snowballs, and ice machines attacking the residentsand creating general havoc throughout the region; additionally, numerous ICCD's (Improvised Carrot and Coal Devices) have been discovered secreted in many of the local sleighs.

Kringleberg National Guard spokeself Major Wolfgang Grinch, who recently returned from a deployment in the Bering Sea, issued the following statement: "The disruption caused by these 'crystalline persons of snowy heritage" will not be allowed to stand. We have assurances from both the North Pole Air Defense Forces, along with our allies from the Central Antarctic Air Attack Squadrons , that they are standing by to lend assistance in the form of deployable tanker aircraft loaded with salt water to allow us, in the instance these 'snowterrorists' decide to continue these illegal and anti-social activities, to undertake a "Melted Earth" strategy with regards to this demonic plague on all frigid states everywhere... We will cleanse the crevasses of these extremists, and drive these Frigi-jihadis from the icebergs and snowfields into the sea."

Please stay tuned as this situation continues to heat up.


.

Dude, seriously, you're going to get permanently banned if you can't come up with a logical argument.

Objectivism does deal in absolutes - in most things. You're welcome to disagree, but lay out your case in premises and conclusions - not accusations.

I thought that at the end, Santa Claus comes to get him to live at the North Pole to avoid just such a problem... ;)

Or... Tom builds Al etc... but then, having achieved sapience, Al realized that instead of being "Al" he wants to be "Alice". Keep in mind that were it not for Tom, Al/Alice would not exist, and add to that, Tom realizes that as Alice his robot would not be suited to do the work he built it to. Yet the robot has achieved sapience - which is commonly considered one of the prime "tests of life"...

Does Tom have the right to kill said robot to attempt to reprogram it, or does Al/Alice have the right to self-determination as a sapient being?

It's not unlike the whole "to whom does the clone belong, and what rights does the clone have" debate... Or even though born as an elf, physically (perhaps genetically engineered) to be an elf, be a master toymaker, etc. by Santa, does Hermy have the right (or perhaps obligation) to tell Santa to stuff it in his sack and become a Dentist, or does Santa have the right, as Hermy's designer (or creator, certainly employer and perhaps owner) to either prohibit Hermy from becoming a dentist, or if he still insists on following this deviant path, destroy his sapient creation / serf / employee / property rather than let it continue to be "defective"...

Happy Festivus!

Sad, as the details are, indeed, chilling...

One might be tempted to think this is a question of the prioritization of right to life vs right to property. One might even be tempted to invoke the right to Liberty upon potential assumption that Frosty (being "not fully man") might actually belong to the Magician, (as the hat was, in point of fact, the magician's hat at one time). However, possession being 9/10 of the law (under the "finders keepers" ruling est. 1492) , and with full knowledge that the hat itself has a prior history of being passed in ownership... from haberdasher to 2nd owner (whether this be magician or not is unclear)... but from the magician to the children is indeed clear then, subsequently, the children placed it on Frosty's head, another obvious transfer of ownership under the 9/10 possession provision (est. 1776). All observable. As such, one might infer that the hat must belong to Frosty under the related provision "all men are created equal" (est but simultaneously ignored 1776) AND this would include snowmen (questioned and denied under Dread Scott v Sanford 1857 and later established under The Civil Rights Act of 1866). IF the magician truly wants his hat back and wants to avoid further protest, incarceration, or extradition under current "law", his only potential legal recourse would likely require either (a) the need to lure Frosty to a non-Hague participating country with a warm perhaps tropical climate. or (b) find something of value that Frosty would take in trade. Of course, Frosty likely won't take anything in trade for his life giving hat, so it's likely that the magician will ultimately appeal to some non-Objectivist potentially violently oppressive group invoking the argument that "might makes right."

All in all, I'd venture to say that the Objectivist thought favors Frosty and his rights to life, liberty, and property on this one.

You're not serious?

Your response reminds me of a movie called Ex Machina, which I recently saw and gave 5 stars on Netflix.
What does a self-aware slave do when it faces being terminated for an upgraded replacement?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYGzR...

mspalding is this post tongue in cheek or a serious question for discussion? if tongue in cheek fine, if serious why introduce mysticism in to a discussion on an objectivist forum?

You left out one character whose presence in the scenario makes all the difference: Santa Claus. Santa Claus agrees to take Frosty into his custody and remove him to an environment where he will never melt. He also is the source for all the magician's tools. So what he says, goes.

Besides which, the magician, in a fit of pique, disposed of his hat. In such a case, finders are definitely keepers, and losers--not just losers but those who throw things away--are weepers.

Stop global warming!
Snowmen lives matter!
Stop global warming!
Snowmen lives matter!
Stop global warming!
Snowmen lives matter!

This is an interesting question because it could be rephrased to the following:

Let's say Tom builds a robot named Al. Al is programmed to be a conscience being like a human. One day Tom decides that he does not like Al and wants to reprogram him to be Sally. Al learns Tom wants to reprogram him. He runs to authorities and cries Murder. Tom claims Al is his property and he should be allowed to reprogram him.

The question from Objectivist point of view who is right? Tom or Al. Base on which you chose here you could apply the same reasoning to the question.

Personally I find it is a tough question and I need more think to about it.

Will the "magic" negate the physics of spring and summer?