Why Rand has no theory of Rights


sjw

Recommended Posts

When Rand spoke of "private property," she meant external things that are owned. But she sometimes used "property" simpliciter in the broader, classical sense, e.g.: "The right to property is the right of use and disposal." And: "The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual...."

Moreover, although Rand normally uses the phrase "right to life," she sometimes uses the self-ownership terminology, e.g, when she refers to man as "a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and its products."

Ghs

The context of this particular discussion is Rand's definition of Capitalism. Which particular meaning of "property" are you supposing she intended in that definition?

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When did I ever say or suggest that you don't have a theory of rights? That was not my point at all. My objection was to your claim that Ayn Rand did not have a theory of rights. She had a theory of rights, and you have a theory of rights.

You need to read more carefully.

Ghs

I have identified what *I* mean by theory, and I have identified why I think Rand's does not qualify as one, and in all of this protesting, you have not once referred to what I mean by "theory", as stated in the original post in this thread. With all due respect, and I sincerely believe a lot is due, I don't think you are exactly being logical in your objections to my statement that Rand had no theory. You evidently mean something pretty loose by "theory", and that's fine, I use the word loosely too sometimes, but in this context I mean to refer to a very specific idea of "theory," one that is more systematic than the sense you want to use in your gallant defense of Rand.

No I do not agree with Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice", but I do think there is and was something wrong with the way land is acquired and held in the United States, and I think he was speaking to that problem, he had the wrong solution, but the problem remains.

Shayne

Edited by sjw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand didn't even have a theory of rights, but I, genius that I am, do.

Well, bully for you.

I am not the one who started comparing *myself* to Ayn Rand. I compared my *theory* of rights to Rand's. I say she didn't bother working out a theory. So what if she didn't? Her monumental productive genius in the realm of fiction writing (that I couldn't hope to match in *any* realm) is good enough. She also didn't work out a theory of electrical engineering, or mathematics, or science, or many other things.

She had a good enough philosophy behind her fiction that it accomplished one of its intended functions: it inspired someone else to create a theory of rights. It inspired many to believe in the power of reason and of ideas. Now some of those people are acolytes who want to fixate on her every last word and stifle their own creativity and ignore the creativity of others. This is part of why I say she had no theory: to disabuse them of the idea that she had the final say in everything. She didn't. People need to wake up and get moving. There are things to do she didn't do. She did more than enough. But more needs to be done, and it won't be done by people who think she did everything necessary.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dislike of the term "Capitalism" is shared by others it seems. But this is just a word. I also do not like her *definition*, which as I have said, stresses *property* above all other rights. This is skewed, in spite of your gallant defense of Rand. In this defense you seem to want to imply that she put property rights at the foundation of everything (like the anarcho-capitalists do), I don't think she actually did, she only did it in the definition (so her definition violates her own rules of definition). Elsewhere she lists freedom of speech as being so important that if that were violated, it might be time for a revolution. She doesn't say this about property rights.

Rand always emphasized the "right to life" as the foundation of her political theory, e.g.: "I shall remind you also that the right to life is the source of all rights, including the right to property."

Rand often contrasted the "right to life" with the counter-claim that individuals are "owned" by society or state. Although Rand didn't specifically use the term "self-ownership," her "right to life" means exactly the same thing that William Lloyd Garrison and Auberon Herbert in the 19th century and Murray Rothbard in the 20th century meant by "self-ownership." Another interchangeable term -- one favored by the 19th century anarchist Josiah Warren -- is "self-sovereignty." Rand sometimes referred to man as "an independent, sovereign entity."

These and similar expressions have been used since the early 17th century to express the same basic idea. The expression "property in X" (e.g., property in one's conscience) has become antiquated and is rarely found any more, but it is essential to understand this older meaning if one is to understand what Locke and others meant by "property in one's person."

When Rand spoke of the "right to life," she meant the right to use and dispose of one's body, labor, time, etc., as one sees fit. I would argue (along with Murray Rothbard, Randy Barnett, and many other libertarians) that all rights are ultimately a type of property right, but if you want to fashion another type of "right," be my guest.

Why certain labels were preferred over others had a lot to do with historical circumstances. For example, "self-ownership" was popular among 19th century abolitionists because of its sharp contrast with chattel slavery, or the ownership of one person by another person. And the term "self-sovereignty" was popular among libertarians who wished to contrast their basic principle with the notion of "state sovereignty." As I said, however, all such terms, when used by libertarian thinkers, have meant essentially the same thing, and Rand's "right to life" (which was also used by earlier libertarians) is no exception.

As for "capitalism," I have never cared much for the word myself. I never refer to myself as an "anarcho-capitalist," for example. I prefer the label "free-market anarchist," among others, instead.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not the one who started comparing *myself* to Ayn Rand. I compared my *theory* of rights to Rand's. I say she didn't bother working out a theory....

I know exactly what you said. And it is pure bullshit. What on God's Green Earth do you think Rand was doing in essays like "Man's Rights"? Just throwing out random, disconnected statements about rights as they occurred to her? No -- she presented an interrelated system of definitions, principles, and arguments about rights.

In philosophy this is known as a theory. You may consider it an incomplete or sketchy theory, an inadequate theory, a flawed theory -- take your pick, but it is still a theory.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She had a good enough philosophy behind her fiction that it accomplished one of its intended functions: it inspired someone else to create a theory of rights. It inspired many to believe in the power of reason and of ideas. Now some of those people are acolytes who want to fixate on her every last word and stifle their own creativity and ignore the creativity of others. This is part of why I say she had no theory: to disabuse them of the idea that she had the final say in everything. She didn't. People need to wake up and get moving. There are things to do she didn't do. She did more than enough. But more needs to be done, and it won't be done by people who think she did everything necessary.

If you want to disabuse Randians of the idea that Rand said the last word on rights, as if no more work remains to be done, and if you want to get these Randians to "wake up and get moving," you certainly won't accomplish these things by starting out with the proclamation that Rand had "no theory" of rights at all. They will dismiss you as either ignorant of Rand's ideas or as constitutionally hostile to them, or both -- and, as a result, they won't listen to you at all. And I wouldn't blame them.

Moreover, for decades Objectivist-type philosophers, such as Tibor Machan, Eric Mack, Randy Barnett, Doug Rasmussen, and Doug Den Uyl, have expanded greatly on Rand's theory of rights -- you know, the "theory" that supposedly doesn't exist. So you are not exactly Isaiah crying in the wilderness when it comes to this issue.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may consider it an incomplete or sketchy theory, an inadequate theory, a flawed theory -- take your pick, but it is still a theory.

Well, I don't necessarily consider an "incomplete car" to be a car either. Are you now going to rant at me about that's BS too?

Seems to me that the real BS here is that you are playing semantic games with me. When I say she had "no theory" I don't mean she didn't have ideas that could be used as part of one. I mean that she *only* had part of one. She had a partial theory. Which is precisely why she made the kinds of errors she did. These weren't little errors. These were disastrous, monumental ones, errors you yourself have attacked -- if revoking someone's right to form a government of their own choosing and forcing them to just live with what they get isn't monumental, then what is?! That incomplete car wouldn't actually go anywhere. It wasn't yet a car.

What makes a complete theory in your opinion? Can a theory ever be complete? Can it ever be adequate? How would you know?

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to disabuse Randians of the idea that Rand said the last word on rights, as if no more work remains to be done, and if you want to get these Randians to "wake up and get moving," you certainly won't accomplish these things by starting out with the proclamation that Rand had "no theory" of rights at all. They will dismiss you as either ignorant of Rand's ideas or as constitutionally hostile to them, or both -- and, as a result, they won't listen to you at all. And I wouldn't blame them.

Well, we wouldn't want someone being hostile of someone else's ideas. Might tend to discredit them. Hmmmm, what's that smell, seems like there's some irony around here somewhere...

Moreover, for decades Objectivist-type philosophers, such as Tibor Machan, Eric Mack, Randy Barnett, Doug Rasmussen, and Doug Den Uyl, have expanded greatly on Rand's theory of rights -- you know, the "theory" that supposedly doesn't exist. So you are not exactly Isaiah crying in the wilderness when it comes to this issue.

Have any of these fine philosophers dealt with your essay I referred to above? If so, I would surely find some value in what they had to say. If not then I suspect their credibility is in question if they presume to expand on Rand's theory of rights -- your essay raises some of the most serious and pressing questions about her theory.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may consider it an incomplete or sketchy theory, an inadequate theory, a flawed theory -- take your pick, but it is still a theory.

Well, I don't necessarily consider an "incomplete car" to be a car either. Are you now going to rant at me about that's BS too?

My rant here is about your idiotic comparison between a theory and a car.

Seems to me that the real BS here is that you are playing semantic games with me. When I say she had "no theory" I don't mean she didn't have ideas that could be used as part of one. I mean that she *only* had part of one. She had a partial theory.

First you said that Rand had no theory of rights. Now you say that she had a partial theory of rights. So which is it?

If you had said "partial" (or even "incomplete") theory instead of "no" theory to begin with, you would have gotten no argument from me.

But let's back up to the first paragraph of your initial post, which you claimed that I ignored earlier on.

Selene asked me to create a thread regarding why I say Rand has no theory of rights.

Any theory must, as a bare starting point, identify its units, whether entity, action, or attribute. It must identify their essential nature. And it must comprehensively identify their range, the fundamental types of units in its domain. It thereby sets the stage for extension and application, by others, to the full set of units specified by the theory.

Rand did all the things you mention here. You may not agree with the way she did them, but that is a different issue.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding hostility to ideas George, I read your "In Defense of Rational Anarchism", and I see a love of Man's Rights, and no attack on me. You even recognize my right to form a government, so long as that government doesn't attack you. "... I believe that innocent people cannot be forced to surrender any of their natural rights." -- what a magnificent statement this is.

Portions of Rand's ideas are of a radically different character. She *vehemently attacks* your right to practice anarchy in your little corner of the world. She *vehemently attacks* the second inventor's right to use the products of his own mind, and then almost gleefully relishes when he doesn't make it to the patent office in time.

So yes, there are elements of Rand's "theory" that I am quite hostile to, because *she* was quite hostile to my own rights -- I wasn't the one who started it.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My rant here is about your idiotic comparison between a theory and a car.

It seems to me that you lapse into this kind knuckle-dragging insult when you can't actually address the argument. And the argument was that a part of something is not necessarily the thing. An arm is not a man, an engine is not a car, an idea is not a theory. A part of a whole is not a whole. What makes something whole? When it can accomplish its function. A man without an arm that can still think and act is a man. A theory such as Rand's is too contradictory and incomplete to accomplish its proper function as a reliable guide to Man's Rights. And that is my position on it. That is why it does not qualify as a theory.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moreover, for decades Objectivist-type philosophers, such as Tibor Machan, Eric Mack, Randy Barnett, Doug Rasmussen, and Doug Den Uyl, have expanded greatly on Rand's theory of rights -- you know, the "theory" that supposedly doesn't exist. So you are not exactly Isaiah crying in the wilderness when it comes to this issue.

Have any of these fine philosophers dealt with your essay I referred to above? If so, I would surely find some value in what they had to say. If not then I suspect their credibility is in question if they presume to expand on Rand's theory of rights -- your essay raises some of the most serious and pressing questions about her theory.

You keep confusing a theory of rights with the anarchism/minarchism controversy. Even so, the minarchist Tibor Machan has written dozens of books, some of which deal with the problem of government and consent. Randy Barnett, in contrast, is an anarchist, and his book The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law (1998) contains a lengthy and generous mention of me in the Acknowledgments, which notes (along with some footnotes) a number of the ideas that I suggested to him during the many years we lectured together at IHS and Cato seminars. See page IX in the Amazon samples. Just do a search for "Smith." Randy specifically mentions Chapter One (on natural law and natural rights) and Chapter Four (on inalienable rights) as the chapters where I exerted the most influence on his thinking, so it will scarcely come as a surprise to learn that I agree with him on these issues.

I also mentioned Doug Rasmussen and Doug Den Uyl. Their book, Liberty and Nature: An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order , places Rand's moral and political theory in the broader context of the Aristotelian tradition. Chapter titles include "The Is-Ought Problem," "The Classification and Characteristics of Rights," etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My rant here is about your idiotic comparison between a theory and a car.

It seems to me that you lapse into this kind knuckle-dragging insult when you can't actually address the argument. And the argument was that a part of something is not necessarily the thing. An arm is not a man, an engine is not a car, an idea is not a theory. A part of a whole is not a whole. What makes something whole? When it can accomplish its function. A man without an arm that can still think and act is a man. A theory such as Rand's is too contradictory and incomplete to accomplish its proper function as a reliable guide to Man's Rights. And that is my position on it. That is why it does not qualify as a theory.

Shayne

Fine, Shayne, whatever you say. Rand's theory of rights wasn't complete, so it wasn't a "theory" at all. Nor did John Locke have a theory of rights. Nor did Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson or any Founding Father have a theory of rights. Nor did Herbert Spencer have a theory of Rights. Nor did Murray Rothbard or Robert Nozick have a theory of rights.

No one, it seems, had a theory of rights until you came along. You should have titled your book, The Very First Theory of Rights, Ever, In the History of the World.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one, it seems, had a theory of rights until you came along. You should have titled your book, The Very First Theory of Rights, Ever, In the History of the World.

Ghs

You have a point. There is a difference between (no theory at all) and (a deficient theory).

I guess Newton had no theory of gravitation either.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shayne,

The circumstance that gives rise to the concept of rights is the need for an objective standard for the proper use of force. Utilitarian standards have been proposed, and a couple of the modern, game-theoretic ones are taken as yielding rights,* though not necessarily only rights of individuals. Classical utilitarianism, however, was a bald alternative to rights theory as a basis of legal organization.

In Rand’s theory of rights, two circumstances hold both for a person outside society (rare) and for a person in society, and these circumstances underlie her standard of individual rights as the objective standard for the proper use of force. One is that every individual is an end in himself. The other is that human survival and advancement depends on the free thought and production of individuals. Treating individuals as ends in themselves because they are ends in themselves is Rand’s approach. That includes leaving individuals legally free to create and to trade consensually because of the kind of end in itself that is a human being.

Those legalities are individual rights against forced labor, against personal injury and confinement, against theft and fraud and damage to property. Individual rights animate not only laws that prohibit or enjoin, but laws that confer legal powers, such as the formation of contracts, wills, and even powers to form a legal constitution. Those are all arguable on the basis of treating individuals as ends in themselves. There is a contemporary Kantian approach, too, with a social standard of treating individuals as ends in themselves. That is the theory of justice of John Rawls. His theory is put to work in legal philosophy by David Richards. A close contrast of Rawl’s theory of justice with Rand’s and a contrast Kant’s conception of the end in itself with Rand’s could bring to light much of the systematic character of Rand’s conception of rights.*

But the place to begin, I concur, is to scoop all of Rand’s writings expressly on rights. Then the charitable and careful thinker tries to see how it does fit or might be fitted together. From her elementary statements, it is clear that rights are a social relationship, not a (single-term) property, though rights are based on such properties of the individuals in the relationships.*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rand’s major statements on individual rights are in the following compositions.

Atlas Shrugged (1957, 1061–63): “Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. . . .”

Man’s Rights (1963)

Collectivized “Rights” (1963)

Some excerpts and further titles are here.

Substantial integrated works, along lines of Rand’s view, have been produced by Tibor Machan:

Human Rights and Human Liberties (1976)*

Individuals and their Rights (1989)*

Edited by Stephen Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your fresh perspective here, Stephen. This thread needs another voice.

What is really going on here, it seems to me, is what kind of government is needed qua rights, not completeness of a rights' theory as such. My own view is quite simple: the integration of rights' and government will never be done in the sense of getting a perfect, non-rights' violating institution. The citizens have to keep batting it down, keeping it in its place. If they don't because they have Utopia they will get stupid and flabby, just like today for other reasons. To know and have freedom you have to fight for it.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentleman:

Thanks for the argumentation. I had a small bet with myself who would be the first one to mention Locke's self as property. I won! lol.

Secondly, I was just about to ask for a definition of theory, but I believe that we have come to grips with the fact that, indeed, Ayn did advance a theory of rights.

How complete, or how completely valid and applicable it was, and, or, is can certainly be discussed.

Roy Child's 1969 essay was a culmination of the intense arguments amongst libertarians, Randians, anarcho-capitalists and left wing anarchists. I found his essay to be supportive of my arguments in the anarchist conferences we held at Hunter, Columbia and various apartments throughout NY City during those intensely political years.

As George alluded to, in an anarcho-capitalist society, in the ideal incarnation, if it could ever exist, would permit a left wing community from existing because the commune would own the property and within their confines, they could have no private property. The obverse was not true because you could not own property in the left wing anarchistic incarnation, in its ideal projection.

At any rate, I want to thank Shayne for starting the thread which I thought was very valuable, despite "Rodney's" insipid interruptions, which I cannot for the life of me, fathom what their purpose was. Just speaks to the lack of social skills that many, who claim to be protectors of the "Objectivist faith", exhibit much to frequently.

Thank you all for an excellent argument.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one, it seems, had a theory of rights until you came along. You should have titled your book, The Very First Theory of Rights, Ever, In the History of the World.

Ghs

You have a point. There is a difference between (no theory at all) and (a deficient theory).

I guess Newton had no theory of gravitation either.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Newton's theory works. Rand's doesn't work. If put into practice you would not have a free society.

So by George's definition of "theory" (which he seems not to have given) she has one. Fine. I'm done arguing about that. Let's call it a "theory." But let's also be clear that the reason I said it was "no theory" is because it is a grossly inadequate theory.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, Shayne, whatever you say. Rand's theory of rights wasn't complete, so it wasn't a "theory" at all. Nor did John Locke have a theory of rights. Nor did Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson or any Founding Father have a theory of rights. Nor did Herbert Spencer have a theory of Rights. Nor did Murray Rothbard or Robert Nozick have a theory of rights.

No one, it seems, had a theory of rights until you came along. You should have titled your book, The Very First Theory of Rights, Ever, In the History of the World.

Ghs

So now instead of knuckle-dragging insults, you're going to put words in my mouth. All while refusing to identify what you think makes a theory.

I think Newton had a theory. He rationally integrated all the information he had into a system that explained the full range of data he had available. Contrast that with the earliest primitives' explanation of physics. Did they have a theory? I wouldn't say so. Did Ptolemy have a theory? Did it *rationally* integrate? That's a subject of debate. Did Locke have a theory? I think so.

But fine, I tire of this semantic debate. Let's call it a theory, so long as we don't lose track of what it is we are calling a theory. Let's call a 5-year-old's view on things a theory too. Let us completely destroy the concept of "theory", that you won't define or explain, such that Rand can have a theory.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said above that Rand had no theory, because:

1. I do not think Rand *attempted* to build a theory. I don't think she has a systematic identification (per my definition of theory) of rights, and I don't think she intended to have one. I don't believe that *she* would say that she had a theory in the formal sense of a theory.

2. If we attempt to build a theory out of what she had, we end up with a contradictory and biased hash that just won't work, not in theory, not in practice.

Further, in identifying the fact that Rand had no theory of rights, I do not mean to denigrate Rand's actual achievements. My own theory has at its very foundation Rand's identification: "Life is self-sustaining and self-generated action." Without this crucial idea, or something like it, you can't build a theory of rights, because you can't identify what they are. This definition of life is pregnant with the proper view of rights, she left it for someone else to extract the meaning.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your fresh perspective here, Stephen. This thread needs another voice.

What is really going on here, it seems to me, is what kind of government is needed qua rights, not completeness of a rights' theory as such. My own view is quite simple: the integration of rights' and government will never be done in the sense of getting a perfect, non-rights' violating institution. The citizens have to keep batting it down, keeping it in its place. If they don't because they have Utopia they will get stupid and flabby, just like today for other reasons. To know and have freedom you have to fight for it.

--Brant

Everything man does is perfectible. The only thing that stops the perfection process is government force. So if we can radically alter government to be more locally oriented and thus permit governments to compete, we will find that governments will begin to evolve, just as all of man's creations evolve toward perfection.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, Shayne, whatever you say. Rand's theory of rights wasn't complete, so it wasn't a "theory" at all. Nor did John Locke have a theory of rights. Nor did Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson or any Founding Father have a theory of rights. Nor did Herbert Spencer have a theory of Rights. Nor did Murray Rothbard or Robert Nozick have a theory of rights.

No one, it seems, had a theory of rights until you came along. You should have titled your book, The Very First Theory of Rights, Ever, In the History of the World.

Ghs

So now instead of knuckle-dragging insults, you're going to put words in my mouth. All while refusing to identify what you think makes a theory.

I stated what I meant by a "theory" a few posts up, to wit:

What on God's Green Earth do you think Rand was doing in essays like "Man's Rights"? Just throwing out random, disconnected statements about rights as they occurred to her? No -- she presented an interrelated system of definitions, principles, and arguments about rights.

In philosophy this is known as a theory. You may consider it an incomplete or sketchy theory, an inadequate theory, a flawed theory -- take your pick, but it is still a theory.

You are using an extremely eccentric notion of what constitutes a philosophical theory, one that boils down to the claim that any "theory" that you regard as deeply flawed or incomplete is not really a "theory" at all.

As I said before, your stipulative and value-laden definition of a "theory" is wholly unnecessary to whatever criticisms of Rand you wish to make. It merely detracts from the important issues.

But fine, I tire of this semantic debate. Let's call it a theory, so long as we don't lose track of what it is we are calling a theory. Let's call a 5-year-old's view on things a theory too. Let us completely destroy the concept of "theory", that you won't define or explain, such that Rand can have a theory.

Your snippy presumptuousness is irritating in the extreme. Rand probably did more to advance the theory of individual rights than any other thinker of the 20th century. And here you compare her to a five-year-old. If she worked on the level of a five-year-old, then you are decades away from being so much as a gleam in your father's eye.

It is not necessary to cut down Rand in order to make a name for yourself. This won't make you any taller. As the old saying goes, "A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther than a giant himself." And let us not forget who the giant is.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep confusing a theory of rights with the anarchism/minarchism controversy. Even so, the minarchist Tibor Machan has written dozens of books, some of which deal with the problem of government and consent.

I do not regard a thinker as important who advocates minarchism in today's context. I don't have time to read every Tom, Dick and Harry who thinks he knows about rights while brazenly advocates their violation through megalomaniacal forms of government.

Randy Barnett, in contrast, is an anarchist, and his book The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law (1998) contains a lengthy and generous mention of me in the Acknowledgments, which notes (along with some footnotes) a number of the ideas that I suggested to him during the many years we lectured together at IHS and Cato seminars. See page IX in the Amazon samples. Just do a search for "Smith." Randy specifically mentions Chapter One (on natural law and natural rights) and Chapter Four (on inalienable rights) as the chapters where I exerted the most influence on his thinking, so it will scarcely come as a surprise to learn that I agree with him on these issues.

I also mentioned Doug Rasmussen and Doug Den Uyl. Their book, Liberty and Nature: An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order , places Rand's moral and political theory in the broader context of the Aristotelian tradition. Chapter titles include "The Is-Ought Problem," "The Classification and Characteristics of Rights," etc.

Thanks for the reading list. I wish I could have had George H. Smith's direct influence while writing.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your fresh perspective here, Stephen. This thread needs another voice.

What is really going on here, it seems to me, is what kind of government is needed qua rights, not completeness of a rights' theory as such. My own view is quite simple: the integration of rights' and government will never be done in the sense of getting a perfect, non-rights' violating institution. The citizens have to keep batting it down, keeping it in its place. If they don't because they have Utopia they will get stupid and flabby, just like today for other reasons. To know and have freedom you have to fight for it.

--Brant

Everything man does is perfectible. The only thing that stops the perfection process is government force. So if we can radically alter government to be more locally oriented and thus permit governments to compete, we will find that governments will begin to evolve, just as all of man's creations evolve toward perfection.

This is really saying that man must be perfectible because the SOB as constituted is responsible for the government he now has, which, btw, is devolving. People should self-improve, but watch out for imposing that improvement. Good intentions are frequently corrupted over time and bad intentions have a head start to the killing fields.

--Brant

why not simply wait for the perfection to arrive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your snippy presumptuousness is irritating in the extreme. Rand probably did more to advance the theory of individual rights than any other thinker of the 20th century. And here you compare her to a five-year-old. If she worked on the level of a five-year-old, then you are decades away from being so much as a gleam in your father's eye.

You misunderstand me. I don't compare Rand to a 5-year-old. I compare *your* notion of theory to a 5-year-old. As I already said, I don't believe *she* would claim she had a formal theory.

It is not necessary to cut down Rand in order to make a name for yourself. This won't make you any taller. As the old saying goes, "A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther than a giant himself." And let us not forget who the giant is.

Ghs

Well, you keep coming back to this, so I guess this is your real issue with me. You think I'm uppity. Now I have to wonder: who is actually threatened when the peasants get uppity? Is it God? Is it the long-dead King? Or is it the current set of people ruling the roost?

You claim to be able to read my mind here, to say that I intend to cut down Rand, and that the reason I do this is to make a name for myself. Now I am just stating the facts here. I know my own motives. And I know that those are not my motives. For you to leap to the conclusion that they are indicates, as I said to Rodney as well, that you are a zealot of some kind, standing in defense of something I do not directly discern, but can begin to guess at.

You don't like being insulted? Stop insulting me. It's not becoming of a man of your stature, particularly the really low kind you are dishing out.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now