Rights Theory

[Wolf DeVoon]

In the Altruism thread, I mentioned that 'the right to life' does not exist. What can and should take precedence is a constitutional right to petition the courts. If X has a procedural right to be heard, he also has a positive right to be kept alive so he can appear in court. Forgive me if that sounds like a lawyer exploiting a loophole. Guilty as charged. A constitutional right to petition affirms the existence and jurisdiction of impartial law courts. I've done considerable work on this prospective theory of legal rights, summarized in the following excerpts:

"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens... that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." (James Madison, The Federalist No. X)

"It is vain to imagine that the mere perception or declaration of right principles, whether in one country or in many countries, will be of any value unless they are supported by those qualities of civic virtue and manly courage -- aye, and by those instruments and agencies of force and science which in the last resort must be the defense of right and reason" (Winston Churchill, July 2, 1938)

Ayn Rand had the right idea. The guiltiest of men are the natural oligarchs, who abdicated their leadership of an anarcho-capitalist revolution. Instead of giving Harry Truman the atomic bomb, it could have and should have been developed in a laboratory at Galt's Gulch. This is the moral meaning of inequality. When the men of brains collaborate with a mob of dullards, it's unfair to blame the resultant calamity on a crowd of pickpockets and cheerleaders. Defacto Anarchy

Ayn Rand was quoted as saying that two percent of mankind feed and clothe the rest of us. It is unverifiable, but highly plausible that she was correct. The power of science and industry is an unearned gift, bestowed by a handful of historic men and women. If you use a computer, thank Ada Lovelace, not Microsoft. The magnanimity of genius justifies an unequal division of property. However, it is an historical fact that people like Thomas Edison and Ayn Rand won little economic reward in comparison to their "toil and trouble." I am not able to say with certainty that lesser players in the Monopoly game of life are deserving of all the cash or property deeds piled up on their side of the table. As an anarchist, certain of de facto liberty, I tend to assume that benevolence is a hallmark of right action and that good governance inspires the loyalty of a free people who might otherwise rebel against oppression. I am not arguing for or against an aristocracy or private property, except as a natural condition, when thoughtful leadership deservedly commands the willing participation of other, less able workers. Property

Atlantis enjoyed what all mixed-race communities aimed to achieve: peace and harmony -- because the courts and a couple dozen City cops wanted it that way. Not because it was "the law" to love thy neighbor. Not because it made sense financially. Not because public order served the greatest pleasure of the greatest number -- but the reverse: It served the interests of justice, defended and defined by nine old women and a handful of civilian police on patrol. (The Good Walk Alone)

In a laissez faire community of any kind, physical or digital, the rule of law arises from and requires all of the following: a constitutional right to practice legal representation on behalf of others; the right of practicing lawyers to associate for the purpose of selecting judges who, on appointment to the bench, are barred from private legal practice; and the right of any person or organized group to obey and execute lawful orders that may be issued from time to time by the courts so created. The jursidiction of laissez faire constitutional law and the courts which duly interpret and uphold such principles exists globally and perpetually as a matter of right. Laissez faire constitutional law flows from a single proposition, which is that no one may legally judge his own cause of action or act to penalize another without fair public trial and impartial due process of law. Laissez faire law is discovered and demonstrated in the process of litigation and trial. It cannot be legislated, codified, or imposed by a "lawgiver." Opinion of Counsel

I respect very sincerely the prejudice of my fellow freemen, who are angrily contemptuous of all lawyers and law. No doubt they believe themselves able to compose their own contracts and corporate charters, unaided by advice of legal counsel. Not everyone is equally competent. Many need representation, especially in the event of a dispute. All of us need recourse to an impartial tribunal when shit comes to holler and tests our community's institutions. It is good that no one wants government. But the law is not government. Law is a profession, like medicine or engineering, and freemen need objective public justice, if they wish to enjoy their liberty and privacy. Framer of Last Resort

The court is a powerful institution in historic terms, able to compel the production of evidence and to impose or release anyone from punishment. It can restrain action, penalize actors, take property, and imprison those who refuse to answer questions. Judges routinely pierce the veil of corporate and official anonymity, holding natural persons—not fictitious trademarks—responsible for civil and criminal wrongs. The concept of "wrong" is fundamental to the administration of justice. It's not an ethical term, but a logical and judicial one, implied by due process. No man should judge his own cause (True or false, right or wrong?) If false, courts would not exist; you'd have a right to conduct your affairs any way you please. If it's true, that no man should judge his own cause, then judicial procedures must be objective and fair. Anything less would be wrong as a matter of legal principle. Internet Law

The philosophy of law is a separate branch of science, independent of ethics. Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs. Freeman's Constitution Preamble

The Freeman's Constitution is a blank page in many respects, because it calls on freedom-loving lawyers, young and old, to come forward and build a new practice, as a matter of professional duty... Petitioners always have more power than lawyers, because they drive the whole thing with legal fees and particular (sometimes quite bizarre) causes, with very little preordained constitutional guidance. The basic idea of The Freeman's Constitution is that it empowers many litigants to argue and help adjudicate case law... It is an admitted weakness, that its future is utterly dependent upon the character and wisdom of the laissez faire bar. As clients and paying customers, lay freemen wield the market power of democracy, expressed in who they appoint as attorneys. Appoint none and our infant nation will never grow straight and tall, as Dora would say: "With a backbone instead of a wishbone." Ultimately, it is the moral backbone of the many, by their appointment of legal representatives to courts of justice and by separate legislation to govern a powerful Executive, that will determine the surety and stability of our economic infrastructure. Defects in The Freeman's Constitution

The rule of law has nothing to do with a sovereign state, except in the narrow sense that such states exist and when they comply with the rule of law they are viewed as 'legal persons' (litigants) possessed of competent legal standing to sue or be sued with the presumption of innocence, no greater or lesser in legal character than a single infant child. States are checked by asserting your personal right to freedom and justice -- i.e., constitutional legal rights that no state may lawfully abridge. Perhaps it's a distinctly American notion. The Rule of Law

Edited April 1, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[syrakusos]

Wolf, thanks for all the hard work. I followed as many links as I could as the night came to an end. I see now why certain details of the The Good Walk Alone are crystal clear and others are wrongheaded: you are a lawyer, not a patrol officer. That is fine. I enjoy and appreciate your legal opinions in re laissez faire law. Your testimony and summary is unique to you. Each of us lives within ourselves. While your derivations are compelling, they are not exclusively correct. Nonetheless, they are insightful and incisive.

Thanks again for all of your efforts. I have benefited from reading them.

Mike M.

[UncleJim]

In the Altruism thread, I mentioned that 'the right to life' does not exist. What can and should take precedence is a constitutional right to petition the courts. If X has a procedural right to be heard, he also has a positive right to be kept alive so he can appear in court. Forgive me if that sounds like a lawyer exploiting a loophole. Guilty as charged. A constitutional right to petition affirms the existence and jurisdiction of impartial law courts. I've done considerable work on this prospective theory of legal rights, summarized in the following excerpts:

Since ones life does exist; then, one has a right to act to its benefit, and no other.

A "right to petition the courts" does not precede ones right to continue living. Nor does it imply "a positive right to be kept alive."

A person who demonstrates by murdering others that they prefer death; then so be it. Their desire to end my life does not precede my right to continue living. Since this is the case; then, it becomes my moral responsibility to ensure that both of us get what we deserve.

[Selene]

Shayne has made several references to his opinion that Ayn Rand, and by extension, Objectivism has no "theory of rights". This is a topic that I am totally interested in discussing as I believe it is essential to any of our argumentation on law, politics and government.

Towards that end, I am requesting that Shayne state why he has that opinion.

I am not familiar with what the current batch of Objectivists asserts as to this issue. The only commentary that I found in a search today was the following:

http://newmedia.ufm.edu/gsm/index.php?title=Biddlerights2

I am also including George's article on Rational Anarchism [http://www.anthonyflood.com/smithrationalanarchism.htm].

I have not listened to the Biddle piece yet.

Also, most of the links in Wolf's original post unfortunately are no longer active.

Adam

Edited September 27, 2010 by Selene

[equality72521]

Dear Wolf,

I have written several theoretical constitutions the exercise began as a 10th grade class assignment, however I have continued to write several constitutions in an attempt to find the most perfect. There are several fundamental problems with your theory and with your constitution in particular.

Lets begin by clearly defining the Right to Life and towards this end I will use Ayn Rand.

Right to Life.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The Virtue of Selfishness “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, Page 93

In the Altruism thread, I mentioned that 'the right to life' does not exist.

I have not read the post in the Altruism thread however here (without context) the question(so to speak) is begged. You assert that the right to life does not exist, where as Rand AND Objectivists assert it is the fundamental Right from which all other Rights flow. It then falls to you to provide a theory of the origins of mans rights. Furthermore to make clear the issue given the Objectivist definition of the Right to Life what you have said is that

"In the Altruism thread, I mentioned that the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life, does not exist."

You may say that I have changed what you originally said or meant or that I have distorted it in some way. I have not I simply substituted where you put 'the Right to Life' with its definition.

What can and should take precedence is a constitutional right to petition the courts.

Here the begging of the question is most obvious. Whence does the Right to petition the courts come from? Does it originate from the document which proclaims it a Right or is it fundamental to mans nature?

If X has a procedural right to be heard, he also has a positive right to be kept alive so he can appear in court. Forgive me if that sounds like a lawyer exploiting a loophole. Guilty as charged. A constitutional right to petition affirms the existence and jurisdiction of impartial law courts.

Does a constitutional Right to petition imply all you think it does? Can a petition not be rejected? Your theory thus far is beginning to sound like contract theory of which a great body of work has been done debunking the theory. If it is not contract theory we still run into the problem of the origin of this proposed Right.

"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens... that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." (James Madison, The Federalist No. X)

"It is vain to imagine that the mere perception or declaration of right principles, whether in one country or in many countries, will be of any value unless they are supported by those qualities of civic virtue and manly courage -- aye, and by those instruments and agencies of force and science which in the last resort must be the defense of right and reason" (Winston Churchill, July 2, 1938)

I will begin by asking have you ever read the Anti-Federalist papers? If not I would strongly suggest that you do so. Having said that let us return to the point. The first of the two quotes above have no philosophical context from which it is to be understood thus I shall provide it.

The first and second article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Further we must consider the question of Justice and what is Justice. The operating (and correct theory) at the time was from each according to their ability to each according to their ability. (You get what you deserve.)

As to the second quote I should like to ask the question what are the right principles? who defines and determines them? by what means?

Ayn Rand had the right idea. The guiltiest of men are the natural oligarchs, who abdicated their leadership of an anarcho-capitalist revolution. Instead of giving Harry Truman the atomic bomb, it could have and should have been developed in a laboratory at Galt's Gulch. This is the moral meaning of inequality. When the men of brains collaborate with a mob of dullards, it's unfair to blame the resultant calamity on a crowd of pickpockets and cheerleaders.

I am not exactly sure what this has to do with the subject of this thread but I would like to ask if you are saying that Truman should not have dropped the Atomic bomb?

In a laissez faire community of any kind, physical or digital, the rule of law arises from and requires all of the following: a constitutional right to practice legal representation on behalf of others;

What is the source and authority of the constitution? what makes it a right?

the right of practicing lawyers to associate for the purpose of selecting judges who, on appointment to the bench, are barred from private legal practice;

Prometheus help us. Who says that it is the lawyers who should select the judges and why do you assume that such an organized top down legal system is best? Private arbitration courts are much better than what it sounds like you are proposing, in addition the best of these courts tend to bar the use or lawyers.

and the right of any person or organized group to obey and execute lawful orders that may be issued from time to time by the courts so created.

Lawful? what constitutes lawful? also I understand that the courts may issue laws, but why the courts and why not a senate, or other body.

The jursidiction of laissez faire constitutional law and the courts which duly interpret and uphold such principles exists globally and perpetually as a matter of right.

Says who? I see an assertion with zero philosophical backing.

Laissez faire constitutional law flows from a single proposition, which is that no one may legally judge his own cause of action or act to penalize another without fair public trial and impartial due process of law. Laissez faire law is discovered and demonstrated in the process of litigation and trial. It cannot be legislated, codified, or imposed by a "lawgiver." Opinion of Counsel

Why cannot laws be codified, legislated, etc. Why is fair public trial necessary, who determines process of law?

I am not going to continue to break this down section by section. What I will do instead is ask what is the source of all this suppose to be. I am not an Anarchist I am a Capitalist, you seem to follow the contract theory of Rights but as I have said it has been greatly debunked. Further you seemed never to have read Rands major works which address this, you also seem to have never read Common Sense by Thomas Paine who is one of the most avid nearly anarchists.

[Ellen Stuttle]

equality72521,

In case no one else thinks to tell you, please see this post, dated December 12, 2009, the last Wolf posted here.

I think none of us knows if he's still alive. (If one or more of the posters know, they haven't said best I recall.)

Ellen

[equality72521]

equality72521,

In case no one else thinks to tell you, please see this post, dated December 12, 2009, the last Wolf posted here.

I think none of us knows if he's still alive. (If one or more of the posters know, they haven't said best I recall.)

Ellen

I did not notice when this was first posted I posted in response to this because it was bumped. It sounds cold but I can fully understand what would drive him to suicide after having examined some of his posts. Let us all keep in mind what happens when we try to fight reality. we go crazy.

[Selene]

equality72521,

In case no one else thinks to tell you, please see this post, dated December 12, 2009, the last Wolf posted here.

I think none of us knows if he's still alive. (If one or more of the posters know, they haven't said best I recall.)

Ellen

I did not notice when this was first posted I posted in response to this because it was bumped. It sounds cold but I can fully understand what would drive him to suicide after having examined some of his posts. Let us all keep in mind what happens when we try to fight reality. we go crazy.

Alan:

Let's not bury anyone yet please.

Secondly, I know that Wolf read the Anti-Federalist papers. He is a brilliant individual. I thought your post was not well considered, However, everyone is entitled to overreach when they start out in any forum.

Many of us e-mailed Wolf and I am not aware that anyone received a responses.

Let us stick to the question that I posed and stay away from condescending comments about folks we do not know...fair enough?

Thanks for the link Ellen, I was going to look for it before I responded to Alan.

Adam

[equality72521]

Alan:

Let's not bury anyone yet please.

Secondly, I know that Wolf read the Anti-Federalist papers. He is a brilliant individual. I thought your post was not well considered, However, everyone is entitled to overreach when they start out in any forum.

Many of us e-mailed Wolf and I am not aware that anyone received a responses.

Let us stick to the question that I posed and stay away from condescending comments about folks we do not know...fair enough?

Thanks for the link Ellen, I was going to look for it before I responded to Alan.

Adam

Adam,

I have a very... Unique way of putting thing. I am a very strait forward kind of person and do not blunt what I say, some people think that is a short coming of mine. I however tend to think it is a virtue. In my life of all the thousands and thousands of people I have met be it very briefly, or have had a sustained acquaintance there are only three who I can say I wished to see dead. I do not wish death for Wolf, as you pointed out he appears to be rather intelligent, however there are very serious flaws in his post here, namely what is the source of Rights. You cannot say for certain which theory of the source of Rights he follows but if you have some insight please feel free to share.

Rand covers the issue in several of her books in several ways.

The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The very fact that man is what man is means that he posses Rights which are not dependent upon others. A man alone on an Island has the Right to preserve his life by 'thoughtful action' (a redundancy when speaking of man), when you introduce a second man onto that island a mans right to action does not change. The only difference between a single man on an island and two men on the same island is that where there are two men neither may initiate the use of force against another as the initiation of force, the introduction of a club or a gun, is a denial of that very thing which is necessary for mans existence, his mind.

[sjw]

Shayne has made several references to his opinion that Ayn Rand, and by extension, Objectivism has no "theory of rights". This is a topic that I am totally interested in discussing as I believe it is essential to any of our argumentation on law, politics and government.

Towards that end, I am requesting that Shayne state why he has that opinion.

Wolf's views, as I understand them, turn my stomach. He seems to be saying that we have no rights unless we have a court of law, a view I'd regard as vile. So I'd rather not answer in this thread.

Shayne

[Selene]

us

Shayne has made several references to his opinion that Ayn Rand, and by extension, Objectivism has no "theory of rights". This is a topic that I am totally interested in discussing as I believe it is essential to any of our argumentation on law, politics and government.

Towards that end, I am requesting that Shayne state why he has that opinion.

Wolf's views, as I understand them, turn my stomach. He seems to be saying that we have no rights unless we have a court of law, a view I'd regard as vile. So I'd rather not answer in this thread.

Shayne

Fair enough.

Then why don't we start a new thread using either your theory of rights or Alan's theory of rights as a starting point. Lets agree to start by defining the term "rights" and proceed with a good and enlightening discussion.

Adam

Edited September 28, 2010 by Selene

[sjw]

See http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9320&st=0&gopid=109916entry109916 .

[Brant Gaede]

Wolf told me over two years ago in a private email that he had moved to Perth, Australia with his family. I don't even know if that's his legal name and if he did die and it wasn't that'd make it next to impossible to find out anything about him. I recognized an email as his sent to Billy Beck last fall, but Billy Beck doesn't have any idea about what has happened to him either.

Going through life expecting that people should/would react to what you do in a certain way and if they don't you are a failure practically guarantees you will fail or that your success will be hollow. He was disappointed by the way Hollywood treated him too, but that's the way of Hollywood. Arrive in town like Howard Hughes with a boatload of money and know how to spend it and you won't get screwed over. It's not how much talent you have it's how exploitable you are. As much as talent can help it's secondary to that and one's stick-to-it-ness. Luck too. Writers have it the worst overall and that was his thing.

--Brant