Altruism

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Your description is so insulting and so unfair.

Ellen,

Just one last comment. Before you start playing that card just a little too hard, it might be useful to go back over the threads, pretend you are me, and take a look at the crap that gets thrown at me.

I started out by saying that there was a logical problem with the Objectivist concept of rights I have discerned and I intend to look into the roots, starting with the metaphysical level and building up the concept anew from there. I was then told:

1. I am not thinking rationally, but using emotions instead,

2. I do not know what positive and negative rights are,

3. I cause people's heads to tie in knots,

4. I am insulting everyone,

5. My understanding of philosophy is poor,

6. I am unable to make a coherent (or rational) exposition of the problem I am looking at,

7. (Just recently) I feel threatened,

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. All this is peppered with elementary, but somewhat extended, explanations of elementary concepts in a tone that makes it clear I am a total newbie or numskull (depending on the moment) and do not know what these concepts are.

I won't belabor all this, but notice what is missing. Nobody talks about the roots of the concept at the metaphysical level while they are lecturing me on the obvious, telling me what I think and questioning my mental capacity. Nobody talks about human nature, even though I keep repeating it.

I think there is more than enough for me to feel insulted should I be of such a bent. The word "condescending" keeps appearing on the horizon of my perception...

Only in a few rare cases has a poster who disagreed with me on this asked me in all sincerity what I meant, i.e., what am I seeing that he/she was not, and trying to see if we could find words for it so it could be communicated correctly. When I have been asked what I meant, it has mostly been in the tone of "What on earth are you talking about?" usually right before a lecture. I don't consider that a true request for information or attempt at understanding, but instead, rhetoric to express disapproval.

So before you go off and play the offended party, I suggest taking a good hard look at this discussion and see if the log is not in your eye (or in the eye of another).

For myself, I am not complaining about the insults. There is a low level I do not permit, but this is rare. If someone wants to get in-your-face-fuck-you offensive to me, they can do that elsewhere. Not here. Kat and I don't pay for this place to entertain blatant disrespect.

If they want to dish out insults in a more civilized manner like above, that's OK. But they take what they get in return. If they don't like it, they shouldn't dish it out. Then it wouldn't happen. Still, I mostly opt for cordiality and sometimes banter and skipping over the insults. I prefer positive and upbeat interaction to all this bickering.

But I can bicker when need be...

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

A "right" of one person imposes a corresponding "obligation" on others.

Not to quibble, but I don't think that's necessarily true. We need to think of moral right separately from political and legal rights.

W.

[tjohnson]

Qua definition, it is meaningless to define an organism (infant) as needing care, then derive a positive and negative rights model from that, with positive being the equivalent of evil. By definition, the organism needs care to survive.

The organism needs care to survive - it makes no difference how we define it. This is a fact of the things we call 'babies'.

[merjet]

I have strong doubts about how effective the following will be, but will give it my last "college try."

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 concept of a "right" pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights. (VOS, 110)

The above is from Rand. The rest following are from Michael Stuart Kelly.

Qua definition, it is meaningless to define an organism (infant) as needing care, then derive a positive and negative rights model from that, with positive being the equivalent of evil. By definition, the organism needs care to survive.

It's clear from the above that Rand did not do that. She didn't say anything about the rights of infants or children.

It is a contradiction to claim that negative rights are based on its means of survival when negative rights and nothing else would kill it. (Hello... certain death is not survival nor any means thereof... ) Those negative rights do not derive from the infant's means of survival. They derive from the means of survival of other organisms (adults).

Excepting the last sentence, huh? How do negative rights kill? In the above quote from Rand, it is clear that 'negative rights' includes the right not to be killed.

Once again, there is that stolen concept. One concept (rational volition as means of survival) is used as grounds to derive another concept (negative rights), then the original concept (rational volition) is excluded when we get to the negative rights of infants, which is said to include the right to life. But that is not looking at reality. In reality, in talking about infants, negative rights only include the right to death because the infant's means of survival is not part of the concept. Life and means of survival (of the infant) do not enter the picture as a value on which to base rights at that moment. Don't forget that the Objectivist definition of rights includes being based on human nature, which is defined fundamentally in terms of means of survival.

Negative rights only include the right to death? I am stunned. The infant's right to be fed is a positive right. Being it is incapable of feeding itself, it is a moral and legal obligation on its parents or other caretakers, not a legal obligation on any passerby you find convenient. Trying to make it a legal obligations is very problematic.

If you want to stay on the NIOF level, instead of saying an infant has a right to life, knowing that such a right is not based on the infant's nature (means of survival), but on the adult's instead (rational volition), why not say the infant has a right to be protected against invasive aggression and only that? And while you're are at it, if you want to go whole hog, that this is merely a courtesy provided by adults? (I'm serious. I am talking about logic.) If the infant starves to death, that is not a proper issue of rights.

In answer to the first question, that is the usual position when it comes to persons other than its parents or other caretakers. However, it is not merely a courtesy when said adults are its parents or other caretakers. It is an obligation.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's clear from the above that Rand did not do that. She didn't say anything about the rights of infants or children.

Merlin,

Although I don't think this was your intention (if I am wrong, sorry), you nailed the issue right here.

The rights of infants or children are simply not covered in Objectivism—on a fundamental level.

Rand not only didn't say anything about the rights of infants or children, the way she used her definition of man excludes them. ("Rational" is not their means of survival, so it cannot be their distinguishing characteristic.) Yet she described them in several places as needing care by their very nature.

There are two ways to go about correcting this lapse:

1. Pretend that children and adults are different creatures, which I find logically flawed, or

2. Make some kind of provision for the infant stage in the definition of a human being. I find this to be included in the genus, but Objectivists traditionally ignore the genus in discussing man, especially rights, except for very selective proclamations in making a point ("man's nature is to..." or "man's needs are..." and so forth). But this is random and there is no rhyme or reason in it. In fact, there is no real clear explanation of what the distingushing characteristics of "animal" are in Objectivism (at least, that I know of). Yet "animal" sits right there as the foundational half of the Objectivist definition of man: rational animal.

Anyway, "rational" is one of the distinguishing characteristics of man, not the only one. From observation alone, I often find there is more than one distinguishing characteristic that needs to be included in a concept.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It is a contradiction to claim that negative rights are based on its means of survival when negative rights and nothing else would kill it. (Hello... certain death is not survival nor any means thereof... ) Those negative rights do not derive from the infant's means of survival. They derive from the means of survival of other organisms (adults).

Excepting the last sentence, huh? How do negative rights kill? In the above quote from Rand, it is clear that 'negative rights' includes the right not to be killed.

Merlin,

The phrase I used is not "negative rights" but "negative rights and nothing else."

My context is the definition of an infant, where lack of care = death—by definition.

Definitions are supposed to reflect the fundamental nature of things, and rights are supposed to be derived from the fundamental nature of human beings.

"Right to life" is a weird way to say negative rights in that context. That concept is not derived from the fundamtal nature of an infant (although it is claimed to be derived from the "nature of man") and it does not include the infant's means of survival—by the very definition of infant.

What good is a right if it does not derive from man's nature? If not derived from man's nature, it is severed from reality and a floating concept at best. It is an arbitrary rule.

(Sorry, Wolf. I have not gone into your world yet where I may find a connection to reality. I am still using the concept formation system given in ITOE for this observation.)

Michael

[merjet]

The phrase I used is not "negative rights" but "negative rights and nothing else."

So? Let me put it mathematically. 5 + 0 = 5

You made two posts in response to my #278. #278 contains quite a bit about "positive rights"; your two posts, nothing.

"Right to life" is a weird way to say negative rights in that context. That concept is not derived from the fundamtal nature of an infant (although it is claimed to be derived from the "nature of man") and it does not include the infant's means of survival—by the very definition of infant.

Positive rights in the case of an infant per #278 recognize its nature and its means of survival.

What good is a right if it does not derive from man's nature? If not derived from man's nature, it is severed from reality and a floating concept at best. It is an arbitrary rule.

Positive rights in the case of an infant per #278 are neither severed from reality nor arbitrary.

The big question is who owes these positive rights. If you don't like the answer in #278, which is widely held by Objectivists, then provide a better one in which the legal solution is not worse than the problem.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

What is this business about threat?

There are no threats with me in this issue. What on earth are you talking about?

A perceived -- albeit mistakenly perceived -- threat to children. My sympathetic interpretation of what's driving you to try to re-invent a wheel which isn't broken (mixing metaphors) is that:

(1) you're deeply concerned for the well-being of children;

(2) you mistakenly believe that there could be some theory of rights which would safeguard the well-being of all children (at least within this country);

(3) you don't understand that fully consistent classic-Enlightenment (CCE)* rights theory would produce by far the best results for children as well as for adults. Yes, there could be children who "fell by the wayside," so to speak, and weren't taken care of, but this would be the case with any system and would happen with significantly less frequency if CCE were well and widely understood and implemented.

But, suppose, I've hypothesized, you truly don't understand the benefits to children of CCE; suppose that, instead, you think, because of the altercations over the legalities in regard to the abandoned-child-in-the-wilderness scene, that a lot of children would go hungry with a CCE approach. This could explain your desire to come up with a different approach.

If the above hypothesis doesn't explain what's driving you, I can only think of alternate non-flattering hypotheses.

Ellen

* using that description for short: I mean by it the rights theory the core of which was developed by 17th- and 18th-century philosophers, Locke prominently among them, and was the initial core of the approach to rights of the United States, and was the basis of AR's presentation.

___

[tjohnson]

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 concept of a "right" pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights. (VOS, 110)

If it was me I would simply say that if we do not take care of our children then this analysis of the rights of man will not matter since the children will not grow up to be rational adults. I think it goes without saying, as apparently Rand did NOT say, that children must be given some right to life as well. If you include man's offspring in this analysis then there is no problem. For instance, in the sentence "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 [and his children's] life"

[Ellen Stuttle]

A "right" of one person imposes a corresponding "obligation" on others.

Not to quibble, but I don't think that's necessarily true. We need to think of moral right separately from political and legal rights.

W.

Well...to quibble. ;-) I think I understand the point you're making, which is the difference between an "obligation" which should be enforceable according to CCE (consistent classical Enlightnment rights theory, as explained in a footnote to my post above) and what might be de facto enforceable in a given political/legal circumstance. I grant that those could easily be different. Far too many times they are different in every country of the world today.

On the other hand, if what you mean is the difference between morality generally and the narrower range of rights (enforceable moral claims), then I don't agree. A lot of what's moral isn't encompassed by rights -- or another way of saying that, "what's right" isn't necessarily, in a great many cases isn't, "a right." The multiple uses of "right" in English cause lots of hassles for explicating rights theory.

Ellen

___

Edited April 2, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

If it was me I would simply say that if we do not take care of our children then this analysis of the rights of man will not matter since the children will not grow up to be rational adults. I think it goes without saying, as apparently Rand did NOT say, that children must be given some right to life as well. If you include man's offspring in this analysis then there is no problem. For instance, in the sentence "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 [and his children's] life"

Actually, Rand DID say, though not a lot and she didn't spell it out in the passage you quoted. Your analysis isn't quite the way children are included, but it's close. The child's rights are included by being delegated (by implicit contract) to the parents as guardian surrogates who exercise the freedoms of action which a child can't exercise, gradually relinquishing those freedoms to the child as the child becomes progressively old enough to assume them. In cases where the parents can't or don't perform their responsibilities as guardians, the guardianship powers are transferred to some other person(s) willing to assume them.

It really is not difficult in principle to cover children in the O'ist theory. The only feature which some -- Michael is a big for instance -- could IMO reasonably find distressing is that of the plight of a child for whom no willing guardian can be found. Yes, such children might not be fed and cared for. But no matter what system is devised, there are possibilities of some children not being fed and cared for. The belief of those who support the Randian approach is that far fewer such cases would occur in a society affording maximal adult freedom than in any other.

Ellen

PS: MSK, please take special note of this post. It's my answer in two paragraphs to the suppsed conundra which you keep writing about. I think you're making false problems. As I said, the only flattering explanation I can find for why you keep producing supposed difficulties where none exist is out of worry over those children who might "fall by the wayside" on the Randian approach, plus the mistaken belief that there would be more such cases on that approach than on some alternate. (My belief, as said in post #282, is that in fact there would be far fewer.)

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Negative rights only include the right to death? I am stunned. The infant's right to be fed is a positive right. Being it is incapable of feeding itself, it is a moral and legal obligation on its parents or other caretakers, not a legal obligation on any passerby you find convenient. Trying to make it a legal obligations is very problematic.

Merlin,

Again, for the record, I disagree with your categorizing of the infant's right to be fed as a "positive" right. I think it's a delegated "negative" right, as adumbrated in my synopsis in post #285. Also, I think that to analyze it instead as a "positive" right is dangerous -- open the door to one,.... ;-)

The rest of your comment I agree with.

--

And now, folks,

I really must get outta here for the nonce. Larry and I anticipate attending a physics conference this weekend; there's stuff to prepare. Upon returning ("deo concedente") I have to start the complex itemizations for our tax forms. No more time for rights disputes at the moment. And anyway, in my posts #282, #284, and #285 plus this one, I've summed up my views pertaining both to children's rights and to Michael's difficulties on the subject.

___

Edited April 2, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

I have strong doubts about how effective the following will be, but will give it my last "college try."

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 concept of a "right" pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights. (VOS, 110)

The above is from Rand.

Damn, here I am again! Merlin, I just noticed that you picked a particular paragraph from AR which indeed could lead to confusion over "positive" and "negative" rights because of her talk of "positive" and "negative" in the context of the point she's making there.

She isn't differentiating two types of rights; instead she's talking about "positive" and "negative" faces (so to speak) from the standpoint of the acting person, the person's positive freedom to act without the negative of interference from others.

Not by far the first time when a localized description by Rand can confuse in a wider context. The passage you quoted earlier from David Kelley is the context in which I'm thinking of "positive" and "negative" as two rights types, one of which confers an unchosen obligation on others to do something for you, the other of which is an off-limits to what they're allowed to do to you.

I hope that clarifies.

Ellen

Edit: I changed "'positive' and 'negative' poles" to "'positive' and 'negative' faces," which is what I'd meant to write. I suppose the miswrite resulted from anticipating a physics conference coming up. The image I'm trying to convey is like that of the convex/concave faces of a figure.

___

Edited April 3, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[merjet]

Ellen,

Like in post #224 I confess that I used "positive rights" with a meaning different from David Kelley's. I have not spent a lot time reading about or discussing rights, and was not aware of Kelley's stricter meaning compared to the wider usage.

My usage doesn't seem to have led to confusing anyone other than you. So you may lash me with a wet noodle if you can catch me.

I also don't believe my statements have supported anything that conflicts with the positions of Rand, Kelley, or most Objectivists. You can tell me if you don't agree.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If the above hypothesis doesn't explain what's driving you, I can only think of alternate non-flattering hypotheses.

Ellen,

Then you will probably have to opt for non-flattering hypotheses, since your alternatives are not what is in my head.

I find it more polite to ask a person what he thinks than give him predigested alternatives on pain of being insulted.

But, hey. That's me.

Or even better, you could read what I wrote and take me at my word.

That's what I would do.

But, again, that's me.

(I am starting to perceive a mind control issue here. Is that what being libertarian or Objectivist is? Exercising mind control of others? )

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As I said, the only flattering explanation I can find for why you keep producing supposed difficulties where none exist is out of worry over those children who might "fall by the wayside" on the Randian approach, plus the mistaken belief that there would be more such cases on that approach than on some alternate.

Dayaamm!

There it is again.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For the record, the definitional problems I have written about do exist and are not false.

As I stated earlier, they are not being dealt with. The discussions I have read so far from those who are at odds with me (excepting Laure) jump over fundamental definitions and go straight into rights.

It all starts with human nature.

Otherwise, rocks and cockroaches have negative rights, too.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

What good is a right if it does not derive from man's nature? If not derived from man's nature, it is severed from reality and a floating concept at best. It is an arbitrary rule.

(Sorry, Wolf. I have not gone into your world yet where I may find a connection to reality. I am still using the concept formation system given in ITOE for this observation.)

Michael

It's hard to keep up with a hot thread, so I'll just address this one post, pending whatever happened next.

'Natural rights' has a very deep history. It did not commence with Rand. Hugo Grotius, John Locke and Thomas Paine were the pioneers. "18th century juristic thought, down to Kant, holds four propositions: 1. There are natural rights demonstrable by reason. These rights are eternal and absolute. They are valid for all men in all times and in all places. 2. Natural law is a body of rules, ascertainable by reason, which perfectly secures all of these natural rights. 3. The state exists only to secure men in these natural rights. 4. Positive law is the means by which the state performs this function, and it is obligatory only so far as it conforms to natural law." (Pound, 27 Harv. L. Rev., 616)

Rousseau, Hobbes, and Kant trashed 'natural rights' in favor of social contract theory. Okay, enuf history.

In previous writing, I adopted the ITOE method of CCD to conclude that man is a being of self-made soul, volitional awareness, etc. "We distinguish human rights as a set of natural liberties belonging in justice to mankind, and only to mankind, because the human understanding is a function of individual effort and a long series of self-determined choices in the conduct of one's life." (Human Rights) Applies primarily to adults.

My philosophical mentor, Prof. Gerald MacCallum, drew my attention to the most fundamental question in constitutional law in 1975. He turned in his chair, picked up a piece of chalk and wrote 'The rights of children' on his office blackboard. So you're in good company, asking the question. The answer I found was given by Rand somewhere in Atlas Shrugged: Thy will be done.

We each of us have a certain amount of power as parents, neighbors, voters, cops, lawyers, doctors, preachers, revolutionaries. How we spend our time, money, mental and moral capital determines an outcome affecting children and the progress of nations. What kind of world do you want to live in? That's the connection with child welfare and liberal values (the right to life). We want it that way. So, adults write constitutions, acts of legislation, tax breaks for orphanages. The express will of the people.

Personally, I think We The People flatter themselves too much of the time. That's why I have endeavored to establish something very much less ambitious. Keep everybody alive, including children, because they have a right to petition and be heard in a court of law -- assuming, of course, that we can get agreement on the rule of law, no man should judge his own cause, due process, fair trial by jury, etc.

Is it human nature to have science? Yes, among the enlightened. Probably human to want organic law and long for public justice, too.

W.

Edited April 3, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Wolf DeVoon]

A lot of what's moral isn't encompassed by rights -- or another way of saying that, "what's right" isn't necessarily, in a great many cases isn't, "a right." The multiple uses of "right" in English cause lots of hassles for explicating rights theory.

Ellen,

Morally right to live your own life, to overthrow a tyrant, to defend your children. All three illegal in the U.S. (income tax, licensing of professions, immigration law, homeland security, supreme law of the land, eminent domain, majority rule, mandatory education, public health, child protective and family law jurisdiction, etc).

Morally right to think. Politically incorrect in the U.S. Morally right to speak and be punished for it. Poverty and ridicule here. Death penalty in Saudi Arabia, prison in China.

W.

[william.scherk]

(I am starting to perceive a mind control issue here. Is that what being libertarian or Objectivist is? Exercising mind control of others? )

Mind Control? Ellen is trying to control your mind? Jeepers.

In the civilized western world, there is little danger of any discarded baby in the woods being left to its own devices once discovered in distress. There is a knee-jerk emotional reaction to a helpless infant that trumps most other considerations. Even apes have this considerable native impulse (recall the cases of the gorillas Binti and Jambo). As Barbara pointed out, beyond the impulse, rational self-interest also dictates a helping hand.

We realize without a great deal of thought that an infant will perish unattended. Its survival depends on someone doing something. No principled Objectivist or Rand-influenced person could come up with a moral rationale for passing by such an infant in the world we find ourselves in.

And no principled Randian would call for a law that they think unnecessary.

So what are the Vermont, Quebec, Minnesota and Rhode Island laws for?

Mind Control, maybe. Persuasion. To poke deeply into the psyche of the poor citizenry, deep enough to re-infuse revulsion at the idea of ignoring a fellow citizen who needs a lift back to the maternity ward.

Seriously, they merely codify what most people consider an unspoken obligation to help an infant in distress. And thus for others such a weighty scruple simple does not need to be codified. Thus the separation between the moral, the decent, the humane and the benevolent . . . and the law.

Who wouldn't pick up the child and carry it along to its destination in the maw of Child Protective Services . . . ? Who wouldn't on this list? Not a soul, I would wager.

Thus, no law need compel.

In most places, the most valuable thing in existence are children, be they fat and happy in capitalist perfection, or thin and mewling under socialism. Children are humanity's real product. In a perfect Objectivist/Libertarian utopia, I am sure that the woods would be well patrolled -- anyone so stupid as to give up their possession of this thing would find a ready set of parents waiting for the opportunity.

And if we consider a future world without CPS then the moral impulse is even stronger: who rescues the child can redeem the child. Since Objectivists are among the slowest breeders of all, there would be a mad stampede to adopt and educate that child (or to place it in one of the better Objectivist Living orphanages).

Michael, it is the difference between the world as it is (our world, the rational, western world) and the one that could be (in the minds of Rand and her followers and admirers) that troubles you.

In the actual world, it doesn't matter what you think or what libertarians think. The prime directive of all these governments is to save the children.

The very last programmes to be dismantled in a Randian utopia would be the laws mandating care for children.

In the western world, the government stands in for missing, incompetent, dead or deranged parents. I assume Rand was okay with this. She seemed, in her Q&A on parents and children, to accept that a government could and should step in to guarantee the abandoned/abused child a chance at life. Although the wording is not completely clear, it seems to me that she would be as practical as Michael: unless and until a free capitalist utopia replaces this hideous nightmare, no child under a western government will go wanting simply because its parents have ditched it.

So Michael, resist the Mind Control of La Stuttle. Know that you live under a polity that will protect that mythical tot as well as every other beat up, starved, abandoned and abused urchin. However flawed and disgusting and overweening it may be, our western governments see their duties to the child as quite evident.

In that distant neverland of Randianity triumphant, capitalism unveiled, selfishness rampant, that distressed infant would meet the same human panoply of aid, and in case of emergency (if say all Objectivists childcare centres were on strike) then the government would safely stand in, with the approbation of its citizens. Child stuck in a well, gosh, who would authorize the use of public equipment and strict emergency funds to pay the rescuers?

In our world, like it or not, our police forces and government step in to aid children in nearly any circumstance.

Rights are a concept based on reality; therefore,

a parent doesn’t have the right to starve his

child, neglect him, injure him physically, or kill

him. The government must protect the child, as it

would any other citizen.

[ . . . ]

Once a child is born, he is entitled to support until he is self-supporting.

[Brant Gaede]

Confession:

This thread has been very hard for me to follow and engage others in. Why?

I was a baby abandoned in the wilderness. My earliest memory is sitting next to a road going through the woods and Ayn Rand and Frank O'Connor and Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden came driving by in a 1955 Caddilac. They stopped. Got out. Someone cried out, "No!" It's sacrifice! We have to get to Toronto!" They got back in and drove off leaving me there, crying.

Then the wolves came by ...

--Brant

[tjohnson]

In most places, the most valuable thing in existence are children, be they fat and happy in capitalist perfection, or thin and mewling under socialism. Children are humanity's real product. In a perfect Objectivist/Libertarian utopia, I am sure that the woods would be well patrolled -- anyone so stupid as to give up their possession of this thing would find a ready set of parents waiting for the opportunity.

And if we consider a future world without CPS then the moral impulse is even stronger: who rescues the child can redeem the child. Since Objectivists are among the slowest breeders of all, there would be a mad stampede to adopt and educate that child (or to place it in one of the better Objectivist Living orphanages).

LOL, in a truly laisser-faire system the found infant could be sold for a nice tidy sum!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mind Control? Ellen is trying to control your mind? Jeepers.

William,

I guess I was trying a bit too hard to be precise, to make a little too clever of a quip (note the smiley), and did not take into account the insinuations or emotional load of that phrase.

Let me simplify, by all means. My issue is more about rhetoric than a fight to the death over zombi control or world domination.

The fact is I like facts and principles in discussions. I really have a distaste for mind games and outright intimidation.

When someone says to me:

"You must either think A or B or C. If you have any other content in you head (especially content I do not approve of), there will be dire consequences."

I say right back: "Bullshit! The hell there will be!"

In this case, my point (which is examining the logic behind definitions) is constantly missed by my intimidator. This only heightens the clarity and ineffectiveness of such an attempt and it is almost amusing (but not really) to see the attempt at intimidation gradually intensify to the extent I do not change, do not cave in, but instead insist on keeping my original idea on the table (which is examining the logic behind definitions).

To be more to the point in this exercise in simplifying the rhetoric, I don't like bossy attitudes in discussions. I think bossiness sucks. Not just in discussions, either. And I don't care where it comes from, friend or foe. It always sucks. Bossiness is an equal opportunity sucker.

Is that a little better, or at least clearer?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I looked to see what responses had come up.

Brief comments:

As I said to Merlin off-list (reference his post #288):

No, I don't think that his views are in substantive disagreement with either mine or those of "Rand, Kelley, or most Objectivists," though I do think that the (admittedly minor) terminologic difference, in the context of this particular discussion, lends to confusion regarding our respective replies to Michael.

To GS, who wrote:

LOL, in a truly laisser-faire system the found infant could be sold for a nice tidy sum!

Wow! If that comment doesn't well illustrate the lack of understanding even on the part of the educated, let alone the uneducated public re "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"! Children are not possessions to be bought and sold (a statement with which I don't doubt you agree, GS).

To MSK:

OK, if my flattering hypothesis is wrong (note, it was an hypothesis, singular, not plural), as you said it was :

Then you will probably have to opt for non-flattering hypotheses, since your alternatives are not what is in my head.

then here's a synopsis of my unflattering options:

I think that you're prone to talking off the top and rapid-fire whether or not you have a clue as to what you're talking about, and that sometimes you make an amazing mess, and that this is one of those times.

As to your dislike, see your post next above, of "bossy attitudes in discussions," Michael, what do you think your barrage of long posts and rapid assumptions as to the motives of your critics display?

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Where have I given motives, other than speculating on a blind spot?

Your comment confuses bossiness with refusal to be intimidated.

As to the mess, there are many who understand me. You keep saying you don't. I will let that speak for itself as far as mess or "having a clue" is concerned.

Michael