Why Rand has no theory of Rights

[George H. Smith]

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.

Your flagrant misunderstanding of Rand's theory of rights is painfully evident in your original post. Among a number of garbled and inaccurate comments, these were probably the worst.

According to Rand, the genus of "right" is "moral principle." According to her this makes a "right" an attribute of man, specifically, a kind of principle, which is an attribute of man's mind, one that we put there. So what she is saying here is that rights exist -- only in our heads. This is off to a bad start for Rand's theory. Further, what do principles do? They identify fundamental truths about something else. What is the something else? That would seem to be the important place to find the true genus. But Rand doesn't bother looking there.

My jaw dropped when I first read this. This passage is so weirdly off-base that I initially thought you must have failed to express yourself clearly. This is why I responded to two posts by Brant before I commented on anything you wrote. Only when it became clear that you really meant what you wrote that I decided to wade into this discussion. And I knew the exchange would be a godawful mess. Other than telling someone to reread what Rand wrote about rights, while paying attention this time, it is difficult to explain to someone that they are not even in the ballpark.

Ghs

[sjw]

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?

I don't know what you're going on about. I'm saying that totalitarian governments, which do not permit other governments to arise naturally within the same broad geographic region, are preventing the perfection. Evolution toward perfection is impossible until we break the backbone of totalitarianism.

If we let the young-ins go off and start their own town, and let them run it how they want, and stop choking them with taxes and regulations, we will see some of them create systems of government that will make what we have now look like we're living in the Dark Ages. All that's needed is to leave them free to experiment, to establish a new fundamental law of the world that Fiat Jurisdiction--the true bulwark of totalitarianism--is the worst evil.

In every area of life where man is free, he achieves breathtakingly beneficial results. Government is no different. Leave men free to create governments, and you will find the same result.

Shayne

[sjw]

According to Rand, the genus of "right" is "moral principle." According to her this makes a "right" an attribute of man, specifically, a kind of principle, which is an attribute of man's mind, one that we put there. So what she is saying here is that rights exist -- only in our heads. This is off to a bad start for Rand's theory. Further, what do principles do? They identify fundamental truths about something else. What is the something else? That would seem to be the important place to find the true genus. But Rand doesn't bother looking there.

My jaw dropped when I first read this. This passage is so weirdly off-base that I initially thought you must have failed to express yourself clearly. This is why I responded to two posts by Brant before I commented on anything you wrote. Only when it became clear that you really meant what you wrote that I decided to wade into this discussion. And I knew the exchange would be a godawful mess. Other than telling someone to reread what Rand wrote about rights, while paying attention this time, it is difficult to explain to someone that they are not even in the ballpark.

Ghs

I know what Rand *meant*. I am talking about what she *said*. And not what she said everywhere, but only here, in this horrible definition. I am taking her at her word, as she told us to do.

You are always so willing to go to excruciating lengths to deconstruct the bogus statements of the most inane things, and yet here all you do is insult. Why is that George?

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne, I'm afraid you are quite innocent about what people would actually do in your suggested circumstances. I'd have to pack heat to protect myself from the cliques, thugs and gangs that would manifest themselves. Eventually they would have the best of me unless I turned out to be the worst of the lot.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

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.

I didn't misunderstand you in the least. Your point was that Rand had a theory of rights in the same sense that a five-year-old may be said to have a "theory."

As for what you "believe" Rand would say, this is nothing more than a bad guess on your part, one designed to cover your butt. Rand referred to her moral and/or political theory many times. Here is just one example (with my italics):

I will not attempt, in a brief lecture, to discuss the political theory of Objectivism. Those who are interested will find it presented in full detail in Atlas Shrugged. (VOS, 36-37)

Ghs

[sjw]

Shayne, I'm afraid you are quite innocent about what people would actually do in your suggested circumstances. I'd have to pack heat to protect myself from the cliques, thugs and gangs that would manifest themselves. Eventually they would have the best of me unless I turned out to be the worst of the lot.

--Brant

Why do you want those sorts of people to be forced into your local community Brant? Why do you want them voting for what happens to your retirement account? I'm giving you a way to keep them out. Use your guns to protect your town, tell them to go elsewhere, or else.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand never described any of her thought as theory or theoretical. She had a string of well thought out and integrated opinions. A theory would be too problematical for the completely unproblematic Rand.

--Brant

I'd like to know of any Randian exceptions to this

Edited September 29, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

As for what you "believe" Rand would say, this is nothing more than a bad guess on your part, one designed to cover your butt.

More mind-reading from George.

Only an idiot would compare Rand's many essays on rights to the thinking of a 5-year-old. (There, I left a cheap shot for someone to take, go ahead, take it).

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne, I'm afraid you are quite innocent about what people would actually do in your suggested circumstances. I'd have to pack heat to protect myself from the cliques, thugs and gangs that would manifest themselves. Eventually they would have the best of me unless I turned out to be the worst of the lot.

--Brant

Why do you want those sorts of people to be forced into your local community Brant? Why do you want them voting for what happens to your retirement account? I'm giving you a way to keep them out. Use your guns to protect your town, tell them to go elsewhere, or else.

And then comes the war-lord and his army and the community gets plowed under.

--Brant

[sjw]

Why do you want those sorts of people to be forced into your local community Brant? Why do you want them voting for what happens to your retirement account? I'm giving you a way to keep them out. Use your guns to protect your town, tell them to go elsewhere, or else.

And then comes the war-lord and his army and the community gets plowed under.

--Brant

So, better to have the mob voting to steal from you day after day with a hidden gun, than the possible eventuality of the mob of them stealing from you all at once, later. Better to throw the mob a bone, half the food in your house, your labor for half the year, etc., than the chance to live in liberty.

In practice Brant, I don't think the people you are afraid of can fight free people. I think we are far more powerful than they are. I think we would be the vast majority, as I think a lot of people out there are better than the ideas they hold.

Shayne

[sjw]

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.

I think "theory" can be used in two senses. The formal theory systematically attempts to explain each and every unit under its purview. The informal theory is a more subjective set of beliefs, it can be short or long, insightful or insipid, mostly true or mostly false. Rand's theory is, I think, an informal theory. It has many virtues and is rich with deep thoughts. Her vision of self-sovereignty and her definition of life is at the base of my theory and the works and thoughts of many others. But it is not a formal theory, nor did she intend it as one, as is clear by her having no sign of a systematic approach whatsoever.

So, when I say Rand has no theory, I mean that she has no formal theory. We can say she had an informal theory, but that puts what she had into the same category as the theories and idle speculations of many. Her particular informal theory is rich with deep thoughts, but that fact does not alter the fact that she attempted no systematic study 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.*

It would indeed be interesting to see someone cull all of her remarks on rights and attempt to build a systematic theory out of it. I am not sure that is even possible.

Shayne

[sjw]

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.

If that is your definition of informal theory, I'm fine with that. And I'm fine with Rand's theory being called an informal theory. The trouble is that everyone has informal theories on everything. It's not a noteworthy or interesting accomplishment to per se have an informal theory, although that is not to denigrate what she did have (I always have to add this qualification with you it seems because you seem intent on painting me as an uppity peasant).

In my original post I did say she had "no theory" rather than saying she had "no formal theory," although I think it is clear from this that I meant "no formal theory":

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.

If someone can tell me how to edit the title I will, in retrospect I wish I would have said she had no formal theory.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

As for what you "believe" Rand would say, this is nothing more than a bad guess on your part, one designed to cover your butt.

More mind-reading from George.

Instead of focusing on my mind-reading, why don't you simply admit that you were wrong about what Rand believed about her "theory." Your refusal to concede even the smallest of points -- one that you made at least two times -- even when you obviously made a mistake, is one reason why I have gotten so frustrated in this exchange.

Only an idiot would compare Rand's many essays on rights to the thinking of a 5-year-old. (There, I left a cheap shot for someone to take, go ahead, take it).

I never characterized your comments in this manner. How about quoting what I actually said before you comment?

Ghs

[sjw]

Note: I edited the first post and added this: "Edit: I created unnecessary confusion in this thread by not emphasizing the difference between a formal theory and as an informal theory. I hold that that informal theories are a dime a dozen, Rand had no formal theory she had an informal theory, and that her informal theory is rich with important and deep insights. We can appreciate these insights in spite of her lack of systematic approach, but we must also recognize the value of a systematic approach."

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

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.

If that is your definition of informal theory, I'm fine with that. And I'm fine with Rand's theory being called an informal theory. The trouble is that everyone has informal theories on everything. It's not a noteworthy or interesting accomplishment to per se have an informal theory, although that is not to denigrate what she did have (I always have to add this qualification with you it seems because you seem intent on painting me as an uppity peasant).

In my original post I did say she had "no theory" rather than saying she had "no formal theory," although I think it is clear from this that I meant "no formal theory":

Rand had a formal theory of rights in any significant sense of that word. But, in the final analysis, who cares whether you think she had a "formal" theory or not?

Again, if you have specific problems with Rand's theory of rights, then present them so they can be discussed. All this talk about whether Rand's theory was formal or informal is irrelevant fluff. All that matters is whether or not her arguments are sound.

You won't find me in the least hostile to fair criticisms of Rand's theory of rights. Indeed, one of my first substantive pieces on philosophy (published in Invictus c. 1972) was a very lengthy two-part article titled "Ayn Rand and the Right to Life: A Critical Evaluation." I no longer have copies of this zine, and it is very difficult to find, but some paragraphs were quoted by Lou Rollins in his monograph, The Myth of Natural Rights.

As someone who has specialized in rights theory for four decades, who has delivered many dozens of lectures on the subject, and who has participated in many public debates (including three with David Friedman), here is a word of advice that you won't want to hear but that you should heed nevertheless:

Drop the bit about Rand having "no theory" of rights and/or the pointless distinction between formal and informal theories. This sort of thing will get you labeled, whether fairly or unfairly, as a philosophic quack -- as someone who should not be taken seriously.

If you don't believe me, check back with me in five years and see how far you have gotten.

Ghs

[sjw]

The seeds of understanding the value of formal theories are right there in Objectivism, such as in the need for reduction of important concepts to sense data and recognizing the hierarchical structure of concepts and the value of defining one's terms.

But, any systematic analysis of Rand's views on rights would yield the result: she made errors. In fact, that's part of the purpose of a formal approach, to find the errors (the other major part is to find the omissions). Now when did she ever come out and say she made an error? Maybe she did. But it seems to me that part of her spiel was about how absolutely perfect and error-free her system was, such that any slight change would break the entire system. At some point she seems to have decided that she couldn't possibly make errors, that everything she wrote after a given date is the gospel truth. This sort of attitude flies in the face of formal theorizing, as again, the major purpose of it is to find errors and omissions. Why look for something that you dogmatically hold isn't there?

OPAR has a resemblance to formal theory, but that is not formal theory, that is a methodical arrangement and justification of what Rand happened to have said. Its purpose is not to discover truth, but to buttress what Rand already said.

Shayne

[sjw]

Rand had a formal theory of rights in any significant sense of that word. But, in the final analysis, who cares whether you think she had a "formal" theory or not?

In the final analysis, you have given us no theory of theories by which to judge whether she had a formal theory or not. I happen to think formal theorizing is important (see my previous post). Again you keep hammering on the same thing "you're a nobody, now shut up about what you think regarding the nature of theories."

Drop the bit about Rand having "no theory" of rights and/or the pointless distinction between formal and informal theories. This sort of thing will get you labeled, whether fairly or unfairly, as a philosophic quack -- as someone who should not be taken seriously.

If you don't believe me, check back with me in five years and see how far you have gotten.

That's an easy prediction, for the same reasons Rand herself is labeled as a philosophic quack. Of course I'll be labeled as a quack, and that'll happen regardless of anything else I do. I know nothing about your history, but I suspect you are yourself quite familiar with being labeled a quack. Perhaps that is part of what drives you into such intensely scholarly work: you don't like being called a quack? But perhaps not -- I certainly recognize the value and importance of your richly detailed knowledge of what others have said, and truly wish what I said had been informed by a mentor of your stature.

I on the other hand don't care if you call me a quack. I don't care that I'm a nobody. I would care if something I said were untrue, or if I had left out something important. Note that I never say that my theory is without error and omission. It is as far as I know, without important error and omission. Its expression is imperfect, but I had to draw a line somewhere. On the other hand, I do happen to know Rand's informal theory is filled with errors and omissions, and, what may be far worse: insidious biases.

If we want progress we need to overcome the errors in what came before. It doesn't matter that Rand's towering stature looms over my dwarfishness. It only matters if the errors in what she said is holding up progress in any way.

"I realize many will call my little work useless; these people, as far as I'm concerned, are like those whom Demetrius was talking about when he said that he cared no more for the wind that issued from their mouths than the wind the issued from their lower extremities. These men desire only material wealth and are utterly lacking in wisdom, which is the only true food and wealth for the mind. The soul is so much greater than the body, its possessions so much nobler than those of the body. So, whenever a person of this sort picks up any of my works to read, I half expect him to put it to his nose the way a monkey does, or ask me if its good to eat.

I also realize that I am not a literary man, and that certain people who know too much that is good for them will blame me, saying that I'm not a man of letters. Fools! Dolts! I may refute them the way Marius did to the Roman patricians when he said that some who adorn themselves with other people's labor won't allow me to do my own labor. These folks will say that since I have no skill at literature, I will not be able to decorously express what I'm talking about. What they don't know is that the subjects I am dealing with are to be dealt with by experience rather than by words, and experience is the muse of all who write well. And so, as my muse, I will cite her in every case. " --Leonardo Da Vinci

Shayne

Edited September 29, 2010 by sjw

[George H. Smith]

Rand had a formal theory of rights in any significant sense of that word. But, in the final analysis, who cares whether you think she had a "formal" theory or not?

In the final analysis, you have given us no theory of theories by which to judge whether she had a formal theory or not. I happen to think formal theorizing is important (see my previous post). Again you keep hammering on the same thing "you're a nobody, now shut up about what you think regarding the nature of theories."

So instead of discussing specific features of Rand's theory of rights, you now want me to present a "theory of theories" so we can determine whether Rand had a "formal" theory of rights? Ah, but how about the crucial "meta-theory of theories of theories"? We wouldn't want to forget that. And that might make it possible for us to avoid talking about rights at all forever and ever and ever.

I give up -- from exhaustion as much as anything else.

Of course I'll be labeled as a quack, and that'll happen regardless of anything else I do. I know nothing about your history, but I suspect you are yourself quite familiar with being labeled a quack.

Nope. I've been called many names in my life, but never (to my knowledge) a "quack." There have been many "amateur" scholars in the libertarian movement who have been taken seriously. (How many high school dropouts do you know who have gotten a serious historical work on classical liberalism accepted by Cambridge University Press?) There have also been notorious quacks who have functioned as little more than the butt of jokes.

I don't know how old you are, but when I was younger I had the good sense to listen to the advice of people who had been around this movement for a while. Although I didn't always take their advice, I always considered it seriously. You, in contrast, seem immune to advice, even when I offer it with the best of intentions.

If you wish to be taken seriously on the subject of rights, I could easily offer several specific pieces of advice, some of which are quite simple, that have served me well over the many years that I dealt with highly credentialed academics -- while being taken seriously by them -- without having so much as a high school diploma myself. But you know everything already, so what's the point?

If you get labeled a quack in subsequent years, there will have been nothing inevitable about it. You could avoid this label, as some in your position have, but from what I have seen thus far, you are your own worst enemy.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

It seems from this thread there is no good reason to dwell on whether Rand had a theory or not regarding rights. If you can knock her down on this point you will have to replace her with you and it took her a lifetime, two great novels--or three--and much non-fiction to become the rights' champion she did: so good luck with that approach. It's as if you want to build a house after removing the foundation. Rand is in the Lockean tradition which took centuries to mature and quite a while ago. Get rid of her, you'll get rid of that. You might as well run a hundred yard dash after a three-limb amputation.

Now, there is a great need for a non-Randian approach to rights and I think you are on to something by getting the morality more closely integrated with the morality of it than she did or tended to--that is, the Thomas Paine approach. This obviates the necessity for an Objectivist ethics except for a strengthening of the overall position and for purposes of overall philosophical integration. This would pull in rights' oriented libertarians. There seem to be many libertarians who don't understand or really care about rights at all. They need to better educate themselves, and they can do that by better understanding that the non-initiation of force principle is more a principle that refers to others principles concerning rights than a principle in itself because it is basically negative. Rights are properly negative, not positive, but exercising our rights is positive.

All to wit: it is immoral to initiate force--violate rights, because you are violating someone else's mind. That's where rationality and creativity and productivity resides and such an individual has a right to use his best free judgment and act accordingly as long as he himself doesn't violate rights. This is why we are fundamentally individuals and advocates of individualism.

--Brant

[sjw]

You're right Brant, there's no need to dwell on this. But we cannot build on another's foundation. We can only build on our own foundation. We can observe another's house and foundation and take the best ideas for our own, but what we build has to be our own. We have to be selective, to fit the pieces together as best we can, as we see that they fit.

On the other hand, the major part of Rand's glory is the psychological/spiritual foundation, her projection of man and his proper relation to other men in every area, not just in rights. I certainly have borrowed much of that, and don't presume to expand on what she said, nor to be able to act as a substitute in any way, shape, or form.

The spiritual transformation of man lies squarely in her domain, she is truly the Godess of that realm, not only do I not want to attempt to match her feat, I would be hopelessly feeble in making any such attempt. I may as well attempt to swim to the bottom of the ocean and raise the Titanic as perform such a monumental feat. This is Rand's domain, this is Rand's true glory, and I say this not because I wish to worship her, but from the simple acknowledgement of the fact that there is no power on earth that could help me approach her abilities in this area. And given what she had to overcome in order to do this, it makes her an incomparable genius, and me less than a tiny dwarf in comparison.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

The spiritual transformation of man lies squarely in her domain, she is truly the Godess of that realm, not only do I not want to attempt to match her feat, I would be hopelessly feeble in making any such attempt. I may as well attempt to swim to the bottom of the ocean and raise the Titanic as perform such a monumental feat. This is Rand's domain, this is Rand's true glory, and I say this not because I wish to worship her, but from the simple acknowledgement of the fact that there is no power on earth that could help me approach her abilities in this area. And given what she had to overcome in order to do this, it makes her an incomparable genius, and me less than a tiny dwarf in comparison.

I knew a tiny dwarf. A tiny dwarf was my friend. You are no tiny dwarf.

--Brant

[equality72521]

http://arc-tv.com/individual-rights-a-revolutionary-idea/

A video from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

[rodney203]

This topic seems now to have surpassed the "tapping therapy" topic, at least in fervor, if not in volume; and we don't seem to be at the end yet! It happens that the subject matter of this topic should be considered MORE settled than the "tapping" subject matter, by Objectivist based thinkers. I would be willing to assume, or bet, that this is not the first time this pattern has presented itself.

Now maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this does not happen as I'm thinking. But if I'm right in this observation, i.e., if the more something SHOULD be accepted as common knowledge, the less it GETS accepted as common knowledge (by some people at least), and with more people are willing to argue about it, then why does anyone think that might be?

I'm just bringing up the possible observation in case anyone wants to think about it.

(A definition: When I say "common" knowledge, I mean commonly acepted among US HERE !!!, not just anyone, anywhere) I shouldn't have to say this definition; it should be understood, but you know all the swine around here, taking things out of context, twisting our words, and such.

Edited September 30, 2010 by rodney203

[Brant Gaede]

Common knowledge: The atom will never be split.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

(A definition: When I say "common" knowledge, I mean commonly acepted among US HERE !!!, not just anyone, anywhere) I shouldn't have to say this definition; it should be understood, but you know all the swine around here, taking things out of context, twisting our words, and such.

If it's all accepted and settled in our own minds there is no reason not to decamp except for hangin' out.

--Brant

No thinking, please, we're Randians