Rights

[SFreeman89Vision]

Selene, I'm not sure what you're referring to with regards tracking computer usage. A year ago an EU directive requiring internet service providers to retain usage data (i.e. who emailed who, who visited which website, though not the data itself) for 12 months, if that's what you mean? If so then obviously I oppose it. Quite aside from the very worrying implications for privacy, freedom of speech etc, what ISPs do with their customers' data should be a matter of contract between them, not state coercion.

Xray, you are correct I am a student.

I don't think there's really time for me to address all specific objections to an inalienable right to one's own body. There's an endless list of "What about..."s and to address each on the basis of its own consistency or consequences is just impractical. I'm not sure that's even how the objections will be framed.

I think I certainly am trying to impress the 'negative' nature of rights as freedom from coercion and define them. Here is my Powerpoint-in-progress to show the precise argument I'm making. Right now it's very text heavy (and not properly formatted in all places) because I'm writing almost everything on there, but once I'm happy with it I'll reduce it down into summaries as it should be. Let me know what you think.

[Selene]

Selene, I'm not sure what you're referring to with regards tracking computer usage. A year ago an EU directive requiring internet service providers to retain usage data (i.e. who emailed who, who visited which website, though not the data itself) for 12 months, if that's what you mean? If so then obviously I oppose it. Quite aside from the very worrying implications for privacy, freedom of speech etc, what ISPs do with their customers' data should be a matter of contract between them, not state coercion.

Xray, you are correct I am a student.

I don't think there's really time for me to address all specific objections to an inalienable right to one's own body. There's an endless list of "What about..."s and to address each on the basis of its own consistency or consequences is just impractical. I'm not sure that's even how the objections will be framed.

I think I certainly am trying to impress the 'negative' nature of rights as freedom from coercion and define them. Here is my Powerpoint-in-progress to show the precise argument I'm making. Right now it's very text heavy (and not properly formatted in all places) because I'm writing almost everything on there, but once I'm happy with it I'll reduce it down into summaries as it should be. Let me know what you think.

Very nice presentation:

On page 9 - "interact" - should be interaction ?

"minimised" - should be min·i·mize (mn-mz)tr.v. min·i·mized, min·i·miz·ing, min·i·miz·es 1.a. To reduce to the smallest possible amount, extent, or degree.

On page 14 - "Liberty - since man's mind does not function under coercion." <<<<I think I know what you want to be saying here, and I hate to be sticky, but his mind does "function," technically, under coercion. However, it does not function in a healthy, positive manner, is that what you are saying?

On page 15 - "A proscription..."

Proscription (Latin: proscriptio) is a term used for the public identification and official condemnation of enemies of the state. It is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a "decree of condemnation to death or banishment" and is a heavily politically-charged word frequently used to refer to state-approved murder or persecution. Proscription implies the elimination en masse of political rivals or personal enemies, and the term is frequently used in connection with violent revolutions, most especially with the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution. The term is also used to express the political violence in Argentina against Peronists after Perón fled into exile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription <<<<more in this link -- is this the word you wish to use here?

Good job.

Adam

[equality72521]

"There is no such thing as a moral concept of a right, only those rights granted by ones government."

I find page 11 to be seriously flawed and I am not sure if it is due to misapplication of principle or if it is simply a poor presentation. The Author Frank Luntz wrote a book titled "Words that Work" its subtitle was "Its not what you say its what others hear."

A Right is not granted by the state, by a church or by any other institution or individual. even if you believe in God this does not change the Nature of Rights. If you believe in God or not the Right to Life Liberty and Property (Locke) does not change.

If you believe in God:

God made man and gave him a certain nature, man was made a rational creature.

If you dont believe in God:

Man evolved as a rational creature.

Rights either exist or they do not.

If Rights exist they exist independent of others and exist as an A Priori of mans nature.

If they do not exist than what we have are only privileges.

If Rights do not exist who decides what privileges we possess and by what Right.

[equality72521]

Page 10

*Rights concern freedom of action. They tell us what man should do and not be able to do.

This is not actually the purpose of Rights. Rights do concern freedom, however what tells us what we should or should not do is ethics.

Page 15

no man ought initiate the use of force should be changed to no man may. the difference is that you are stating no man may initiate the use of force is a moral imperative, where as ought is a moral suggestion.

in point two of the same slide should not say and property crimes but are property crimes.

in point three change capitalism to free market. Do you want to prejudices your audience or deliver a message? do not allow the word to get in the way of the truth.

[equality72521]

Now that I have given specific criticisms of the individual slides I will give specific criticism of the presentation itself.

The presentation is well planed out and gives mostly an accurate presentation of Objectivist position. With a little tweaking it will be clear and consistent. depending on how long you have you may want to end your presentation with a critique of other theories of origins of rights. for example rights come from society "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner". If rights come from democratic vote rather than the nature of man than if I convince enough people that I have a right to kill you than I have that Right. Rights are granted by the state. "The state which can give everything to you can take everything from you."

etc.

[George H. Smith]

no man ought initiate the use of force should be changed to no man may. the difference is that you are stating no man may initiate the use of force is a moral imperative, where as ought is a moral suggestion.

Rights entail much more than moral suggestions.

"Since you will need ice for the party tonight, I suggest you go to the store now. And I also suggest that you don't murder anyone in the store."

Not the same thing at all.

Ghs

[SFreeman89Vision]

Thank you all for your feedback.

On page 9 - "interact" - should be interaction ?

I said that man can "lean from, trade and interact," with other men. So, I can learn from Ayn Rand, I can trade with Bill Gates, and I can interact with my friends. Does that make sense?

"minimised" - should be min·i·mize

In British English minimize is spelt with an 's' (as are all 'ize/ise' words e.g. tenderise, capitalise etc). The use of Z is the American spelling.

On page 14 - "Liberty - since man's mind does not function under coercion." <<<<I think I know what you want to be saying here, and I hate to be sticky, but his mind does "function," technically, under coercion. However, it does not function in a healthy, positive manner, is that what you are saying?

You are quite right, I'll change that. Would "man's reason does not function under coercion," be more correct? Or "man's mind does not function properly/healthily under coercion,"?

On page 15 - "A proscription..."

Proscription (Latin: proscriptio) is a term used for the public identification and official condemnation of enemies of the state. It is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a "decree of condemnation to death or banishment" and is a heavily politically-charged word frequently used to refer to state-approved murder or persecution. Proscription implies the elimination en masse of political rivals or personal enemies, and the term is frequently used in connection with violent revolutions, most especially with the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution. The term is also used to express the political violence in Argentina against Peronists after Perón fled into exile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription <<<<more in this link -- is this the word you wish to use here?

Proscription means the act of prohibiting:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proscription

"There is no such thing as a moral concept of a right, only those rights granted by ones government."

I find page 11 to be seriously flawed and I am not sure if it is due to misapplication of principle or if it is simply a poor presentation. The Author Frank Luntz wrote a book titled "Words that Work" its subtitle was "Its not what you say its what others hear."

A Right is not granted by the state, by a church or by any other institution or individual. even if you believe in God this does not change the Nature of Rights. If you believe in God or not the Right to Life Liberty and Property (Locke) does not change.

If you believe in God:

God made man and gave him a certain nature, man was made a rational creature.

If you dont believe in God:

Man evolved as a rational creature.

Rights either exist or they do not.

If Rights exist they exist independent of others and exist as an A Priori of mans nature.

If they do not exist than what we have are only privileges.

If Rights do not exist who decides what privileges we possess and by what Right.

I think you have misunderstood that slide. The statement in quotation marks at the head of the slide (that rights are mere gifts of the state) is not my view, it is a common criticism of a conception of rights of the kind I am expressing. The bullet points beneath it are the reasoning I use to debunk it.

Page 10

*Rights concern freedom of action. They tell us what man should do and not be able to do.

This is not actually the purpose of Rights. Rights do concern freedom, however what tells us what we should or should not do is ethics.

I would have said that "Ethics tells us what we should or should not do, rights are the principles at the top of the ethical pyramid that embody those should-nots in order to inform political action, or non-action. Would you disagree with that? What do you think rights are for?

Page 15

no man ought initiate the use of force should be changed to no man may. the difference is that you are stating no man may initiate the use of force is a moral imperative, where as ought is a moral suggestion.

I felt that 'may not' was too much a description of material fact. "You may not initiate force against me." But of course you CAN do so; it's physically possible, just not moral. How about "should not"?

in point three change capitalism to free market. Do you want to prejudices your audience or deliver a message? do not allow the word to get in the way of the truth.

A good suggestion.

Now that I have given specific criticisms of the individual slides I will give specific criticism of the presentation itself.

The presentation is well planed out and gives mostly an accurate presentation of Objectivist position. With a little tweaking it will be clear and consistent. depending on how long you have you may want to end your presentation with a critique of other theories of origins of rights. for example rights come from society "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner". If rights come from democratic vote rather than the nature of man than if I convince enough people that I have a right to kill you than I have that Right. Rights are granted by the state. "The state which can give everything to you can take everything from you."

etc.

Yes, I'll need to run through it a few times once I'm happy with what I've got so far and see how much, if any, time I have to spare. I'd ideally like to critique some other conceptions of rights (or denials of them). I'd also like to relate my/the objectivist conception of rights to other areas of the class such as equality, poverty etc.

[anthony]

Thank you all for your feedback.

"minimised" - should be min·i·mize

In British English minimize is spelt with an 's' (as are all 'ize/ise' words e.g. tenderise, capitalise etc). The use of Z is the American spelling.

You know Freeman, I thought you had it right, and Adam was 'Americanizing' the word.

Lo and behold, I find in my old Concise Oxford that he's correct, it IS 'minimize'.

It's amusing and amazing how English can still surprise me.

Half the time, I 'translate' to American here, and often I forget - all those 'zeds'; sorry, 'zees'!

Tony

[Xray]

Scott:

Ms. Xray will try this approach with you. Please look back on the number of folks who have disengaged with her for a number of reasons.

Just trying to save you some effort.

The parable of the Sirens is enough of a warning. Sail on, son.

Your penchant for melodrama shows once again, Mr. Selene.

The only approach I'm trying is to apply what Rand recommended: checking premises and using rationality in doing so (and hard as I try, I can't imagine something like checking premises would figure on a Siren's "to do" list. Can you?

In case you think any advice I gave in # 24 to poster Freeman was wrong, feel free to point it out and explain why you think it is wrong.

You yourself asked the question about the audience Freeman wants to address with his presentation. Since he is a student, he is probably going to make the presentation in a seminar course there.

Believe me Selene, as a teacher I feel a great responsibility on my part when exchanging my views with persons that young.

They still have lot of idealism, and in their search of answers to fundamtental philosophical questions, have only just embarked on this journey of the mind which is going to last a lifetime.

What I ask myself is: suppose Freeman gets a lot of criticism for his presentation - (and a realistic assessment is that he will also be faced with criticism in case he advocates Rand's views - the reason being that Rand has always been a polarizing figure) - how is he going to deal with it? To what extent is he prepared for counter arguments? For possible anti-Rand outbursts from members of the audience?

So if I were in his place, I'd focus on presenting Rand's views for open discussion in the seminar, rather than presenting myself as a fervent advocate of her theory. This should reduce personal attacks, to the effects of which a young person is naturally more vulnerable.

Imo with "rights", Freeman has chosen a very complex and difficult subject.

"There is no such thing as a moral concept of a right, only those rights granted by ones government."

I find page 11 to be seriously flawed and I am not sure if it is due to misapplication of principle or if it is simply a poor presentation. The Author Frank Luntz wrote a book titled "Words that Work" its subtitle was "Its not what you say its what others hear."

A Right is not granted by the state, by a church or by any other institution or individual. even if you believe in God this does not change the Nature of Rights. If you believe in God or not the Right to Life Liberty and Property (Locke) does not change.

If you believe in God:

God made man and gave him a certain nature, man was made a rational creature.

If you dont believe in God:

Man evolved as a rational creature.

Rights either exist or they do not.

If Rights exist they exist independent of others and exist as an A Priori of mans nature.

If they do not exist than what we have are only privileges.

If Rights do not exist who decides what privileges we possess and by what Right.

"There is no such thing as a moral concept of a right, only those rights granted by ones government."

But rights can be based on moral concepts. For example, granting the right of premarital sexual intercourse only to the male members of the population is based on a moral concept created by a patriarchal society.

A Right is not granted by the state, by a church or by any other institution or individual.

Who else can grant rights then if not institutions? Where do you complain when your rights are violated?

even if you believe in God this does not change the Nature of Rights. If you believe in God or not the Right to Life Liberty and Property (Locke) does not change.

What "Nature of Rights"? Rights are always human creations.

If you believe in God:

God made man and gave him a certain nature, man was made a rational creature.

If you dont believe in God:

Man evolved as a rational creature.

I can't see a connection here to the issue of rights. (?)

If Rights exist they exist independent of others and exist as an A Priori of mans nature.

Key question: how can a right exist a priori?

Edited October 23, 2010 by Xray

[rodney203]

Warning: Change of subject ahead -

We know that probably the most tragic aspect of the welfare state is that the truly down on their luck, those who otherwise do try to make it on their own, get lost in a sea of moochers and crooks. Well, an analogous thing happens here in the forum. The few truly wise or novel things that might get posted here are lost among as sea of arguments over things that ought to be common, accepted knowledge. Some really crazy, non-objective things get said here. If you need evidence observe how many members OL apparently has, versus the few who seem to be taking part in the forum. Could we have at least something to do with that?

The truth is short and sweet! When a posting gets very long or complicated, or when threads go on endlessly, something is probably not right.

[SFreeman89Vision]

Xray,

FYI the point of the presentation is to express one's own views, not just to inform the class of some reading one has done. Originality is one of the marking criteria. My topic ('theories of rights') was chosen from a list so I had limited choice. I could otherwise have chosen:

Theories of equality

Poverty

Global trade

Cuban socialism

Theories of intergenerational justice

Climate change

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions (I'm not entirely sure how this is substantially different to the preceding topic)

Water rights in India

Animal rights

Human and cultural rights in West Papua

Theories of democracy

Zapatistas in Mexico

Consensus democracy in anarchist movements

Theories of liberty

Street children in Calcutta

Freedom of movement in Palestine

Personally I felt that rights was the most obvious topic because my views on any one of those subjects will be based on my conception of rights. In order to answer a question such as "Do the affluent have a duty to feed the starving?" I would need to lay out my theory of rights.

[Selene]

Scott:

I would use this phrase - "man's mind does not function properly/healthily under coercion,"?

I was not sure about "proscription." I have used, when writing legal papers the term "proscriptive relief" which means asking for relief from the court in anticipation of an action which courts are reticent to grant. For example, demanding an injunction against future behavior. A court will be very cautious about issuing that type of relief based on your claim that a future action will occur.

Usually, you have to show that there would be irreparable harm and seek only a temporary injunction pending a hearing, forthwith.

So I was not sure about how that word was to be used.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I said that man can "learn from, trade and interact," with other men. I must have missed the "with other men" part.

Was there really a choice of Cuban Socialism!! And where does Cuban Socialism exist? Is it in a little lock box buried under the despicable Cuban Communism that has pummeled that island for fifty-four (54) years? Or is it in that lock box where all of Americans social security money isn't in? Wait it must be in the lock box that proves Al Gore's argument that global warming is caused by man? Problem is that there is no global warming so maybe all that CO₂ heat from man is in that lock box keeping the money and the Cuban freedom warm!

Adam

Post Script:

I will address Ms. Xray's points later today because I have to find my melodrama penchant, I misplaced it, I hope I did not put it in that damn lock box

Post Post Script:

Boy, you have to admit Muslims are completely peace loving folks...

"By 1969 there was widespread resistance to Indonesian rule. The Indonesian military had killed and imprisoned thousands of Papuans in the seven years it had occupied the country - yet it was under these conditions that the people were supposed to exercise their right to self determination."

http://www.freewestp...w&id=2&Itemid=3

I am a little confused though, this was a Dutch colony which "prepared" it for independence in 1946 and then the Useless Nations [uN] got involved, so why is it such a big issue in a UK class?

Finally, what is you teacher's/professor/s pedigree?

Edited October 23, 2010 by Selene

[SFreeman89Vision]

Was there really a choice of Cuban Socialism!! And where does Cuban Socialism exist? Is it in a little lock box buried under the despicable Cuban Communism that has pummeled that island for fifty-four (54) years? Or is it in that lock box where all of Americans social security money isn't in? Wait it must be in the lock box that proves Al Gore's argument that global warming is caused by man? Problem is that there is no global warming so maybe all that CO₂ heat from man is in that lock box keeping the money and the Cuban freedom warm!

It's my understanding that, technically (though often used otherwise in everyday speech) 'communism' refers to a stateless, post-socialist society where the means of production are owned 'collectively', whatever that means. Socialism, in contrast, is a state-dominated society whereby the means of production are owned by the state. I think Cuba sits firmly in the socialist camp.

The discussion around Cuba appears (from looking at the reading list, we haven't studied it yet since term has only recently begun) to be around:

1) whether it is legitimate/moral/etc to use per se undesirable means to achieve benevolent ends. That is, socialists/egalitarians debating whether state repression etc is an acceptable price to pay for what they regard as a more equal or generally better off society.

2) Whether the Cuban government is trying to equalise the right thing i.e. equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity vs democratic egalitarianism, brute luck vs option luck, etc etc. Obviously this is a marginal question to someone with views such as mine since the only thing that should be equalised through force is a freedom from violence (i.e. all men being equally free from violence).

Obviously for non-socialists and those who don't place great (or any) weight on egalitarianism the argument is rather irrelevant since we disagree with the ends as well as the means so there's no trade-off, Cuba's form of government is unambiguously evil.

I am a little confused though, this was a Dutch colony which "prepared" it for independence in 1946 and then the Useless Nations [uN] got involved, so why is it such a big issue in a UK class?

Finally, what is you teacher's/professor/s pedigree?

My lecturer got both his bachelors degrees and his doctorate from Oxford. He's been lecturing (here and in Canada) for three years, he is quite young. His non-academic portfolio explains many of the topics: He has worked with street children in Calcutta, Mexican Zapatistas, and the Papuan freedom movement. I guess he teaches what he knows!

You're right that West Papua has no special significance to us in the UK as, say, a topic on the 'war on terror' might. I assume it's just a case study for the application of ethics. Having international or even historical case studies isn't unusual in my experience. For example we studied a medieval Jewish trading syndicate in the Mediterranean and the cod crisis a few years ago in Newfoundland when thinking about institutions and game theory.

Edited October 23, 2010 by SFreeman89Vision

[Selene]

Scott:

Thanks. I kinda thought that there might be a connection to your teacher's personal experiences.. I have no problem with that as long as the core skill set he is teaching gets taught.

For example, I taught for five years at Queens College in the City University of New York in the late 60's early 70's. Needless to say, Ayn and her ideas were front and center in my classes and since Queens College was a very left wing Jewish dominated school, I, as a highly vocal, outspoken Italian Randian, received unabated hostility. Even the few Catholics were initially not too receptive, but we became close friends because one of my personal friends and a co-teacher in my department was a C.S. Lewis person, like I was a Randian. We started teaching together and we also had the same graduate courses because we were rhetoric majors.

I taught at both the day school and the night school. Therefore, each semester, I would have at least one hundred and forty (140) students who were exposed to her ideas. Believe me, there was virtually no other way they would have been exposed to her at that institution.

What particular field are you training for?

Finally, Cuba calls itself a Communist country. Since there has never been a "withering away of the state" anywhere Communism has been applied, the Orwellian speak that your teacher is using is bullshit and he should be called on it.

I totally disagree with Ms. Xray, and probably most others you will get an opinion from, as to placating a teacher and not standing up for your ideas. No grade is worth your integrity.

I have gotten lower grades from political professors who told me straight to my face that I either shut up about capitalism or else. I merely waited for the appropriate time in class the next week and while answering a question with my truth, explained to the class that they should not do the same because Mr. "XYZ" had threatened me with a lower grade and that he could frankly go fuck himself.

At any rate, it seems like you are getting your presentation honed. Please post your corrected version, as I think everyone here is more than willing to help you out with it.

Adam

[SFreeman89Vision]

Selene, I am studying economics and politics (you may or may not be aware that in the UK we generally study a single subject at university, rather than the broader 'minor-major' education you receive in the United States. I am doing what is called a 'joint-honours' degree where I study economics half of the time, and politics the other half.

I hope ultimately to go into management or management consultancy, and/or perhaps one day a Phd and lecturing.

I don't think my grades will suffer because of the direction of the views I express. Nor do I expect a great deal of hostility in class. I have always written essays and exam answers that are decidedly free market in economics and pro-liberty in politics. I think it actually benefits me because they're unusual in their extremity which makes them stand out, and they are also seen as more original which seems to be the key to high grades in written answers. Class discussions are usually very courteous. There is one student, I think he's Swiss, who seems more belligerent so perhaps it's a British thing.

Edited October 23, 2010 by SFreeman89Vision

[Xray]

I totally disagree with Ms. Xray, and probably most others you will get an opinion from, as to placating a teacher and not standing up for your ideas. No grade is worth your integrity.

I don't know how you inferred from what I wrote that I had "placating a teacher" in mind. In fact I was not thinking at all about poster Freeman's university lecturer. My focus was only on a possible group dynamic which might develop on the part of his fellow students.

I have gotten lower grades from political professors who told me straight to my face that I either shut up about capitalism or else. I merely waited for the appropriate time in class the next week and while answering a question with my truth, explained to the class that they should not do the same because Mr. "XYZ" had threatened me with a lower grade and that he could frankly go fuck himself.

And what did Mr. "XYZ" reply?

Edited October 26, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

I totally disagree with Ms. Xray, and probably most others you will get an opinion from, as to placating a teacher and not standing up for your ideas. No grade is worth your integrity.

I don't know how you inferred from what I wrote that I had "placating a teacher" in mind. In fact I was not thinking at all about poster Freeman's university lecturer. My focus was only on a possible group dynamic which might develop on the part of his fellow students.

I have gotten lower grades from political professors who told me straight to my face that I either shut up about capitalism or else. I merely waited for the appropriate time in class the next week and while answering a question with my truth, explained to the class that they should not do the same because Mr. "XYZ" had threatened me with a lower grade and that he could frankly go fuck himself.

And what did Mr. "XYZ" reply?

Ms. Xray: If I was incorrect about my perception that you were intimating that he not vigorously espouse his point of view, I withdraw my statement. My apologies.

As to your second inquiry, after he finished stuttering and gesticulating, his reply was to deny that he ever said what he knew he had said. I thereupon stated that he was lying about the conversation. He then shouted that he would not comment on this issue any more. As it turned out later in the term, four (4) other students came forward to the Department about other abusive behavior towards them that was not based on philosophy or politics. However, he had tenure so he could not be terminated as he should have been, but his teaching load was significantly reduced in the next year. He retired in my senior year. A blessing for education.

The saddest part was that he had been teaching for almost thirty (30) years and he was an abysmal teacher. Very smart, but had zero teaching skills.

Again, my apologies if I read too much into your suggestion to our young student.

Adam

Edited October 26, 2010 by Selene

[equality72521]

Thank you all for your feedback.

"There is no such thing as a moral concept of a right, only those rights granted by ones government."

I find page 11 to be seriously flawed and I am not sure if it is due to misapplication of principle or if it is simply a poor presentation. The Author Frank Luntz wrote a book titled "Words that Work" its subtitle was "Its not what you say its what others hear."

A Right is not granted by the state, by a church or by any other institution or individual. even if you believe in God this does not change the Nature of Rights. If you believe in God or not the Right to Life Liberty and Property (Locke) does not change.

If you believe in God:

God made man and gave him a certain nature, man was made a rational creature.

If you dont believe in God:

Man evolved as a rational creature.

Rights either exist or they do not.

If Rights exist they exist independent of others and exist as an A Priori of mans nature.

If they do not exist than what we have are only privileges.

If Rights do not exist who decides what privileges we possess and by what Right.

I think you have misunderstood that slide. The statement in quotation marks at the head of the slide (that rights are mere gifts of the state) is not my view, it is a common criticism of a conception of rights of the kind I am expressing. The bullet points beneath it are the reasoning I use to debunk it.

Alright. Because there is not audio context I was not sure so the slide was confusing so you are using the quote as a counter point.

Page 10

*Rights concern freedom of action. They tell us what man should do and not be able to do.

This is not actually the purpose of Rights. Rights do concern freedom, however what tells us what we should or should not do is ethics.

I would have said that "Ethics tells us what we should or should not do, rights are the principles at the top of the ethical pyramid that embody those should-nots in order to inform political action, or non-action. Would you disagree with that? What do you think rights are for?

Page 15

no man ought initiate the use of force should be changed to no man may. the difference is that you are stating no man may initiate the use of force is a moral imperative, where as ought is a moral suggestion.

I felt that 'may not' was too much a description of material fact. "You may not initiate force against me." But of course you CAN do so; it's physically possible, just not moral. How about "should not"?

What we are discussing is an imperative. You may want to make clear yes you can use physical force but morally there is no excuse. Right's as the classic definition are equally distributed among men and one man cannot morally violate another mans rights. This is the imperative, not that one cannot initiate physical force but rather that one cannot morally initiate physical force.

Now that I have given specific criticisms of the individual slides I will give specific criticism of the presentation itself.

The presentation is well planed out and gives mostly an accurate presentation of Objectivist position. With a little tweaking it will be clear and consistent. depending on how long you have you may want to end your presentation with a critique of other theories of origins of rights. for example rights come from society "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner". If rights come from democratic vote rather than the nature of man than if I convince enough people that I have a right to kill you than I have that Right. Rights are granted by the state. "The state which can give everything to you can take everything from you."

etc.

Yes, I'll need to run through it a few times once I'm happy with what I've got so far and see how much, if any, time I have to spare. I'd ideally like to critique some other conceptions of rights (or denials of them). I'd also like to relate my/the objectivist conception of rights to other areas of the class such as equality, poverty etc.

keep us updated

[SFreeman89Vision]

Here is an edited and slightly expanded presentation.

The weakpoints in my argument as it stands, that I can see, are:

1)

Why must consistency or inconsistency be preferable, why can't they be equally valuable/valueless?

2)

Why must man survive by his own efforts? Why not each survive by a mixture of his own efforts and those of others, or exclusively on the efforts of others? Is it better for a man to starve than live on the effort of others?

That is, if man's value is his own life, surely his life can be improved and thus his value obtained by stealing from others? What restricts 'his life' to 'his life which doesn't involve violence' without resorting to a circular argument?

[Xray]

Hi Freeman,

Almost two weeks have passed since your last post on this thread, so I don't know if you have already made your presentation at the University.

I can imagine your fellow students of economics may be largely sympathetic to your presentation from an Objectivist view, for I think Rand still has quite a few supporters among pro-capitalism oriented people, and (I'm trying not to overgeneralize), students of economics often are.

It would probably be a bit different if you made your presentation to students of philosophy; the non-Objectivists among them would most likely try to refute Rand's premises.

A university presentation is also different from an actual debate, but still, I think it makes sense to imagine, even in a presentation, the most radical counterargumets by which one might be challenged, in order to be better prepared.

For if one, in an direct presentation, runs into challenge unprepared, it can get very difficult.

One does not have the time, like for example in forums, to go over what the opponent said, study it in detail and prepare a reply. Instead one has to react immediately.

Also, the critic has always the easier role. For the critic is free to point out holes, inconsistencies and contradictions in a philosophical thought system, without, on his part, having the burden of defending a system as a whole, a burden which the advocate of a philosophy does have.

There exists a booklet, The Myth of Natural Rights, where on a mere 50 pages, the author (L. A. Rollins), tries to pull the ground from under the feet of natural rights advocates like Murray Rothbard, Eric Mack, and others.

Rollins comments on Ayn Rand's approach:

"Ironically, Ayn Rand, who debunked the myth of duty by pointing out that in reality all "musts" are conditional was nevertheless an influential exponent of the myth of natural rights." (Rollins, p. 13)

Then follows a passage of Rand's "Man's Rights", to which Rollins applies what one could call 'Rollins's Razor', for that guy is extremely sharp-witted. He is also polemic and quite drastic, a real radical who also seems to have an anarchistic streak.

A type like Rollins makes a perfect "devil's advocate" as an opponent to everyone advocating 'man's natural rights', and what makes his attacks so hard to refute is that he goes straight for the premises and tries to exposes them as false.

Maybe you already have the book, but to give the forum readers an impression of just how radical Rollins is - here is an example:

L.A. Rollins, The Myth of Natural Rights, 1983, p. 2

"... I say that natural law is mythical and is really fake or metaphorical law.

The metaphorical nature of natural rights is obvious in many statements by natural rights mythologizers.

...

John Hospers writes, "And so I put up a 'no trespassing' sign in relation to me and others." [JH]

Of course, unlike a real, literal, "no trespassing" sign, natural rights are invisible. But of what use is an invisible "no trespassing" sign? Another natural rights mythologizer is Eric Mack, who says, "Lockean rights alone provide the moral philosopical barrier against the State's encroachment upon Society." [EM]

But a moral philosophical barrier is merely a metaphorical barrier, and it will no more prevent the State's encroachment upon "Society" than a moral philosophical shield will stop a physical arrow from piercing your body."

[source of the Hospers quote: Hospers, John, Libertarianism, reason press, 1971, p. 58.]

[source of the Mack quote: Mack, Eric, "Society's Foe", Reason, September 1976, p. 35.]

What would you reply to Rollins?

Here is an edited and slightly expanded presentation.

The weakpoints in my argument as it stands, that I can see, are:

1)

Why must consistency or inconsistency be preferable, why can't they be equally valuable/valueless?

2)

Why must man survive by his own efforts? Why not each survive by a mixture of his own efforts and those of others, or exclusively on the efforts of others? Is it better for a man to starve than live on the effort of others?

That is, if man's value is his own life, surely his life can be improved and thus his value obtained by stealing from others? What restricts 'his life' to 'his life which doesn't involve violence' without resorting to a circular argument?

As for 1) I would agree with your own objection; for both consistency and inconsistency can be valuable, depending on the circumstances. For example, it can be of value not to stubbornly insist on something and give in instead, even if this makes you look inconsistent in some people's eyes.

As for 2)

I think your objection is valid and sound as well. For it describes what IS is actually the case: in a society, no one can survive by his own efforts alone.

That is, if man's value is his own life, surely his life can be improved and thus his value obtained by stealing from others? What restricts 'his life' to 'his life which doesn't involve violence' without resorting to a circular argument?

Rollins addresses this point as well. It looks like Rand & Co tend to block out that to violently interfere with others is also part of man's nature.

On pages 27/28, he quotes Goodson and Longinotti:

(Goodson, John A. and David M. Longinotti, "Those Natural Rights Aren't,", Reason, September 1977, p. 35):

"There are ... a number of problems with the derivation of natural rights, but one is fundamental. In defining man's nature, the savage characterisitics are dismissed as not being proper to man. For Ayn Rand, "man's survival qua man" means a rational, productive existence, and anything else is nonhuman. But to assert that a human can have characteristics that are not human is to assert that A can be non-A, thus attempting to deny the law of identity. If, as Rothbard points out, "the activity of each inorganic and organic entity is determined by its own nature" (MR) then is it not true that the violent activity of an organism (for example, man) is also determined by its nature? And if, as John Hospers writes in Libertarianism, an organism acts for its survival by means implanted in it by nature, then must not the predatory acts of one man against another man also be implanted by nature?

... While it is in "man's nature" to be free from violent inteference by other men, it is also in "man's nature" to violently interfere with the freedom of other men."

What could a natural rights advocate reply to that?

Edited November 14, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Now, Xray, if you'd get on to the myth of unnatural rights you'll not have any rights left at all, natural or un-natural. Do you want a world with no rights except the right of the rulers to rule, if that? Do you want to get rid of the word "right" itself a la Orwell language modification so we won't even be able to think about it? Since I happen to think a little better of you than this, what kind of rights do you champion? And where/when?

Conflating the natural with the physical or epistemological with metaphysical leads to all kinds of confusions, but natural in natural rights merely is a reference to human nature and that nature's need of rights for the sake of productive individual social existence qua an individual reasoning mind and existential peace. Natural rights are therefore a human invention and are not natural per se for natural is merely the human reference not the rights' reference save by way of justification for the political philosophy made real by codification and legal enforcement via reason. Thus we can say without contradiction that not only are natural rights human rights they are also artificial depending on just what you are looking at perspective wise. To make fun of natural rights you have to stupidly or ignorantly over-simplify what is being discussed.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

To continue with the above, all governments are force imposed, basically, by force, including any government dedicated to rights' protection. Such a government is imposed. The objection to such a government is rather moot since those who object would only have recourse to rebellion--against a rights' protecting government? And what would they then impose but something of the same? A government that doesn't violate rights or mostly doesn't should be contemned and condemned because my rights aren't being violated but I didn't agree with it?

In practical actuality freemen or men who want freedom are always at war with their government trying to throw the bastards out and get more freedom and protect the freedom they have. Utopian or City On A Hill thinking is only rational for identifying ideal ends and moving toward them but you'll never arrive. If you could get there you couldn't stay and wouldn't want to for you'd suddenly lack the means to sustain your position. You'd find yourself one of the Eloi.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

There exists a booklet, The Myth of Natural Rights, where on a mere 50 pages, the author (L. A. Rollins), tries to pull the ground from under the feet of natural rights advocates like Murray Rothbard, Eric Mack, and others.

Lou Rollins was one of the first people I met when I moved to Los Angeles in 1971. I published a number of articles in his O'ist/libertarian zine, Invictus, including the first version of "Objectivism as a Religion" (in three parts) and "Ayn Rand and the Right to Life: A Critical Evaluation" (in two parts). Ironically, perhaps, Lou quotes some lengthy passages from the latter article in The Myth of Natural Rights in support of his critique of Rand's approach.

Lou now lives a block away from me in Bloomington.

Lou's monograph has been reprinted in an anthology, The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays, which can be ordered here. This collection contains a reply to a critical review of The Myth of Natural Rights that I wrote in 1985 for Sam Konkin's New Libertarian. I think I still have the original issue of New Libertarian somewhere, but, so far as I know, my review is not available online. I wish Lou had dealt with more substantive points rather than some side-issues I raised, but that's life.

Lou's anthology contains an "updated abridgment" of Lucifer's Lexicon -- the allusion to Bierce's Devil's Dictionary should be obvious -- and I regard this as the best thing that Lou ever did.

Ghs

[SFreeman89Vision]

Yet another updated version of my presentation is here.

Hi Freeman,

Almost two weeks have passed since your last post on this thread, so I don't know if you have already made your presentation at the University.

No not yet, my presentation is not until January or possibly just before we break up for Christmas so I've got a while yet.

I can imagine your fellow students of economics may be largely sympathetic to your presentation from an Objectivist view, for I think Rand still has quite a few supporters among pro-capitalism oriented people, and (I'm trying not to overgeneralize), students of economics often are.

It would probably be a bit different if you made your presentation to students of philosophy; the non-Objectivists among them would most likely try to refute Rand's premises.

I am on an economics and politics course myself, but my classmates come from a variety of courses. Most will be politics, PPE (politics, philosophy and economics), international relations, politics and philosophy or politics and history students. I know of two other economics and politics students in the class besides myself.

A university presentation is also different from an actual debate, but still, I think it makes sense to imagine, even in a presentation, the most radical counterargumets by which one might be challenged, in order to be better prepared.

For if one, in an direct presentation, runs into challenge unprepared, it can get very difficult.

One does not have the time, like for example in forums, to go over what the opponent said, study it in detail and prepare a reply. Instead one has to react immediately.

Also, the critic has always the easier role. For the critic is free to point out holes, inconsistencies and contradictions in a philosophical thought system, without, on his part, having the burden of defending a system as a whole, a burden which the advocate of a philosophy does have.

Sure, I feel quite embarrassed for people who make presentations and then when it comes to questions or debate at the end they are completely unable to respond because they have simply paraphrased a book they read without really understanding, grasping it, or being aware of its critics.

There exists a booklet, The Myth of Natural Rights, where on a mere 50 pages, the author (L. A. Rollins), tries to pull the ground from under the feet of natural rights advocates like Murray Rothbard, Eric Mack, and others.

Rollins comments on Ayn Rand's approach:

"Ironically, Ayn Rand, who debunked the myth of duty by pointing out that in reality all "musts" are conditional was nevertheless an influential exponent of the myth of natural rights." (Rollins, p. 13)

Then follows a passage of Rand's "Man's Rights", to which Rollins applies what one could call 'Rollins's Razor', for that guy is extremely sharp-witted. He is also polemic and quite drastic, a real radical who also seems to have an anarchistic streak.

A type like Rollins makes a perfect "devil's advocate" as an opponent to everyone advocating 'man's natural rights', and what makes his attacks so hard to refute is that he goes straight for the premises and tries to exposes them as false.

Maybe you already have the book, but to give the forum readers an impression of just how radical Rollins is - here is an example:

L.A. Rollins, The Myth of Natural Rights, 1983, p. 2

"... I say that natural law is mythical and is really fake or metaphorical law.

The metaphorical nature of natural rights is obvious in many statements by natural rights mythologizers.

...

John Hospers writes, "And so I put up a 'no trespassing' sign in relation to me and others." [JH]

Of course, unlike a real, literal, "no trespassing" sign, natural rights are invisible. But of what use is an invisible "no trespassing" sign? Another natural rights mythologizer is Eric Mack, who says, "Lockean rights alone provide the moral philosopical barrier against the State's encroachment upon Society." [EM]

But a moral philosophical barrier is merely a metaphorical barrier, and it will no more prevent the State's encroachment upon "Society" than a moral philosophical shield will stop a physical arrow from piercing your body."

[source of the Hospers quote: Hospers, John, Libertarianism, reason press, 1971, p. 58.]

[source of the Mack quote: Mack, Eric, "Society's Foe", Reason, September 1976, p. 35.]

What would you reply to Rollins?

I would say that Rollins misunderstands what a right is. Rights are moral principles, they are facts about human survival in a social context, they are what is necessary for man's proper existence. They have no tangible power, they do not enforce themselves, but that is not to say they are worthless or that they do not exist. Rights as moral principles are not supposed to shield individuals from other individuals (including those who make up the state), they merely inform us; they tell us, amongst other things, that a shield is needed. They are simply acknowledgements about the way the world is. The acknowledgement that one must break some eggs in order to make an omelet does not in itself produce broken eggs or an omelet, it does not prevent one from going without an omelet.

As for 1) I would agree with your own objection; for both consistency and inconsistency can be valuable, depending on the circumstances. For example, it can be of value not to stubbornly insist on something and give in instead, even if this makes you look inconsistent in some people's eyes.

I would say that in your example you are really talking about being consistent on something higher than the thing being insisted upon, or not. For example, it is not inconsistent for me to stuff my face with marzipan because I love its almond taste, but to refuse to taste cyanide even though it tastes of almonds. I'm being consistent on something higher than 'eating things that taste of almond', I'm being consistent on bettering and maintaining my own life.

I believe that I have settled the problem I had with this slide, however. I have moved this further into the presentation rather than making it the first slide. Instead I start with axioms and their irrefutably, comprising the law of identity. I then say simply that contradictions are at odds with the law of identity so to be meaningful one must be consistent and not inconsistent.

As for 2)

I think your objection is valid and sound as well. For it describes what IS is actually the case: in a society, no one can survive by his own efforts alone.

I clarify this though. Living by one's own effort does not mean living as a singular hunter-gatherer in the depths of some frozen forest. I didn't make the shirt I am wearing, but I none the less live by my own effort because my effort of working won me a wage that I traded for my shirt. When my friends give my gifts at Christmas I am still living on my own effort because it is my virtue in their eyes that has lead them to give me gifts.

But if I steal, I am not living by my own effort. Rather than others acting on their own best judgement of the facts I am forcing them to do otherwise. Instead of choosing to give me a gift, which they want to do, which they feel is the best thing for them to do and thus is a productive action, I take against their will which is merely a transfer; the behavior of a parasite. But it is not even a lossless transfer because ultimately man isn't built to be a thief. I don't mean from an intelligent design perspective, I simple mean that man's mind does not cope well with such things. It is not healthy for it. And so dishonest and illegitimate behavior prevents man's flourishing and is irrational in and of itself, even before its effects on others are considered.

Rollins addresses this point as well. It looks like Rand & Co tend to block out that to violently interfere with others is also part of man's nature.

On pages 27/28, he quotes Goodson and Longinotti:

(Goodson, John A. and David M. Longinotti, "Those Natural Rights Aren't,", Reason, September 1977, p. 35):

"There are ... a number of problems with the derivation of natural rights, but one is fundamental. In defining man's nature, the savage characterisitics are dismissed as not being proper to man. For Ayn Rand, "man's survival qua man" means a rational, productive existence, and anything else is nonhuman. But to assert that a human can have characteristics that are not human is to assert that A can be non-A, thus attempting to deny the law of identity. If, as Rothbard points out, "the activity of each inorganic and organic entity is determined by its own nature" (MR) then is it not true that the violent activity of an organism (for example, man) is also determined by its nature? And if, as John Hospers writes in Libertarianism, an organism acts for its survival by means implanted in it by nature, then must not the predatory acts of one man against another man also be implanted by nature?

... While it is in "man's nature" to be free from violent inteference by other men, it is also in "man's nature" to violently interfere with the freedom of other men."

What could a natural rights advocate reply to that?

I would say again that he misunderstands what Rand was saying. She does not say that all men are rational by nature so it is right for them to be as such. She says that man's nature is such that reason is the only way for men to get on in the world. The fact that some men choose to be violent is, if anything, only further evidence of this; that man needs to reject those impulses (within himself as well as those of others) and live on the basis of reason if he is to flourish as a human being.

Edited November 17, 2010 by SFreeman89Vision

[Xray]

Lou Rollins was one of the first people I met when I moved to Los Angeles in 1971. I published a number of articles in his O'ist/libertarian zine, Invictus, including the first version of "Objectivism as a Religion" (in three parts) and "Ayn Rand and the Right to Life: A Critical Evaluation" (in two parts).

Does your later version of "Objectivism as a Religion" differ from your first version in any substantial point?

Can the later version be accessed online?

Ironically, perhaps, Lou quotes some lengthy passages from the latter article in The Myth of Natural Rights in support of his critique of Rand's approach.

...

Lou's monograph has been reprinted in an anthology, The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays, which can be ordered here. This collection contains a reply to a critical review of The Myth of Natural Rights that I wrote in 1985 for Sam Konkin's New Libertarian. I think I still have the original issue of New Libertarian somewhere, but, so far as I know, my review is not available online. I wish Lou had dealt with more substantive points rather than some side-issues I raised, but that's life.

I think what Lou Rollins quoted from you was more than a side issue, for you went straight for the premise Rand's moral philosophy rests on, tested it and presented a result which exposes the premise itself as being a moral sanction of all life as such (and not only man's life).

George H. Smith, "Ayn Rand and the Right to life. A Critical Evaluation," Invictus 17, p. 8:

".. a steer being led to slaughter requires the recognition of his means of survival if he is to continue living; "rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival" as well. If the steer is to survive, the creatures capable of recognizig an obligation - must recognize the steer's right to his own life. "

If the metaphysical requirements of an organism's survival (concerning its relationships with volitional creatures) constitues a criterion for the possession of the right to life sanction, then this moral sanction must properly apply to all life, insofar as these organisms enter into relationships with men.

Ultimately, Rand's only possible source for her right to life is a moral sanction on the process as such, life as the ultimate value of each individual organism.

....

My argument is this: Ayn Rand's derivation of man's' inalienable right to his own survival rests implicitly on a moral sanction of life as such, and if she is to be consistent, Rand must apply her rights to all life forms. A sanction on all life, however, is inconsistent with man's survival." (Ghs)

(Quote taken from L. A Rollins, TMONR, p. 15/16.)

On p. 18, Rollins says that Rand believed man's life to be sacred.

Rollins also provides a very interesting quote by Max Stirner: "Our atheists are pious people." ;)

Edited November 18, 2010 by Xray