Laure

Laure, I personally am OK with this so long as it is temporary. I always sit back in wonder when complex issues receive heated either-or treatment in discussions, expecially when you are accused of supporting something absurd because you are against something equally absurd. For instance, just because a person is opposed to young girls being forced into polygamous marriages and says so, he is accused of being an instrument of statist enslavement. Ditto for the person against brainwashing. And just because a person recognizes that a good person has suffered from cult brainwashing, so he should not be punished in the same manner as a hardened criminal but educated and deprogrammed instead, he is accused of supporting pedophilia. That also applies (in the present discussion) for those who oppose abuse of government power. Why can't a person look at both ends, reject the false dichotomy and use the standard of reason on both? That is what Objectivism is supposed to be for. The issue isn't force versus education in a situation like this—except it might be for those who are interested in only one or the other to the exclusion of the rest of existence. The real solution lies in using both force and education with a high degree of common sense so that the rights of all citizens, and that means men, women and children, are assured to the best extent possible. Michael Michael, I agree. Shayne, I agree. Did you think that I said that more and more government intrusion should be added until there is zero crime? I don't think I said that anywhere.

All of us think it would be horrible for the government to take people's children away because of odd beliefs of the parents. Most of us think the government should take people's children away if the parents are engaging in ritual human sacrifice of their young. Could it be that the disagreement is just due to where on the spectrum we see the FLDS as being? Are those who are outraged at the government's heavy-handed reaction really OK with the idea of 14-year-old girls being made to "marry" 50-year-old men? You might answer that it hasn't been proven that this is going on. But that's what they're trying to figure out. Are there any better ways of handling it than just carting off all the kids and sorting it out in front of a judge? What should they have done, dropped educational leaflets on the compound? I don't mean these questions to be rhetorical. Does anyone see a better way of handling it?

I agree with Brant's last post. Shayne, if you think someone is an idiot/evader/statist/irrationalist/pragmatist/cultist or whatever, it is not dishonest to refrain from calling them that. What's more, ask yourself if it accomplishes anything to publicly put a label on someone. Does it encourage them to change their minds?

Another sample of "civility". Leave this one here too. Just dump my stuff to "garbage." Shayne Did you at least try the game? Well, I did. New link on my Favorites. Thanks! P.S. Shayne, get help.

Hey Brant, right you are. We have 5 acres bordering the Catalina National Forest. We have central AC - sorry. ;-) But, no pool and no hot tub, unlike our last house. I tell you, it's hard to be a profilgate user of electricity in this house. Those pool pumps use a lot of power. Last electric bill here was just $135. One drawback of this house is the substandard windows & doors. All single-pane, and the doors are kinda warped after 25 years. A few nights ago when we had the strong winds here, the wind noise was just incredible in our bedroom - sounded like a 90-decibel haunted house! So, it does have its drawbacks. But I love the wildlife - javelinas, bobcats, deer, rabbits, raccoons, skunks, lizards, mice.... I'm making a hobby of photographing all the different animals I see around the house. Got a baby Gila Monster this morning.

Very cute essay, Jeff! I would change one thing: " abstractions are a double-edged sword" -- use "metaphors are a double-edged sword". If there's anyone on the review committee that is fond of you, it'll get you in. If not, perhaps you should go for more sincerity. You know if you can fake sincerity, you've got it made!

One last-ditch effort (why do I keep posting on this thread!?!). Michael, rights are NOT based on every aspect of human nature, nor do they need to be. What would it mean to expand the concept beyond non-initiation of force? It is either-or. Either you have the right to be left alone, and that's basically the only right you have, or you have a whole slew of rights of the "it'd be nice if everyone had this" variety. If you have the whole slew of rights, either you discard the right to be left alone, or you have a contradiction wherein one person has a right to violate someone else's rights! That is all there is to it. (Michael, just make my day and post, "Oh, OK, I get it now!" ;-) )

Montreal 1969 Wikipedia mentions some others

That assertion can be checked empirically. What happens when the police go on strike? I have read of a few cases of mass lawlessness in the wake of police strikes. Doesn't that indicate that the government is not impotent to check crime?

I could see Jodie Foster as Dagny. Tilda Swinton - no. After seeing her in Michael Clayton... ewww... that was such a disgusting character. I know it was supposed to be a disgusting character, and she did a good job with the role, but I think people might remember that role and mistakenly see Dagny as a negative character because of it.

Here's my comment: TheOnion Video on Paranoia

(The post numbering for me appears the same as for Merlin, and I have nobody on "ignore.")

Michael, you didn't intend this as an answer to Ethan's post, did you? Because we'll still say, "so, where's the contradiction?"

I'm with Brant; I'm fed up. There is no contradiction. I don't know what you are going on about. I've had it with this.

Michael, regarding post 370: How can you say this?? 1) Rights ARE for all people, including children. How can you say that there's no use to a law that forbids people to murder or injure a child? 2) As to the justification of the concept of rights as deriving from man's nature as a rational animal, and his rationality being his means of survival - This holds true for children as well! Reason IS their means of survival; if not yet their own reason, then the reason of their guardians. 3) Just because a child cannot fully exercise his rights does not mean they're of no use to him. It's like saying, "what good is an automobile as a means of transportation if an infant can't drive one?" Well, he can ride in one, can't he?

Oh, no, never any confusion from our religious folks. They've always been in complete agreement about moral issues. Take slavery. They were always against it. Except earlier when they were for it. Homosexuality - always a sin. Except when liberal congregations decide it isn't. Baptism? Got to be full-immersion. Unless you're in a church that goes for the sprinkle method. As to this: So, your issue is that individual rights logically follow from the nature of normal adult humans, but that does not prove that children or incapacitated adults have rights. I take it that you are bothered by this because you want to be able to say that children have rights. Can you confirm this? I agree that it doesn't prove it, but there is nothing contradictory about saying that children or other "wards" have rights, too. And it makes a lot more sense to see children and adults of diminished capacity on a continuum, where they are able to exercise some of their rights, rather than to arbitrarily have a cutoff point, where on one side they have no rights, and on the other they suddenly have their full complement of rights. Regarding the logic details: #1,2: (Adulthood -> Rights) does NOT imply (Non-Adulthood -> No Rights) (that would be the fallacy of inferring the inverse) #3: You're talking about two aspects of human nature. Rights can derive from Aspect A but not from Aspect B. That's not contradictory.

Right. They derive from the human nature of normal adults. So?

Merlin, Positive and negative rights applied to children as a primary. Too many people to cite. Michael OK, does anybody understand that? I don't.

Wolf, your post 214 seems to be dismissive of my statement. Do you think "rights are a human invention that enables us to live in a society with other people in a peaceful manner" is true or false? Your calling it subjectivist and pragmatic seems to be aimed at hurting my Objectivist Feelings , but it doesn't address whether the statement is true or false, and why. I like your post 215. Kids certainly do have volition. And, I don't see my job as parent as being one of initiating force against my son until he reaches the age of 18! I think children do have volition, and they do have rights, and they are "rational animals", at least from the age of about 3 and up. Their "negative rights" are not sufficient to keep them alive - at least not in the manner to which they are accustomed! - and they know that. That's why, even though they grumble about having to do their chores, they stick around until they feel capable of supporting themselves. Not sure what you mean by "There is no right to life." Will wait for your explanation.

I know you've said it a gazillion times, but I still don't know what you are getting at. My mind does not work the way yours does. But I'm not alone. I don't think Merlin or Ellen really understand what you're getting at, either. In the quote above, what do you mean by "the premise in the concept of ethics and rights is defined one way, but used as if it meant something else." Do you mean the premise that "man is a rational animal"? How is it defined (one way)? How is it used (as if it meant something else)? Why do you consider it a problem that some aspects of human nature are left out of ethics?

Michael, you keep saying your context is defining human nature, and I don't get what you mean. Are you trying to come up with a definition of human nature? Do you think there is something wrong with the idea of man being a "rational animal"? Isn't that fundamentally what we are? Does the fact that children are not yet fully developed really pose any sort of a logical problem? I don't see it. And, what is Post 207? You're scolding Merlin for something, and I don't see why. His reply was reasonable. Maybe you could state briefly what it is that you're trying to do, or what is the contradiction that you believe you have identified.

Do I agree with Objectivist concept formation? I think so. I read ITOE, and it made perfect sense to me. If you define the fundamental nature of human beings as entailing more than rational volition, then the "extra part" falls outside the purview of ethics, because ethics can only deal with matters of volition, matters in which we have a choice. Nothing needs to change. If I understand you correctly, it's like you're saying, we have this field of "nutrition" but I've discovered that man needs to breathe as well as eat! So, aha! There's something contradictory about our notion of "nutrition." No, there isn't.

OK, I don't know what your last post means at all, Michael. I think you're using the word "premise" in a funny way, but I'm not sure it would be productive to try to figure it out. How about this? Long ago, humans decided that they liked living in groups based on voluntary cooperation, and they decided that they would punish those individuals who wanted to prey on other humans. The concept of rights was thought up by these people. After all, is it too much to ask to tell people that they must leave other people alone? It's nice and logically consistent, too. If Person A violates the rights of Person B, he's in effect saying that he doesn't recognize the validity of the concept of "rights", so let's let Person A suffer the consequences of that view and throw him in the can! Some humans find the concept of "getting something for nothing" appealing. These humans glommed on to the concept of "rights" and decided to use the same word for their concept of "something for nothing." Now, they participate in protests and hold up little signs demanding their right to food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, etc., etc. Both of these are aspects of "human nature." But, let's bring the discussion back to the wider nature of reality. Again, is it too much to ask to tell people that they must leave other people alone? That seems reasonable enough, not too hard to abide by, and doesn't lead to any logical contradictions. On the other hand, is it too much to ask that everyone be provided food, clothing, shelter, education, health care? If we have these rights, and I'm unproductive, and you're productive, doesn't it follow that I have a right to your stuff? Where does that lead, logically? With negative rights, if I want something, I go out and earn it or trade for it. With positive rights, I wait for someone else to earn it and give it to me, while sitting around and whining that my rights are being violated by the nature of reality. Michael, you keep saying that there's a contradiction involved, in that negative rights don't reflect all of human nature, or something to that effect. But the contradiction is not in the concept of negative rights, it's only that humans have varied natures. It is human nature to want to live together peacefully, but it's also human nature to want something for nothing. Bring it back to the wider nature of reality. Negative rights work because if everyone decides to live together peacefully, it works. Positive rights don't work because if everyone decides to sit around and wait to have their rights bestowed upon them, it doesn't happen. Another aspect of human nature is that some humans, such as children, are helpless. Negative rights are not enough to ensure their survival. This seems to be what's bothering you, but I don't understand why. Negative rights don't ensure children's survival. So what? It doesn't mean there is any contradiction inherent in the concept. Can't we just say that the child's parents are obligated to take care of him, and that our own sense of "species solidarity" will naturally prompt strangers to aid children in distress?

Michael, you can say "I reject positive and negative rights as a premise of human nature" again and again, but it never makes any more sense than it did the first time. Merlin is right. Positive and negative rights are basically ways of classifying the definitions that people have of the concept of rights. In Rand's definition, only negative rights are truly rights. Negative rights are logically self-consistent, in that one person's right never necessitates the violation of another person's right. Positive "rights" are the result of the corruption of the concept of rights, by those who want "rights" to mean, "any stuff that it's nice for people to have", thus implying that society has the obligation to provide all of this stuff. You can't mix positive and negative rights; it doesn't work logically. If you think about it, positive rights are logically self-consistent, too, but the world we get by saying that there are no negative rights, only positive ones, isn't pretty. In the world of positive rights, everyone has the right to food, clothing, health care, on and on, but nobody has the right to be left alone, because it's everyone's duty to provide these positive rights for everyone else. Michael, you seem to be very concerned that in a society that implements the negative rights model, there would be children and helpless people who would not fare well. If you look at it pragmatically for a minute, though, do the children and helpless people of the world really fare better in societies that are based on the positive rights model? Or does the negative rights model facilitate human progress to such an extent that we have plenty of "leftovers", plenty of charity, to take care of these people for whom negative rights are irrelevant? (* Disclaimer - this is just me talking, not meaning to represent the Objectivist Position *) The question of where rights "come from" is an interesting one. The two extremes are "endowed by our Creator" and "arbitrary social convention"! I met a guy once who was of the "arbitrary social convention" school of thought, which I had never really been exposed to before. He did kind of have a point. If the majority of people in a society are of the mind that there is no such thing as rights... is there such a thing as rights in that society? You could say there are, but it wouldn't make any difference - as someone is clubbing you over the head and taking your property, you could complain to him about your rights being violated, but in such a case, if you do "have rights", they don't do you any good. There is no difference between having rights that are consistently violated and not having rights at all. Or rather, the only difference is whether you, the victim, feel indignation or not! I think rights are a human invention that enables us to live in a society with other people in a peaceful manner. We have the concept of rights because most people want to live peacefully in a society with others. If most people didn't want this, nobody would have thought up the concept, and we'd all still be clubbing each other over the head and taking each other's stuff. Procedural rights such as the right to a fair trial and the right to vote are really different animals. It'd be better if we used a different word than "rights" in this case, but I don't think there is one.

Tucson looks pretty normal tonight; it may always be a little dim compared to other cities, because we are being polite to our astronomers on Kitt Peak. Here's my house: