Darrell Hougen

Let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees. I've been talking about the rights of emancipated adults. Babies, children, old senile people add complexities to the discussion but don't fundamentally change things. Your parents have an obligation to take care of you until you reach adulthood. That obligation was chosen by them when they freely engaged in the activity or activities required to create you. The cops, courts, teachers, power utilities, doctors, and grocery stores don't have any obligation to do anything for you that you or your parents aren't willing to pay for. With the exception of a parent's obligation towards his or her child, obligations arise as a matter of trade for mutual benefit. When two people exchange value for value they are both obligated to fulfill their end of the bargain. Fulfilling the obligation is in one's self interest for the same reason that trade is in one's self interest in the first place. Each party to a trade benefits. Therefore, fulfilling one's obligations is, as a matter of principle, in one's self interest. Therefore, it is moral. In other words, it is right. In the case of parents having children, the child is not a party to a trade since he or she doesn't yet exist, but the parents hope to benefit through the creation of a beautiful, adorable little child and are obligated as a matter of principle to raise the child until that child can take care of himself (or herself). Fulfilling one's obligations is moral and is therefore right. A person has a right to those actions that are right. The word "right", taken as a noun, refers to those actions that are right, where the word is used as an adjective. When one says a person has a right to life, he is saying that the person has a right to take those actions necessary to sustain his life --- that it is, in essence, right for him to do so. Darrell

Thanks, but I needed that quote two days ago! You are yourself. You could say that your body belongs to you or even that you have a property in your person, although that has a strange ring to me, but I still don't like the phrase, "self-ownership". The reason it sounds strange is that it conflates the general with the particular. The right to life is a general right. A person has a right to life as a consequence of his nature as a rational, living being. A person also has a right to own property as a consequence of his nature. However, he may or may not have a property right in a particular thing. For example, he might own a car or he might not. It might be someone-else's car. If he purchased a car, then he owns it. If not, he doesn't. When you say a person owns himself, it sounds as if he purchased himself at some point in the past. Or, perhaps someone gave him to himself as a gift. The same thing applies when you say that a person not only owns himself but every part of himself. I suppose a person might have purchased his kidneys from someone else, but once they have been incorporated into his body, they are a part of him, not a possession. What about a person's mind? Did you just purchase yours last Tuesday? Now, you're looking for a buyer, but no one is interested. That's why you feel frustrated. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Locke generally made a distinction between life, liberty, and property. For example: If a person's life was merely a possession, it wouldn't be necessary to draw a distinction. The other objection that I have, as I have stated before, is that "self-ownership" is not axiomatic. Property rights derive from man's nature as a rational, living being. Life is logically prior to property rights and the purpose of property rights is to protect a person's ability to live. Property rights are the only method known to effectively protect human life. But, that is something that must be shown, not assumed. In The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand said: Property rights are the implementation of the right to life. They don't exist prior to the right to life and can't be explained without first acknowledging the right to life. Darrell

This seems like nitpicking. Sometimes precision of word usage is important. I think this is one of those times. I therefore applaud Brant for better word choice. It makes the meaning clearer. Darrell

Rand could be right. Mysticism might have been very harmful to India in the past. In the absence of mysticism, India might be much better developed. However, I think there is every reason to be optimistic about India going forward and, in my view, the video reinforces that conclusion. Darrell

You might be interested in this video that I recently watched. It's not specifically about Jainism but highlights the similarities and differences between Indian philosophy and Hindu in particular and Objectivism. Darrell

Darrell, Speaking of public education, don't forget Common Core, which was the brainchild of backstage government folks and a major crony capitalist many Objectivists adore, Bill Gates. Michael Indeed. I quit adoring Bill Gates a long time ago. Darrell

The difference between de jure socialism and de facto socialism is that de jure socialism involves government ownership of the means of production while de facto socialism exists when businesses are so highly regulated that the government, in fact, controls them. Another name for de facto socialism is corporatism. The cable business is so highly regulated that it might as well be controlled by the government. The main problem and it is a HUGE problem is the fact that only one cable provider is allowed in most markets. The consumer only has two options, sign up for the one cable provider available or not sign up at all. In my area, I can only get internet service through my cable provider. I can't even get it via the telephone line unless I want a dial up connection. I'm not even sure I can get satellite service because of the lay of the land in terms of nearby hills. It's sort of like water. I can only get running water from one provider which is, in this case, a governmental entity. My only two options are to sign up for the governmental provider or not sign up at all. Of course, I could buy bottled water at the grocery store for drinking and have it provided in a truck for my shower, but those aren't realistic options. I'm actually better off with respect to water service because it actually is provided by a governmental entity and if the local government becomes unreasonable, angry citizens can rise up and attend local meetings of the water board, complain and even vote them out if they don't respond appropriately. When it comes to the cable company, however, there is little power to make any changes because the cable company is nominally private and the citizens have to put up with people rushing to the defense of "private" enterprise and the "free" market. If the market were truly free, I would agree with you, but it is so far from free because of its impenetrable governmental monopoly on service, that the cable company might as well be a government agency. The difference is that there is no public board of directors that can be voted out of office if they screw their customers. Darrell

Thank you.

The public school system has constructed thousands of schools and continues to upgrade them to bring education and baby sitting services to many tens of thousands of families. It manages sports teams and entertainment groups including bands and orchestras. It acquires content and produces content of its own. It employs thousands of teachers to connect students with content produced by a wide range of individuals and enterprises. Yes, it has plenty of lobbyists to keep government cost cutting thugs off its back. No doubt the public school system gained some its market share because many local governments allowed only one education provider in a community. But the public school system gets blamed for what the politicos did. Darrell

This is a great thread. You should have posted in under humor. At any rate, I know this is not new and I've probably posted it before, but I can't resist: Darrell

A right doesn't connote permission. If a person has a right to do something, he doesn't have to seek permission. If that right is a natural right, a right that a person has as a consequence of his nature, then he never has to seek permission to exercise it. A man's rights --- the unalienable rights with which he is born --- his rights in a general sense or natural sense --- his rights to life, liberty, and property (in general) --- are not something for which permission is required before he can exercise them. Now, one might ask for permission to do something like use a piece of land that belongs to someone else. In that sense, a person might ask for permission to use something. If I were a hunter, I might ask a land owner for permission to hunt pheasants on his land. If he gave me permission, then I would have his approval to do so, at least for a limited time or until he changed his mind and asked me to leave. Permission can be revoked at any time. A right cannot. That's true even of particular rights. If I buy a car, then the original owner can't claim a right to it any longer. He can't revoke his decision to sell the car. Once it has been sold, it belongs to the new owner and not to the previous owner. Ayn Rand said: Darrell

Whoa! I think you want to be a little careful here. Objectivism has contextual components --- see, for example, Rand's theory of knowledge --- but that doesn't mean her philosophy changes with the breeze. Objectivism is meant to be a theory based on universal and timeless truths about man's nature. In that sense, it is unchanging. It may be revised or expanded if things about it are determined to be incorrect or incomplete, but it is not supposed to be constantly in flux any more than the laws of physics are in flux. Darrell

Darrell, Why not call it by it's right name? Don't forget that the mass immigration happened because of incentives, not just pioneer fever. And it was supported by one broken treaty after another with the Indians. Glenn Beck turned me on to the difference between the concepts of Manifest Destiny (conquest by religious right) and Divine Providence (peaceful expansion by the grace of God). We may not like the religious frame, but those are what the policies were called way back when to justify expansion. Michael Hi Michael, I'm not sure what incentives you're talking about? The Homestead Act(s)? The first Homestead Act wasn't passed until 1862, long after the conflict with the Cherokee. Also, the Homestead Act of 1862 was interesting in that it only allowed applications by people that had never taken up arms against the United States. One could look at this as a backhanded way to exclude indigenous peoples or take it at face value --- as a strike against the enemies of the U.S. Since I'm not an expert on American history, I can't comment on the allegation of broken treaties, but the little reading I've done seems to indicate that the natives were often the ones that broke the treaties. I don't know which side broke the treaties more frequently. Perhaps the colonists did. But, I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to mollify the natives while waiting for another opportunity to attack. To me, the word "conquest" implies that is was the goal of the colonists to put the natives under the rule of the United States. We should distinguish between the actions of Great Brittain, France, and Spain and the actions of the United States. Great Brittain, France, and Spain may have had conquest in mind. The Spanish called themselves "conquistadors" and subjugated many of the peoples of Central and South America including the southwestern United States. But, was it ever the goal of the United States to subjugate the "Indians"? How do you feel about mass immigration from Mexico to this country? Are the Mexicans colonists? Are they involved in a conquest? Darrell

Paid for by oneself. See how easy that was? If you want "easy," try self-ownership. We don't have to append "paid for by yourself" or anything else to self-ownership. Its implication are self-evident. And, by the way, "paid for by yourself" may not cover all possibilities. What about getting voluntary help for living expenses from others? Evidently, the meaning of "self-ownership" is not that clear. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What I understand is that the right to life, or "the right to life paid for by oneself" as you now call it, does not account for a complete range of individual autonomy. I don't call it "the right to life paid for by oneself" and such a silly phrase isn't necessary. Your argument is basically that we should dumb down our phraseology so that mentally lazy people will understand it. Sometimes there is a need for sloganeering, but I hope you're not one of those people that only understands slogans. Engaging in over-simplification doesn't necessarily imply the right answers to all questions. That is why we're having this discussion. Your over-reliance on property rights occasionally leads you to conclusions that seem unreasonable. Earlier, I stated that the right to life includes the right to take all of those actions required to thrive. I might better have used the word "flourish" or "prosper". At any rate, to thrive or flourish or prosper means to place a great distance between oneself and the needs of immediate survival and is associated with the psychological state of happiness. I also stated earlier in this thread that in a free society all human interactions should be voluntary, insofar as is possible or practicable. If achieving happiness requires that you donate a kidney, you would therefore have a right to do so. Donating a kidney doesn't interfere with the lives of other people. Suicide is sort of a marginal issue, but it is also complex so I'm going to set it aside for now. Dangerous sports might be necessary for some people to flourish and be happy and they don't require the involuntary involvement of anyone else. However, restrictions on children playing dangerous sports would be appropriate. Similar comments could be made about drugs. The right to free speech is most assuredly a property right. Once one understands that an individual has ownership of his own body, it logically follows that he is within his right to operate his lungs, tongue and lips as he sees fit--provided such actions do not interfere with the property rights of his neighbors. Example: unless he "comes to the nuisance," by buying a house next to an opera singer who has lived there for some time, the new home owner is entitled to a reasonable amount of quiet at night. I have already explained how the principle of self-ownership would logically lead to penalties for the man who falsely yells "fire" in a theatre. There is no need to repeat it here. But, what about the person yelling "tsunami" on an unowned beach? If you object to bizarre conclusions, perhaps you should write it into your ideal constitution that no interpretation of individual rights that is objectively and scientifically shown to be "bizarre" shall be permitted. Then we can look forward to a future justice declaring, "I know it when I see it." Swell. So perhaps if we cannot use "the right to life paid for by oneself" to permit drug use, we'll just have to put up with laws against drugs. That's not my conclusion. Do you think a person should be allowed to sell himself into slavery? If a person owns himself, it would seem to follow that a person could sell himself and then no longer own himself. I think that's a perverse conclusion. Darrell

I'm with Michael on this. I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck. I don't dislike him. I think he has his good points, but I don't seek him out. I actually haven't seen him or heard him for months, maybe years, though I do occasionally read stories on The Blaze. His apocalyptic vision bothers me more than his religiosity. But, enough about Beck. This isn't about Beck. This is about a double standard to which some Objectivists hold people who could be their potential allies on various issues. As Michael pointed out above, the double standard is saying to lovers of freedom that they can't use government force. Only the enemies of freedom can use government force. That is, the latter shouldn't use government force either, but we already know they're corrupt and this is just more evidence of it. But, heaven forbid that the good guys should interfere in the already corrupted marketplace. After all, two wrongs don't make a right. Let me use an analogy. During WWII, Germany often put out false information to try to confuse their enemies. The U.S. also put out false information. By the above argument, the U.S. should be condemned because one should be honest and two wrongs don't make a right. So, the defenders of freedom would have the U.S. lose the war rather than their moral purity. However, I think it is a mistake to call it moral purity. It is a misapplication of principles. One should be honest with other honest people. Sometimes, one should be honest with dishonest people. However, there is no requirement that one always be honest with dishonest people. A dishonest person is attempting to gain something through deception. Using counter deception is sometimes a valid method for catching them at it. Think about how the police often take down criminals. But, some will argue that if you are dishonest, you're no better than the dishonest person you're attempting to catch. That is the same kind of argument made by people that don't understand self defense. If you try to shoot someone, aren't you just as bad as the person that was attempting to shoot you? Of course not. It matters who initiated the act of violence. It also matters who lied first. And, it matters who used government force first. Beck, by going to the government to attempt to protect his business enterprise is acting in self defense. Clever witticisms like, "Two wrongs don't make a right," don't apply uncritically in all contexts. Objectivists, of all people should understand that the sequence of events matters. It matters who did what first. It matters who initiated the use of force. Darrell

I found this interesting that they only killed the white Tory men. A... Thanks for that history lesson. It is one more way in which the Cherokee sided against the eventually victorious colonists and paid a price as a result. We should also keep in mind that even if there is a treaty ending a conflict, people have long memories and may have still harbored resentments against the Cherokee. At the very least, they would have found the Cherokee hard to trust and that could have potentially led to more friction. Darrell

Did I mention God? I just think that the colonists used remarkable restraint in dealing with the indigenous peoples. Attempts were made to accommodate them. Some on the colonist's side may have wanted to wipe out the "Indians", but with a few exceptions, they didn't win the argument. On the other hand, there were a number of wars involving the Native Americans, many of which involved European powers as well, and it seems like the natives generally sided with the European powers against the colonists and ended up paying a price. Darrell

I agree. We should not feel guilty about the sins of our ancestors. I'm not sure I would characterize what happened as conquest. It was more a case a mass immigration that led to conflicts with the indigenous population. I also think it is important to separate the American ideal from what actually happened in some circumstances. There will always be bad actors. The failures in action were failures to uphold and sometimes a failure to understand the ideal on which America was founded, individual rights. It's important to not impugn the American experiment on the basis of the actions of some people shortly after the founding of this country. Darrell

I'm not an expert on early American history and I know Wikipedia isn't always that accurate, but according to that source: In addition: That doesn't excuse what happened, but in the name of fairness, we should at least pin the tragedy on the correct American President. Darrell

Actually, "decimated" usually means that 1 out of 10 were killed. Decimated would be an understatement if your numbers are correct. Darrell

It is legitimate to own land. It is not legitimate to force people who are occupying land--and have a legitimate right to it by prior claim--off that land. As to the assertion that "native Americans didn't understand the concept of property and that it was therefore proper to attempt to work around them rather than with them," that is certainly not true of the Cherokee (or a number of other tribes). The Cherokee (who had homesteads, farms and towns little different from that of nearby white settlers) were living peacefully on their land in north Georgia in full compliance with the 1783 Treaty of Long Swamp. Since that treaty between the Cherokee and the United States had specified what land belonged to the Cherokee, it was the Indian removers in the United States government in 1838 who did not understand the concept of property because they refused to honor property rights written into the law. Seizing another human's body to use for one's own benefit is immoral. So is seizing another person's legally recognized plot of land. Unfortunately, your analysis has numerous problems. First of all, you are applying modern Western or European or American concepts of land ownership to the Native Americans of 200+ years ago. What does it mean to occupy a piece of land? The Native Americans weren't occupying it very much as the land was very lightly settled. They didn't put fences up around it so it would have been impossible to know for sure what land was being claimed. In fact, most of the land was not claimed by individuals, it was claimed by tribes. The tribes claimed certain amorphously defined hunting grounds. That would have made it difficult if not impossible for colonists to know where they could settle so as not to interfere with the amorphous and frequently shifting claims of some tribe. BTW, many libertarians and objectivists argue that the borders of the U.S. should be open to immigration because the USA doesn't own the land within its borders --- only (legal) individuals can own land. But, if that is the case, then a tribe could not lay claim to an area of land because a tribe is not an individual. I'm not an expert on American history, however I'm curious as to the source of your information. A cursory glance at Wikipedia shows that not all Cherokee were peacefully adhering to the treaty of 1783. The Lower Cherokee "took an active part in the Northwest Indian War." The Northwest Indian War took place between 1785 and 1795. The history of relationship between the U.S. and the various Native tribes is complex. The tribes variously fought on the side of the French or British, often against each other and frequently against the colonies. So, for example, the colonies won the Northwest Territory from the British during the Revolutionary War. Many of the Native American tribes living in that area fought on the side of the British, so the defeat of the British spelled the defeat of the tribes as well. The result was that the tribes had to give up land to the U.S. I'm not saying that the colonists were always the good guys. However, the Cherokee might have been the exception that proved the rule. The Native Americans lost their wars with the settlers and that makes the colonists look like the bad guys, but the history of conflicts between the various tribes and the U.S. government is complex. It is convenient to make it sound like the U.S. just signed treaties and then reneged on them later, but the situation is often much more complex. For example, the U.S. might have been fighting a European country like Britain, France, or Spain, and some of the native tribes might have entered the conflict on the side of America's enemies. When the U.S. prevailed, the various tribes suffered negative consequences for choosing the wrong side in various conflicts. Darrell

Rand's point was not that Indian tribes had forfeited their rights by attacking European settlers; rather she argued that they had no rights (even before the arrival of white pioneers) because they had not conceived rights and were not using them. [The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent. If Europeans could legitimately take land occupied by Indians because the Indians didn't believe in property rights, it would logically follow that Europeans could enslave Africans because (some) Africans had enslaved other Africans. The difference is that it is legitimate to own land but not legitimate to own people. The two situations are not morally equivalent. For example, if I wanted to move to Europe which is densely populated, I could buy a house or rent an apartment and move there. In other words, the land is not unoccupied, but I could still theoretically move there by engaging in a perfectly reasonable transaction. The problem for Europeans wanted to move to America was that there wasn't anyone to buy a piece of land or a house from and no one to rent from either. That doesn't justify a conclusion that it is improper to move from Europe to America. Instead, the proper conclusion is that the native Americans didn't understand the concept of property and that it was therefore proper to attempt to work around them rather than with them. The fact that the Africans owned slaves doesn't justify owning African slaves because slavery is morally repugnant in the first place. The proper conclusion is that the Africans were acting immorally and therefore should not be imitated. The native Americans were wrong and the Africans were wrong. The Europeans were right in both cases. Darrell

I must say I'm shocked by this response. I had thought you were pretty well read and just chose the libertarian position for whatever reason. But, this smacks of a total lack of understanding of a basic principle, the right to life. Paid for by oneself. See how easy that was? The right to life means the right to live at your own expense. It means the right not to be killed. It doesn't imply any sort of claim on the life of someone else. I thought you understood that. The right to life means the right to the freedom to take those actions necessary and proper for survival and/or thriving. It means the right to not be impeded in taking those actions. It means the right to be left alone. It doesn't guarantee success in living the good life or in living at all. It just means that no one should stand in your way if you are engaging in productive activities. The right to life implies the right to property, not the other way around. A person must be able to control the product of his effort in order to survive and therefore has a property right in those things with which he mingles his effort. But, not all rights are property rights. The right to free speech is not a property right. Earlier, the case of a man falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater was discussed. That case has nothing to do with property rights. The rights of man yelling are constrained by the immediate effect that the false information might have on the actions of the people around him, not by the property rights of the owner of the theater. It would be just as wrong to falsely yell "tsunami" on a crowded beach, even if no one claimed ownership of the beach. If people stampeded and innocent people were trampled to death, then the person that yelled "tsunami" would be at least partially responsible for their deaths. Libertarians, by attempting to reduce everything to property rights sometimes end up arguing for bizarre conclusions. I've argued with people that say planes should not be allowed to fly over their houses because their property rights extend to all of the air above their little piece of land, just to give an example. You need to have a proper basis for your political philosophy or it will stop making sense. Darrell

Obama wouldn't be considered pro-business by any rational measure and I'm not interested in comparing the U.S. with the rest of the world. If the rest of the world were so great, people would be flocking there instead of here. Some European countries are reasonable in some respects. Switzerland has many advantages. The U.S. is losing its advantages and I no longer consider it to be a free or mostly free country. That's a sad statement, but unfortunately true. For me, the straw that broke the camel's back was the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the individual mandate. The idea that a person can be coerced into buying a product he doesn't want is such an affront to liberty that it cannot be reconciled with the notion of a free country. Of course, there are many other large and small ways in which we are being deprived of our liberty. Mark Steyn has a number of interesting articles giving examples of the ways in which we have been losing our freedoms. His latest reminds me of tales of the Soviet Union. Catch 22 comes to mind. Darrell

I'm not going to give all the background on this. It is available on the web. But, Eugene Volokh has put forth some interesting arguments in Perry's defense. BTW, I'm not a big fan of Perry. I don't think he's very bright (to put it mildly). But, it seems like prosecutors down in Texas take their orders from the DNC, so I hope he beats the rap on this. If he doesn't, I think we've seen the end of constitutional government. Darrell