Darrell Hougen

Some days I think you understand Rand implicitly and other days you sound clueless. "Lib service to 'reason'"? What is that? Look here (emphasis added): I can scarcely count the number of times Rand stressed the importance of rationality and/or reason. Perhaps you just have a bad habit of conceding too much in the interest of being polite. Darrell

I started watching them last night. Very interesting and enlightening. Darrell

You get into these negative moods. Surely, you can think of good things that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights achieved. ...freedoms afforded by the common law? Moods? -- an assessment other than yours is a mood? Common law does not afford freedoms. I was attempting to be gracious. "What did the Constitution and the Bill of Rights achieve?" To suggest that all it accomplished was "Civil War, conscription, paper money, [and] railroad land grants" is to ignore most of American history. It is true that the Constitution had and has its problems. It didn't eliminate slavery. The historical reasons for that are well known. It didn't eliminate conscription. It should have. The other points are debatable. The Constitution established the primary institutions of government. It established the three branches of government and divided and enumerated their powers including the checks that each had over the powers of the others. By so doing, it limited the power that any one person could amass. In that, it was largely successful for the first hundred years and has still prevented a tyrant from coming to power. That alone is largely responsible for the success of the Republic. With the Progressives including Woodrow Wilson, this country's first Progressive President, the government began to escape the box the Constitution had constructed for it. The Executive branch now exercises powers expressly granted to the other two branches of government including legislative and judicial powers. So, perhaps that's your point. Perhaps your point is that no piece of paper can limit the power of government. In some sense, you're right. The people running the government must respect the rules written on paper for the paper to have any effect and the populace at large must make sure they do. But, how would you construct a better government? If the people are ignorant and uncaring, how can any government be constructed that protects their rights? One cannot expect judges to be any better than politicians in protecting the rights of ordinary people. The judicial branch is always the weakest branch, subject to intimidation by the executive. One can attempt to educate people about the proper form and function of government, but it is hard to penetrate a barrier of ignorance and indifference. Or, one can just be cynical. Perhaps things just have to get bad before they start to get better. Or, perhaps it will be too late to do anything and America as a beacon of freedom will pass into history. Darrell

Some writers write faster than others, but I haven't necessarily found the fastest writers to be the best writers. Darrell

You get into these negative moods. Surely, you can think of good things that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights achieved. Why is the U.S. still the most productive country in the world? Do our institutions get any credit, or was it all an accident? A fluke? Or is it the freedoms afforded by the common law? Darrell

This was a truism in Locke's time, a premise that had been defended for centuries by Christian philosophers. Locke's purpose in the Second Treatise was to show how private ownership, including private property in land, could be justified, despite this original common ownership. Locke posited this condition for a primitive state of society. Again, you have distorted his key argument for private property, which applies even where land is not super-abundant. Perhaps "distorted" is inaccurate, since I doubt if you even understand his argument in the first place, in which case there would be nothing for you to distort. Ghs Thanks for clarifying those passages. Darrell

Well, that particular passage was nauseatingly reductionist. That aside, I think she bombs in trying to make her point with regard to "individual rights versus group rights". Take "consumer rights". A single consumer or all of them, it doesn't really change the way you slice it. What do you mean by "consumer rights"? I hope you understand the context of the above quote. Rand was responding the Democratic Party platform which asserted that workers had a right to a job and a bunch of other nonsense. Consumers have the right not to be ripped off if that's what you mean, but everyone has that right. One doesn't get special rights by playing a particular role. Darrell

I don't think you need to stop using the word "fair" just because some other people use it differently. Justice is sort of about fairness, no? It would be unfair if you and someone else got different sentences for the same crime. I'm not suggesting dropping the word "fair". Obviously, it does have proper uses and fairness with respect to legal proceedings is one of them. But, having fair legal proceedings is very different from making life fair. Life will never be fair. Darrell

Life isn't fair. Two men are standing next to one another. Lightning strikes one but not the other. That may suck for the person that was struck, but one cannot argue with nature. The proper purpose of government is not to make life fair. The leftists and statists insist that that is the purpose of government, but the proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. A person that works hard all his life and wishes to leave his fortune to his children has that right. That may suck for the man whose dad was a deadbeat, but it is not the proper purpose of government to "rectify" that situation. Nice quote if a little cynical. Darrell

It is true that at least two people are required to make the idea of property relevant, but beyond that it is part and parcel of being human. Consider two children playing with blocks. The first builds a tower and the second knocks it down. The first is upset for understandable reasons. When the second knocks down the tower built by the first, all of the creative effort of the first child in building something to his liking and for his own enjoyment is wasted. The notion of property protects a person in his expenditure of effort for his own ends. Even the child knows that the blocks, once arranged by his effort are his tower and he incensed when the other child knocks it down. Even at an early age he senses that some injustice has been done. That is how deeply ingrained the notion of property rights is. Darrell Yeah, I'm not so sure about your link between property and protecting effort. I'd venture to say making such a connection isn't necessary and there are cases where I'd say "X should belong to Y even though <insert something about effort>"; I'm not going to try to find a back reason for justifying an evolved social institution that has no major flaws in it. And even though your example about blocks may be extrapolated to some other situations, there are others where it won't work and other stuff needs to the heavy lifting. For example, it's hard to see how you could extrapolate it to roads, rivers, and the oceans. That aside, I do think your point about enjoyment does hold some water. There is another important sense in which the notion of property protects human effort. Most of the things that we possess in the modern world were acquired through trade. There is virtually no unowned land or unowned natural resources to be exploited on the earth, although it could become an issue if people venture into space. Most trade occurs using money. A person earns money and uses it to acquire the things that he desires. If his right to the things that he had acquired were not protected, the effort he expended in earning the money used to pay for them would be wasted. That is why we recognize a person's possessions as his property. Of course, property rights are not the only consideration. I've been with you in arguing against Francisco on this issue. So, the issues of roads, rivers, and oceans are complex and involve other considerations such as freedom of movement and the availability of drinking water. If people had been using a river for watering their crops, it wouldn't make sense for someone upstream to be able to pollute the river. That could be partially handled by the notion of senior and junior water rights which might be considered a kind of property right, but I'm not an expert on water law and am not sure what kinds of problems might occur as a result of some sort of assertion of a water right. Darrell

1. An assertion is not an argument. I'm not making an argument at this point. If you want to have that discussion, we can. I'm not defending everything Locke said. Locke is a good reference to the extent that he was one of the first to make an argument for natural rights. Some Objectivists object to the use of the term "natural rights" because many of the originators of that meme based their defense on religious arguments. However, I use the term to refer to the concept of rights based on the nature of man. They are like natural laws --- like the laws of physics. They are not legal rights based on the action of some legislature or judge. Indeed, and much more. Man's nature also determines the means by which he satisfies his needs. That doesn't really effect the validity of his larger point about natural rights. Her body of work addresses many things including reciprocal respect. From Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: (emphasis added) I'm not doing that. Darrell

Brant, I'm not sure why lack of consent makes something theft. Is compelling a person pay damages "theft" if they don't want to comply? This is entirely separate from whether or not taxation is theft, of course. I also think most people, even "statists", understand the tale about times when you shouldn't follow the law. Does an innocent person have to pay damages? Darrell

Here is a gem. It is George H. Smith in 1996 discussing "Revolution". At about 10:19, he discusses the difference between the principle of government and the form of government for a couple of minutes. Darrell

After I wrote that, I noticed this video with Milton Friedman: Darrell

It is true that at least two people are required to make the idea of property relevant, but beyond that it is part and parcel of being human. Consider two children playing with blocks. The first builds a tower and the second knocks it down. The first is upset for understandable reasons. When the second knocks down the tower built by the first, all of the creative effort of the first child in building something to his liking and for his own enjoyment is wasted. The notion of property protects a person in his expenditure of effort for his own ends. Even the child knows that the blocks, once arranged by his effort are his tower and he incensed when the other child knocks it down. Even at an early age he senses that some injustice has been done. That is how deeply ingrained the notion of property rights is. Darrell

What's wrong with "natural law" is its utter obliviousness to the rule of law, specifically adversarial due process: prohibition of secret evidence, right to cross examine witnesses, presumption of innocence, competent counsel, an impartial lay jury, and two thousand other detailed provisions of fair trial. I can't emphasize it strongly enough. At common law the state is just another litigant. I've taken it farther than others. But fuck's sake, the rule of law has nothing to do with "natural rights." “L’etat, c’est moi!” (Louis XIV) First off, I apologize for being behind in this discussion so I might retread some ground. I had to reread your posts a couple of times in order to understand what your objection is. Roscoe Pound seems to have perfectly captured the idea of individual rights, but then appears to jump to a completely unjustified conclusion. The appeal to reason is not an appeal to "individual reason." The appeal is to objective reason or objective logic. It is the same as the scientific appeal to objectivity. Each scientist must use his own mind and his own experimental procedures in order to attempt to determine the truth or falsehood of some statement of fact about the world, but his conclusions are subject to review by the rest of the scientific community. The same is true if one takes a scientific view of morality and the construction of a just society. From his subjective attack on "individual reason", Pound jumps to the conclusion that "every individual is the judge" of how well legal procedures operate in producing results that conform to natural law. But, that is clearly not what supporters of natural law are promoting. They are certainly not promoting a system in which each person is allowed to judge his own case before the court and it is hard to see how each person having an opinion about the proper operation of the government leads to anarchy. You seem to agree with Pound's preposterous conclusions. Your quote of Louis XIV conveys exactly that impression. Other than actual anarchists, no promoter of natural rights believes that "I am the state." Ayn Rand certainly did not and that is not an idea promoted by Objectivism. Objectivism views people as independent until and unless they violate the rights of others. I don't think anyone here believes that natural rights are a full solution. I certainly don't. Natural rights provide a goal that the legislative branch should attempt to reach in its formulation of laws. It doesn't say anything about rule of law or judicial procedures or even concepts such as the separation of powers or the notion of checks and balances. But, all of that is somewhat arbitrary. It's like comparing the design of a car with the laws of physics. The theory of natural rights is like the laws of physics. The structure of government and the legal procedures by which the judiciary operates are like the design of a car. The design is important: Four wheels tend to work better than three. Rubber tires are better than metal ones. Internal combustion engines are currently the best, compact source of power. The existence and placement of the steering wheel, gas pedal, and brake pedal are all important. But, things could be arranged differently and work similarly, perhaps better. The theory of rights manifests itself in the laws of economics. The laws of economics can no more be violated than the laws of physics. No matter how much the politicians wish it weren't true, raising taxes above a certain point doesn't raise revenue and all taxes hurt productivity over the long run to the extent that they reduce the rate of economic growth. That's because the right way for man to live is as a free, independent, rational being living in peace and harmony --- a system of mutual and reciprocal respect for the lives, liberty and property --- with other men. That fact cannot be modified or violated by any law or legal procedure. One can only judge the conformance of laws and legal procedures to the nature of man. Darrell

Actually, the American university system has a pretty good international reputation. It's K-12 that has a bad rap. My information on the former comes partly from talking to foreign students in this country. Darrell

To what end? What is the purpose of legal philosophy? Just telling us what it addresses doesn't tell us what it's useful for. Darrell Are you really that dense? Morality = personal Are you really that rude?!? Of course, I know that morality is personal. However, rights provide the extension from personal morality to life in society. From VOS: Darrell

Right to life means the right to take "actions necessary to stay alive"? Then surely Pauper X has the right to take some of Cattle Baron Y's longhorns in order to feed himself. The longer you avoid what property should be accorded to X and what property should be accorded to Y, the more you're going to encourage public takings to satisfy the "right to life." If a man "doesn't have a right to demand that anyone else provide" the necessities of life, then why not simply say that each man is entitled only to the property of his own body, what he has created with it, and what he has gained voluntarily from others? Why not say everyone has a right to _____________(fill in the blank), provided that he does not violate anyone else's property or to use force to compel another to act against what he explicitly chooses with regard to his person and property? That way you can fill in the blank with life, death, heroin, fast cars, unprotected sex--or anything else you like. "The notion that all human interactions should be voluntary is implicit in the right to life." No, it is not. If a constitution says, "Every person has a right ot life, and this government will enforce that right," you won't need any convoluted interpretations for lawmakers to start taxing the citizenry to pay for food stamps, free health clinics, and public housing. If you like, the right to life means the right to take the actions necessary and proper for staying alive. The last clause is really redundant in the context of the current discussion. I argued what man's self interest consists of, e.g., living in peace with other people and voluntarily trading with them. So, that is what the right to life refers. Property rights are not sufficient to describe all of man's rights. What about the right to liberty? What about the right to move about? Is it ok for one person to buy a piece of property that lies along the well worn path that others travel and to then tell them that they must pay a toll in order to cross? What if a person were to buy up the ring road --- the highway that surrounds many metropolitan areas --- and tell people that they can't cross without paying a toll? Should a person have a right to effectively imprison an entire city? If not, why not? How can you get from property rights to the argument you want to prove? I contend that you have to back up and look at the nature and origin of rights to answer a lot of questions. Darrell

To what end? What is the purpose of legal philosophy? Just telling us what it addresses doesn't tell us what it's useful for. Darrell

This is doubly embarrassing, not only because it's wrong-headed, but it's also sophomoric second-handing. Try to think a little. Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs. Let's see. Just because someone else first pointed out the principle, it's "sophomoric second-handing"? So, if someone else invented most of the rules of mathematics, I'm a sophomoric second-hander if I show the solution to a math problem. I'm not trying to invent something new here. I'm just trying to explain what other people don't seem to understand. Maybe you should try to engage your brain. Darrell

200 million orphans worldwide 120,000 abortions per day worldwide 3 million U.S. abuse/neglect cases per year 1.5 million U.S. juvenile offenders in 2012 43 million U.S. children receive free medical care, food, housing So? Darrell

Well, no, not all of them. You have the obligation to serve on jury duty when summoned, comply with search warrants, comply with child support payments, alimony (it's not a contract!), damages, serve jail time when convicted, and, last but not least, pay your taxes. Let's not confuse legal obligations with moral obligations. Darrell I don't think that makes any sense. Legal obligations are a subset of moral obligations. So there are no unjust laws? Legal obligations are orthogonal to moral obligations. At best, we try to make our laws consistent with objective morality, but don't always succeed. I'd say there are a lot of unjust laws on the books today. Darrell

Well, no, not all of them. You have the obligation to serve on jury duty when summoned, comply with search warrants, comply with child support payments, alimony (it's not a contract!), damages, serve jail time when convicted, and, last but not least, pay your taxes. Let's not confuse legal obligations with moral obligations. Darrell

The right to life, like all rights, refers to the right to engage in some action. It means the right to take those actions necessary to stay alive. If you want to put it negatively, it means the right not to be killed or enslaved. A slave cannot always take those actions necessary to stay alive. He can only take those actions which is master permits him to take. I should add, as I have said before, the right to life also means the right to take those actions necessary to thrive or flourish --- that is, to put distance between oneself and the immediate needs of survival. To say a person has the right to life doesn't imply that he has a right to obtain anything that he needs for survival. He merely has the right to attempt to obtain those things. He has the right to take those actions necessary to obtain the things that he needs to survive. He doesn't have a right to demand that anyone else provide them for him. To do so would undermine the ability of the latter person to pursue the things that the latter needs to survive, or thrive, or flourish. The notion that all human interactions should be voluntary is implicit in the right to life, but we have to back up in order to understand where the right to life comes from. A right is a moral principle. It is right (used as an adjective) for people to act in a certain way. It is right for them to act in their own self interest. And, it turns out that it is in the self interest of people to live in peace with other people and trade with them. That is, a person benefits much more from living peacefully with other people, acquiring knowledge from them and engaging in voluntary trade with them than he does by attempting to steal from or enslave other people. Therefore, it is right for him to live in peace with other people and engage in voluntary trade with them. Therefore, living in peace with other people and engaging in voluntary trade with them is his right. The last two sentences are equivalent. In the first, the word "right" has been used as an adjective and in the second it has been used as a noun, but the sentences have exactly the same meaning. In one says that man has a right to life, the meaning is that it is right for man to live in peace with other men and engage in voluntary trade with them. The notion that all human interactions should be voluntary is implicit in the right to life. Note, that it is not just right for some people to live in peace and engage in voluntary trade with other people, it is right for all people to do so. It is not just in the self interest of some people, it is in the self interest of all people. Therefore, a society in which people live in peace and trade with each other voluntarily is possible. The right to be free of violence and force is a reciprocal right. It is an implicit agreement. "You don't mess with me and I won't mess with you." The statement, though never spoken, acknowledges the equal and reciprocal nature of the right to live at peace with other people. The reciprocal nature of the right to life encompasses all people. Darrell